Search Documents

[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

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

By Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 301N, Memorial Dr., St. Louis, Mo. 63102 Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20906 Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Archer, Bryan J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., P.O. Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 6030 W. 55th Pl., Arvada, Colo. Arentzen, Rolf F Lee-Norse Co., Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1967

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

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 301 N. Memorial Dr., St. Louis, Mo. 63102 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 1400 17th St., Denver, Colo. Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Archer, Bryan J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M W. RD 1, Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E. Lee-Norse Co., 6030 55th Pl., Arvada, Colo. Arentzen, Rolf F Lee-Norse Co., Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Arnston, E. K Standard Oil Div. American Oil, Rt. 1, Box 504, Golden, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex. Audin, Clement, Jr Champion Coal Mining Co., Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1969

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331; Denver 1, Colo. 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 Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Anderson, Nephi W Standard Colombine Coal Co., Scofield, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1822 Metzerott Rd., Adelphi, Md. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., P.O. Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 6030 W. 55th P1., Arvada, Colo. Arentzen, Rolf F Lee-Norse Co., Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1965

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

By Margaret N. Maxey

For the past quarter century, it is fair to say that the political agenda of Western industrialized societies has been driven by those opposed to forms of economic growth providing sustenance to a growing population. They regard growth as the major threat to their social philosophy which champions a wholly "new ethic of biocentric equality" or "living as if Nature mattered." This ethic demands that "a violent, plundering humankind" must abandon its alleged rape of Planet Earth and derive its ethical norms from pre-existing harmonies and fragile, precarious balance present in Nature. A Green political agenda appeals strongly to deep longings shared among many people whose temperament seeks tranquillity in a world of wild natural beauty uncluttered by dependency on tools and experts and specialists. According to proponents of the Green philosophy, our world is pregnant with enormous problems. Armed with expanded political powers, regulatory guardians at state and local levels have mustered their forces with shotguns cocked, poised to prod an ignorant and lazy citizenry to the altar for an exchange of vows with Environmental Ethics. Social engineers have skillfully discredited the traditional role of professionals in scientific engineering who are summarily dismissed as the failed architects of an industrial system pillaging the earth. They stand accused of producing unmanageable offspring - from mining minerals and energy resources to disposing of toxic wastes - whose disputed parentage and expectant crimes against humanity must be prevented by removing them from normal custody. Green critics claim that markets cannot be given custody of industrial offspring - pollutants, wastes, land-use abuses. Markets appear to have failed to provide equity to present and future generations. The only custodian with sufficient coercive power seems to be the regulatory bureaucracy. The upshot is a stark Hobson's choice - Shotgun Wedding vs. Custody Dispute. It derives its fateful predestination from an uncritical acceptance of several preconceptions which currently undergird the altar of Sustainability characterized by its acolytes as "a new and exciting doctrine." It is significant that Limits to Growth slogans of the 1970s have been displaced in the 1990s by the more palatable language of Sustainability. As a policy recommended to forestall an impending doom, Sustainability derives its credibility from dire predictions of global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain and the like. The Rio Declaration announced to the world in June 1992 that, although energy is essential to human well-being, its production and consumption in wealthy industrialized nations is unsustainable. It called for a complete overhaul of energy systems with nothing short of a total replacement of fossil fuels, uranium fission reactors, and large hydroelectric projects by means of so-called renewable energy sources, augmented by coercive regulations to force conservation and limit consumption demands. The social and political consequences of such a sweeping

Jan 1, 1995

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

By Richard M. Whiting

Thank you very much for that introduction. I spent part of my early career in the coal industry here in Colorado, and I am always happy to return. In such a beautiful setting, it seems out of place to talk about "Improving the Climate". But in our work-a-day worlds, we know the climate for the coal industry is something less than picture perfect. But unlike Mother Nature's climate, there are some things we can do about the climate for coal. Today, I want to talk to you about sonic of the activities that we are engaged in... and that you can support... to improve that climate. A number of challenges and opportunities face our industry. I will try to set the stage for this conference by briefly describing the current climate for coal - which is indeed very challenging. I will then outline some of the steps we are taking to broaden our base to include our allies in the rail and electricity industries and the public at large.

