Search Documents

PRESIDENT PRYDE: I am sure we have all listened with interest to the presentation of this subject. Anything that promises economy in coal mining today is welcomed by all of us. We will now have a discussion on this paper. If any of you gentlemen want to ask any questions, you may do so. I think we will develop something of interest and along the lines of economy. That is the first consideration of a coal mining man. MR. H. D. RANDALL: It is an interesting fact that in manufacturing we find the greatest economy results from giving a man the simplest possible act to perform, while there is nothing too complicated for a machine. If we want to put up a set screw we find it cheaper to let one man set it up and the other screw it in. The maximum economy is what we are after. Similarly, one of the points of greatest interest which Mr. Ickis has emphasized, is that this automatic equipment not merely dispenses with a manual operator, but also performs certain functions which the operator cannot do. It provides an inherent protection to the apparatus and service not possible under manual operation. We very rarely have cases of failure with these automatic equipments, .and consequently have the advantage not only of having eliminated the operator's salary, but also his mistakes. We have had a large number of these equipments in use for several years, so that their practicality is now thoroughly proven, and the trend of practice now indicates that the automatic idea will be further extended and will become universal for such classes of service. MR. D. C. McKEEHAN (Union Pacific Coal Company) : My notion of an automatic sub-station is one that does not necessarily require new equipment beyond the control equipment; so that any of you that are interested in it can take up with the manufacturers and find out how much it would cost to change any equipment. The greatest point I think is the fact it eliminates the several nationalities from operating the set, either on day shift or night shift. They can so lock the control as to make it impossible for anyone to start or stop it, except the one who has the authority. Another point I do not believe was brought out very clearly: It would be particularly advantageous to people who buy power, and if you could have several sets in parallel, it would allow you to start the shift with one set and cut in the additional sets as the shift progresses. There are various operations that stop at the end of each shift, and-one or two or three sets can be cut out, leaving the load on one set, providing the size of the copper is sufficient to supply all the points of the mine. Another point I want to bring out: In case you have quite a number of sets distributed along transmission line, the switch trips, the operation restores the service, and you may have several hundred-or in case with us, we would have several thousand-K. V. A. of Motor Generator Sets and Rotaries, that would be starting at once, and the switch would automatically trip out again. MR. RANDALL: Another form of control was described as the so-called supervisory control. This control could be started up so the starting would not be synchronous, but could be spread out over a sequence. MR. McKEEHAN: I think that is rather a theoretical consideration for coal miners. They are standing at the controller ready to shut it off unless there is some selective method of starting various sets- MR. RANDALL: I had in mind this supervisory control, one man, a central operator who would determine which station should start and he would take time enough to have his load come on gradually. He would not permit all the installations to come on simultaneously, but come on in succession: MR. McKEEHAN: You misunderstand me. Suppose we had the main switch at Rock Springs, which supplies several camps, and there are several

Jan 1, 1924

By L. C. Clare

In a meeting of this kind where everyone present is connected with or engaged in coal mining, and where each one is present with the set purpose of learning new thoughts or ideas, the subject of the saving of life by any method in the industry is a vitally interesting and important one. On the cost per ton basis, it mounts to a formidable figure especially so during these days of depression and stagnant, or no business. But entirely outside of the human side of the question, to lose lives would cost more than saving them. Your insurance under haphazard safety measures would mount, loss of time due to accidents would impair efficiency among employees and the breaking of the morale of the staff, due to criticism of lax methods would cost more than an efficient safety program. Taking it for granted that most of you are looking at the question from the viewpoint of a yearly or five-year cost sheet, and that at this time you are doing all that can be done without bringing a ruinous cost upon your companies, I can offer only one suggestion: Raise the quality of your safety, or lower the cost. In this meeting, there should be no question of standing still or retreating in the quality of safety, so I will amend the suggestion with "Raise the quality and lower the cost." We have learned that when the coal beds were forming, nature sealed them in with a strata of mud that the ages have turned to shale, sealing them effectively against the deteriorating influences of the air. Mudite is carrying out nature's plan of coal preservation to the inside of the coal mine. Text books teach us that a large proportion of the vegetation that forms our present coal beds grow on what might be termed mud, later falling and being buried practically where it grew by mud, then on being subjected to heat, pressure and time, was changed to coal. The mud being subjected to the same three forces forms our present shale stratas. Now if nature saw fit to use this solidified mud as a preservative through countless centuries, isn't it reasonable to expect that occasional coatings on the ribs and roofs of entries and rooms will aid materially in preserving our coal and coal dust? Nature took mud and formed it into shale; mudite takes the shale, reduces it into dust, adds water and makes a mud, applies it to the ribs, roofs and floors of the mine in a thin coating

