Search Documents

Jan 1, 1961

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 2009

it may be clearly seen that one of the most rapidly increasing items in mining operations is the cost of the timber alone, to say nothing of the cost of installation. Consequently, any practical means that may be used to lengthen the life of mine timber will greatly tend to decrease mining costs and result in important economies in operation. The four principal agents by which mine timbers are destroyed are, decay, insect attack, fire and mechanical abrasion. Decay and insect attack are credited with more than 50 per cent of the total amount of timber destroyed in the mines. Numerous methods may be used to conserve mine timbers, such as better selection, preparation, storage and segregation. It frequently happens that good timber goes into places where poor timber would do as well, and timber of inferior quality is sent into places where only the best grade should be used. However, the most effective method of conservation is by treatment with some standard preservative to prevent decay. Some of. the benefits to be noted from the use of preserved timbers are; the reduction in operating costs by decrease in timber purchases; cuts down interference with mining operations due to timber failures on main haulageways; prevents excessive falling of roof in entries by maintaining timber in sound condition; conserves timber supplies and makes possible the utilization of inferior woods; reduces the danger of mine accidents; improves mine ventilation; lessens fire hazard. Our experience thus far with preservatives, while not of a sufficient period of time to establish just what length of life we may obtain from timber so treated, results obtained during the past four years indicate that the intelligent use of preservatives will effect sufficient economies in mine timber costs to justify the expenditures made for this purpose. MR. BAKER (Concluding): Now, if there are any questions you gentlemen would like to ask about our particular operations, I will attempt to answer them. J. H. EMRICK (Sullivan Machinery Company, Denver, Colo.) ; I was wondering how much penetration you get. MR. BAKER: We get between one-sixteenth and one-eighth of an inch; it is a dipping process. With pressure treatment you get-a greater absorption; that is, better than one-sixteenth of an inch. As long as there is no mechanical abrasion, it seems to serve the purpose. MR. EMRICK: Does that apply to the condition of the timber before it is treated? If it is perfectly dry, will it absorb more treatment than if it is partly green? MR. BAKER: Certainly; one of the things we do is to have it thoroughly seasoned before it is put into the preservative. We put some green timber into the mine once, and the fungus went after it right away. MR. EMRICK: What was the difference in the depth reached by the preservative? MR. BAKER: It hardly penetrated at all when it was green. It has to be sound and well seasoned. MR. EMRICK: How long was the timber dipped or treated? MR. BAKER: According to the seasoning. If it was well seasoned, it was left in the hot bath for an hour; if not so well seasoned, it was left for about a couple of hours. C. M. BILLINGTON (General Superintendent, Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, Lafayette, Colo.): Have you found it necessary to treat timber that has been charred? MR. BAKER: No. However, I suppose it has the sane effect; in lots of places they char timber for the purpose of treatment. MR. BILLINGTON: Have you ever tried lime and salt? MR. BAKER: No, this is the only thing we have tried, the creosote and the Aczol; the Aczol is a foreign product. WM. LITTLEJOHN: Which I is preferable, the Aczol or the creosote? MR. BAKER: I couldn't say as to that. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you had any tests as to the value of either? MR. BAKER: We have had some of the Aczol timbers in service for a little over four years; we have had some creosote timbers in service

Jan 1, 1926

The 1939 meeting will be held in Salt Lake City, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program, send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1938

of our good friends and fellow -members: J. R. Gemmill J. J. Walsh J. F. Gieble M. O. Danford John E. Havens J. E. Edgeworth R. S. Rubincam Phil Lloyd E. J. Raddatz who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1934

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

The 67th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the C'est Bon Hotel, Park City, Utah, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Company, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Reeves introduced President Max A. Robb and read a brief biography as follows: A Westerner by birth, he has chosen to pursue his mining career with United States Fuel Company, a subsidiary of United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company. United States Fuel Company is the largest underground producer of commercial and utility coal in the Intermountain West. Max attended Utah schools and has kept his education current through correspondence courses in mining technology and business education, and through attendance at various university-sponsored development seminars.