Jan 1, 2000

By M. H. Forester

The Bituminous Coal Industry has for the past year been faced with a most serious problem. I am sure that you have had your own individual and local problems, as do we all. In my thirty years of practical experience with coal mining, I have never found an operating man nor a coal mine without problems. The very nature of mining, with so many unknown factors involved, precludes the absence of problems. But they are not insurmountable, and one should not dwell on them interminably. They should be recognized as a challenge to our ability and ingenuity to solve them, and once the proper solution is found, it should be applied and the problem dismissed. However, we find ourselves at the moment in the midst of a serious challenge to our very existence. In the early thirties, many in the industry welcomed the re-establishment of Unionism as a balance wheel, in the belief that the stabilization of wage scales would also stabilize prices and eliminate disastrous price cutting practices. The ultimate effects of having twenty-six years of benevolent paternalism in the administrative branches of Federal and State Governments with their labor courting policies, could hardly have been anticipated. And so with wages spiralling under government sponsorship, we have finally reached the point where competitive fuels, such as natural gas and oil are more attractive to the consumer, from the economic angle of cents per BTU cost, than coal.

Jan 1, 1953

By D. J. Griffiths

Beyond doubt it is practically impossible to eliminate all chances of accidents from falls. Mother Earth is not going to give up her treasures without some sacrificing on our part. This particular question ranks among the important subjects connected with coal-mining, and has been given less attention as a factor of life- and limb-destroyer than any other cause. The single fatalities which happen create very little attention; nevertheless, when counted up at the end of the year, they outnumber the unfortunate ones that are mowed down by the wholesale by mine explosions. Fire-damp and coal dust were often considered the greatest evils in coal-mining. All records, however, prove this conclusion to be wrong. The second annual report of the Bureau of Mines gives the loss of life caused by falls of coal and roof in 1910 as 1,310, and in 1911 as 1,321. The reports of Pennsylvania mine inspectors for a period of thirty-three years show that 59.38 per cent of all the accidents underground were caused by falls of roof and coal. Also, the Bureau of Mines shows in its last issue on fatalities that accidents from fall of roof and coal killed more men than any other two causes combined, and that they account for more than half of the deaths under- ground. It seems we are getting too accustomed, taking too many things for granted, running too many risks, trusting too much for the best, and preparing too little for the worst. We must remove the cause; then the effects will cease. However, I can see that a better day is here. The main damaging factors underground are falls of roof and sides. A bad roof is tender and lacks the adhesive qualities to sustain its own weight over comparatively small areas. A roof of any character which is frequently penetrated by well-defined slips and cleats, is characterized as a treacherous roof. The carelessness of men has been one of the main causes of most of the accidents in mining as well as in any other industries. Three Grades of Miners Miners can be classified into three distinct grades, to-wit: the experienced and careful, the experienced and reckless, and the inexperienced. The accidents which the first class usually meet with occur through the carelessness of their co-workers, as well as through accidents which are termed unforeseen, such as falling roof between timbers, and between the timbers and the face of the coal. This may have 'previously given evidence of being absolutely sound and safe, but be released by invisible slips or by sudden outburst of occluded gases in large quantities, as we term big blowers or feeders,

Jan 1, 1913

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 3300 One Oliver Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club, Bldg., Denver, Colorado Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Amerman, Richard W Utah Cons. & Mining Co., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mexico Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., 848 N 3rd E, Price, Utah Anderson, John S. Utah Cons. & Mining Co., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1971