Jan 1, 1925

By C. B. Huntress

"We have ourselves to blame in the steel industry for our condition." These words were addressed twelve days ago by James A. Farrell, President of the United States Steel Corporation, to his "comrades" at a meeting of the American Iron and Steel Institute. They carry a note of challenge to all industry, and particularly to the coal industry, where they point the way to the pressing need for operators everywhere to get their feet under one table. It is that note which I would stress to all producers. You have yourselves to blame for your condition. True, there are inter-district competition and competition of substitute fuels, but they'll always be with us, more or less, and the only sensible, sane course is to remove the evils within our respective districts, which can be done only by constructive effort along cooperative lines. It's the same story in Alabama, the same in Illinois and elsewhere. The larger number of the men gathered here are at the front, as it were, in the business of mining coal. They are the men who are doing a remarkable operating job. And naturally, the sessions of this annual meeting treat of news from the front, of technical problems. But, as in actual warfare, those at the front are often uninformed of developments in the rear. They keep on fighting without fully sensing the significance of a disaster at headquarters. You've played your eighteen holes today and evidenced the efficiency of your technique in the, production of coal. It is not amiss to take advantage of this moment, the nineteenth hole, to ponder over what it's all about. After all, what do improvements in the art of mining mean if business policies engulf you in red ink? To the extent that mechanization is a factor in increased overhead, which in turn increases the pressure to produce regardless of market demand, it only aggravates our troubles unless there is the controlling influence of coordinated effort.

Jan 1, 1931

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

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

By John H. Emrick

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

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1931

By Benedict Shubart

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

Jan 1, 1921

Profiled below are the eight RMCMI 1999 Scholarship Award winners. Seven of the eight attended the 95th Regular Meeting and convention at Crested Butte, Colorado in late June. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. In addition to receiving a $1,500 tuition credit, thanks to the Patrons of the Institute annual funding of scholarships, each received recognition at the luncheon with a brass plaque signifying this honor. The winners are guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday and have an incredible opportunity to meet many in the coal industry who could be potential employers. The state vice presidents host the winners and pay for their travel and hotel expenses. This is a continuing scholarship and may be renewed for tuition credit again in the senior year if they remain a full time student and if recommended by the dean of their college or university. A resident from each of the eight member RMCMI states is selected by the Scholarship committee from Board approved institutions. Criteria for these annual awards is that the recipient (1) is a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit the junior year. (2) Be both a U. S. citizen and a legal resident of the member stare. (3) Maintain good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthwhile project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his company. Through donations of $100 or more to the Patrons of the Institute, each Patron receives a plaque and a year bar for each additional year contributions are made. These may be directed to RMCMI Patrons, 3000 Youngfield Street, #324, Lakewood, CO 80215-6553. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Jennifer Jannusch University of Arizona Jennifer is the daughter of Peggy and Larry Jannusch of Phoenix. She graduated from Shadow Mountain High School in the top 15% of her class. She has been on the Dean's List and won the National Collegiate Engineering Award. Jennifer belongs to the Association of Engineering Geologists, SME, Best Buddies, and enjoys running, painting and languages. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Alan S. Maste¬rs Colorado School of ties Alan is the son of Lee and Ellen Masters of Lakewood, Colorado. He graduated from Lakewood High School and has been on the Dean's List at CSM. He resides with his wife, Karen, and children Morgan, Nicole and Scott. Spending twelve years as a mechanic and semi-truck driver, Alan decided to return to school to pursue an engineering degree. Having maintained a 4.0 G.P.A. at Arapahoe Community College, he was accepted at CSM where he continues to excel. He firmly believes that the future of our country will be enhanced by our ability to utilize our natural resources. Alan enjoys time with his family, fishing, water skiing, bowling and reading Tom Clancy or John Grisham novels.

