Search Documents

By Robert M. von Storch

Chairman Doc, distinguished guests, and fellow members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It's a genuine pleasure to meet with you again at the 54th regular meeting. I might add that it is always pleasant to be at the top of the batting order. The field is wide open since there is no danger of repeating something already said. At the same time, I am aware that the lead-off speaker has a responsibility to avoid stepping on the toes of subsequent speakers. I promise to confine my remarks to areas other than those to be covered by the well qualified speakers that follow. During our meetings at this convention, many fine papers will be presented. Our thanks are due Bob Williams and his hard working program committee for the superior selling that brought so many eminent speakers to our meeting. And, of course, our special thanks go to Doc Schloss, general chairman of this meeting. Doc and his able colleague, Stan Shubart, have been the spark plugs that fired up all of the arrangements we are enjoying here in Glenwood Springs. I'm sure all of us are appreciative of the many hours Doc has devoted to seeing that our meetings will be pleasant and profitable. When we mention arrangements, we always think of that master arranger, Fred Whiteside, who, as a charter member and secretary-treasurer of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, has had more to do with more matters around these parts than just about anyone I can think of.

Jan 1, 1958

President Robert M. von Storch called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M., and introduced the first speaker of the MANUFACTURERS' HOUR. D. M. Stromquist, Technical Representative, Coal Chemical Sales Division, United States Steel Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, presented a paper, "Ammonium Nitrate and Its Use as a Blasting Agent," which was illustrated with a number of slides. (See Index.) President von Storch introduced Kenneth J. MacLeod, Socony Mobil Oil Company, Denver, Colorado, who gave a short paper on "New Greases." Following are excerpts from Mr. MacLeod's talk: The recent advances in machinery, and their continuing development present a never ending challenge to the oil companies to develop new and better oils. Over the years, industry's machinery has been pressed to meet higher production rates, which has subjected the machinery to increased speeds, temperatures and pressures. Lubrications have had to be designed for a wider range of use. The entire industry has attempted to produce a good product for this extra-duty need. Most greases have contained lead in the past, and especially the food industry has had to be most careful in the use of this around food products.

Jan 1, 1958

of our good friends and fellow members: William D. Brennan Charles Beuchat who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1931

[ALLISON, D. S.. ...................... ,1331 Roberta St., Salt-Lake City, Utah AMBLER, J. B.. ........ c-o Ambler & Riter, Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah ANDERSON, A. E.. ................ ,403 Midland Savings Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON, ARTHUR E.. .. .Colorado Utilities Corp., Steamboat Springs, Colo. ANDERSON, FRANK ........................................... Crosby, Wyo. ANGUS, WILLIAM.. ........... .99 South Downing St., Apt. 204, Denver, Colo. APPERSON, A. B.. ............................ .Tramway Bldg., Denver, Colo. ]

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1954

CONCLUSIONS: Our experience, where we attempt to remove a continuous face with a seam more than six and one-half feet in thickness, has been rather disastrous. We have been able to open up faces and retreat for a distance of 75 to 100 feet in this particular character of coal, but after the supporting timbers have been removed for the second or third time we have found that the roof has a tendency to ride over the props and break off at the face of the coal support. However, where our coal is below six and one-half feet in thickness we have had very good success in handling the roof and breaking it off systematically with our break line of props, which are usually from 12 to 15 feet from the face of the coal. Our practice in to set props at about two-foot intervals in each direction and remove two sets of props, at the same time two additional sets are placed along the coal face. At all times we are very insistent that all props be removed from the gob and that entire coal be taken out so that it is possible for the roof to break freely and all come down, not having any supporting pillars in the gob. The conclusion of our experiments to date is that if all the supports beyond the breaking line of props are taken out as the long face retreats and the closer the breaking line of props is kept to the face the better the results will be. We have never felt it safe to have less than four rows of props to protect the machinery and men working along the coal face. We feel that the time element as to the rapidity with which these faces are advanced or retreated, is of vast importance, but to date have not had an opportunity or experience enough to reach any conclusion as to what time element is proper here with us. We feel that the crushing strength of the overlying strata will govern this to a large extent, and as ours varies considerably, it is going to he very difficult for us to reach a definite conclusion. My opinion is, that conditions may be such that rather than have a short face and retreat rapidly, it will be found that a longer facewith a slower retreat will work out better. Such a condition might give the overlying strata time to settle. The caving of roof or of control of this caving, with us, is quite closely associated with the ventilation. We find that the places where the strata overlying the coal are composed of shale, that the effect of the air on this is of very great importance. It is our endeavor, at all times, not only to remove obnoxious gases, but to keep a current of fresh air moving along the face and, of course, a portion of this travels over the gob and comes in contact with the roof and overlying strata. This, we find, helps materially in keeping the roof on the move. As it is our practice to keep water for sprinkling purposes at all places, we also use this water to keep the roof wet back in the gob. The effect of water on the shale is to cause it to disintegrate quite rapidly. MR. HOLMAN (Concluding): If there are any questions about this, I will be glad to answer them. I have some prints and also some pictures of the scraper loader and the shaking conveyors (distributes.) PRESIDENT MOSES: We wish to thank you, Mr. Holman, and also wish that you would thank Mr. Dupont for his paper. Are there any discussions? Do you wish to ask Mr. Holman any questions? (No response.) PRESIDENT MOSES: Mr. Holman, I would like to ask you how you take the photographs; were they taken by flashlight, or were globes used, or how were they taken, in a gaseous mine? MR. HOLMAN: Our mines being gaseous, we do not use the ordinary flashlight for taking underground photographs, but we have had considerable success, I think, with underground pictures by means of electric lights. We use 250 watt globes. We have six of these rigged up with tin reflectors, 18 inches in diameter, on standards, and we carry two or three hundred feet of wire connected with these six lights, and they can be turned on in the room where we take the photograph, by means of this extra wire. We set the kodak up and arrange the picture and take a long time-exposure. We usually take an

