Search Documents

Jan 1, 1938

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 4, 1952, Albert M. Keenan, Chairman, presiding. CHAIRMAN KEENAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have our third and final clay of our program, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your attendance, both in the past meetings and this one this morning... I am particularly delighted to see that we are all here this morning after the very enjoyable banquet last night. It is a little difficult to get people gathered up after such an occasion.

Jan 1, 1952

By Edward Bottomley

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I tried to get Benedict Shubart to have some fellow-some big fellow with a big voice-to read this paper for me, but he said there was nothing doing; [ ] that I would have to read it myself. I will try and not take up too much of your time. It is a pretty big subject, Mechanical Loading, and it covers a good deal of ground. I have merely touched on the high spots, as it were. A great deal has been preached and written in the last year or so about mechanical loading, and I doubt if any other subject in the mining industry has been discussed so freely and as often in the last few years. It is not the intent of this paper to dwell on the merits or demerits of any [ ] particular type of loader, that is, to say what the writer thinks is the most efficient or most inefficient machine. There are several types of loaders on the market to-day that are proving very successful in many mining districts. Some of these, five or six years ago, seemed to be a miserable failure from every standpoint, mechanically

Jan 1, 1926

The meeting was called to order with President George B. Pryde in the chair, and C. M. Schloss, acting Secrcetary. The meeting immediately pro¬ceeded to the reading of the papers. Mr. L. S. Ickis read a paper by A. L. Jones, entitled, "Underground Sub-Station Control," and elaborating on the general topic of automatic sub-stations. The discussion was led in part by Mr. E. H. Weitzel, acting as Chairman, in Mr. Pryde's temporary absence. Mr. S. R. DeBoer, who specializes on landscape architecture, gave an interesting talk on the subject of "City Planning and Landscape Architecture for Western Coal Camps." Notes were taken of this talk, which will be found in the proceedings. Mr. Pryde then resumed the Chair; There was no discussion of this paper. Mr. Thomas Foster, of Reliance, Wyoming, then read his paper on "Coal Dust in Mines." After the discussion of Mr. Foster's paper, the discussion of Mr. McKeehan's paper on track bonding, read at the Salt Lake meeting, was resumed, and this discussion will be found printed separately in the proceedings. Mr. Schloss then read an amusing and friendly telegram from C. H. Stevenson, of Price, Utah, which caused considerable merriment, and the Chairman asked Messrs. Weitzel, Littlejohn and Schloss to form an appro¬priate answer, and they answered it in the same spirit. The Chairman then announced the banquet for Wednesday evening and the Theatre Party for Thursday evening. The meeting then adjourned. The meeting resumed at 10:15 A. M., Thursday, February 14, 1924. The Chairman announced a photograph of the meeting to be taken at noon, on the Post Office steps, after which the Chairman appointed a nom¬inating committee, consisting of George A. Murphy, F. W. Whiteside and

Jan 1, 1924

By F. C. Miller

The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company has divided their coal mines into groups or divisions: Las Animas, Huerfano, Fremont and Gunnison counties. Each division is represented by a safety committee composed of three men appointed by the management and three men selected by the employes? representatives. The three men appointed by the management are usually from a group engaged in routine work that is primarily of a safety nature. Mr. Robert McAllister, chief mine inspector; Mr. George B. Parker, superintendent of first aid and mine rescue training; Mr. F. C. Miller, chief chemist, fuel department; and Mr. 0. C. Irwin, assistant chief electrician. The three men appointed by the management act in each of the four divisions. It is the duty of the safety commit- tee to visit each mine three times per year and make a thorough investigation of conditions underground and on top. Their report is in the form of recommendations to the management for their consideration. They are also called to investigate all fatal accidents and learn, if possible, the cause leading up to the accident and recommend precautionary measures that will prevent the recurrence. This committee inspects the haulage roads, air courses, manways, electrical equipment, ventilation, timbering, working places and humidity. In addition, each mine has a local safety committee with the superintendent acting as chairman. It is the duty of this committee to keep in daily touch with conditions underground and on top. They hold weekly meetings and discuss problems related to safety. These men work on local conditions that govern their affairs. As an example: One of the mines has a checking out board at the man-trip parting in addition to the regular checking in and out system as required by law, and this board is checked before the man-trip leaves for the outside, giving the officials a chance to take prompt action in looking up a man who may have become ill or injured. Should a man walk out and forget to check off, there is a penalty imposed. The ventilation of a coal mine is most important and the method of conducting the air to the working face is one of the greatest precautionary measures linked with safety. A quantity of air must be maintained at every working face to insure rapid diffusion of explosive or noxious gases and in a manner without interruption. With this intent in, view, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company is installing fan equipments with capacities of 200,000 cubic feet per minute with dual drives, twin fans in some instances, for insured circulation. Dual drives consist of a steam engine using exhaust

