Search Documents

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 301 N. Memorial Dr., St. Louis, Mo. 63102 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 1400 17th St., Denver, Colo. Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Archer, Bryan J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M W. RD 1, Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E. Lee-Norse Co., 6030 55th Pl., Arvada, Colo. Arentzen, Rolf F Lee-Norse Co., Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Arnston, E. K Standard Oil Div. American Oil, Rt. 1, Box 504, Golden, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex. Audin, Clement, Jr Champion Coal Mining Co., Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1969

H. C. GLAZE: There is no question in my mind that the day of direct current distribution is practically ended so far as large coal properties are concerned. Another thing that Mr. Drennan touched on that is of the utmost importance, is that of voltage-voltage to the various pieces of equipment inside the mine. You all know how expensive it is to have motors in operation in important places where the voltage .is about half that which the motor should have. This is particularly true in the direct current system. It slows down production, causes burnouts and destruction to apparatus, and is a question that you men have got to go into. It costs a great deal of money, as Mr. Drennan pointed out, to take care of this. The wires are large and cumbersome, while; on the other hand, with an alternating current system you can use a minimum amount of wire. We have installed this class of equipment with so-called "pick-proof" cable of 2,200 volts down slopes, and I have never heard of any trouble whatsoever from this cause.

Jan 1, 1923

The 76th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 9:30 a.m. A film-"Once Upon a Time" showing the stifling effect of unnecessary government regulations and the importance of protecting economic political freedoms was shown. Past President, Robert E. Murray, President, Western Division and Subsidiary Companies, The North American Coal Corporation, called the meeting to order. He introduced President Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager, Industrial Products Division, Uniroyal, Inc. A biographical sketch follows: Loren V. Linville was born on December 29, 1925 on the family farm near Wiley, Colorado to Scott W. and Hazel Linville. He has one sister, a teacher in the public schools and a brother who is an optometrist in Gustine, California. Loren grew up in Lamar, Colo. graduating from Lamar High School in 1944 and spent the folllowing 2 years as a radioman in the US Navy. He graduated from Denver University in 1950 with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. On September 12, 1948 he married Norma. They have 3 children, Linelle, a teacher in New Mexico, Bruce an electronic technician in Colorado Springs and Kevin at home.

Jan 1, 1980

The Sixtieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:10 a.m. by Past President Mike Zakotnik, Jr., General Superintendent, The Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Mike introduced Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals and Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah; and President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. President's Address Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Min- ing Institute, guests, visitors and friends: I feel this is a distinct honor to talk to you on the occasion of this 60th regular meeting of the Institute. I once assumed this would be the Institute's 60th birthday, but later found that the first meeting was held in the State Capitol at Denver on November 12, 1912, at which time a comparatively small group of operators duly organized the Institute; a Mr. Weitzel of Colorado Fuel & Iron Company was then elected president and our late and dearly remembered Fred W. Whiteside, whose wife Gussie now carries Fred's work forward, was elected secretary. From Fred's records, early meetings were held semi-annually at rather irregular intervals, so that this 60th meeting is approximately the 52nd birthday of the organization and I am number 44 to serve as president. This latter development, I am sure, was conjured up last year by certain members at Glenwood Springs when I was absent. Anyway, I am honored and trust 'that these sessions will be both interesting and instructive in helping us on our way in the coal business.

Jan 1, 1964

The 69th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Joseph E. Ward, former District Manager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. and now retired. Mr. Ward, after reading a brief biography of President O. F. "Os" Lewis, introduced him to the assembly. Biographical sketch read as follows: Mr. Lewis is President, General Manager, and a Director of Colowyo Coal Company. "Os" was born in Reno, Nevada. He attended the University of Utah at Salt Lake City, Utah, and later the Denver University in Denver, Colorado. His career in the Western Coal Industry started back in 1923 when he was employed by the Central Coal and Coke Company of Salt Lake City, Utah, as a clerk, then chief clerk and as a traveling sales representative for a period of 13 years. Later, in 1936, when that company was acquired by an affiliated company of Harris Coal Company, he was transferred to Denver as Assistant Sales Manager, Purchasing Agent and later as Executive Assistant to the President.

Jan 1, 1973

By Michael A. Berdine

Twentymile Coal Company?s first longwall face in the late 1980?s was oriented approximately 45 degrees to the major coal cleats and 45 degrees to the primary horizontal stresses. This combination of stress and coal cleating resulted in frequent violent bursts of coal along the longwall face. The bursts created particles of sufficient size and force with the potential of causing injury to employees and occasional damage to shield components. Partial web cutting was subsequently developed in an attempt to relieve the stress on the coal face and required the shearing machine to travel to the tailgate and back for a full 36 inch web. The partial web cutting pattern is focused on first cutting the lower 90% of the seam to relieve the stress as the shearer travels from the headgate to the tailgate. The web depth during the headgate to tailgate pass is typically in the range of 70% to 80% and varies with conditions to maximize production rates. The top and bottom of the seam in the remaining 20 to 30% of the web are then cut out to allow the shields and face conveyor to advance. 100% of the web is cut at each gate end for a distance of approximately 19 shields. This paper addresses some general mine geology and the procedures and benefits of partial web cutting with respect to safety, production and maintenance on a high production longwall face.