Jan 1, 1926

At 5:30 p.m. a social hour was held for all RMCMI registrants on the lawn area south of the Gondola Lift House. This was followed by a western steak fry and dancing to the country western band, "The Cat's Night Out". MORNING SESSION Tuesday, June 29,1982 RMCMI golfers came out in force for a shot-gun start of the Championship Golf Tournament at Vail Municipal Golf Course which began its first session at 7:30 a.m. followed by a second at 1:15 p.m. The tournament was headed by William Carpender, chairman and his committee members Gary Bennewitz, Jr. and Gene Christmann. RMCMI members were treated to early morning rolls and coffee in the Conference Center preceding a showing of the RMCMI slide/tape program on enhancing the image of coal mining, by telling the story of the Institute. Following this, the meeting was called to order by President McKeever at 8:30 a.m. when he introduced Mr. Carl Terzian who presented a workshop entitled "Sure You Have an Image - But What Kind?". MR. McKEEVER: Good morning Carl. I see you're ready to address this bright and busy tail audience. One of the things that I really want to point out this morning and I knew we would have a second chance with Carl Terzian but Carl is someone that will leave a good lasting impression on you and what he will hopefully be talking about, as I remember, is that what he's saying here can be used personally, or for company, or for the Institute, or anything else on image. Carl is Chairman of the Board of Carl Terzian Associates. He is a prominent author, lecturer and consultant. He is headquartered in Los Angeles and he's nationally known: governmental affairs, man¬agerial development and executive speech training and has served nearly four hundred clients since 1969. Each year he travels nearly 300,000 miles to address conventions, conferences and sales and management meetings as a motivational speaker. Carl has been speaking professionally for more than twenty-five years. He was graduate magna cum laude 1957 from the University of Southern California where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa and student body president. He later served as State Department goodwill ambassador for President Eisenhower; public relations director for Lutheran Hospital Society of Southern California; dean and professor of political science and speech at Woodbury University and public affairs director for architect Charles Luckman. He has been honored for his civic and philanthropic and professional accomplishments by the Congress and State Department, California Assembly and Senate, City and County of Los Angeles, Her Majesty the Queen of England, and six times by the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge. Carl, welcome to our Coal Mining Institute and it's been kind of a historical situation on Tuesday morning that we will probably have people straggling in after that wonderful steak fry that we had last night. You're very welcome to come and takeover the command. MR. TERZIAN: Thank you very much Ira. This gives me an opportunity for those who were in my luncheon audience yesterday to again thank you for giving me the opportunity of that platform and for the very kind comments that were made following the address. Those of us who had been working for some months with Ira, Charlie, Betsy and many

Jan 1, 1982

PRESIDENT MOSES.: The meeting will please come to order. Will you kindly state your names prior to making any statements, in order that we may deep the record straight? The first paper this morning is a joint one on vocational training, by D. W. Rockey, H. A. Tiemann and Wm. Moorhead. Mr. Rocdey. (Applause.) D. W. ROCKEY (State Superintendent, Industrial Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico) (Mr. Rocdey's notes not received in time for publication.) MR. TESCHER: I would like to ask you, Mr. Rocdey, you say you gave the Phelps-Dodge Corporation financial assistance; to just what extent was the State obligated, and how much assistance was given, etc.?

