Search Documents

By A. L. Jones

The subject assigned to me of "The Power" Problem of the Mine" is so broad that I have decided to confine myself to the question of the power supply itself, rather than the application of electricity throughout the property. We will look over certain economic aspects of the problem, particularly in the way it affects the mine manager or executive and his attitude toward the power plant. The accepted method of power application to the mine is by electric power, and the experience of each of you is that the job is never complete as you are always undertaking some further electrification which necessitates the stiffing up the power house to care for the additional load. The mine executive, then, is wrestling almost continuously with the problem of his power plant. Either it is overloaded and must be enlarged and rebuilt; or its operating costs are excessive; or it breaks down and limits coal output; or some one wants to sell new and improved machinery, until the manager almost hates the thought of such a restless part of his property. If he purchases power, every day new uses for it seems to be found. In many ways this unrest is due to short-sighted policy toward the problem, and the tendency when the problem of extension has to be met, to dispose of it in the cheapest way and without thought as to where the future is leading. The day when each opening had its own boiler plant, steam hoist, steam driven fans, steam pumps, steam loaders, etc., seems to be far behind us. The recognized method of power distribution today is by electric power, except for rather limited applications of compressed air; most of which is electrically compressed. During fifteen years contact with mines of Colorado and Wyoming the writer has seen nearly every mine power house double or triple in capacity or abandoned in favor of purchased power, worn. out and inefficient machinery thrown out, isolated boiler plants dropped, seam pumping at great depth changed to electric drive, all resulting in greatly reduced labor and fuel costs. Power costs, which in such isolated plants were considered normal, would be unthinkable today. One property where the main power supply was by compressed air from steam driven com¬pressors used under boilers 8.35 per cent of all the coal mined. The cost of power was 12 1/2 cents per ton of coal mined. Another property of four openings, each with its own boiler plant and usual equipment of hoists, pumps, etc., had a power cost of 10.3 cents for each ton mined; and these were days when you did not get very high prices for coal. Another property operating two mines mostly by steam used 11.1 per cent of the coal output under their own boilers and the power cost was 19.45 cents for each ton mined. Each of these properties is now electrified and power costs are from 3 to 4 cents per ton, and the fuel burned runs from 1 to 2 per cent of the output. With the broadening market and high prices for slack coal and the high prices for labor in boiler and engine rooms, the cost of steam is reaching a high figure, and efforts must be made to keep this down, by more efficient steam production and by utilizing this steam in better machinery which will increase the work done by each pound of steam. It must not be overlooked either, that the plant which is very wasteful of fuel is usually a pretty old one and one far from reliable. In a general way the more efficient the plant, the greater its reliability. Ample and reliable power supply means ability to get out coal when there is a market. The increasing use of purchased power is largely due to changing conditions which are tending constantly to push up the cost of power, unless the most efficient machinery is used and large scale production possible. The

Jan 1, 1923

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

CHAIRMAN I. N. BAYLESS: Will you come to order, gentlemen? They told me that you had a very interesting meeting yesterday and a good time last night. Our program is rather long this morning, and I am not going to take up any of your time, as we got started a little late. I will ask Mr. Marchant to make a few announcements. (Announcements.) SECRETARY MARCHANT: I just noticed in this morning's paper a rather serious accident at Hobbs, New Mexico, in which George Kaseman, a former President of the Institute, and a loyal member ever since its organization, was killed. I think that this meeting should go on record and prepare a resolution of condolence, etc., and with your per- mission we will have the Committee on Resolutions do that. I assume that will be all right. CHAIRMAN BAYLESS: Our first paper and discussion this morning will be Education of the Miner, by Thomas Allen, Chief Coal Mine Inspector of Colorado. Mr. Allen.