Jan 1, 1925

By J. H. Emrick

When I was asked to read a paper to you, I wondered what idea I could bring before you which would be interesting and which would be helpful in your work in operating coal mines. The Institute has been studying ways and means of increasing the safety and efficiency of mine operations. Almost every subject along this line has been discussed from time to time. In thinking the matter over it occurred to me that there was one thing used by practically all coal mining companies in considerably large quantities and which in many cases does not receive the attention it should. It is the cutter bit placed in the cutter chains on coal mining machines. Coal mining machines have been repeatedly improved during the last twenty-five years until their efficiency and convenience have reached a high level. The generating units making electrical power to operate them also have been developed to a similar degree. This machinery has been in- stalled at a great expense to coal mining companies and the installation made for the sole purpose of pulling coal cutter bits through coal. Why not then give these cutter bits some attention so as to see that they do their work as efficiently as their driving and propelling units? The consideration of this question easily divides itself into three principal parts-First, the kina of steel out of which to make the bit; Second, the proper form or shape to give it; and Third, the tempering of the bit. Let us discuss them in that order. There have been tried at different times' various grades of steel for cutter bit uses. The cheaper steels, having a very low carbon content (.10 to .30 per cent carbon) have proved un- satisfactory because such steel cannot be tempered so as to produce a satisfactory cutting tool. Because of the low carbon content, it cannot be hardened to retain its cutting edge. It dulls quickly, bends easily on striking any hard obstruction in the coal, and so requires constant resetting to its original form. The high priced alloy steels when properly shaped and tempered will give a bit that would make a clean, even cut in the coal if no impurities were encountered. Such a condition is rarely found. Alloy steel is quite brittle and on striking impurities, such as sulphur balls or a sand spar, is readily broken and so the loss of material through these broken bits and the high price paid for it more than offset all the other advantages which this steel has shown in cutting. Experience has shown that steel having approximately .70 per cent carbon and from .25 to .35 per cent manganese will give the most economical results. Some mines have obtained better results by using a steel of slightly higher carbon content and in some cases a grade of tool steel has been used. The disadvantage of using a steel having too much carbon is that it can easily be spoiled in the black- smith shop by overheating. Steels having a carbon content of about .70 per cent have a sufficiently wide range of temperatures at which they can be forged and hardened so that with ordinary care and attention they are not likely to be burned. Steel of this quality, therefore, has been found to be the most practicable because of its reasonable cost, ease in working and tempering and general durability. In the early days of mining machines, comparatively few bits were used because each machine required but a few bits because there were but

