Search Documents

Jan 1, 1957

It was said that the coal operators are losing a great advantage in permitting the oil producers to take the domestic market away from them. Coal is so much less expensive and more economical than oil that even the oil producers themselves are burning coal under their stills. No longer is the housewife afraid of machinery. Not only does she operate an automobile, but in her home she is used to vacuum sweepers, washing machines, refrigerators, and multitudinous devices. She is no longer machine-shy. An electrically operated stoker, if properly introduced and guaranteed with only a fraction of the enthusiasm that the oil furnace salesman shows, would get a ready reception. Several devices now on the market are much less complicated, much less apt to get out of order, than the oil burners. In place of an increased cost for the sake of convenience, the stoker will give all this convenience at a decreased cost. So said Mr. Herres. He said, however, that it must be enclosed so that the working parts are not too much in evidence. MR. McAULIFFE: While it appears possible to adapt a continuous feed to the needs of the furnace in an apartment or a house burning thirty tons or more annually, it is not yet possible to get a furnace that would satisfy the home which burns only seven or eight tons in a season. A delegate described the Garrison stoker which is designed to care for this problem. Mr. Herres said that the Pacific Coal Company had a small stoker furnace more simple than the Harrington. Pulverized coal equipment is being adapted to use in apartment houses. The stoker designed by Lloyd Garrison, State Engineer of Utah, was described, and also one which Mr. G. W. Megeath of Omaha, Nebraska, had manufactured, which Mr. McAuliffe says, is recommended only for Rock Springs coal. It was brought out that there are over forty installations of the "Iran Fireman" in Salt Lake City. For apartment buildings, there is no question as to their satisfaction. Many of the down town office buildings are so heated.

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1935

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

Cautionary Note about Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements made by us in this presentation that are not historical facts or that relate to our future plans, expectations, events or performance are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Our actual results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the risks described under the heading ?Risk Factors? in the Prospectus Supplement. All forward-looking statements are qualified by these risks and uncertainties. We undertake no obligation to update the information contained in any forward-looking statements unless required by law. All statements made by us in this presentation are further qualified in all respects by the information disclosed in the Prospectus.

Jan 1, 2007

PRESIDENT WETZEL: The meeting will come to order. We are pleased to see a few of the more hardy survived last night's-ordeal and are present this morning. The Secretary has some correspondence which he will read. SECRETARY WHITESIDE: Gentlemen, I have a couple of telegrams and a letter which I would like to read to you at this time. First, a telegram addressed to Mr. Wetzel: "Regret greatly necessity canceling my plans to be present at meeting. Appreciate your conveying my best wishes to members for successful and profitable session.

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1972

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1959

By Grainne A. Matthews

Jan 1, 2008

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 following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1982

Jan 1, 1969

Jan 1, 1935

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942

By Margaret N. Maxey

Man's capacity far fretting is endless, and no matter what difficulties we surmount, how many ideals we realize, there is a stealthy pleasure in rejecting mankind or the universe as unworthy of our approval. - Will Durant Until recently, reasons for favoring one or another energy alternative were advanced on the basis of technical considerations and economic realities. However, it is an indication of the cultural climate of our society and growing realization of why energy is our master resource that many citizens have begun to express concern about the social and ethical implications of our energy deci¬sion-making. A vivid indication of this shift toward ethical concerns is reflected in the attention being focused on conservation - even to the point of regarding it as a virtual panacea equivalent to a "free energy resource." Among others, the authors of a publication by Resources for the Future cautions us about the difficulties of defining conservation. They also point out that unrealistic expectations for achieving the high levels of conservation claimed by true believers may boomerang if, at the same time, we are morally required to maintain economic growth and robust productivity for the basic well-being of more people. In its economic meaning, conservation signifies the most economic or cost-effective applications of energy, together with other resources, in a given process or activity. To achieve conservation that is cost-effective, saving energy alone is not sufficient; the cost involved in saving the energy must be no greater than the cost of the energy that is saved. Using its thermodynamic meaning, conservation and efficiency are viewed as constrained by physical laws and measured against ideal limits set by these laws and processes. Since achieving higher levels of technical performance is not without costs, the economic meaning of conservation must be factored into technical possibilities. It is the ethical, equity and environmental meaning of conservation that concerns us here. In its third meaning, conservation consists in moderation as a value which appears inherently worthwhile both in itself and in relation to social choices dedicated to achieving distributive justice. The value of moderation seems predicated on the assumption that natural resources and the environment have fixed, finite, exhaustible capacities for satisfying human needs. Hence norms for moderating human behavior appear to require prescriptions by some authority. Such norms presuppose some agreement on "essential" uses of energy. However, the difficulties of setting behavioral norms loom large, because "... it is as difficult to determine essential energy consumption as to determine what is essential in any other phase of consumption, whether it involves food, clothing, shelter, or recreation." The ethical meaning of conversation is further complicated by a centuries-old argument over the proper exercise of stewardship - i.e., how best to develop natural resources. On the one hand, the preservationist position insists on an inviolate, "hands-off" policy and stands opposed to ongoing development of wilderness areas and mineral resources. On the other hand, the "scientific conservationist" who preaches the "gospel of efficiency" insists on development of resources based on principles of sustained-yield, multiple use and - in the case of competing claims - reserving resources or land for their "higher use." Current confusion reigns among opinion leaders in the environmental movement because they appear to have lost the genius of the original Conservation ethic, developed in the 19th century. They seem to think that conservation is preservation. The question I wish to explore is whether a single-minded, exclusive pursuit of "conservation" in its economic, thermodynamic and preservationist meanings may actually do more harm than good in serving the ethical goals of conservation. There

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1927

Jan 1, 1991

[CURTIS M. BELDEN RMCMI PRESIDENT 1999-2000 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 96th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 25 thru June 27,2000 Durango, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1999