Jan 1, 1971

[HORACE MOSES President Gamerco, New Mexico BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado ROBT. L. HAIR Vice-President for Colorado VIRGIL R. McKNIGHT Vice-President for New Mexico A. E. GIBSON Vice-President for Utah THOS. FOSTER Vice-President for Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: J. B. DICK Walsenburg C. M: BILLINGTON Lafayette NEW MEXICO: W. C. HOLMAN Dawson ROBT. WYPER Gallup UTAH: R. R. KIRKPATRICK Sunnyside GEO. A. SCHULTZ Latuda WYOMING EDWARD BOTTOMLEY Kleenburn QUINCE RICE Superior]

Jan 1, 1926

[HORACE MOSES President Gamerco, New Mexico BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado ROBT. L. HAIR Vice-President for Colorado VIRGIL M. McKNIGHT Vice-President for New Mexico A. E. GIBSON Vice-President for Utah THOS. FOSTER Vice-President for Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: J. B. DICK Walsenburg C. M. BILLINGTON Lafayette NEW MEXICO: W. C. HOLMAN Dawson ROBT. WYPER Gallup UTAH: R. R. KIRKPATRICK Sunnyside GEO. A. SCHULTZ Latuda Wyoming: EDWARD BOTTOMLEY Kleenburn QUINCE RICE Superior]

Jan 1, 1926

[JOHN B. MARKS President Boston Bldg., Denver, Colo. BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colo. H. H. BUBB Vice-President for Colorado Cokedale, Colo. W. J. REID Vice-President for Utah Wattis, Utah WM. MOORHEAD Vice-President for New Mexico Dawson, New Mexico GOMER REESE Vice-President for Wyoming Frontier, Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: E. H. McCLEARY Alamo SAMUEL TESCHER Denver UTAH: DAVE BROWN Storrs JOHN JENNINGS Hiawatha NEW MEXICO: JAS. McDOUGALL Van Houten GEO. MIKSCH Gallup WYOMING T. H. BUTLER Hanna L. A. NORMAN Sheridan]

Jan 1, 1925

[Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel Corp., 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 Coal Mine Inspector, Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver 2, Colo. Anderson, Merlynn D U.S. Fuel, P.O. Box 5022, Dragerton, Utah Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Ankeny, Marling J 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, 1959

Article I1 of the RMCMI Bylaws reads: Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classs, consisting of active members, life members and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. The names of all active, life and senior members, together with current mailing addresses, follow. [Lt. Jay Abbott M. L. FOSS Co. 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Lt. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Are Denver, CO 80207 ]

Jan 1, 1986

[JOHN B. MARKS President Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado H. H. BUBB Vice-President for Colorado Cokedale, Colorado W. J. REID Vice-President for Utah Wattis, Utah WM. MOORHEAD Vice-President for New Mexico Dawson, N. M. GOMER REESE Vice-President for Wyoming Frontier, Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: E. H. McCLEARY Alamo SAMUEL TESCHER Denver UTAH: DAVE BROWN :Storrs JOHN JENNINGS Hiawatha NEW MEXICO: JAS. McDOUGALL Van Houten GEO. MIKSCH Gallup WYOMING: T. H. BUTLER Hanna L. A. NORMAN Sheridan]

Jan 1, 1925

[ ]

Jan 1, 1989

By Jessica Smith

Jan 1, 2009

Jan 1, 2005

By John H. Emrick

At the meetings of this Institute held two years ago, there was presented a very comprehensive paper on the subject of shearing coal. It was well prepared and contained data based upon actual test and experiment. The conclusions reached showed that where the shearing cuts and tests were made and conducted [ ] there was no advantage but a disadvantage from having sheared the coal. In presenting my ideas on the subject of this paper to you, I do not mean to take issue with the author who addressed you two years ago but only to report the advantages which have recently been secured from shearing coal. All of this goes to prove again the well known fact that what one mine's conditions will permit another's will not. A number of years ago, when most of the coal produced was shot from the solid and when the "good, old" pick miner?s pay was based on the amount of lump coal he loaded out of his room, he was frequently seen putting in a vertical cut in the face as deep as he could do so with his pick. This man was the best ac- [ ] quainted with the peculiarities of the coal and, no doubt, saw that his pocketbook would be fattened more if he put forth the extra effort to make this vertical cut. Fortunately he was well repaid, and his employer loo, on account of the greater percentage of lump produced. Coal cutting machines of various types were then introduced to help along still more the cause of lump coal and, since the natural way to

Jan 1, 1926

The Wednesday morning session started with a film "The Greatest Good" presented by the Colorado Mining Association, courtesy of A. George Setter. President Joe Taylor opened the business meeting at 9:30 a.m. He called for a report from the Auditing Committee. The report was read and a motion was made for approval. It was made, seconded and approved. The report from the Resolutions Committee was submitted by Mr. Robert Delaney, Chairman of the committee. It reads as follows: RESOLVED: Whereas, in the year since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry generally have suffered the loss through death of the services of:

Jan 1, 1968