Jan 1, 1925

By Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925

DR. BANOWSKY: Thank you very much. That was the shortest introduction that I have had lately, and I didn't have time to get my coat on. But I appreciated it, and I'm delighted to be here with an industry with which 1 feel strong affinity. At the University of Oklahoma we have an energy history. We are a little more currently involved in oil and gas, and those of you who know the history of our state would be aware we have an early coal development back really before the turn of the century in the southeast part of our state what we call Little Dixie. How many of you have spent anytime in Oklahoma or are from the state of Oklahoma? I'm not going to ask how many are from OSU or the University of Colorado. We did send you a football coach here from Oklahoma, and 1 see you have exchanged him. Several of you were only interested in the lobby in asking about our football team this year. 1 would like to go somewhere where we can talk about something besides football. I'm just trying to build a University that our football team can be proud of. We're going to be strong again. 1 can assure you. We've got the best football team money can buy. It's not quite as bad as the college president who called the coach in and said, "Coach we're in trouble, you're losing games and the alumni is very unhappy." "What can we do?" the president asked. The coach said, "Well the football team is flunking the admissions test. We can't get them in with the standard achievement and SAT tests." The president said, "What can we do?" The coach said, "Well the coaching staff has substituted for the American College Test the simple fill in the blank questionnaire." The president said, "Let's use it. We have got to get the team in." The first question was, Old MacDonald had a (-). And a couple of the big tackles were taking it and one of them said, "Hey, what did Old MacDonald have?" His friend said, "Stupid, Old MacDonald had a farm." "Well how do you spell farm?" He said, "Stupid, e i e i 0." Now the gentleman who met me at the registration line from Lakewood, Colorado, was asking me about one of our great big tackles; and he is doing well. We call him Doctor Death; he is also a wrestler and that gentleman said, "1 don't know how bright he is." 1 said, "He is bright enough for our academic tutoring that he is going to get through all right." So I'm delighted to see you and be here with my very dear friend, Carl Terzian. Carl and 1 were in Los Angeles together for 10 or 12 years when I was president of Pepperdine University. He and I are exactly the same age. Born in 1935 and 1 a month or two later in 1936. Fewer children were born in that period than in any other period of time in this century. For those of you who remember anything about that period, you will know why no one was having babies during that period. But Carl called and said, "Bill do you know where Vail, Colorado is?" Well when you live in Oklahoma, you learn where Colorado is in a hurry. 1 not only know this beautiful area, but have made too much of an investment here at a place called Beaver Creek. The real estate is cheap over there. 1 play regularly in the Gerald Ford Invitational Golf Tournament here. Hope you will visit Beaver Creek. It's just 10- 12 miles to the west. The sight of the 1976 winter olympics until the people of Colorado voted them out. And now Vail Associates and I are good Oklahoma families. Bass family, Harry Bass of course, many of you know this story, who is chairman of the Board of Vail Associates, is making quite an investment in that year-round resort area. Beautiful golf course now. You can come out and afford the green's fee and beautiful, beauti-

Jan 1, 1982

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: If the chair may be pardoned, he would like to say he knows something of the work of this committee, and I assure you that they have all worked faithfully and hard, holding meetings at least every other day, and sometimes oftener, hustling money and going through all the different work necessary to bring about and to make a successful occasion of this kind, and I-who really acted as an outsider and viewed their work-was certainly appreciative of their efforts, and I know you would have been had you been able to see how hard they all worked. One of the sad things in life always is when one becomes a "has-been." I have been more or less active in the work of the Institute ever since its in¬ception. Just why the high honor of President was conferred upon me I have never been able to fathom, but my time is about over and I am about to join the "has-beens," and while the position naturally has entailed a certain amount of work, it has been very pleasant work, and when one has the hearty co-operation of his fellow workers, such work is always a pleasure. It is, therefore, with a certain amount of regret that I lay down the gavel and take it up again to present to my successor; but in doing so, I wish to thank you, one and all, for your very hearty help and co-operation, and to wish my successor, Mr. George B. Pryde, all the possible success that can be his. Mr. Pryde. (Applause.) MR. PRYDE: I will make no extended speech at this time. I think possibly the next year I will have enough opportunity to do that; but I had a letter from my friend, Murphy, before this meeting, and he thought we were going to have a very good meeting; but I don't know the motive behind his letter. (Laughter.) I remember the story about the Scotchman who went to see the doctor, and the doctor said: "Sandy, you drink any?" "Oh, yes." "Well," he says, "you have got to cut that out. Do you smoke?" "Oh, yes; I smoke a great deal." "Well, you will have to cut that out also." And Sandy picked up his hat and started for the door. "Wait a minute, Sandy; you haven't paid me for my advice." "Yes, but I am not going to take your advice." (Laughter.) But I am deeply appreciative of the honor you have conferred upon me, electing me to be head of this Institute for the next year. I have belonged to this Institute, I should say, ever since it has been organized. This present session especially has been a very good session. As I look back over the different meetings, I think this one stands out among all the others in the papers presented and the spirit of co-operation that prevailed among the members here, and I am not going to ask your co-operation during the year; I am sure I will get it from all of you. I want to thank you for the honor conferred upon me. (Applause.) MR. WHITESIDE: The retiring President did not quite follow the reading of the by-laws, I think, in which it says that immediately after the election of a new President, the new President shall assume office, and I got so busy I forgot all about that. The committee which the chair decided to appoint is as follows. This is to formulate safety rules: For Utah, John Crawford, William Littlejohn; for Wyoming, Peter Patterson, Glen Knox; for New Mexico, William Risdon, Allan French; for Colorado, James Dalrymple, J. C. Roberts; and last and surely not least, as chairman of the committee, Mr. George B. Pryde. (Mr. Pryde later appointed D. Harrington as a member-at-large.) C. M. GODDARD: Mr. Chairman, we all realize that in a gaseous mine the application of, safety measures transcends everything else. Machinery is installed 100 per cent safe, as they might say, to take care of any condition

