Search Documents

The sixth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1997 Institute convention at Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Gary Cook, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1997 the largest number of teams participated in the program. There were nine: BHP Minerals - La Plata Mine, BHP Minerals - Navajo Coal Co., BHP Minerals - San Juan Coal Co., Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., General Chemical Co., The Sabine Mining Co., Solvay Minerals and Western Energy Co. Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the 80 participants were Jack Knight of Milton, Florida; Wilson Begay, Chris Saxon, and Gaylon Yazzie all of Western States Security; Mary Bailey, Bailey Associates; Tom Bass, California Department of Corrections; and Art Saenz, BDC. Seven members made up each team plus one or more trainers and represented the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Ten different scenarios were presented during the two day evaluation. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. Mine Rescue families and friends participated as victims providing realistic scenarios to simulate the stress of an actual rescue incident. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving at the various scenes in and around the Sheraton resort. [ ] These teams are providers of prompt rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1997 program are: Argo Industrial, Antelope Construction, Fisher Safety Supply, Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc; Intermountain Electronics, Inc.; King Energy Services, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, LS.; TerraMatrix and Triune Inc. On Saturday evening, June 28, a reception was held for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for this social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue participants and registered families attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q. This was followed by an adult western melodrama. [ ] Glass awards with the RMCMI logo and a Mine Rescue figure were presented at the Tuesday Mine Rescue buffet breakfast to all nine teams, each of which had achieved proficiency at level 3. Captains of the teams pictured below are (from left standing): Ron Neff, BHP-San Juan; Ted Laughline, Bridger, Terry Davis, Coteau; Jim Knutson, General Chemical (from left kneeling): Dan Allerdings, Rosebud; Ron Miller, BHP-Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP-La Plata and Ray Blaisdell, Solvay. Gary Cook is to be commended for his solo last minute supervision of the Mine Rescue program, due to Becki Beam's unavoidable absence. The teams look forward to the 1998 convention at Snowmass Village Resort, Colorado Thursday and Friday, June 25 and 26.

Jan 1, 1997

President Robert Wilson opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. He introduced William A. Bear, General Manager Bear Coal Company, Inc., Somerset, Colorado, who presided over the session. George Nugent, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, presented a most interesting film "Montana Mine Reclamation." His biography follows: George Nugent first entered the coal business in 1943 when he developed Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.'s first coal mine-Big Horn Coal Company at Sheridan, Wyoming. Since that time he managed an expansion program for P.K.S. in mining that resulted in the development of two other producing mines - Rosebud Coal Sales Company at Hanna, Wyoming and Decker Coal Company at Decker, Montana, in which Pacific Power and Light is a partner. Applications are now pending for a third mine. Black Butte, a joint venture of P.K.S. and Rocky Mountain Energy Company, near Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Nugent is a Past President of the Wyoming Chapter, Association of General Con- tractors, Wyoming Mining Association and Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. He was President of Big Horn Coal Company and Rosebud Coal Sales Company as well as Manager of the Mining Division of Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. and Decker Coal Company when he retired Jan. 1, 1975.

Jan 1, 1976

By William M. Wallace

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject, "Shake It for Results," may or may not suggest just what is to be shaken, or just what results are to be obtained. I can assure you that if you are thinking about anything outside the realm of pure mining application you have come to the wrong meeting, and if this be the case, you have come to hear a subject discussed that I am not prepared to undertake-at the moment, at least. At the very beginning of time, results were definitely obtained by shaking. If you will recall, Eve shook a certain tree of forbidden fruit-need I recount to you the results that were, and are still, being credited to that bit of engineering? To get closer to the subject at hand, it is the intent of this paper to touch generally on the shaking, principally the vibratory shaking, of materials on a piece, or pieces, of perforated metal or screen cloth. Through the evolution of such a motion we find that great strides have been made toward a highly efficient "operation which is an essential factor in the mining world of today. The object of the shaking motion is to more efficiently separate one size material from another, according to the openings in the screening medium over which it is passed. Sizing is an important operation in every ore dressing, coal prepara¬tion or other mineral-preparing plant for reducing the product to a form more concentrated or more convenient for utilization than that in which it was mined. In coal preparation, market requirements, convenience, custom, and efficiency in combustion necessitate grading mined coal by sizes. All ore-dressing or coal preparation plants therefore must have what is called screening, sizing, or grading apparatus.

