Search Documents

Saturday, June 28 A pre-convention activity kicking off the 93rd RMCMI meeting was a Saturday evening June 28 reception for all Mine Rescue participants, their convention registered spouses, professional evaluators and RMCMI Board of Directors. This was at Buddy's Run in the Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. An estimated 100 persons enjoyed the buffet: fresh vegetable erudite with ranch dressing, fresh fruit and cheese displays and silver dollar rolls filled with ham or turkey. Blue golf shirts and red caps and convention packets were distributed to each Mine Rescue team member. Evaluators received red shirts and blue caps during the reception. Meeters and greeters from the Reception Committee wore red RMCMI arm bands and were stationed at strategic hotel spots, answered attendee's questions and gave directions to the registration area. Convention packets were first distributed Saturday afternoon by Julie Cummings and Lorraine McDonald. Sunday, June 29 A 7:30 a.m. shotgun scramble kicked off the golf tourney at the Sheraton course for 145 golfers. Yes, 145! as Lois Egan, President Tom's wife, completed a five-some with Tom and their three sons. A continental breakfast preceded the tourney. Another 65 golfers began play at 1:00 p.m. making this a record number of 210 golfers! Julie Cummings and Loren Linville sold $2,620 worth of $10 mulligans to the golfers with proceeds to the scholarship program. [ ] Both golf tourneys were co-chaired by Dave Mallak and Gordon Merriam who distributed prizes at 4:30 p.m. Monday. Prizes were donated by Amax Coal Sales West, Inc.; Austin Powder Co.; BHP Minerals-Navajo Mine; Bucyrus International, Inc.; Commercial Testing & Engineering Co.; Empire Machinery Co.; Ingersoll Rand; The Jeannot Group, Komatsu Mining Systems; Long-Airdox Co.; Marston Environmental Inc.; MEGA Corp.; The P&M Coal Mining Co.; Scandura, Inc. and TerraMatrix. [ ] RMCMI registration was an all day venture headed by chair Julie Cummings and assisted by Pat Johnson. [ ] Nearly 40 persons met for a Chef Demonstration and wine tasting at the Sheraton at 11:00 a.m. Executive Chef Jacques Wilson prepared broiled achiote shrimp with cantaloupe, grilled duck stuffed blue corn pancakes with herb grained bread and fresh fruit meringues. Wilson shared his recipes with the group and appropriate wines were served with each course, all sampled by the attendees. The chef arranged an impromptu showing of the main kitchen following the demo. [ ]

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 1992

of our good friends and fellow members: Patrick J. Quealy J. C. Roberts Gilbert Morton Sidney W. Farnham who left the world better for their having lived in it

Jan 1, 1930

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1978

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

Good Morning. Thank you for your kind welcome, Lyle and thank you for having me here today. I spoke at the fall meeting of the Utah state RMCMI in Price and it's nice to be invited back. I can see by the program that you have two great days of interesting and informative meetings, including the mine rescue team exhibition and the safety recognition award presentations. As you all know, I am here standing in for Dave Lauriski, who is in China with Secretary of Labor Chao. As you also know, Utah is near and dear to his heart - and so is the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. I want to assure you Dave would be here if it were at all possible. But it is my good fortune that I could come in his place. We have made great progress as an Agency thanks to the hard work and dedication of MSHA's employees. But we are always looking for new ways to solve problems and continue to send more miners home safe and healthy every day. And we have been working on some great ways to do that, including thinking strategically. During my presentation today I'm going to talk about where the Agency is in terms of our transformation to the MSHA of the 21st century, a little bit about how we got to be where we are, and then describe our roadmap to the future state. And I'm going to focus on the significance of our plan and the planning process to demonstrate the implication for the mining industry. Former President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." Now I do like Ike, but I would have to take exception to the first part of the sentence. I have found plans and the planning process to be indispensable - the plan to give me a roadmap to my goal, and the process to focus me on the steps I must take to get there. We all know that having a strategic plan makes the difference between success and failure. We've seen it time and time again, in business, in our lives - and in government: Having a strategic plan is crucial to success. And the process of making the strategic plan is crucial to its success. Putting together a workable strategic plan - a good roadmap - that will successfully lead you to your goals requires a thorough, careful process that takes into account each factor that you may encounter along your way to success, as well as those with whom you will travel. In order to talk about our current plan I want to take you back to three years ago, when Dave Lauriski went to Washington to lead MSHA. He knew that change was in the air. Dave was confirmed as Assistant Secretary with 30-plus years experience in the coal mining industry, and more than 20 years of experience in dealing with

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1960

Jan 1, 1995

?Go for the Coal? Simulator Training Outline ?Training Adult Learners ?Benefits of Simulator Training ?Simulator Training at Kennecott Energy -Training Priorities -Data Utilization ?Questions

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1973

The Fourth Session of the Forty-Sixth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Hotel Colorado, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, June 21, 1950, at 9:30 a. m., G., E. Sorenson, President, presiding. PRESIDENT SORENSON: The meeting will conic to order, please. Gentlemen, we have quite a program this morning, so we had better push this thing along. Be fore we start this morning, I would like to ask Mr. Davis if he wouldn't come up and say a word or two for us. He is the editor of Coal Age. Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: This is quite an unexpected honor. I didn't know that I would be called on to speak to you. It will be brief, but very sincere. I have enjoyed every minute of my stay here with you people in the west. It is my first visit out this way, and I have enjoyed every minute of it. I have two more weeks to go out here, and I will probably see a lot of you in your own back yards.

