Search Documents

[Andrew Allen Glenwood Springs, Colorado C. S. Allen 211 Utah Oil Building, 10 West Broadway, Salt Lake City 1, Utah Earl W. Allen 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Louis B. Allen 411 Walker Bank Building, Salt Lake City, Utah Thomas Allen State Coal Mine Inspector of Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado J. B. Ambler P. O. Box 591, Denver, Colorado Nephi W. Anderson Dragerton, Utah F. F. Argust 270 High Street, Pueblo, Colorado E. K. Arnston : 4601 West 26th Avenue, Denver 12, Colorado Abel Audin Somerset, Colorado Clement Audin, Jr Paonia, Colorado Ralph Andin P. 0. Box 285, Somerset, Colorado ]

Jan 1, 1955

Jan 1, 2000

By Lyman Fearn

Men and institutions are what they are largely because of inheritance. Out of the past comes experience that enables men to build more wisely than did preceding generations. The field of possibilities has widened as the horizon of men's vision has been extended. The realization of these possibilities has depended largely on the application of men's natural endowments, brain and brawn, to the problems at hand. In the field of mechanized mining, Wyoming has a greater percentage of men with vision, who have a realization of the possibilities of mechanized mining, than any other state in proportion to tonnage production. With the introduction of mechanized mining systems have come problems that have caused the men who are connected with the safety work much thought. Discussions on mechanical drilling, cutting, loading, conveying, haulage, etc., have come in for their share of the debate. There have been a few attempts made to show that mechanical mining is safer than are the more primitive ways of doing underground work by man power. We also have a number of places in the coal producing States of the United States, where the mechanized systems have been abandoned chiefly on account of the safety element involved bringing about condemnation of the system by State inspection forces. Certain types of scraper systems have been condemned, and some have voiced opposition to long faces. This would lead us to believe that the question is still a debatable one as far as the safety element is concerned. It is only fair that we discuss the operations of mechanical systems and from the results obtained take analysis of conditions as they exist, basing our conclusions from the results obtained.

Jan 1, 1928

By Ted Schwinden

It's my pleasure to welcome the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute to Montana. Now that you've ended a 74 year history of meeting outside our borders, I hope you'll be back more often. Even if I can't convince you to come back before 2060, when another 74 years will be up, I'm confident the Kalispell and Flathead Lake area will do the persuading for me. In recent weeks, I've made a number of speeches around the state pointing out just how wrong the revenue projections in Montana's state government made in April of '85 were when we came to April of '86. Since the middle of this month, Montana's legislators have been in Helena struggling to balance a state budget that, by the end of fiscal year '87, threatened to be some $88 million in the red. Other western states reliant on natural resource and agricultural economies have found themselves caught in the same deflationary spiral. The "window of opportunity" I proposed and the 1985 Montana Legislature passed, couldn't have been opened at a more difficult time. What was envisioned as an incentive to expand Montana's coal production, and our tax base, ran aground on low oil prices and excess hydroelectric power. De- spite the one-third severance tax rebate offered on new coal production, year-to-date figures published in the June 2nd Coal Week show that production in Montana is down almost 10 per- cent from last year. Again, we're not alone. Production in Wyoming is down 8 percent and in North Dakota, it has dropped 13 percent. An over- all 3 percent production decline in western states looks even worse when contrasted against a 12 percent increase for your eastern competitors. Montana's "window of opportunity" had the potential to be a significant signal to your industry. That potential was quickly tempered by the inability of Arab nations to stabilize world energy prices. If any of us had forgotten, the last twelve months have reminded western states that the well-being of our natural resource economies has a tremendous impact on the ability of all levels of government to provide services. The past year has also driven home that in the world of business and in the business of the world, risk-taking is still the name of the game. The Western Governors recognize the problems facing this industry - and our states - and we're prepared to fight for the future of western coal. In the past two decades, legitimate environmental concerns have created a vast body of new legislation affecting coal producers. The industry has been required to meet new reclamation standards - tough regulations relating to ground water, air quality and wildlife habitat. To the industry's credit, coal companies have hired professionals with the technical know-how to do it right. Rather than considering reclamation laws to be an unreasonable burden, today's coal company is more likely to view its reclamation efforts as a source of corporate pride. In a sense, the industry and the agencies which regulate it have matured together . . . although at times OSM is reluctant to admit that either of us capable of or willing to play by the rules. Certainly some abuses exist and OSM's oversight has been helpful in ensuring parity between those states willing to comply and those that would rather defy federal law. Nonetheless, penalizing the more modem and responsible western coal industry for abuses that occur elsewhere is both unfair and counterproductive. Federal penalties range from "cruel and unusual" reporting requirements to the proposed electricity tax that would effectively force utilities and ratepayers who have already met the sulphur emission standards to subsidize those who have dodged their cleanup responsibilities. As a member of the Alliance for Acid Rain Control, I have joined corporate leaders, academicians, environmental representa-