Jan 1, 1941

PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

By R. A. McAllister

The haulage system employed to convey coal from the face to the outside, dates back to 300 B. C., when slaves carried the mineral from the face to the consumer. The British discovered coal on their island about 800 A. D. and they were the first people to make practical use of coal and make coal mining a successful operation. The Britons carried cargoes of coal in their trading expeditions long before Columbus discovered America. The early history of mine haulage in the British mines relates to women with baskets, a practice still in use in Korean mines. Coal was discovered in America in 1679. The first mine worked in the United States was opened at Richmond, Va., in 1770. The haulage inside consisted of a crude sled loaded with, sacked coal ready for the market and drawn by a mule. The tipple consisted of the very simple operation of loading the sacked coal to the back of a lame mule, which represented the transportation system between mine and boat. The capacity of the boat was one ton and this large production of coal was intrusted to a small boy, who delivered to any place in town his bushel basket filled' with winter fuel. One daring coal operator shipped fifteen tons of coal by boat to Philadelphia and the man in charge had to seek employment to pay his board while finding customers for his fuel. A production of five tons per day would hardly attract attention to any system of haulage, add three ciphers and the importance of mine haulage is made very plain to the management. I will consider a production between 3000 and 5000 tons in eight hours and endeavor to bring out the essential features necessary to make the haulage system a regulated precise factor. There are two phases to mine haulage, the mule trip from the room to the motor or gathering party and the main haul to the outside. The motive power, whether done by mule, wire-rope or electric motor cannot be effective if left to the power alone. Conditions must offer no obstacle and it is the removal of obstacles that make the haulage system. This paper will consider a flat seam with the usual jump ups and downs or natural obstacles to be met and mastered by the successful tail-rope or electric system. The pit car is no longer a screening system scattering the fine coal from the room to the outside, adding to the costs by giving employment to road cleaners and polluting the ventilating system with a fog of coal dust. It is not a contrivance with four flat wheels and a labor killer in the room or on the tipple The large producing mine has a pit car with a tight body, roller-bearing wheels, with a self-oiling system that offers the least possible draw-bar pull to overcome the friction resistance, a hand brake conveniently placed and positive in action, a wheel base short enough to make room necks and long enough to

Jan 1, 1921

By S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 3300 One Oliver Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club, Bldg., Denver, Colorado Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Amerman, Richard W Utah Cons. & Mining Co., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mexico Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., 848 N 3rd E, Price, Utah Anderson, John S. Utah Cons. & Mining Co., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1971

Jan 1, 1993

By Todd A. Myers

Forward Looking Statement Disclaimer This presentation may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements about the Company's vision, strategy, operations, growth, development and any other statements containing the words, "believes, " "expects, " "anticipates, " "plans, " "estimates, " and similar expressions. There are a number of factors that could cause Westmoreland Coal Company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements including, but not limited to: general economic and business conditions; healthcare cost trends; the Company's ability to manage growth and significantly expanded operations; the ability of the Company to implement its business strategy; the Company's ability to pay the preferred stock dividends that are accumulated but unpaid; the Company's ability to retain key senior management; the Company's access to financing; the Company's ability to maintain compliance with debt covenant requirements; the Company's ability to successfully identify new business opportunities; the Company's ability to achieve anticipated cost savings and profitability targets; the Company's ability to utilize its tax net operating losses; demand for electricity; the effect of regulatory and legal proceedings; and other factors identified in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the SEC. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of developments occurring after the date such statement was first made.

