Search Documents

of our good friends and fellow members: William D. Brennan Charles Beuchat who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1960

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 W. R. Deeths

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

Jan 1, 1984

resident Schloss called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Bob Dean, manager of the Hotel Colorado, gave a brief explanation of hotel policies governing the swimming pool, and also extended an invitation to the Institute to return in 1963, and stated that the dates June 30 through July 3 were available for next year. He also stated that June 28 through July 1 were available for 1964. He felt that holding the convention during the 4th was not good policy, and that dates prior to or following the 4th would make for better attendance. John A. Reeves, chairman of the Resolutions Committee presented the following resolutions: RESOLVED: That the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute in convention assembled, hereby ratify and confirm all official actions of the officers, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Institute between June 28, 1961, and the present time.

Jan 1, 1962

At the Annual Meeting of the RMCMI Board of Directors held June 29, 1985, the following amendments to the corporation bylaws Article III were made: Section 2. Advisory Board. There shall be an Advisory Board of Directors which shall be com- posed of all former presidents of the corporation and of the unincorporated association, also known as The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, of which the corporation is the successor. The Advisory Board shall periodically review the philosophy and policies of the corporation and make recommendations concerning the same to the Board of Directors. The Advisory Board shall hold an annual meeting at the same place as and immediately pre- ceding the annual meeting of the members in each year and written notice stating the place, day, and hour of the meeting shall be given or mailed to each member of the Advisory Board at least thirty days prior to the date fixed for such annual meeting. The annual meeting of the Advisory Board shall be for the purpose of electing a chairman from among its members and the person so elected chairman shall also serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the corporation. The Advisory Board shall meet at such other times and conduct its affairs in such a manner as it shall determine from time to time by resolution. Section 4. Regular Meetings. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held immediately following the annual meeting of the members, at the site of the annual meeting of the members, the day and time to be fixed by the Board of Directors at its annual meeting immediately pre- ceding the annual meeting of the members in each year, without the necessity of any other or advance notice. Such regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be for the purpose of considering committee appointments, and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall also be held in the Fall of each year following the annual meeting of the members and written notice stating the place day and hour of the meeting shall be given or mailed each member of the Board of Directors at least thirty days prior to the date fixed for such regular meeting. Such Fall regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be for the purpose of receiving the treasurer's annual financial report of the previous fiscal year as reviewed and approved by the auditor, to take action on the budget, and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. Section 8. Standing Committees. The Board of Directors may create by resolution adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Directors, a Bylaws and Resolutions Committee, a Nominating Committee, a Finance Committee, and one or more other committees each of which shall consist of two or more directors and which shall have and may exercise such authority in the management of the corporation as shall be provided in such resolution or in these bylaws. Section 9. Ad Hoc committees. The Board of Directors from time to time may by resolution create a Membership Committee, a Scholarship Committee, an Education Committee, various convention committees, and one or more other committees each of which shall consist of members of the corporation and which shall have and may exercise such authority, other than in connection with the management of the corporation, as the Board of Directors may determine. MINUTES of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute 81 st Member Annual Business Meeting July 2, 1985 The 81st Annual Business Meeting of the mem¬bers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by the president, Charles W. Margolf at 1:35 p.m. Tuesday, July 2, 1985 in the Windom Peak Room of the Tamarron Resort near Durango, Colorado. Thirty members were present and a quorum was established. It was moved by Bill Balaz, seconded and car¬ried to dispense with the reading of the minutes as these were published on pages 67 thru 77 of the 1984 issue of the Proceedings. The chair called for reports of the various com¬mittees and these reports will be placed on file in the RMCMI Office. Bylaws and Resolutions. Chairman Loren V. Linville reported that the Board of Directors had adopted changes to Article III, Sections 2, 4, 8 and 9 calling for clarification of Ad Hoc and Standing Committees as well as setting forth a purpose for the Advisory Board meetings and stating a time for an annual meeting. He further reported that the Board had passed three resolutions: (One) Noting the passing of these members since the last conven¬tion - Einar M. Arentzen, Gerhardt A. Benne¬witz, Claude P. Heiner, Raymond A. Johnson, Vard H. Johnson, P. T. Schonstrom, Augusta F. Whiteside and Edward Wiemann; (Two) Of appreciation to the officers, chairmen and their commit-

