Search Documents

The 63rd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President George A. Nugent, Vice President and General Manager, Big Horn Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. He thanked and offered his congratulations to the Program Committee for a very wonderful job, namely, John Reeves, Chairman, E. G. Fox, Lee Jensen, O. F. Lewis, J. Peperakis, R. M. von Storch, J. E. Ward and R. R. Williams, Jr. He thanked the suppliers for a fine cocktail party the evening before. Mr. Nugent's Opening Address and introduction of President James Westfield, Assistant Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., follows: It is a real privilege to call this 63rd Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order and to say welcome.

Jan 1, 1967

The 74th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Ralph Moore, Vice President, Operations, Westmoreland Resources, Hardin, Montana, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. He welcomed members and guests and thanked Park Lamborn, the Program Chairman, for the excellent speakers and program he engineered. He mentioned the cancellation of our golf tournament due to the conflicting dates with the Annual Jerry Ford Invitational Golf Tournament. He thanked all of the committees with a special "thank you" to Loren Linville and Gussie Whiteside. He introduced President, Shirl C. McArthur. President and General Manager, American Coal Company, Huntington, Utah. A biographical sketch follows: Mr. McArthur, a native of Huntington, Utah, began his coal mining career shortly after graduating from North Emery High School and worked his way up through the ranks, having worked at every job available underground. For example, he dug coal with a "banjo" at the Independent Coal and Coke Company in Kenilworth. In the summer of 1941, he worked at Straight Canyon Mine as a timberman and advanced to section foreman in four years. He was face boss for part of the time. In October 1946, he received a call from the LDS Church General Welfare Board (presided over then by Marion G. Romney) and took over as superintendent of the Church Mine. He operated in that capacity until the mine became privately owned in 1971. In 1961, Mr. McArthur formed Castle Valley Mining company, and in 1970, he organized American Coal Company, which he presently owns and operates.

Jan 1, 1978

The Sixty-Second Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10 a.m. by Past President Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Bridwell thanked the Joy Manufacturing Company fer the very fine party of the previous evening. He also paid tribute to a very fine Committee - the Program Committee: O. F. Lewis, Chairman, Oren Bridwell, Edward G. Fox, Glen E. Sorensen, Joseph E. Ward, R. R. Williams, Jr., and John Peperakis. Mr. Bridwell then introduced George A. Nugent, Vice President and General Manager, Big Horn Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, as follows: "It is my privilege and duty to call this 62nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order and to extend to you all a cordial welcome.

Jan 1, 1966

Pictured on these pages are the six RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1988-89 year followed by a brief profile. All winners were present as guests of the Institute at the June convention in Durango, Colorado to receive recognition at the Welcome Session Monday, June 26, 1989. Each state vice president served as the host for the collegiate winner. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman, Keith McGinnis, each winner receives $500.00 tuition credit for the coming academic year. As this is a continuing award, the winners from the previous year will receive another $500.00 for tuition credit in their senior year if they have maintained good academic standing and have been recommended by their university. Criteria for these awards to be made in the spring annually is (1) That the award be made to a sophomore student and used as 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. The scholarship program includes curricula other than those in the mining departments, but in the engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his firm. Through annual donations of $100.00 or more, the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholarship program and the various vice presidents contribute the travel expenses to convention for these outstanding young collegiates. Donations to this worthwhile program may be made payable to RMCMI Scholarship and mailed to the RMCMI Office, 2700 Youngfield Street, Suite 100, Lakewood, CO 80215. Profiles of the 1989 Scholarship Winners follow. [ ] David P. Pelletier University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona David is a Mining Engineering major and graduated from Santa Fe High School in 1981. He served in the Sixth Marine Regiment, Second Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps from December 1982 thru December 1985. He is a student member of SME-AIME and has held the offices of treasurer, vice president and president. He works volunteer shifts at the University of Arizona San Xavier Mining Laboratory [ ] Johnny F. Blizzard Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado A high school graduate of Longmont, Colorado, Johnny carries a 3.968/4.000 at Mines, majoring in Mining Engineering with a minor in Metallurgy. His name has appeared on the Academic Dean's list for the past two years. He received the Robert M. & George R. Harris Scholarship during this past year. He is a student member of SME-AIMMP and an executive council member of CSM's chapter of AIME. Summertimes, Johnny works as a miner for Edger Mine in Idaho Springs, CO on an experimental project for USBM.