Jan 1, 2008

By F. M. Van Tuyl

The oil industry had its inception in the United States in 1859 when the first oil well was drilled by Col. Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania. From, a production of 2000 barrels for that year there was a slow but steady increase, with some fluctuations, up to 1901 for which year the output was approximately 69,389,194 barrels. Since that time the production has increased with leaps and bounds due to the rapid rise of the automotive industry, the widening use of oil as a fuel under boilers and the development of the. Diesel engine. The production for 1921 is estimated to have been 469,639,000 barrels. During the same year more than 125 millions of barrels were imported from Mexico. The oil industry, including the production, transportation, refining and distribution of petroleum and its products, is now the third largest in the country. Present Condition of the Industry During and immediately after the war the demand for petroleum exceeded the domestic production plus the imports from Mexico with the result that our storage oil was heavily drawn upon. Prices for crude exceeded all previous levels in the history of the industry. Pennsylvania crude sold for $6.10 per barrel and Mid-Continent crude for $3.50. Such prices stimulated wildcatting greatly with the result that several important new oil pools were discovered. Then as production increased the depression came which caused a large falling off in consumption. Pennsylvania crude fell to $2.25 per barrel and Mid-Continent to $1.00. Large oil companies such as the Standard, Sinclair and Empire took advantage of the situation, erected additional storage tanks and bought up millions of barrels to hold until better prices returned. Prices have already improved owing to a better market, but the domestic production coupled with the Mexican importations is still in excess of the demand with the result that the surplus is being stored. At the close of the year 1921, the U. S. Geological Survey estimates that there were 183,890,000 barrels of crude in storage in this country, the largest stocks in the history of the industry, yet an amount sufficient to supply the country for only 119 days at the present rate of consumption. Price reductions are again anticipated in some quarters but in view of the probable falling off in the Mexican output in the near, future due to the rapid rate of exhaustion of several of the most important pools and in view of the expected increase in consumption of gasoline and kerosene during the spring and summer months it is more likely that the present price level will be maintained. Present Sources of Domestic Supply Seven major oil fields are recognized by the U. S. Geological Survey in the United States. These are the Appalachian, Lima-Indiana, Illinois, Mid-Continent, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountain and California. Two of these, Mid-Continent and California, supply about seventy-five per cent of the present total domestic output

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1962

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 Tuesday morning session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was opened at 9:00 a.m. by Bob von Storch, in the absence of the President. Mr. von Storch appointed the following new members to the Resolution Committee in the absence of three of the members: Albert Keenan, E. S. O'Connor and Howard Crandell. This committee was asked to be ready to report at the Wednesday morning session. Mr. von Storch then introduced Lyman Fearn, State Mine Inspector for the State of Wyoming, who presided over the morning session. Mr. Fearn introduced the first speaker for the morning, Louis A. Engstrom, Engineer at Kemmerer Coal Company, Kemmerer, Wyoming, who delivered a talk illustrated with slides in the absence of Mike Zakotnik, Jr., who was unable to attend. (Please refer to the index for printed text of this paper.) The next paper, "New Horizons -Coal for the Steam Plants of the West," was delivered by Don Newberry, superintendent of the Castle Gate Mine of the Independent Coal and Coke Company, Castle Gate, Utah, in the absence of W. J. O'Connor. (Please refer to the index for printed text of this paper.) Bob von Storch then introduced Edward G. Fox, President of Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who delivered a paper on "A New Era in Labor Relations."

Jan 1, 1957

By Michael L. Jones

Outline ?Background ?Identify and quantify CO2 sources ?Consider options for CO2 separation and capture ?Review options for sequestration/reuse ?Determine best option for managing CO2

Jan 1, 2008

G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress, Washington, D. C., presiding. PRESIDENT HERRES: If you will come to order, please, we will get started on this morning's program. This morning's program takes up the matter of mechanized mining, particularly mechanical loading. There has been considerable progress made in the West with mechanical loading, but we are interested particularly in what is being done in other fields. We are particularly fortunate in being able to have with us Mr. G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress. Mr. Southward has devoted his time for the past several years entirely to a national study of mechanized mining. He is the author of the Year Book published by the American Mining Congress, which is the authority for progress and development on mechanical loading. Mr. Southward has come here from Washington, D. C., particularly for this meeting. We have asked him to speak on the national phases of mechanized mining, and particularly on what is being clone in the East, since we are familiar with what is being done in the western field. I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Southward. (Applause.) MR. SOUTHWARD: Mr. President and Gentlemen: Before starting on this gaper, I would like to express to all of you and to your President my appreciation in being asked to come here. It is a privilege. This question of coal mine mechanization, as you all know, is a big one. It is too big a problem for any one company to handle and it is through such meetings as these, through the co-operation of the various companies throughout the United States, that we have been able to make the progress that we have made. As Mr. Herres has said, I am not going to try to tell you gentlemen anything that is going on out here, in the West. You already know that yourselves. But he has asked me to give a brief resume of the progress that mechanization has made in the eastern coal states.

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1931

By Wm. H. Woodhead

Improved methods of mining have accompanied the introduction of mechanical loading, of which there are a great many varieties, but this multiplicity of mining brings new problems and greatly increases the importance of managing over a few years ago. Few mines operating today have been opened with the intention of mechanizing throughout. The problem of mechanization is to change over a mine heretofore operated by hand methods and to select machinery that will fit the old system with the least number of changes, the aim being not to disrupt or to completely change the original plan. The organization of mechanical and electrical forces is a problem in mechanical loading, and each individual mine presents its own problems. Plans which may succeed in one mine may fail in another and upon the management rests the responsibility of deciding the best method in each case.