Jan 1, 1985

By W. T. Ferguson

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

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1966

The Friday morning session of, the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called, to order in the junior Ballroom, Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, at 9:20 o'clock a. in., with Mr. Paul L. Shields presiding. CHAIRMAN SHIELDS: Let us get started, gentlemen. We are late now. From the looks of this agenda we are going to have a busy forenoon. The first item on this program is a talk on "The Second Underground. Gasification Experiment at Gorgas, Alabama," by Mr. James L. Elder.

Jan 1, 1951

JUNE 11-MORNING SESSION The meeting was called to order Wednesday morning, June 11, 1913,,at 10 o'clock, by the President, E. H. Weitzel. Addresses of welcome were given to the convention by Governor Spry, Mayor Park, and Rev. P. A: Simpkins; 'the several addresses being interspersed by music. The session adjourned at 11 :50 a. m., in order to attend the organ recital at the Tabeknacle at:'12 o'clock. JUNE 11-AFTERNOON SESSION The meeting. Gas called -to order at 2 o'clock, with President E. H. Weitzel in- the .chair. The minutes of, the organization meeting and that of the Executive Board, the 1atier:of which was held April 15, 1913, in Denver, were read and both' approved. A letter from A. 3. Reef, of Denver, containing proposed amendments to the Constitution and By.-Laws, was read, and, upon motion,, was referred to the Executive Board, with .instructions to report upon the matter at the next, regular meeting. The proposed amendments follow: Article I1 (regarding who may become members and how) to be amended to read as follows: "Membership in this Institute shall be of three classes-corporate, individual, and honorary. Any company, firm, or individual operator actually engaged in the mining of coal within the territory of this Institute may become a corporate member on application, and by consent of a majority of the members present at any stated meeting. Any person, who is directly engaged or interested: in some branch of coal-mining may become an individual member upon application, and by consent of a majority of the members present at any stated meeting. Honorary members may be elected at the discretion of the Institute."

Jan 1, 1913

The Saturday morning session of the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 9:30 o'clock a. m., June 9, 1951, in the Junior Ballroom of the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City; Utah, with Mr. A. P. Cederlof presiding. CHAIRMAN CEDERLOF: Mr. Whiteside suggests that we have the Treasurer's Report. Would you like to read this report,: Mr. Reese? MR. GOMER REESE, SR.: Gentlemen, we have here the Auditor's report. A. B. Foulger, President The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Dear Mr. Foulger: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 31, 1950 to May 31, 1951: [ ]

Jan 1, 1951

By N/A NA

Jan 1, 1967

The 81 st Regular Meeting and convention was called to order by the President, Charles W. Margolf at 9:00 a.m. Monday, July l, 1985 in the Silverton Room of Tamarron, a resort hotel near Durango, Colorado. President Margolf welcomed the members and others in attendance to the convention and noted his theme of "Make It Happen!" He introduced those present of the 1985-86 Board of Directors and Officers who were elected by the Board of Directors at their Annual Meeting June 29. They were: Arthur K. Neill, President; Bernard Bernstrom, President-Elect; Loren V. Linville, Convention Liaison Officer; Vice Presidents Douglas J. Hammer of Colorado, C. Joe Presley of Montana, Alva L. Smith of New Mexico, Fred Wertz of North Dakota, Rex Berry of Utah and Thomas J. Lien of Wyoming; and Doris G. Finnie, Executive Secretary & Treasurer. He also introduced Ira. E. McKeever who was elected to serve as chairman of the Advisory Board by that group. Margolf mentioned that one three-year term as a Director would be voted upon at the annual business meeting which would be held Tuesday, July 2 at 1:30 p.m. in the Windom Peak Room and introduced James "Doug" Ingram, the nominee of the Nominating Committee. A convention update was made by the Conven-