Jan 1, 1989

Jan 1, 1980

Jan 1, 1974

By Clifford R. Miercort

When it was announced that the economy grew at an annual rate of 4.7 percent in the Fourth Quarter of 1992, it appeared that our long awaited recovery from recession was here. Unfortunately that much growth proved to be unsustainable, and in the First Quarter of 1993, the number dropped to less than one percent. Today it is clear that the recovery is continuing, but at a very slow rate. One of the Most disturbing statistics during this recovery is that unemployment has not improved as one would expect but has been hovering around 7 percent for over a year, making this recovery a ?jobless? one. In a recent Harvard Business School presentation, a professor reported that the United States has slipped from its leadership position in almost every manufacturing category since World War II. From the production of cars to consumer electronics, we have lost significant world market share to others, most notably Japan and Germany. Obviously this is not new news, but the magnitude of the loss and the number of industries affected was surprising to me. The result has been that our negative balance of payments has soared, and the United States of America now has the dubious distinction of being one of the world's largest debtor nations. It has been common for politicians, and political want-a-be's, to blame all of our trade problems on industry. They say that the moguls of American industry spend too much time seeking short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth. They say that we are interested more in our own perks and economic security than in producing quality products that can compete in the world marketplace. One of the stared goals of the Clinton Administration is the targeting of strategic industries to receive help from the government so they can compete on the world stage more effectively. Personally. I think that is an oxymoron. My experience has been that whenev-

Jan 1, 1993

President W. K. Dennison, Jr., called the final session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order, and introduced H. A. Cornell, Portland Cement Association, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Mr. Cornell explained that the Portland Cement Association was not a sales organization, but is supported by the major manufacturers of portland cement. The research laboratories of the association are constantly endeavoring to improve the quality of cement, as well as promote new markets, new uses, and new ideas. The association works with engineers, contractors and universities, making available to them the results of their research. Mr. Cornell stated that numerous booklets and bulletins were available on request for any phase of construction with concrete. Mr. Cornell presented a film, "How to Make Quality Concrete," to the members of the Institute. D. W. Lyke, General Electric Apparatus Service Shop, Denver, Colorado, was introduced by President Dennison, who presented a film, "A-Hunting He Would Go." Following the film, Mr. Lyke stated that his firm was not confined to electrical equipment, but to all types of equipment, and asked the members to feel free to call for assistance at any time. These two films concluded the Manufacturer's Hour, and President Dennison opened the final business meeting of the session. Robert F. Bowie, of the Auditing Committee, read the Treasurer's Report, and complimented Mr. Whiteside on the commendable state in which the books were found. The Treasurer's Report is as follows:

Jan 1, 1960

By Bill Gray

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 2009

By Arthur P. Sanda

Thank you Clark, for that extraordinary introduction, but Paul Harvey would be disappointed if I didn't tell you ... the rest of the story. It's true that I began my career at the Boston Traveler newspaper, one of the last of the breed that started as an office boy and eventually advanced to staff reporter. However, what the biography doesn't tell you is that after that stellar rise to prominence in the Boston financial community, the afternoon Traveler was merged into the morning Boston Herald, and I was out of a job. Between the Traveler - which I closed - and the Brockton Enterprise - where I helped bring about the first labor strike in the newspaper's 100 year history - for a short period I worked double shifts at a bomb factory where we made beanbag mines for use in Vietnam. That is until the plant blew up one morning between my shifts - my last shift, as you can guess. Incidentally, my job was quality control. Before accepting my first public relations job with Boston Gas Company - and handling the media during that companies longest strike in history - I worked part time as a police officer in the small Massachusetts town of Halifax, during which time I wrecked the town's only patrol car - twice. Having contributed all I could to Boston Gas Company, I moved on to the parent company - Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates - where I was instrumental in closing down the last remaining coke plant in the Northeast in the Bridesburg section of Philadelphia - and got my first exposure to the coal industry - a visit to Eastern's last two coal mines in western Pennsylvania, Culver and Delmont - which were closed a month later. With the coal boom at its apex in the late '70s, the bosses thought it would be safe - and safer for the other subsidiary companies - for me to be given the opportunity to establish a formal public relations department at Eastern Associated Coal Corp. In my 10 years with Eastern Associated, I was able to help take the company from 17 operating mines down to 6, from 8 longwall sections down to 5, and eventually have the entire company sold to Peabody, While at the same time, bringing an end to the coal boom. It was at this point that journalism again beckoned, which coincided with COAL magazine purchasing Coal Age from McGraw Hill Publishing. In my l l years with the magazine, we've taken it from Coal Mining and Processing, to Coal Mining, to just COAL, and back to Coal Age - which is the best thing we ever did - and we've had the company sold ... twice.

Jan 1, 1999

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

By Todd A. Myers

Forward Looking Statement Disclaimer This presentation may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements about the Company's vision, strategy, operations, growth, development and any other statements containing the words, "believes, " "expects, " "anticipates, " "plans, " "estimates, " and similar expressions. There are a number of factors that could cause Westmoreland Coal Company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements including, but not limited to: general economic and business conditions; healthcare cost trends; the Company's ability to manage growth and significantly expanded operations; the ability of the Company to implement its business strategy; the Company's ability to pay the preferred stock dividends that are accumulated but unpaid; the Company's ability to retain key senior management; the Company's access to financing; the Company's ability to maintain compliance with debt covenant requirements; the Company's ability to successfully identify new business opportunities; the Company's ability to achieve anticipated cost savings and profitability targets; the Company's ability to utilize its tax net operating losses; demand for electricity; the effect of regulatory and legal proceedings; and other factors identified in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the SEC. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of developments occurring after the date such statement was first made.

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

By Richard L. Lawson

The coal producers of the Rocky Mountain states have led in one of America's true industry revolutions - the leaps in productivity and competitiveness that deliver coal-fired electric power to the U.S. economy at prices that are the competitive envy of the world. You are a primary reason the average price of industrial power in the U.S. - the power that creates and upholds jobs - is: ? 10 percent below the French average, where nuclear power is dominant; ? 37 percent below the average for industrialized Europe; ? 49 percent below the German average, where subsidized coal and nuclear rule; ? And 73 percent below the Japanese average where nuclear and liquified natural gas dominate. There are interests ambitious to change all of that; and they will be a subject of my remarks, some by name, rank, and affiliation. Coal-fired power plants in the Rocky Mountain states deliver some of America's lowest cost electricity; and America's coal-fired plants deliver some of the world's lowest cost electricity. Represented here in one room are producers from states that deliver more than 40 percent of America's coal and five of her top 10 producing states. You are cornerstones of America's economic strength and future growth. The theme for this meeting is "The Many Partnerships of Coal;" and, in this keynote, I'd like to offer a variation on the theme. I'd like to discuss a determined partnership that is dedicated to overturning everything you have accomplished, plus the structure of our society - very dedicated, very patient, very determined. This partnership masks itself as being in the public interest but behind the mask a political alliance of three distinct private interests can be seen: ? One is ambitious for economic reward as a right and without the trouble of effort; ? One is ambitious for economic advantage in trade without the trouble of competing; ? And one is ambitious for the power to govern people without the trouble of winning consent in elections - to change the way other people choose to live in accord with their own passionately held beliefs. The international agreement on climate is being used as an artifice to advance these interests, and the interests are making the United Nations a mechanism for achieving those objectives - for turning the screw, so to speak. The President that Americans elect this year soon will come under intense pressure from these partners to: ? First, quickly adopt policies that will raise U.S. energy prices and restrict use under the climate agreement; ? And in 1998 - if they follow their own published plans - to begin the subordination of the independence of the United States to a collective sovereignty in economic, political, legal and other matters. The Worldwatch Institute inaugurated this pressure last year with a policy monograph entitled Partnership for the Planet: An Environmental Agenda for the United Nations. This is but one indicator of the situation I ask you to consider. The pressure will increase after the election. Worldwatch is one of those intellect-oriented "public interest" groups whose work often leads to policy proposals and debate. Worldwatch gets money from the U.N. Population Fund and the MacArthur Foundation among others. And so my remarks require wading waist deep into one of the more sporting current propositions of American public policy - discussion of ambitions for and within the United Nations to achieve that which the ambitious call global governance. Since last year's media focus on the militia movement - and talk of black helicopters - any