Jan 1, 1927

On Monday, June 27, 1921, at 6 p. m., twenty-four members of the Institute from. Colorado and New Mexico, left Denver on the Union Pacific for Rock Springs, Wyoming, arriving there at 9:42 a. m., June 28th. The party was met at the depot by the Rock Springs committee and a large number of the local Institute members. The day was spent in visiting the Central Power Plant of, the Union Pacific Coal Company and adjacent mine, the new 'E Plane, the Reliance, Dines, Winton and Sweetwater coal properties in the district. At noon a very elaborate lunch was served in the First Aid Building at the Reliance mine, which was most heartily enjoyed by all. In the evening the members and friends visited the new Rialto theater and saw the pictorial exposition of the' "Sky Pilot". The evening terminated with a dance in the ballroom of the Masonic Temple from 9:30 until midnight, concluding one of the most enjoyable days which the Institute has ever spent in Rock Springs. At 12:3o a. m. the original party, augmented by six members from Rock Springs, were again enroute to Salt Lake City, arriving there at 8:30 in the morning of Wednesday, June 29th. The Hotel Utah had been selected by the local, committee as the headquarters for the convention, and the majority of the -members at once proceeded to that place where the books were opened and the paying of dues and registration of the members were carried on until 11:45 a.m. At noon a majority of the members were entertained at the L. D. S. Tabernacle with an organ recital, which was up to its usual standard of excellence.

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1995

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

[Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Randy Acre Joy Mining Machinery 2569 Silver Oak Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum P1-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84528-1420 Kent Adamson Solvay Minerals POB 1167 Green River, WY 82935]

Jan 1, 1999

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

By Michael A. Poling

Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to be with you, and to share my outlook on the future of Federal coal leasing. I'm told that you wanted the best speaker on this subject in the world. Perhaps it's a reflection of these trying financial times, but I'm glad you finally agreed to settle for the best speaker your budget would afford. I have been asked to give you some insight on the status of Federal coal leasing, and how the budget problems facing the Department will affect the coal program. So I've polished up my crystal ball, and I'll try to give you a peek at the future. Before I do that, however, let me first go back in time - to when this Administration took office in 1981. We had a coal program then, after a hiatus of ten years. But that program was untested and - for reasons well known to all of you - did not work well in practice once we began operating the program. We went back to the drawing board and redesigned the program so that it can do what it is intended to do. We've made the program more predictable. That means that when future lease sales are scheduled, those sales will be reflective and reactive to the need to lease coal. On February 26, Secretary Hodel unveiled a framework for resumption of Federal leasing program activities, ending a more than two-year suspension of regional coal sales. The new program will provide the opportunity to satisfy market demand for acquiring and developing new leases, assure the government of fair market value for its coal reserves, and provide a stable supply of coal for this country's energy needs. The new program grew out of the Department's response to recommendations of the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment, coupled with a supplemental environmental study. The Linowes Report, issued in 1984, contained 36 recommendations and three Judgments on leasing levels, tract selection, sale procedures, appraisal methods, key statutory and related factors, and organization and management of the leasing program. Major changes in the new leasing program reflect these concerns. We have developed a definition for captive tracts and devised procedures to appraise their value to the adjacent coal or mine owner. Other steps include a coal lease appraisal guide which describes our appraisal methodology and is available to the public. Improvements have also been made in the gathering of lease assignment information to help in estimating the value of potential lease tracts. To improve market analysis, a three-tiered system will be used to ensure that steps of the lease sale decision process are undertaken in the context of coal supply and demand. Regional Coal Teams will thus have the advantage of long range, regional and tract specific market studies to help them determine whether sufficient demand is expected first to warrant the initiation of activity planning, then to set regional leasing levels, and finally to actually offer specific tracts for lease sale. Sale procedures will also be improved in many ways to encourage competition, improve the chances for receiving adequate bids, and to evaluate whether bids represent fair market value. We made additional modifications to the program in response to the OTA recommendations. Regional Coal Teams have been given a larger role in recommending key decisions concerning the amounts of coal to be studied and the actual selection and scheduling of tracts for lease sale. These recommendations will be accepted unless the Secretary can cite an overriding national interest factor, or a governor's request to modify the recommendations. Smaller, more frequent sales will be held, to better judge market conditions and prevent over- or under-leasing. Public participation guidelines have been written, to document all opportunities for the public to comment at various stages in the planning process. We also decided that resource management plans prepared after the passage of FLPMA in 1976 must be completed, in order for a new round of lease sale planning to begin. The BLM will also beef up its procedures for consulting with affected Federal agencies during the planning process, to assure that the purposes and values of those agencies are considered and factored into land use decisions. To assure consistent use of an adequate data base in coal lease decision-making, Regional Coal Teams will develop standards and guidelines for data adequacy, and document the use of these standards. These procedures will also be applied to the unsuitability criteria screening process. Thus, the new leasing system announced by Secretary Hodel: is fully responsive to recommendations made by the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment for improving environmental planning and fair market value procedures; gives the regional coal teams a major say in determining leasing levels, and on the timing,