The Annual Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 26, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. There were 36 members in attendance. It was moved by Bob Diederich, seconded and carried to dispense with the reading of the 1983 Annual Meeting minutes as printed on pages 105 thru 109 of the 1983 Proceedings. In keeping with the printed agenda in the convention program/ticket booklet, the President called for reports of standing committees as follow: 1. Bylaws & Resolutions - Loren Linville, Chairman Linville noted that the committee had been working for two years on bylaws changes and concluded a corporate lawyer specializing in nonprofit organizations be engaged. He then introduced Mr. Peter B. Nagle of the Denver law firm of Sherman and Howard who outlined the major changes in converting the Institute's current status of 501(c)(6) to 501(c)(3). He pointed out that such a conversion would give the Institute a proper legal status, would give individual contributors to the scholarship or other programs a personal income tax deduction, would qualify the Institute for the postal nonprofit mailing rate and the Institute would achieve the advantage of limited liability inherent in a corportion and would insulate its members, officers and directors from liability for corporate obligations. Copies of the Articles of Incorporation as well as the Bylaws were available for all members. A discussion ensued and the following resolution was moved by Bob Diederich, seconded and carried: RESOLVED, that the unincorporated association known as the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute be, and hereby is, dissolved and in its place, and to carry out its objectives, shall be formed a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Colorado, which corporation shall also be known as The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and to which shall be transferred all of the assets and liabilities of this association. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper officers of this association are authorized and directed to execute and file with the Colorado Secretary of State, Articles of Incorporation in a form substantially similar to those prepared for this association by its counsel, and the names of the individuals identified in such Articles of Incorporation as the initial Board of Directors of such corporation, which names were proposed and recommended by the Nominating Committee of this association, are hereby approved. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper officers of this association are authorized and directed to do all acts necessary or convenient to carry out the terms of the preceding resolutions. (Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws as adopted are printed following these minutes.) Additional resolutions were read by Linville as follows: Item 1: WE RESOLVE herein that in the year since the last convention of the RMCMI, the Institute and the coal industry have suffered the loss, through death, and the services of: Lloyd W. Taylor Charles T. Holland THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we record in the minutes of the RMCMI, recognition of the passing of these members who have so greatly contributed to the advancement of the industry, both nationally and in the Rocky Mountain area, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the next of kin as evidence of the sincere sympathy and deep regard of the members of the Institute. Item 2: RESOLVED, that in recognition of their long and faithful service to the coal industry that the status of Life Member be conferred upon: Bernard Bernstrom Roy Coulson Shirl C. McArthur Item 3: RESOLVED, that we commend and express our gratitude to our Executive Secretary, officers, chairmen and committees for an outstanding job in presenting. the 80th RMCMI meeting. Item 4: RESOLVED, that the RMCMI express its gratitude to K&P, INC. of Golden, Colorado for their generous donation of office facilities and furniture for the RMCMI office and to K&P SALES ENGINEERS, INC. also of Golden, Colorado for their assistance in telephone answering, other office procedures and the use of certain office equipment. Item 5: RESOLVED, that six scholarships be awarded annually to advance the education program of the Institute to worthy students pursuing career paths in mining or other related industry in the six states in which the Institute generally operates and has members and in accordance with the criteria set forth by the Scholarship Committee. It was moved by Jim Neal, seconded and tamed

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1955

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by George A! Nugent, President, Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. The first speaker was Joseph E. Zatek, Product Specialist, Portable Instruments; Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pitts¬burgh, Pennsylvania. His presentation was illustrated by slides and subject, "Problems of Noise as Applied to Coal Mining." (See Index for printed text of Mr. Zatek's paper.) Mr. Zatek has been with Mine Safety Appliances Company for the, past 14 years) Prior to going with M.S.A. he was Indus!, trial Hygienist for Pennsylvania Department of Health, a position he held for 10 years He attended the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and graduated with a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering. He is a member of Air Pollution Control Association, American Society of Safety Engineers, Instrument Society of America and the American Industrial Hygiene Association. He is certified by the American,' Board of Industrial Hygiene in Compre¬hensive Practice of Industrial Hygiene and also by the Bureau of Mines to be an Instructor in Noise Measurement and Control.

Jan 1, 1971

of our good friends and fellow members: Patrick J. Quealy J. C. Roberts Gilbert Morton Sidney W. Farnham who left the world better for their having lived in it

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1995