Jan 1, 1996

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by John T. Maulsby, Superintendent of Maintenance and Planning, Columbia-Geneva Steel Division, U. S. Steel Corporation, Dragerton, Utah, representing the past-president. W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent. Koehler line. Kaiser Steel Corporation. Raton, New Mexico, who was unable to attend. Mr. Maulsby welcomed the members and guests, and introduced the President, A. Z. Dimitroff, Mining Electrical Engineer, Health and Safety, District 1-L, U. S. Bureau of Mines. Denver. Colorado. The text of President Dimitroff's address of welcome is as follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The distinct honor and privilege of officially welcoming you to this, the fifty-seventh regular meeting of the Institute, is indeed a pleasure. Your officers and committees have tried to provide a varied program which I am sure should have something of interest to all of us. The theme of this meeting, "Where Do We Go From here'?", appeared rather fitting for the In¬stitute this year because, as most of you know, until only two weeks ago we thought that this is the last time we will be able to meet at the Colorado Hotel, which has been the favorite spot of most members. Your officers and many of you were literally asking just that question.

Jan 1, 1961

By Mike Onsager

Jan 1, 2006

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 154 ACZ 149 AmerCable,Inc 144 Andalex Resources, Inc 118 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 101 Canyon Fuel Company 145 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 95 Continental Conveyor 148 Cove Shoes 136-137 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 121 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 134 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 115 Dakota Coal Company DriltechInc 135 Empire Machinery Company 94 Energy West Mining Company 122 Fluor Daniel 100 GH Hensley Industries 126. 127 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 123 Holme, Roberts & Owen 98 Honnen Equipment Company 150 Ingersoll-Rand Company 141 Jennmar Corporation 142 Joy Mining Machinery - A Harnischfeger Industries Company 104 K & P Sales Engineers, Inc 114 Kennecott Energy Company 155 Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation 96 LeTourneau,Inc 160 Long-Airdox Company 112 Magnum Metals, Inc 133 McLanahan Corporation 129 Mine Technik America 124 Mineral Tech 151 Morrison Knudsen Corporation 97 The North American Coal Corporation 130 Northwestern Resources Company 125 P&H MinePro Services 157 Peabody Western Coal Co 131 Phillips Machine Service, Inc Pincock Allen & Holt 120 Powder River Coal Company 107 Pyro-Chem 156 RamseyTechnology, Inc 119 Rust Tractor Company 90 Salt River Project 91 Savage Industries Inc 89 Schroeder Industries 147 Sheraton Steamboat Resort and Conference Center 111 Skelly & Loy 138 Snowmass Village at Aspen 146 Stamler Corporation (An Oldenburg Group Company) 117 Tamarron Hilton Resort 140 TerraMatrix Inc 139 TIC (The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc.) 99 Trapper Mining Inc 106 Wagner Equipment Company 116 Weir International Mining Consultants 113 Westech 152 Wheeler Machinery Company 128]

Jan 1, 1997

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

Jan 1, 2000