Jan 1, 1986

PRESIDENT MARKS: This is a matter, I think, in which we are all very much interested, and I know We will have considerable discussion on the subject. MR. GIBSON: Wouldn't it be a fact, Mr. Trick, if a mine was laid off on the block system, it would require less ventilation, less cubic feet of air per minute, and therefore you would have that much better ventilation by

Jan 1, 1926

By S. W. Farnham

Those who remember the years of patient effort and the slow results obtained in the first introduction of electrical coal cutters and locomotives will, I think, admit that mechanical loading of coal is unquestionably being established at a much more rapid rate than any previous application of machinery to reduce manual labor in mines. There are many operators who consider the progress of the loaders today as slow, but considering the number of years it took to thoroughly establish electrical coal cutters and locomotives, and comparing it with the short time that the mechanical loader has been on the market, and the results that have been obtained today, they will admit, I think, that the progress of the latter is much more rapid. It is about 35 years since the advent of the electrical coal cutter and electric locomotive. Their use has brought about these improved conditions, increased tonnage per mine and other features, which are of assistance to the installation of mechanical loaders. The management and the technical staff in practically all of the American mines are trained in the use of electrical machinery and understand its operation, care and maintenance. . There is frequently, a surplus of electrical power and wiring available to take care of the small requirements of the electrical loader. The mechanical loader, therefore, starts today with the ground prepared for it. Those manufacturing companies who have had years of experience in the design and construction of mining machinery, know in a large measure what to incorporate in their designs to make the parts of the new type of machine effectively strong and to operate with efficiency under the severe conditions encountered in mining service. All these advantages greatly assist the success of a new type of machine such as the mechanical loader. In spite of these advantages, however, there are bound to be some failures. All new types of loaders have to be developed. We hear of some that are a success and some that are set aside. The field of application of each type and its limitations first must be determined by actual operation. The earlier loaders had to be changed and improved in design as weaknesses developed. Not all of the new types of coal loaders have been built by mining machinery manufacturers of long experience, and the lack of experience in this line is responsible for some of the early failures. The coal mining company staffs and also those of the loader companies had to learn what the operating factors were that made mechanical loading a success. The difference in results obtained by loaders in different properties under similar physical conditions indicates that the mine management is a very large, if not the major factor, affecting the efficiency of mechanical loading. Many articles have been written on the question of loading. The subject has been quite fully discussed at recent coal meetings and in the technical press. It is not always as easy or simple a matter to form conclusions as may first appear as to one's own particular loading problem. Mechanical loading is a comparatively new art, and many companies while claiming that loaders are quite successful, do not have an accurate line on the actual saving they are affecting. Many of them have only a few of the factors taken into account in their costs. Many loaders have been generally bought without very careful consideration given to all details and except where extremely favorable conditions prevail, failure resulted. When contemplating the installation of mechanical loading, one naturally desires to select the type of loader that will, fit his mining conditions. The things

Jan 1, 1924

By John McNeil

Mr. President, and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal-Mining Institute-Gentlemen : I appreciate the distinction of addressing this representative body of men upon a subject that lies so close to the heart of each one of us, and which is one of the principal objects of our gathering here today, in this beautiful city-so beautiful, with its grand and glorious mountains looking down upon us, that its charm makes us almost forget the men we left toiling "underneath the ground." But that object-the safeguarding of our coal-miners, who spend the greater part of their lives delving in the bowels of the earth-is the cause of our gathering from the "rock-ribbed" States of Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Colorado. And, as I look about me, my eye lights on the face of many an old-time friend- on some with whom I have walked for more than thirty years; so, whatever the merit of this little talk of mine, it cannot be said that it was made by a "tenderfoot." You must not for a moment think that I shall attempt the impossible task of completely covering so comprehensive a subject as '(Accidents in Coal Mines,' and take much more time than has been allotted me, or would be advisable for me to consume. So I shall confine myself, as briefly as possible, to some of the most common causes of accidents, and the possible means by which these disasters may be diminished. For a great many years the cause of mine accidents and their prevention have been the subject of grave thought and investigation by both national and state governments. As early as 1835 Great Britain appointed a royal commission of talented men, possessing special knowledge in the conduct of coal- mining, also eminent authorities in science and its application, to search into these matters. Since 1835 there has been a succession of such commissions of research, at frequent intervals, in all countries wherever coal has

