Search Documents

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331; Denver 1, Colo. Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety-Appliances Co.; 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Anderson, Nephi W Standard Colombine Coal Co., Scofield, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1822 Metzerott Rd., Adelphi, Md. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., P.O. Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 6030 W. 55th P1., Arvada, Colo. Arentzen, Rolf F Lee-Norse Co., Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1965

Jan 1, 1987

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

The thirty-first regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11: 10 o'clock A. M., Wednesday, June 22nd, 1932, President T. H. Butler presiding. The Honorable Louis Marcus, Mayor of Salt Lake City, delivered the address of welcome. On motion of W. H. Bachman and seconded by D. J. Parker, it was voted that, inasmuch as the Minutes are printed in the annual bulletin, the reading of them be dispensed with. The President made his annual report. The Secretary-Treasurer made his annual report of the financial condition of the Institute. R. Dawson Hall addressed the meeting. The following committees were appointed by the President: Auditing-L. P. Pearce, Chairman; Joseph, Parmley, R. R. Knill. Nominating John Emrick, Chairman; D. J. Parker, John Marks. Resolutions-D. R. Wilson, Chairman; H. Petersen, Robert Williams, Jr. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was adjourned at 11: 55 o'clock A. M.

Jan 1, 1932

Jan 1, 1962

[ ] Thomas B. Egan RMCMI PRESIDENT 1996-1997 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 93rd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 28 thru July 1, 1997 Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Jan 1, 1996

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

Jan 1, 1923

Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co. Sundance Rt. Moorcroft, WY 82716 Charles R. Ahlbrecht Western States Surveying Inc. 7030 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 Dean Albon Monsanto Co. 800 No. Lindberg St. Louis, MO 631 67 Robert Anderson Mobil Oil Producing Inc. POB 17772 Denver, CO 8021 7 Stephen P. Antony Orbital Engineering 6789 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 David Ariotti Boyle Mining Engineering Service Rt. 1 Box 15M Helper. UT 84526 Douglas Auck Falkirk Mining Co. 103 McKinley Ave. Underwood, ND 58378 Roger Backrnan N. D. Crockett & Assoc. 3467 Sorenson Way Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Richard Bailey Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co. 602 Park Point Drive Golden, CO 80401 Earl W. Baker Baker & Co. 4965 Jackson St. Denver, CO 80216 Allen P. Barber San Juan Coal Co. 705 Ocio Farrnington, NM 87421 Edward Barker Process Equipment Builders POB 7506 Paducah, KY 42001 Larry Barton Carter Mining Co. 101 5 Teewinot Circle Gillette, WY 82716 Hugh Bastian American Carbide Corp. POB 2650 Ronald N. Batdorf Monsanto Co. Box 701 Saratoga, WY 82331 Georgetown, KY 40321 Doris A. Bauer Mobile Oil Corp. POB 17772 Denver, CO 80217 Jan Beam Blount International Ltd. 2570 So. Dayton Way #E-308 Denver, CO 80231 Mac Beaudry Falkirk Mining Co. 1029 Cannon Ln. Washburn, ND 58527 R. C. Beerbower Gates Engineering Co. Drawer A Beckley, WV 25801

Jan 1, 1982

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

Jan 1, 1964

Jan 1, 2006

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 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

David Wolach RMCI PRESIDENT 2001-2002 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 98th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 2002 Breckenridge, Colorado

Jan 1, 2001

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

By 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 E. R. Gibson

It is quite generally conceded that the coal mining industry is among the most progressive in the adoption of modern and efficient equipment and mining methods, but most woefully antiquated in many respects in the matter of systematic accounting. The cause of this condition is problematical, but is usually thought to be due to false economy. We realize that those who do not understand accounts, or like accounting, are inclined to be disdainful of accounts and statistics, and to under-estimate the benefits derived from the expense and labor involved in proper accounting. The business that is run without a proper accounting system is subject to haphazard financing and courts disaster. Furthermore, the operator who disposes of his product without due regard to the requirements of the industry as a whole, as reflected in the cost of doing business, is an unfair competitor. No one will deny that the possible production of coal in the United States is much in excess of the demand. While it is true there is an occasional shortage in certain localities, it is due to temporary abnormal conditions which are overcome in a short period of time, when the mines are again obliged to take idle time, and herein lies the danger, not alone to the operator who neglects to keep informed as to operating costs; but to his competitor as well. While physical conditions and operating methods differ materially, accounting methods must likewise differ in some respects, but irrespective of how the result may be obtained, a true statement of cost is absolutely essential. Daily cost statements may be preferred by some, but have proven unsatisfactory, generally speaking, because of variation in production as well as in both labor and material expense from day to day; therefore, we will confine our attention to a monthly cost statement. To be most effective, operating cost statements should be prepared and submitted to the officers as soon after the close of the month's busi¬ness as possible, to enable them to remedy any defects in the operations that might be discovered by an analysis thereof. Opinions differ materially with respect to the most efficient method of compiling and the distribution of labor and material. The writer believes that a time book which provides space in which to enter the number of hours worked each day of the month by each employe, together with distribution thereof, is the most accurate, simple and complete. This record will show the service performed by an employe each day of the month and the account to which same is properly chargeable. This, of course, refers only to the employe working by the-day or month. While there can be but little said concerning the compiling and distribution of miners' wages, as the weighman's bulletin used almost