Jan 1, 1985

PRESIDENT SHOTT: Gentlemen, the meeting will now come to order, please. Members of the Institute: It is with great pleasure and honor that we welcome you to the thirty-ninth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. I assure you that Mr. Krippner, the General Chairman, and his associates have an outstanding program in store for you, and trust it will be of much interest to the industry. I note by the program they have me slated for an opening address, but I am going to defer that, proceed with the remainder of the program, and endeavor to go on schedule and keep matters on schedule as outlined on our program. The first item on the program is the reading of the minutes of the thirty-eighth regular meeting by the Secretary. I might say that it has been customary in the past that we omit the reading of the minutes. If that is not agreeable, we will read them; otherwise, I would like for someone to make a motion that we dispense with the reading of the minutes, inasmuch as they are published in our annual report each year. What are your wishes?

Jan 1, 1941

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 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

of our good friends and fellow -members: J. R. Gemmill J. J. Walsh J. F. Gieble M. O. Danford John E. Havens J. E. Edgeworth R. S. Rubincam Phil Lloyd E. J. Raddatz who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1934

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

Pictured on these pages are the six RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1986-87 year followed by a brief profile. Five of the winners were present as RMCMI guests at the June convention at Kalispell to receive their recognition plaques at the welcoming session held Monday, June 30, 1986. In addition to the plaques, each winner will receive $500.00 to be used toward tuition in the coming academic year. Also, as this is a continuing award, the winners from the 1985-86 season, will also receive an additional $500.00 for tuition use in their senior years provided they have maintained a good academic standing. Criteria for these awards is (1) That the award be made in the spring to a sophomore student to be used toward tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U. S. citizen and a resident of the state involved. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member. Checks payable to RMCMI Scholarship may be mailed to the RMCMI Office at 2700 Youngfield Street, Suite 100 in Lakewood, CO 80215. Profiles of the 1986 winners follow: [ ] ROBERT BAUGHMAN Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Bob is spending this summer in field camp at the Colorado School of Mines. His hobbies are fly fishing, hunting and photography. After graduation, he "would like to work for a stable mid-sized company and someday work his way into a management position." He is a member of AIME and Sigma Phi Epsilon and plays intramural football and softball. [ ] BRENT LaMOURE Montana College of Mineral Science & Technology, Butte, Montana Brent has a 3 5 grade point average and has completed courses In Mining Engineering, Underground Mining, Rock Fragmentation, Mineralogy and Petrology and Plane Surveying He is "interested in trying to make the mining industry as efficient as possible "

Jan 1, 1986

By John H. Emrick

At the meetings of this Institute held two years ago, there was presented a very comprehensive paper on the subject of shearing coal. It was well prepared and contained data based upon actual test and experiment. The conclusions reached showed that where the shearing cuts and tests were made and conducted [ ] there was no advantage but a disadvantage from having sheared the coal. In presenting my ideas on the subject of this paper to you, I do not mean to take issue with the author who addressed you two years ago but only to report the advantages which have recently been secured from shearing coal. All of this goes to prove again the well known fact that what one mine's conditions will permit another's will not. A number of years ago, when most of the coal produced was shot from the solid and when the "good, old" pick miner?s pay was based on the amount of lump coal he loaded out of his room, he was frequently seen putting in a vertical cut in the face as deep as he could do so with his pick. This man was the best ac- [ ] quainted with the peculiarities of the coal and, no doubt, saw that his pocketbook would be fattened more if he put forth the extra effort to make this vertical cut. Fortunately he was well repaid, and his employer loo, on account of the greater percentage of lump produced. Coal cutting machines of various types were then introduced to help along still more the cause of lump coal and, since the natural way to

Jan 1, 1926