Jan 1, 1923

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 148 Andalex Resources, Inc 99 Big Sky Coal Company 118 Canyon Fuel Company, LLC 100 Coal Age 141 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 103 Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co 104 Copper Mountain Resort 139 Cove Shoe Co., Inc 116, 117 Dakota Coal Company 105]

Jan 1, 2000

Jan 1, 1952

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel, 919 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Anderson, Nephi W :Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo:]

Jan 1, 1961

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

MR. STROUP: As soon as the mine workers realize that machine loading is going to be with us permanently, they will gradually accept the view that they, as well as the Mine Operators, will be in the end better off. Don't you find that to be true? MR. BUTLER: I do find that the antagonistic feeling that prevailed at the start is getting less and less and that the miners are co-operating with us. The machine is going to stay with us and I believe it is going to be better for them because instead of having the hard work of heaving coal, they will merely run the machinery that heaves the coal for them. I believe they all feel that way about the matter. MR. McAULIFFE: Mr. Farnham, out of his professional diplomacy, was very careful not to even mention his own machine by name. I would like to say a word about salesmen and about the men who develop the machines. They are perhaps doing more for the industry than we are doing ourselves. This applies also to the railroad business that I put a great part of my life in. If it were not for the energy, courage, and ingenuity of the men who manufacture machines, we would not occupy the advanced position we do today in the mining world.

Jan 1, 1924

[ ] Thomas B. Egan RMCMI PRESIDENT 1996-1997 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 93rd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 28 thru July 1, 1997 Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Jan 1, 1996

Jan 1, 1941

John P. Thomas, President. B. W. Snodgrass, Secretary-Treasurer. San Andrews, mine boss, Morley. Richard Bickerton, Tabasco. E. P. Bayles, superintendent, Cokedale. Clyde Campion, parting tender, Valdez. O. C. Cook, 406 East Seventh, Street, Trinidad. James Cameron, superintendent, Hastings. Charles Chambers, superintendent, ,Sopris. Arthur Dennison, Trinidad. Samuel Dean, mine inspector, Delagua. F. S. Dunlevy, assistant engineer, Hastings. L. R. Douglas, assistant engineer, care Danford & Sanderson, Trinidad. W. E. Danford, superintendent, Segundo. M. O. Danford, superintendent, Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co., Trinidad. John Dougherty, mine foreman, Morley. J. C. Davidson, timberman, Valdez. William Easton, fire boss, Valdez. George Fortune, electrician, Primero. D. J. Griffiths, chief mine inspector, Trinidad. J. E. Hanes, assistant engineer, Hastings. Joseph Haske, superintendent, Primero. O. C. Erwin, electrician, 714 Pine Street, Trinidad. R. J. Jinkins, superintendent, Morley. Thomas jolly, superintendent, Gray Creek. James Jamieson, assistant mine boss, Valdez. James Kilpatrick, fire boss, Tobasco. L. M.. Kuhns, first-aid miner, care Mine Safety Car No. 2, Trinidad. William B. Lloyd, 404 East Seventh Street, Trinidad. J. C. Lawrence, machinist, Starkville. R. A. McAllister, mine inspector, Trinidad.

Jan 1, 1913

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921