Jan 1, 1921

By H. Petersen

If a coal mine producing two hundred thousand (200,000) tons of coal per year could effect a 2 per cent decrease in the percentage of slack there would be an additional 4,000 tons of prepared coal produced. Most operators will say that these prepared sizes of coal are worth about $3.00 more per ton to them than the slack or in other words an additional $12,000.00 pier year profit could be made by a decrease of 2 per cent in slack. A large tipple with all the finest modern equipment of shaker screens, conveyors, box car loaders, etc., can only produce a grade of coal dependent upon the coal delivered by the mine car at the top of the tipple. In the mine, coal-cutting machines have been doing their part for many years toward decreasing the percentage of slack. There is therefore, only one phase of production left where real effective work can be done, that is, intelligent and constant supervision of preparatory work and shooting. The quality of coal is really entirely dependent upon the kind of coal produced at the face in the mine. Our problem is therefore, at that place. The writer is thoroughly convinced that with the proper placing of holes the use of correct amount of a suitable explosive, thoroughly tamped, with the bug dust entirely removed from the mining, a decrease in slack can be effected. We will take up this problem under five headings. First-The proper placing of bore holes. Second-The proper amount of permissible powder. Third-The proper loading and stemming of the shot.-Cushing shooting. Fourth-The necessity of removing the bug dust from the mining. Fifth - The - standardization of rounds. First-The Proper Placing of Bore Holes. The most important thing and the real secret of successful blasting of coal is the proper placing of the bore hole. This results in the correct balancing of the shot and the securing of the maximum efficiency of the explo¬sive. If you are operating a mine with a 6-foot coal seam, you most likely are using a 6-foot cutter bar on the coal cutting machines. You should use three holes to properly bring down the coal. (1) A center shot in the middle of the room drilled flat, or rather parallel to the mining-the heights of this hole will depend upon the top parting. If the coal is frozen to the roof, it will be necessary to have the hole as close to the roof as possible. If there is a free parting, the hole may be placed lower but not over twelve inches from the roof. (2)

Jan 1, 1925

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

By B. W. Dyer

At about 8:30 o'clock on the morning of March 8, 1924, an explosion occurred in the Castle Gate No. 2 Mine of the Utah Fuel Company, Castle Gate, Utah, and 171 men lost their lives. The explosion was caused by the ignition of a comparatively small body of gas and was propagated throughout the mine by fine coal dust which had accumulated on the roof and ribs of the mine and by coal dust made by the explosion itself. Castle Gate No. 2 Mine was one of the best kept mines in the state and it was believed not only by the officials of the Utah Fuel Company, but by all others connected with the coal industry of the state that this was one of the safest mines in the entire state. The state had not been visited by a catastrophe for over twenty years and it was a general belief that the mines were kept in such condition that a catastrophe was almost impossible. During the preceding twenty years new mining officials from other fields had entered the state and seeing that sprinkling as done in Utah was far more elaborate than in most other coal mining sections of the country, caused them to believe that they were keeping their mines in an absolutely safe condition. When coal -mines suffer no mishap during a period of twenty years the general attitude relative to safety may become somewhat lax, not only with the operating officials, but also with the State Inspection Department. However, there were some who were more keen to appreciate the hazards of Utah coal dust and who predicted that if Utah mines were kept only damp but not wet, some day the state would be shocked by the news of a dreadful disaster. In a paper prepared and read before the Salt Lake City Chapter of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers in 1924, Mr. D. Harrington stated: "The writer had his first mining work in Utah mines spending nearly ten years in Utah, starting just after the Scofield explosion in 1900. After having been absent from the state for about eight years upon returning and spending a few days in a few properties, there appeared then to be a definite relaxation as to precautionary methods especially against dust; some of the properties which in 1900 to 1910 would have stopped work if for any reason water was not available for sprinkling purposes, were in 1918 definitely dry in many places, and in some instances there was also definite relaxation as to shooting regulations, some properties with electric shooting systems were allowing firing of certain shots while the men were in the mine. The Utah coal. dusts are too inflammable and explosive to allow of taking any chances and unless up-to-date and carefully maintained, the Utah coal mining world will hear to its dismay, that the very excellent record of the past twenty-three years as to explosions has been shattered. Hence, possibly it was not altogether a complete surprise that such a disaster occurred in Utah, but it was a surprise to many that it occurred in one of the best kept mines in the state and it was that fact that led the coal mining men of Utah to believe that the state coal mining laws should be modified.

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