Jan 1, 1950

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 3, 1952, Howard B. Crandell, President, presiding. PRESIDENT CRANDELL: Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order, and I would like to introduce to you your Chairman of this meeting, Mr. John B. Hughes, General Manager of the Union" Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs... (Applause) CHAIRMAN HUGHES: From the activities around last night, I supposed there would be quite a few that would be unable to attend this morning. I am sorry there are not more here because I am sure we have some interesting papers. First on the program this morning is, The Effect of Continuous Mining on Today's. Coal Industry by Mr. William Wearly, Vice President of the Joy Manufacturing Company. Mr. Wearly: (Applause)

Jan 1, 1952

By Margaret N. Maxey

Man's capacity far fretting is endless, and no matter what difficulties we surmount, how many ideals we realize, there is a stealthy pleasure in rejecting mankind or the universe as unworthy of our approval. - Will Durant Until recently, reasons for favoring one or another energy alternative were advanced on the basis of technical considerations and economic realities. However, it is an indication of the cultural climate of our society and growing realization of why energy is our master resource that many citizens have begun to express concern about the social and ethical implications of our energy deci¬sion-making. A vivid indication of this shift toward ethical concerns is reflected in the attention being focused on conservation - even to the point of regarding it as a virtual panacea equivalent to a "free energy resource." Among others, the authors of a publication by Resources for the Future cautions us about the difficulties of defining conservation. They also point out that unrealistic expectations for achieving the high levels of conservation claimed by true believers may boomerang if, at the same time, we are morally required to maintain economic growth and robust productivity for the basic well-being of more people. In its economic meaning, conservation signifies the most economic or cost-effective applications of energy, together with other resources, in a given process or activity. To achieve conservation that is cost-effective, saving energy alone is not sufficient; the cost involved in saving the energy must be no greater than the cost of the energy that is saved. Using its thermodynamic meaning, conservation and efficiency are viewed as constrained by physical laws and measured against ideal limits set by these laws and processes. Since achieving higher levels of technical performance is not without costs, the economic meaning of conservation must be factored into technical possibilities. It is the ethical, equity and environmental meaning of conservation that concerns us here. In its third meaning, conservation consists in moderation as a value which appears inherently worthwhile both in itself and in relation to social choices dedicated to achieving distributive justice. The value of moderation seems predicated on the assumption that natural resources and the environment have fixed, finite, exhaustible capacities for satisfying human needs. Hence norms for moderating human behavior appear to require prescriptions by some authority. Such norms presuppose some agreement on "essential" uses of energy. However, the difficulties of setting behavioral norms loom large, because "... it is as difficult to determine essential energy consumption as to determine what is essential in any other phase of consumption, whether it involves food, clothing, shelter, or recreation." The ethical meaning of conversation is further complicated by a centuries-old argument over the proper exercise of stewardship - i.e., how best to develop natural resources. On the one hand, the preservationist position insists on an inviolate, "hands-off" policy and stands opposed to ongoing development of wilderness areas and mineral resources. On the other hand, the "scientific conservationist" who preaches the "gospel of efficiency" insists on development of resources based on principles of sustained-yield, multiple use and - in the case of competing claims - reserving resources or land for their "higher use." Current confusion reigns among opinion leaders in the environmental movement because they appear to have lost the genius of the original Conservation ethic, developed in the 19th century. They seem to think that conservation is preservation. The question I wish to explore is whether a single-minded, exclusive pursuit of "conservation" in its economic, thermodynamic and preservationist meanings may actually do more harm than good in serving the ethical goals of conservation. There

Jan 1, 1986

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1976

Western Fuels Association, Inc. ?WFA was formed in 1976 ?Nation?s first fuel supply cooperative ?Original members included Basin Electric and Tri-State G & T ?Formed to ensure provision of coal supply to new power plant projects being constructed

Jan 1, 2007

By Cole A. Wist

?Twowinters ago, what had been a mediocre safety record at West Virginia?s Sago Mine grew dramatically worse. Over 23 months beginning in February 2004, two dozen miners were hurt in a string of accidents, some of them caused by rock chunks falling from the mine ceiling. Federal safety inspectors slapped the mine with citations 273 times, or an average of once every 2 ½ days. Despite this record, the price paid by Sago?s operators was light. Government regulators never publicly discussed shutting down themine and never sought criminal sanctions. The biggest single fine was $440, about 0.0004 percent of the $110 million net profit reported last year by the mine?s current owner.? -Washington Post, January 8, 2006

Jan 1, 2006