Jan 1, 1913

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 138 AmerCable 130 Andalex Resources, Inc 82 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 83 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 86 Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co 87 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 12 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 88 Dakota Coal Company 89 Empire Machinery Company 90 Energy West Mining Company 91 GH Hensley Industries 92, 93 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 96 Ingersoll-Rand Company 131]

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 2007

By Leigh Freeman

The War for Talent ?McKinsey & Company 1997 and 2000 survey ?2001 book by Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod, Harvard Business School Press

Jan 1, 2007

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

Jan 1, 1997

By J. A. Bullington

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Some of you men may know who are familiar with what we have been doing in the C. F. & I. the last three years, that we have revamped our entire method of cost accounting from the pit bosses' report through to the final report of the president. The basic ideas involved in our cost system are not ours. They were given us by one of the best management and industrial engineering concerns in the country-at least they have that reputation. All I can do now is to try to pass on to you some of the ideas we have from various sources and the methods we have used in teaching those ideas to our coal men on cost accounting. This will not be a technical paper. I tried to put it in language we could all understand, and I hope I will be talking the same language that you gentlemen talk when you think about the cost of your coal in your own mines. Accounting of all kinds is classed as overhead expense, and as overhead expense we must justify its cost by the service it gives the rest of the organization. That brings us up to the problem of making the cost department pay its own way, just the same as the power plant has to pay its own way, and we have gotten away from the old idea of cost accounting in that it is sufficient within itself. The cost sheets are only so good as they enable the operating man to reduce his costs. The cost sheets are only just so much work for the cost department, and if they do not help the operating man to control his costs, we figure that is so much work wasted. The cost department works for the operating department.

Jan 1, 1931

By Dallas Grubbs

Agenda ?Growth Projections ?Economic Indicators ?Mining Equipment Growth ?Tire Supply ?Michelin Actions to Increase Capacity ?Michelin?s Challenges & Recommendations

Jan 1, 2006

By V. O. Murray

Gentlemen: I'm glad to see the crowd that's here this morning, glad to renew acquaintances with many old friends, and if you'll look at the program you'll see a heading there which states that as President I have the honor and pleasure to be here to address the membership of this meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, this being the 49th regular meeting. The tentative schedule of this gathering lists on the program the "President's Address," and I want to assure you that this will not be an address or a lengthy speech. It's said that a good speaker is one who arises to the occasion and then promptly sits clown, so please be at ease for I intend to sit clown very soon. There are other men here who have spent time writing and preparing papers on subjects that are to come up for discussion at this meeting, which will be, I'm sure, more interesting than what I have to say this morning; so again I'll say, we'll get this part of the program under way promptly.

Jan 1, 1953

The twenty-fifth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11 a. m. Monday, August 29, 1927, in the County Court House at Trinidad, Colorado, the Vice-President, F. L. Peart, presiding. After a few words from John F. Carmody, Editor of Goal Age, J. Q. McNatt, Division Engineer of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, read a paper on "Coal Geology." In the afternoon, Prof. C. B. Carpenter, of the Colorado School of Mines talked on the work in Fuel Engineering being developed at the Colorado School of Mines. W. C. Holman, of the Phelps Dodge Corporation, then read his paper on "Developing a Pit Car Design." L. M. Kuhns, Safety Engineer of the Gallup American Coal Company, read his paper on "Safety Methods at Gallup American No. 5 Mine." After discussion the meeting adjourned for the day.

Jan 1, 1927

[Mr. Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Mr. Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum Pl-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Mr. Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84518-1420 Mr. Thomas D. Aderman The North American Coal Corp 14758 Preston Rd #1100 Dallas, TX 75240-7891]

Jan 1, 1998

President Vernal Mortensen, on behalf of 'The RMCMl officers and Executive Board, invites you and your family to attend The 79th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to be held at Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado JUNE 26 - JUNE 28, 1983

Jan 1, 1982

GARY STUBBLEFIELD RMCMI PRESIDENT 1993-1994 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 90th Regular Meeting and Convention June 26 thru 28, 1994 Snowmass Resort, Colorado

Jan 1, 1993

By James T. Bartis

Review of Key Issues Affecting the Prospects of CTL in the United States ?Issues of concern to the public - Impacts of coal mining - Water use - Greenhouse gas emissions ?Issues of concern to investors - CTL production costs - Oil prices - How greenhouse gas emissions will be managed ?RAND recommendations

Jan 1, 2009

RICHARD D. PICK RMCI PRESIDENT 2000-2001 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 97th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 24 thru June 26, 2001 Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Jan 1, 2000