Search Documents

Jan 1, 1977

PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

By R. R. Knill

With the advent of mechanical loading the need of definite information has become more apparent. The co-ordination of all the individual units of operation has become very necessary From these two essential features in running a mechanized coal mine has come the demand for the "time study." The time study is nothing more or less than the recording of each operation together with the time of clay or the total time expended during a period of work. Using the latter, it is impossible to have information showing just when each piece of work was clone and to what extent they overlap. The studies used here are of the former type, being based on the recording of the operation together with the time of day so that the details of performance of the machine or crew may be followed from starting to quitting time by' referring to the graph upon which the study is taken.

Jan 1, 1928

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

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Until Mr. Wood comes back, we have a gentleman with us who has been sitting in one of the back seats. He has never gotten up and showed himself, and I think we ought to call on Mr. Ryan to stand up and say two words, or a half dozen words. Mr. Ryan! (Applause.)

Jan 1, 1925

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

The following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1982

The Thirty-sixth, Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at the Shirley-Savoy Hotel, Denver, Colorado, Thursday, June 23, 1938, at 11:15 o'clock a.m., by Thomas Allen, Vice-President for Colorado, who announced that owing to the serious illness of Fritz Nyman's father, Mr. Nyman would be unable to attend the convention. Vice-President Allen welcomed the convention as a representative of Governor Ammons. Owing to the overlapping of a previous engagement, Mayor Benjamin F. Stapleton regretfully arrived too late to welcome the gathering in behalf of the City of Denver. Vice-President Allen selected Mr. F. W. Whiteside to preside at the morning session. On motion made, seconded and carried, the reading of the minutes of the Thirty-fifth Regular Meeting was dispensed with, inasmuch as they are printed in the proceedings. Chairman Whiteside suggested that the appointment of the personnel for the Committee on Resolutions, Nominating, Membership and Auditing be deferred until later in the meeting, and on motion made by Mr. Oliver, duly seconded and carried, this suggestion was adopted.

Jan 1, 1938

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

Jan 1, 1961

Mr. Robert Von Storch opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Von Storch: As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised to see many of these faces. The way you were acting last night I did not expect to see so many but you are evidently all right, and survived. This morning's session is the ?RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? theme, and our first speaker- (and we made a little switch) - is Jack Huebler, Associate Director, Research Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Ill. The switch is because of a projector problem. Jack Huebler was born in Michigan and received degrees in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He joined the Surface Combusion Corp. immediately and was with them for 20 years, rising to the head of research. He took leading roles in the invention and development of many heat using processes involving gas chemistry combustion and metallurgy. The now famous Erie Mining Taconite Pellet Process was one of these. He pioneered in gas carburizing and in the preparation and use of prepared atmospheres. He specialized in the heat transfer aspects of many new industrial metal heating processes. He left Surface 5 years ago to join IGT.

Jan 1, 1966

By J. M. Shafer

Jan 1, 2005

[Mr. Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co PO8 3007 Gillette, WY 82716 Mr. Jay Abbott Union Supply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal Co 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112]

Jan 1, 1983

PETER A. NIELSEN RMCMI PRESIDENT 1991-1992 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 88th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 28-30, 1992 Tamarron, Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1991

Marcie A. Greenberg RMCMI PRESIDENT 1995-1996 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 92nd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 1996 Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1934

[Abbott, Jay Tusco, Box 1008, Price, Utah 84501 Abrahamson, Gary W Melroe Melroe Mult. Wheel, 1301 Iowa Ave., Longmont, Colo. 80501 Acre, Lee Roadside Mining Corp., 2684 Carol PI., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Adams, Bob Energy Fuels Corp., Box G, Steamboat Springs, Colo. 80477 Adams, David Empire Energy Corp., Box 68, Craig, Colorado 81625 Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 924 No. Washington Rd., McMurray, Pa. 15317 Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver, Colo. 80201 Adams, E. E Armco Steel Corp., Box 53, Parker, Colorado 80134 Adams, Kenneth L Arch Mineral Corp., 33 Carnation, Belleville, Ill. 62221 Adams, Martin R Energy Research & Develop. Adm., 20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20545 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 1911 Denver Club Bldg., 518 - 17th St., Denver, Colo 80202 Albert, Darrell Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15235 Albrechtsen, Ray H Mountain States Resources Corp., 1399 So. 700 East, Suite 11, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105]

Jan 1, 1977

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 43 Denver Tech Center, Englewood, Colo. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., Box 2331, Denver, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Aggen, Marshall J Marathon LeTourneau Co., Rt. 4, Box 1188, Henderson, Texas Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club Bldg., Denver, Colo. Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 So. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Alford, Eugene C Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., 2025 TenMain Center, Kansas City, Missouri Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliance Co., 5708 East 7th St., Tucson, Arizona Alston, George Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. Amerman, Richard W Utah International, Inc., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mex. Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., Drawer M, Price, Utah Anderson, John S Utah International, Inc., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1973

By Thos. A. Stroup

From time to time the question of shearing or vertical cutting of rooms and entries especially as an adjunct to the usual horizontal cuts, has cropped up in the literature of coal mining and in the discussions of mining men. Exact and definite data based an thorough tests have usually been lacking however and the present article is written to supply as far as possible this deficiency. The tests given below were made over a period of 90 days in the summer of 1921 and the object was to investigate the general .economics, if any, that might result from the introduction of vertical cutting as a standard practice into the Clear Creek mines. The machine used was the Oldroyd Universal coal cutter and comparative tests were made against the Goodman Straight- face machine and the 35 B Jeffrey Shortwall. The tests however should be held to apply only to the various methods of cutting and not as a study in the relative merits of the various machines. The first series of tests were made in the 2nd East district of No. 3 mine, where only entries were being driven at the time, the tests therefore cover only entry work. The presumption was that the entry width would be 12 feet but the oxerrun in some cases was marked enough to make the work comparable to rooms. The first test made was to determine the time necessary to shear as well as cut the places, and the results were reduced to the time necessary to cut a ton of coal. The time for shearing in the table includes the time necessary to revolve the cutter bar to the vertical position.

Jan 1, 1924

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