Search Documents

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky. Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 3, 1952, Howard B. Crandell, President, presiding. PRESIDENT CRANDELL: Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order, and I would like to introduce to you your Chairman of this meeting, Mr. John B. Hughes, General Manager of the Union" Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs... (Applause) CHAIRMAN HUGHES: From the activities around last night, I supposed there would be quite a few that would be unable to attend this morning. I am sorry there are not more here because I am sure we have some interesting papers. First on the program this morning is, The Effect of Continuous Mining on Today's. Coal Industry by Mr. William Wearly, Vice President of the Joy Manufacturing Company. Mr. Wearly: (Applause)

Jan 1, 1952

Chairman: Mr. R. C. Heers, Project Manager, Kaiser Company, Inc. CHAIRMAN HEERS: Fellows, I can't say it gives me a lot of pleasure to call this meeting together because I would rather somebody else had the job. I haven't anything to say this morning and I think the sooner we get started with the fellows that have something to say, the better pleased everybody will be. The first speaker this morning is Mr. John Griffen of the McNally Pittsburgh Company. He has a talk on coal preparation and I am pleased to present Mr. Griffen.

Jan 1, 1947

By W. T. Ferguson

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It seems particularly appropriate that we come at this time to make a report on a phase of mechanical, mining of coal which had its birth in this region and was cradled and nurtured here until it assumed a lusty manhood that has made its presence felt in every coal field in this country and in foreign fields as well. More than twenty years ago shaker conveyors were introduced into the states covered by your Institute, and immediately, forward looking men saw that here were possibilities for the operator's dream of a continuous flow of coal from face to tipple, if this latest device could be made self-loading. The skill and ingenuity of men in the Rock Springs district quickly brought this about and in but a few short years .more coal was being loaded by Duckbills in this field than by any other means. Not content with this outstanding success, still other men dreamed of having this same Duckbill moved across the face under its own power, and so this same district produced the first power swing Duckbill.

Jan 1, 1947

By J. J. Wilson

To explain in detail the manufacture of seamless pipe and tubes is something I venture to say that has never been done to a point entirely satisfactory. The manufacture of seamless tubes dates back to 1885, when Mannesmann Brothers invented the roll-piercing mill. Ten years later R. C. Stiefel invented the disc-piercer, which first came into general use in this country. At the present time the Mannesmann roll and the Stiefel disc-piercers are used, the Mannesmann rolls particularly for the larger size billets. Sizes produced at first were relatively small and the product was cold drawn to provide a smooth surface. The early uses of seamless material were chiefly for mechanical purposes, such as boiler tubes and bicycle tubing, and the latter for some years taking the heaviest tonnage. Improvements in the hot process were gradually made; the early Pilger type rolls were largely superseded by the two-high rolling mill for rolling out the tube after being pierced, the reeling machine for diagonal rolling, the sizing mill for giving exact outside diameter, and finally the sinking mill for reducing larger diameter tubes to smaller diameters.

Jan 1, 1932

CHAIRMAN I. N. BAYLESS: Will you come to order, gentlemen? They told me that you had a very interesting meeting yesterday and a good time last night. Our program is rather long this morning, and I am not going to take up any of your time, as we got started a little late. I will ask Mr. Marchant to make a few announcements. (Announcements.) SECRETARY MARCHANT: I just noticed in this morning's paper a rather serious accident at Hobbs, New Mexico, in which George Kaseman, a former President of the Institute, and a loyal member ever since its organization, was killed. I think that this meeting should go on record and prepare a resolution of condolence, etc., and with your per- mission we will have the Committee on Resolutions do that. I assume that will be all right. CHAIRMAN BAYLESS: Our first paper and discussion this morning will be Education of the Miner, by Thomas Allen, Chief Coal Mine Inspector of Colorado. Mr. Allen.

