Search Documents

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

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah 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 Allen, John P Development & Resources Corp., 50 Broadway, N. Y. 4, N. Y. Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1963

Jan 1, 1935

By Grainne A. Matthews

Jan 1, 2008

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

By Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

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

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

Jan 1, 1925

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

By F. A. Young

A description of the dry process coal cleaning plant which has been built and operated by St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Company at their mine at Brilliant, New Mexico, should at first be a description of the special machinery which is used in this process. This equipment consists primarily of screens for sizing the coal into six different sizes all smaller than 1 ½ inch and the pneumatic machines for cleaning each size. These machines are patented and were manufactured by Sutton, Steele & Steele of Dallas, Texas, until a few months ago when all rights of sale were acquired by the American Coal Cleaning Corporation. These screens, a plan of which is now before you, are called anti-gravity screens because the coal travels up hill. The screens which we have at Brilliant are 3 feet wide and 7 feet 4 inches long. They consist of one upper deck which slopes upward in the direction of the flow of the coal, at an angle of 12 degrees. This deck is a wire mesh screen the size of which determines the size of oversize from that screen. Under this is a lower deck with a slope of 7 degrees. This is a solid bottom and is for advancing the undersize to the next screen. On account of the difference in pitch of these decks they are about 11 inches apart at the discharge end, which allows the oversize to be taken off at one or both sides and the undersize to fall only a few inches on to the following screen. This is perhaps the most valuable point in this patent as it allows any number of screens to be placed on a-level floor, tandem in a battery without elevating or rehandling the coal in any way. The length of the screens corresponds to the proper spacing of the cleaning tables which naturally operate on the floor below. I know of no other screen which can be operated in this way. The coal is caused to travel by a reciprocating motion. A shaft as shown near the center of the screen box and under it has an eccentric at each side of the screen with connecting rods attached near the rear of the screen box. The screen box is attached to the stationary under frame by means of cast iron plates extending full width across the screen box. These are placed at an angle as shown so that the forward motion of the eccentrics causes the screen box to rise as it moves forward and the backward motion drops the screen from under the coal thereby causing it to advance. The coal advancing over the screen cloth in this rolling or jumping motion causes very perfect sizing. It should be stated here that very accurate sizing is necessary for the success of the cleaning tables. The stroke is 1 inch and the speed 350 revolutions per minute. In describing the pneumatic cleaning table, I place before you a plan furnished by the makers. The basic principle is that if a film of coal one to two inches thick and all of nearly the same size pieces is placed on a flat perforated surface and a large volume of air passed through it, the lighter particles which are the clean coal will soon find their way to the top of the film, while the heavier particles, or waste, will remain on the bottom. The machine is built with a perforated deck about 4 feet square under which is an air chamber and air duct connecting with a fan which is part of the machine. The deck of the table has a reciprocating motion the same as the screens already described, which tends to advance the product up a slight slope which is adjustable. The coal is fed at one corner of the table as shown and the deck slopes also away from the feed and at right angles to the reciprocating motion. On top of the perforated deck are riffles about 2 inches apart and running parallel to the line of reciprocating motion. These riffles are about 1/2 inch high at the fan and feed side of the table and taper to nothing at the far side. When the coal is fed on to the table, the air through the perforations tends to raise it 'and roll it over these riffles down the slope toward the clean coal discharge. The heavier particles do not get over the riffles so rapidly and the reciprocating motion is constantly pushing them

Jan 1, 1923

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

[ ]

Jan 1, 1995

[Proceedings VOL. II. PART V. CONTENTS PAGE Mine Haulage, by R. A. McAllister-----------------145 Efficiency in Shot Firing, by Robert A. Marshall -- 149 Some Facts About Coal Mining, by Sam Andrews -153 Flexoid Tubing and Its Application to Coal Mines As a Means of Temporary Ventilation, by George A. Brown -161 Longwall Coal Mining, by Thomas Collier ------ 163 Advantages of Having Such Men as Fire Bosses Under State Rather Than Corporation Jurisdiction, by R. S. Morton ---- 165 Longwall Mining, by Parley Potter -------169 DeWatering of the Rouse Mine, by D. A. Stout ---175]

Jan 1, 1921

[ ]

Jan 1, 2001

James Westfield, Assistant Director, United States Bureau of Mines, Washing- ton, D. C., called the second morning session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order, and promptly introduced John Peperakis, Manager of the Sunnyside Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation. Sunnyside, Utah, who spoke on "Ground Control Developments, Sunnyside Mines, Kaiser Steel Corporation." Mr. Peperakis illustrated his talk with a number of slides which were not reproduced with the printed text. (For the printed text of Mr. Peperakis' paper see index.) James J. Diamanti, President of the Car- bon Fuel Company, Helper, Utah, was introduced by Mr. Westfield, and he spoke on "Small Mine Operators Help Themselves." Questions from the floor followed Mr. Diamanti's talk.

Jan 1, 1961

The Fortieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order in the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Wednesday, June 10, 1942, at 11:30 a.m., by President, Wetzel, who presented Mr. William A. Fealey who, in turn, introduced Mr. Bracken Lee, Mayor of Price, Utah, who made the address of welcome. President Wetzel then made a few remarks. The Secretary announced with regret that, due to the critical illness of Mr. Sidney Hale, he would be unable to at- tend the meeting. On motion of Charles M. Schloss, duly seconded and carried, the reading of the minutes of the Thirty-ninth Regular Meeting was dispensed with. Mr. Schloss also moved that the Chair appoint the usual committees, which motion was seconded and carried. President Wetzel then announced that the committees would be appointed during the afternoon session. Following routine announcements, the meeting recessed at 12 o'clock noon to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Jan 1, 1942

By David R. Hammond

How Could Natural Gas be Coal?s Best Friend ? - Natural gas is the environment friendly ?fuel of choice?; coal is the opposite - 90 % of new / replacement generating capacity in U.S. projected to be gas-fired - Natural gas-fired generation market share predicted to increase to 25-30% at expense of coal - Natural gas consumption forecast to growth from 22 TCF to 35 TCF per year by 2025 - Gas has good friends in the Environmental Industries and the current Administration

Jan 1, 2003

Past President, A. Z. Dimitroff, Supervising Mining Health and Safety Engineer, Health and Safety, District H., U. S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado, opened the Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at the Hotel Colorado in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, at 10:30 a.m. His introduction of President Charles M. "Dock" Schloss follows: It is indeed a pleasure to call the meeting to order and to welcome you to this, the 58th regular meeting of the Institute. This morning I have the pleasant assignment of presenting to you a person who has been so active in the Institute, and has worked so closely with many of you, that I am sure most of you have known him much longer than I have.

Jan 1, 1962