Jan 1, 2004

By I. M. Charles

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: At the request of our Secretary, Mr. Shubart, I am pleased to present the following brief discussion of the Alamo Washery. In order to insure an excellent and uniform preparation of nut coal, the Alamo Coal Company erected last year a modern washery at a cost of about $50,000, in which, since the completion last December, all of the nut coal shipped from the Alamo Mine, has been washed. In part of the workings of the Alamo Mine, the coal is overlaid by a lenticular strata of slate, which invariably falls when the coal is shot down and breaks for the most part into fragments of such size as pass through three-inch round perforations, and are retained on plates having one and a fourth inch round holes with the nut coal. This "draw slate" comprises the principal impurity in the Alamo coal, and to remove it, some bone and a few small fragments of sandstone from the roof and floor, the washery was designed and erected. The few impurities contained in the lamp are readily re-

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 2006

By David Scrymgeour

All low cost coal has been mined. Engineers are searching for a safe and effective way to mine coal seams' deep within the earth. The most modern of these is the RL, an acronym for Robotic Labor. Mining robots are programmed to do specific jobs but can think on their own during an emergency. MR's, or mining robots, usually have a same basic shape. A torso is mounted on treads. Designers chose treads because it gives the robot a great deal of mobility. The torso has two arms. One arm is equipped with a human hand. The other has a human-like hand. Mining is done underground. A small robot goes around punching holes in the coal. A small charge is inserted in the hole. The MR ignites the charge with his laser. It explodes after three minutes. The MR returns to the station where his battery is recharged. Mobile cement barricades are moved between the blasting area and other working MR's. After the charge explodes the barricades are moved to another area. The MR returns and cuts the coal chunks into pieces. Another robot comes and loads the coal and carries it to the loading bin. From there it is taken to the surface where it is weighed and shipped. The whole process was done by robots. Humans just supervise but help in an emergency or malfunction.

Jan 1, 1987

A Joy Global Inc. Company [ ] ? Joy Global Inc. headquarters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin ? P&H Mining Equipment surface mining equipment and support ? Joy Mining Machinery underground mining equipment and support

Jan 1, 2007

Jan 1, 2005

The 72nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President Roy Coulson, President Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming, called the meeting to order. He introduced Robert W. Wilson, President of the Institute 1975-1976. Bob's biography follows: Born August 20, 1923 in Washington, D.C.; P-47 Fighter Pilot for three years with the U.S. Air Corps, flying 101 missions, Discharged October 1945; Married Barbara J. Polley August 1945 in Golden, Colorado; Moved to Colorado in 1948; Parents of two sons, Alan born in 1948 and Russell (deceased); Now residents of Conifer, Colorado and planning retirement on ranch property in Santa Rita, New Mexico; His education consists of Elementary and High School in Arlington, Va.; Two years at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 1948; Business-Salesman for K&P, Inc. since 1949, President and Owner since 1968; Representatives for T. J. Gundlach Co., Johnson-March Corp., Ramsey Engineering Co., Omni-Lift, Smoot Company, Sweco, Inc. and FMC-Syntron; Member, RMCMI since 1957, Served as Registration Chairman, Reservation Chairman, Member of the Executive Board and Vice President for Colorado; Member, Society Mining Engineers (AIME), Colorado Mining Association, New Mexico Mining Association, Industries for Jefferson County, and Denver Coal Club.

Jan 1, 1976

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

By N. H. Wetzel

Railroads, attempting to increase their tonnage without adding new lines, have for some time realized there is a definite relationship between increasd haulage efficiency, and constant communication with each moving unit that operates along their roadbeds. Elaborate radio communication equipment has been devised for this purpose, and is rapidly being installed. Coal mines are faced with similar haulage problems and have sought this constant contact through the use of telephone systems, and dispatcher stations. Often the fixed mine telephone system is unsatisfactory, since the desired person is not present at the phone when needed. Dispatchers lose contact with a motorman as soon as he is out of sight, until he calls in from another telephone. The recently developed frequency-modelated radio phone which makes use of the trolleywire network in a mine as a carrying medium, permits instant and continuous contact between dispatcher and locomotives. The motorman can immediately contact another motor or the dispatcher regardless, of his motor's position on the trollywire system, whether moving or standing.