Jan 1, 1938

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924

The Wednesday morning session was called to order by President Lewis at 9:00 am, He called on Bob Wilson to conduct the business meeting. In the absence of any of the Auditing Committee, the treasurer's report, which had previously been examined by them was read. He asked for a motion of approval. It was made, granted and approved. The Resolution Committee was called on to make its report. Mr. Shirl McArthur read the following report: (1) "WHEREAS, the Pneumoconiosis or Black Lung provisions of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act which have been construed and administered largely as a welfare program rather than as just compensation for occupational disease has resulted in enormous expenditures and commitments from the Federal Treasury, WHEREAS, the imposition of the full cost of future welfare oriented black lung awards on coal operators without regard to workmen's compensation standards and without due process in granting benefits is grossly unfair and discriminatory to the coal operator and places an undue burden on the present cost of coal,

Jan 1, 1973

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

MR. STROUP: As soon as the mine workers realize that machine loading is going to be with us permanently, they will gradually accept the view that they, as well as the Mine Operators, will be in the end better off. Don't you find that to be true? MR. BUTLER: I do find that the antagonistic feeling that prevailed at the start is getting less and less and that the miners are co-operating with us. The machine is going to stay with us and I believe it is going to be better for them because instead of having the hard work of heaving coal, they will merely run the machinery that heaves the coal for them. I believe they all feel that way about the matter. MR. McAULIFFE: Mr. Farnham, out of his professional diplomacy, was very careful not to even mention his own machine by name. I would like to say a word about salesmen and about the men who develop the machines. They are perhaps doing more for the industry than we are doing ourselves. This applies also to the railroad business that I put a great part of my life in. If it were not for the energy, courage, and ingenuity of the men who manufacture machines, we would not occupy the advanced position we do today in the mining world.

Jan 1, 1924

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 4, 1952, Albert M. Keenan, Chairman, presiding. CHAIRMAN KEENAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have our third and final clay of our program, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your attendance, both in the past meetings and this one this morning... I am particularly delighted to see that we are all here this morning after the very enjoyable banquet last night. It is a little difficult to get people gathered up after such an occasion.

Jan 1, 1952

MR. STOUT: The picture shows the plan of the "V"-system as worked at Berwind mine, in a small strip of coal adjacent to the 4th right entry. The dotted line (indicating) show the position of the break rows as set for each of the three consecutive breaks. In two cases the break rows failed to function properly and as a result, the roof caved along the points of the "V's" as well as back along the faces a short distance. This affected the ventilation to a certain extent, but was remedied immediately by cutting through the points near the cave and setting additional timbers. At the present time we are putting in the break row of heavy red spruce props, making the row straight instead of curved as is shown in the picture; in this way we believe we can better control the breaks. The three "V" entries were driven up 14 feet wide, for a distance of 260 feet without cross-cuts. A very neat and substantial line brattice was carried up each entry as the places advanced. The principal factors in determining the success of this system are ventilation, roof control, and transportation. We are well pleased with the results from these three "V" places and now have four other places, about 500 feet to the west of these, driving at the present time in which we hope to get still better results. A MEMBER: What centers did you use there? MR. STOUT: We used 70 feet. This may be increased or decreased according to local conditions. MR. F. W. WHITESIDE (Chief Engineer, Victor-American Fuel Co.) Will you please describe roughly how your cars are handled? MR. STOUT: Cars are brought from the parting and pushed up along the faces by a storage battery locomotive. The faces are about 70 feet long and we found that five or six cars can be loaded and transported very conveniently. It is important to get a quick exchange of cars, and in this way we were able to keep the shovelers busy at all times. A MEMBER: What is the grade in your "V" entries? MR. STOUT: Five per cent in favor of the loaded trip. A MEMBER: What is the angle of your "V" faces? MR. STOUT: The angle at the throat is 45 degrees. MR. SAMUEL ANDREWS: In what direction does the air travel? MR. STOUT: The air travels down the dip entries and is deflected up the first "V" entry, and travels along the points, and returns down the last entry. There is no more difficulty in ventilating "V" faces than in ventilating rooms, providing the points are kept open. A MEMBER: What amount of air do you have in that section? MR. KAISER (Superintendent, Berwind Mine): Eighteen thousand cubic feet per minute. MR. ANDREWS: It is necessary, Mr. Stout, to brattice these places?