Jan 1, 1999

The 70th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Steamboat Village Inn, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The session was called to order by Past President O. F. Lewis. Consultant, Colowyo Coal Co., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Lewis introduced President A. F. Geiger, Manager, Navajo Mine, Utah International, Inc., Fruitland, New Mexico. Following are Mr. Lewis' remarks: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the institute, guests and friends, welcome to Steamboat Springs and the 70th meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From all appearances this is our largest meeting and should be the most successful. When I last spoke to you I was President of Colowyo Coal Company and the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute but that has changed. Colowyo Coal Company was acquired last Dec. by W. R. Grace & Co. and operates as Colowyo Coal Company, Division of W. R. Grace & Co. I am confident these people will make a worthwhile contribution to the coal Industry.

Jan 1, 1974

By Douglas Kathol

Coal in the 1990?s Exit of the integrated oil company [Shell Arco Mobil Exxon Mapco Kerr McGee Hansen Nerco Sun] Continued decline in coal prices Significant mergers & acquisitions (M&A) activity ?Most properties traded, some twice ?Significant consolidation ?Massive recapitalization ?New industry leaders ?Frustrated expectations

Jan 1, 2002

[ATZ, Inc. American Mining Congress Anaconda Minerals Company Andalex Resources, Inc Arapahoe Energy Consultants Atlas Powder Co Becor Western Inc. Mr & Mrs. Bernard Bernstrom Black Beauty Resouces British Mining Consultants (USA) Limited]

Jan 1, 1988

By John Pfisterer

Leadership Priorities in a New Business Environment ?Komatsu Equipment Company ?Health and Safety of Our Workforce ?The Green Economy & Market Challenges ?Equipment Trends ?Our Business Approach

Jan 1, 2009

[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

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

The thirtieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11: 20 o'clock A. M., Wednesday, June 3, 1931, President G. A. Kaseman presiding: PRESIDENT KASEMAN spoke in part as follows: I have in mind to say a few words of welcome to the coal operators, but I am afraid that the words I might have said would be hardly appropriate, because I believe the coal operators are in the minority today. It demonstrates to my mind something that has been running through it for some little time. When the hard times came on a year ago, we thought we were going to get over it rather lightly. I recall at this time a year ago we thought that the depression was about at an end. The National Administration from Washington told us we had reached bottom and things were going to perk up, and for a few weeks or maybe a month or more there was a sort of optimism throughout the country. I had been East, and when I re- turned to Albuquerque I said to my friends and associates that things were getting better in the East and that they would soon be better out here and we will not have felt the hard times very much. But I have learned differently since. I have learned that hard times are no respecter of communities or corporations, or persons, or activities, and that we all suffer alike. On that account we find that our Institute is suffering just the same as other activities, whether national, state, local, social, or what- ever it may be. Our attendance is light or, that account. We all know when times are hard we have to stay at home and watch things closer than when they are good. And when they are good we feel that the machine will run of its own momentum and in this way we can get away to see what is going on in the world. When times are hard we have to stay at home and look after everything from day to day and hour to hour.

Jan 1, 1931

By L. M. Cooley

The coal stripping project of the Edna Coal Company in Routt County, Colorado, near Oak Creek, is not greatly different than many other such projects in the United States-with two rather significant exceptions. The project is at an altitude of approximately 8,000 feet, and the topography is that characteristic of mountainous terrain. The first exception-that of high altitude-makes year round operation a challenge. The second exception-that of rugged topography makes the haulage of materials a difficult task.

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 2009

The Sixty-Second Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10 a.m. by Past President Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Bridwell thanked the Joy Manufacturing Company fer the very fine party of the previous evening. He also paid tribute to a very fine Committee - the Program Committee: O. F. Lewis, Chairman, Oren Bridwell, Edward G. Fox, Glen E. Sorensen, Joseph E. Ward, R. R. Williams, Jr., and John Peperakis. Mr. Bridwell then introduced George A. Nugent, Vice President and General Manager, Big Horn Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, as follows: "It is my privilege and duty to call this 62nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order and to extend to you all a cordial welcome.

Jan 1, 1966

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925