Jan 1, 1986

The meeting was called to order at 2 p. m., September 9, 1926, at the Hotel Colorado, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, with the President, Horace Moses, in the chair. Upon motion, the minutes of the previous meeting were accepted. No business being presented, the reading and discussion of papers was proceeded with as outlined hereafter. There being no further business before the meeting, it was adjourned at 4 p. in., Saturday, September 11, 1926. Respectfully submitted, [ ] Secretary-Treasurer.

Jan 1, 1926

forated, allowing the completion of the removal of wash water. When discharged into the washed nut bin, the coal is moist but carries so little water as to not be objectionable to the trade, nor to give any difficulty from freezing during the coldest weather. The rock and bone from the primary jigs is elevated to a 15-ton bin by means of a single strand scraper conveyor 40 feet center to center operating on a 45 degree incline, carrying 12" x 5" scrapers every two feet. This conveyor travels at a speed of 100 feet per minute and has a capacity of 17 tons per hour. From this bin, this material falls into the third or rewash jig similar in all respects to the first two, which discharges the rock waste directly into a 15-ton refuse bin below and the bone into a short dewatering conveyor which delivers into a similar 15-ton bin from which the bone is taken to the powerhouse. The oversize and water from the shaker screen, the water from the dewatering conveyor for both the washed nut and bone, and the sludge and wash water from the three jigs, are delivered by launders to the first compartment of a three-compartment settling tank. Most of the coarser broken coal is deposited in this tank, from which is it continually removed by a bucket elevator carrying 8" x 5" perforated buckets operated on a 60 degree incline at 200 feet per minute, capable of delivering 25 tons per hour to the 50-ton washed coarse slack bin. The water passes successively through the three compartments of the settling tank and from thence through a six-inch pipe to a centrifugal pump, circulating 900 gallons per minute against a 32-foot head. A four-mesh screen 30" x 72" in the third compartment of the settling tank removes the chips of wood, paper, and the other trash, which otherwise would accumulate in the water. Water is provided from the camp water system, deriving water from the well located in an arroyo bed. During the summer months just passed, the water used, has been 108 gallons per ton of raw nut, or 146 gallons per ton of washed nut. The water meter had not been installed last winter, but it is estimated that operating at capacity, the washery will be found to require only about 75 to 100 gallons per ton of raw nut. It has not been found necessary, nor advisable, to attempt to dry the sludge from the settling tank, nor to save the water from leakage of the tanks and bins. The sludge from the jigs is washed into the settling tank and the sludge from the settling tank is washed through a tile drain to the arroyo. The jigs, shaker screen, circulating pump, washed slack elevator, and the rock handling conveyor, are all driven from line shafts driven by one 40 H. P. motor, each jig driven through a clutch. The belt conveyor and the washed nut conveyor, have separate motor drives of five and seven and a half H. P. respectively. The washer is housed in a corrugated iron building, which is partially heated by steam coils. One attendant is required for operation, regulating the feed of the jigs, the supply of water, removal of the rock, and oiling and maintaining the machinery. The rewash jig is operated only intermittently. About eleven per cent by weight of raw nut is removed as waste and four per cent goes to the washed slack bin. No control analyses of the products have been made; the efficiency of the plant being determined only by the physical appearance of the products; but the washery has been a source of pride and satisfaction to all those connected with it. As mentioned before, it has caused no interruption of operation and it has assisted materially in creating an unprecedented demand for ALAMO nut. MR. CHARLES: If there are any questions, I shall be pleased to endeavor to answer them. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Charles, do I understand it is the nut only that is washed there? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LITTLEJOHN: What did you say the size was? MR. CHARLES: Through three inch round perforations, retained on

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1955

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1960

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 10:00.a. m.; June 2, 1952, Howard B. Crandell, President, presiding. PRESIDENT CRANDELL: Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order. I presume most: of you have heard the decision of the Supreme Court in the steel case. The decision was six to three that the President had no legal authority to seize the steel industry, and it is reported that the strike is already under way. Gentlemen, it is both a pleasure and an honor to talk to you who come to the meeting of the Coal Mining Institute, many of you, from long distances. Our program committee has suggested that the president give a 30-minute talk, but you may be at case because I assure you I won't take anywhere near that long, when we will pass to more instructive and enlightening subjects. Another reason for the short talk that I am going to make is that many men in this audience know more about coal mining, specialized subjects, than I do.

Jan 1, 1952