Jan 1, 1925

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

By G. A. Knox

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject assigned to me would cover a great many pages if it were gone into thoroughly. Therefore. I have just touched on a few of the most important points. I think that everyone engaged in the production of commercial coal understands all about its preparation, but I will set forth my views as to how I believe it is best accomplished. In order to produce the best prepared coal, your first attention should be to the miner at the working face. The most careful system of blasting should be adopted to avoid heavy charging of holes which results in the shattering of the coal. The lump, or any other screened sizes that may be screened from coal that has been improperly shot, are subject to greater degradation in transportation and handling, as well as reducing screened sizes, which results in dissatisfied customers in the first case, and lower realization in the latter.

Jan 1, 1928

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

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 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

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

By J. A. Smith

The topic assigned me by the Chairman of the Institute, "Safety Practices in Franklin and Williamson Counties, Illinois," I fear will necessarily resolve itself into a paper on shale dust, its application and the results obtained. I returned .only last week from a three weeks trip through these counties at which time, through the courtesy extended me by the operators, I had ample opportunity to visit and inspect many of the largest mines in the field, some of which are among the largest in the United States. With the exception of shale dust and ventilation, I see but vary few instances where the Illinois mines are further advanced in safety precautions than the western mines, and in some respects I believe the operators of the West are further advanced in safety methods than their eastern brothers. Great care is exercised in handling of all ventilation currents. This is an aboslute necessity, as this field is quite gaseous, and the peculiar geological structure of the overlying and underlying strata makes airtight seals very

Jan 1, 1924

MR. ENZI: hank you very much. I'm sure there?s a lot of you out there just realizing that Rock Springs and Gillette is not one city. I'm sure there's a lot of you wondering why a person from a town who has the image in the national media that the town of Gillette has is talking to you about image. I had a person this morning ask me if Gillette wasn't the end of the world. The only response I can give is "no, but you can see it from there." We have been researched a lot and, I realize, we've been very lucky because I've observed that researchers cause cancer in rats. In fact a wonder drug is one that has no effect on mice. In fact I've been thinking of posting a sign in my office that would read "due to the large number of interviews by journalists who already have their articles written, we would most respectfully request that anyone wishing to insult the city of Gillette, please limit themselves to 3,000 words or 15 insults, whichever is shorter." I don't know if any of you saw the article in Playboy about three months ago on the city of Gillette. What you probably don't realize about that article is that that was an attempt by Playboy magazine to see if they couldn't change their image to a national municipal magazine. I think it's important to know Gillette is the frontier city, a pioneer city, it's a shopping center for northeast Wyoming and most importantly, we're the energy capital of the nation. We're on the threshold of the Powder River Basin and we will be the nation's energy solution. Besides coal, we're, already the heart of the state's leading oil producing area and we have vast uranium resources. But I, want to tell you the biggest resource that we have is, the people who have come to live in Gillette. You will find Gillette a busy, young, pulsating community. We're experiencing the excitement of growth. We're welcoming a higher percentage of newcomers than any other town in the nation. Yes, growth to us is exciting. Where else can you get ten years of experience in two years? We realize you can't maintain the status quo. Growth can be painful but not as painful as the alternative, recession and depression. For a little bit of background, we are now at 16,000 people and we have another 4,000 people who live on the outside but look like they live on the inside. The Census Bureau says that we have, 11,225 people but we have that many people in a traffic jam on the Douglas Highway in one day. I?ll , tell you about a few things happening in Gillette. I think it's very important to emphasize that I didn't , do these things; it's the youth and the energy of the community that has done these things. Right now the city of Gillette has 32 major projects underway. We have water for 50,000 people and we're seeking more water. The city in 1975 was 1 .8 square miles. Last year alone we annexed I square mile. We build 10 miles of paved streets a year. For the last 8 years we've doubled our parks' budget. I

Jan 1, 1982