Jan 1, 1930

The 75th 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, Shirl C. McArthur, President and General Manager, American Coal Company, Huntington, Utah, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. He introduced President Robert E. Murray, President, Western Division and Subsidiary Companies, The North American Coal Corporation, Bismarck, North Dakota. A biographical sketch follows: Since 1974, Mr. Murray has been President of the Western Division of The North American Coal Corporation, as well as President of The Falkirk Mining Company and The Coteau Properties Company, wholly-owned subsidiaries of North American. Previously, Mr. Murray, who has been associated with North American for twenty- three years, served as Vice President-Operations, Vice President - Eastern Division, and Assistant to the President of the Company. In these positions, he was responsible for North American operations in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Utah.

Jan 1, 1979

Oren. F. Bridwell: The President declares there is a quorum. Since the minutes of last year's meeting arc published in the Proceedings, unless there is objection, we will dispense with the reading of the minutes. There being no objection the minutes will he dispensed with. Is there a report from the Treasurer? Raymond Venous, Chairman, Auditing Committee: I'd like to submit the report for the Secretary-Treasurer for the previous year. Following is the financial report of the Treasurer from May 21, 1964 to May 24, 1965. (Report submitted) May we say, "Cussie," you keep a very, very nice set of hooks. Thank you. Oren F. Bridwell: You have heard the report of the condition of our treasury. We are solvent, at any rate. You have also heard the report of the Auditing Committee. If we might have a motion that the report of the auditing committee he accepted. Moved, seconded and carried. We'll have a report of the Resolutions Committee. Max A. Robe, Chairman, Resolutions Committee: Ladies and gentlemen, we have four resolutions, which we trust are going to he in the best interests of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the coal industry in general.

Jan 1, 1965

At 10 a. m. registration was commenced and completed. At 11:30 a. m. the meeting was called to order by the President, William Littlejohn. There was no unfinished business, new business nor reports of committees. The minutes of the previous meeting, as published in the proceedings, were approved. The report of the Treasurer was referred to the Auditing Committee who were auditing the report of the previous year. At 2 p. m., President William Little- john called the meeting to order for study session. Mr. J. Samuel Pyeatt, the new president of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, ad- dressed the Institute at length, expressing his pleasure at the opportunity of meeting the coal operators, pledging his cooperation toward the solution of the mutual problems that are arising. He reviewed the change in the Western Industrial situation; explained how the revenue of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail- road was being received from freight rates, only twenty-four per cent above the rates of 1914, yet laborers receive 97 per cent more, supplies cost 58 per cent more, showing that no reduction in rates can be expected unless other conditions are adjusted. He gave figures to show the immense sums, aggregating ten million dollars, that have been spent on improvements in the last ten years. The railroad is improving and will continue to improve. Mr. Pyeatt feels that the serious troubles of the railroad are over and that with the cooperation of the shippers, better service and more profits are ahead. He showed the increase in rates on farm products to be only 48 per cent, as against an average in- crease in price of farm products, them- selves, of DG per cent. The position of the farmer is not as serious, nor un- fair, as has been claimed. More equitable legislation is promised, and this is needed to offset the efforts of demagogues to deceive the people as to the actual facts. Much equipment has been put into the railroad, much new and powerful equipment, and ten of the largest narrow gauge locomotives ever built have just been ordered, engines that will do the work of three of the present locomotives. This ratio of improvement will be maintained throughout the narrow guage system, and the Rio Grande will not lag behind the shippers and the operators in co- operation. The President answered Mr. Pyeatt's remarks, and then called the meeting to order for discussion. The study sessions were held; papers were read by .J. H. Emrick, "Cutter Bits"; D. A. Stout, "Experiments in Mining Methods," and Harry Petersen, "Permissible Powder and Cushion Shooting." Tuesday, February 17, 1925 The meeting was called to order Tuesday morning at 10 a.m., and papers read by: F. C. Miller, "Safety Methods With The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company"; this was supplemented by a talk by 0. C. Irwin on "Automatic Mine Fan Control," illustrated by models of the apparatus used; Samuel Tescher, "The Operation of a Gaseous Mine."

Jan 1, 1925