Jan 1, 1948

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

The seventh Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1998 Institute convention at the Silvertree Hotel, in Snowmass Village, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Elliott Tsosie, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1998 a record number of 10 teams participated in the program. The teams were from the four western states of Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming and were comprised of about eight members each. Teams participating were BHP-La Plata Mine, BHP-Navajo Mine, BHP-San Juan Mine, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming; General Chemical, Green River, Wyoming; Jacobs Ranch Mine, Gillette, Wyoming; Powder River Coal Company-North Antelope/Rochelle, Gillette, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Hallsville, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River Wyoming, and Western Energy-Colstrip, Montana. The professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for over 90 participants and many observers. The evaluators were: Art Saenz and Tom Bass of Western Environmental Associates, Keith Mitchell and Jim Jennings of Emergency Services Detail; Mary Bailey of Mary Bailey Associates; and John Peleaux of Innovative Access. Teams are not given advance warning of what the problem will entail. They are provided the necessary details when they arrive at the scenario location and work to resolve the problem in an effective and efficient manner. [ ] Seven participants made up each team with an . eighth member as an alternate. Team trainers and other mine personnel traveled with the team from scenario to scenario providing support and encouragement. The teams were presented with four scenarios each day, involving High Angle Rescue, Low Angle Rescue/Medical, Hazmat, and Confined Space. All of the victims, except for one, were provided through the cooperative efforts of the Snowmass Fire Department, who also assisted with providing several evaluators. Snowmass Fire Department is to be commended for providing over 20 victims/evaluators each day to facilitate the evaluations. Training sessions were held Friday afternoon and Saturday evening to help the teams prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was held Friday evening for teams to trade hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers, etc. All mine rescue participants and spouses and registered families attended the Bar-B-Q on Sunday evening followed by an adult dance. [ ] Front row: Ray Blaisdell, Solvay; Gary Rasmussen, General Chemical; Spencer Thompson, Sabine; Jack Ervin, Western Energy. Back Row: Ken Kellywood, BHP Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP LaPlata; Elton Stanton, Jacobs Ranch; Travis Roy, Powder River Coal; Ron Neff, BHP San Juan; Steve Whaley, Bridger. Sponsors who contributed to the 1998 program financially were: Blue Mountain Energy, (Deserado Mine); Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, L.S.; and Western Environmental Associates. Glass trophy cups, with an etching of a Mine Rescue figure and the RMCMI Logo on cherry wood bases, were presented to the 10 team captains at the Monday Mine Rescue Awards Breakfast. Eight of the ten teams had a proficiency level of 3 and 2 teams achieved a proficiency level of 2.

Jan 1, 1998

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

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 Geo. A. Murphy

MR. ARTHUR E. GIBSON (General Manager, Consumers Mutual Coal Company of Utah) : I suppose the reason I was called upon to read this paper was because I was at the mine for several years, but I have not been there for the past four years and the installation has been put in since I left. This article has been written by my successor-it follows: At the very urgent solicitation of your Secretary I have consented to prepare this paper descriptive of the spiralizing plant which is a part of the new steel tipple recently erected by the Spring Canyon Coal Company to serve its mines at Spring Canyon, Utah. I have been reluctant in giving this consent for two reasons: one of which is an excellent one, and the other isn't any good at all. First,, I find that it takes a long time to become familiar with the eccentricities of spirals-to get wise to their whims and peculiarities, and while this plant has been in operation for a number of months, something new seems to crop up nearly every time I see it, and -it would be impossible to describe all of these things even if I remembered them. The second reason is, purely personal. Among the many things I have learned by attending the sessions of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is that if a man is not pretty sure of the ground he attempts to cover, he had better keep his mouth shut, because if he isn't right, he is dead sure to be called down by someone. However, as I will not attend the session, this feature will not hurt much, but it will make it necessary for someone else to read the paper and this will make it much better for those who are obliged to listen to it because I don't read English very well. To begin with I will say that what is said in this paper applies only to the plant under discussion as I have had no experience with any other plant. While spirals have been in use for quite a number of years, and there are some large plants in the East, their use has not been general, and I believe the plant at Spring Canyon is the only one in the United States west of the Mississippi River. The details of the plant were worked out by Mr. Thos. R. Stockett, General Manager of the Spring Can= yon Coal Company; it was manufactured by the Anthracite Separation Company of Hazelton, Penn., incorporated in the design and erected by the Link-Belt Company of Chicago, in connection with the balance of the tipple. It consists of five units. Each unit consists of a vertical wood column about 6 inches in diameter, and 9 feet 6 inches in height, around which the spiral is built. It is something like a triple screw conveyor, set vertically, with flights down which the coal and refuse travel by gravity in the process of separation. There are three of these flights, forming a sort of nest but about 7 inches apart, and they make 21 turns around the column in its length. These flights dip toward the column about 27 degrees; they have a uniform pitch downward of 31 degrees; they are 19 inches wide at the top (measured from the column) and taper gradually until they are about 9 inches at the bottom. They are not made with one continuous plate from top to bottom, but are made up of a number of plates. Some of these plates are slightly waved, others have small corrugations in them and still others are perforated with small holes, all of which are intended to accelerate or. retard the movement of the coal and refuse as they pass down, At intervals there are adjustable plates in the flights for the purpose of decreasing the maximum outside;

Jan 1, 1926

By Fredrick D. Palmer

U.S. ENERGY: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST Assessing Goals, Needs and Resources ?Decision-makers must balance the needs of average Americans with the need for: ?A strong economy ?A clean environment ?A secure nation ?Events of recent years ?terrorist acts, multiple energy crises and a global focus on sustainable development ?magnify the need to balance these principles ?Coal ?domestic, abundant, affordable and increasingly clean ?meets these needs like no other energy source

Jan 1, 2003