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1978

CONCLUSIONS: Our experience, where we attempt to remove a continuous face with a seam more than six and one-half feet in thickness, has been rather disastrous. We have been able to open up faces and retreat for a distance of 75 to 100 feet in this particular character of coal, but after the supporting timbers have been removed for the second or third time we have found that the roof has a tendency to ride over the props and break off at the face of the coal support. However, where our coal is below six and one-half feet in thickness we have had very good success in handling the roof and breaking it off systematically with our break line of props, which are usually from 12 to 15 feet from the face of the coal. Our practice in to set props at about two-foot intervals in each direction and remove two sets of props, at the same time two additional sets are placed along the coal face. At all times we are very insistent that all props be removed from the gob and that entire coal be taken out so that it is possible for the roof to break freely and all come down, not having any supporting pillars in the gob. The conclusion of our experiments to date is that if all the supports beyond the breaking line of props are taken out as the long face retreats and the closer the breaking line of props is kept to the face the better the results will be. We have never felt it safe to have less than four rows of props to protect the machinery and men working along the coal face. We feel that the time element as to the rapidity with which these faces are advanced or retreated, is of vast importance, but to date have not had an opportunity or experience enough to reach any conclusion as to what time element is proper here with us. We feel that the crushing strength of the overlying strata will govern this to a large extent, and as ours varies considerably, it is going to he very difficult for us to reach a definite conclusion. My opinion is, that conditions may be such that rather than have a short face and retreat rapidly, it will be found that a longer facewith a slower retreat will work out better. Such a condition might give the overlying strata time to settle. The caving of roof or of control of this caving, with us, is quite closely associated with the ventilation. We find that the places where the strata overlying the coal are composed of shale, that the effect of the air on this is of very great importance. It is our endeavor, at all times, not only to remove obnoxious gases, but to keep a current of fresh air moving along the face and, of course, a portion of this travels over the gob and comes in contact with the roof and overlying strata. This, we find, helps materially in keeping the roof on the move. As it is our practice to keep water for sprinkling purposes at all places, we also use this water to keep the roof wet back in the gob. The effect of water on the shale is to cause it to disintegrate quite rapidly. MR. HOLMAN (Concluding): If there are any questions about this, I will be glad to answer them. I have some prints and also some pictures of the scraper loader and the shaking conveyors (distributes.) PRESIDENT MOSES: We wish to thank you, Mr. Holman, and also wish that you would thank Mr. Dupont for his paper. Are there any discussions? Do you wish to ask Mr. Holman any questions? (No response.) PRESIDENT MOSES: Mr. Holman, I would like to ask you how you take the photographs; were they taken by flashlight, or were globes used, or how were they taken, in a gaseous mine? MR. HOLMAN: Our mines being gaseous, we do not use the ordinary flashlight for taking underground photographs, but we have had considerable success, I think, with underground pictures by means of electric lights. We use 250 watt globes. We have six of these rigged up with tin reflectors, 18 inches in diameter, on standards, and we carry two or three hundred feet of wire connected with these six lights, and they can be turned on in the room where we take the photograph, by means of this extra wire. We set the kodak up and arrange the picture and take a long time-exposure. We usually take an

Jan 1, 1926

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Harold Levent., Manager Coal Activities, Cameron Engineers, Denver, Colorado. The first speaker was Dr. Joseph J. Yancik, Assistant Director-Mining, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. D.C. Subject-"Coal Mining R&D Programs of the Bureau of Mines." (See index for printed text of Dr. Yancik's paper.) Joseph J. Yancik is Assistant Director - Mining for the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the Bureau's research programs in mining. Principal programs are the coal and metal mining health and safety research, mining extraction and excavation, tunnelling, explosives, mined land reclamation, mine fires and mine waste disposal. He administers these programs through four research centers and through outside contracts and grants.

Jan 1, 1974

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

Jan 1, 1985

President Schloss called the third session of the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced James Westfield, Assistant Director, Health and Safety, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who presided over the session. First speaker of the session was S. L. Jewell, Vice President, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, who spoke on "Our Three Main Routes From Here." (Biographical sketch of Mr. Jewell, see index.) (For the printed text of Mr. Jewell's paper see index.) Mr. Westfield introduced Marling J. Ankeny, Director, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who served as moderator on the panel, "How Do We Go From Here in Safety?"

Jan 1, 1962

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

By F. M. Van Tuyl

The oil industry had its inception in the United States in 1859 when the first oil well was drilled by Col. Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania. From, a production of 2000 barrels for that year there was a slow but steady increase, with some fluctuations, up to 1901 for which year the output was approximately 69,389,194 barrels. Since that time the production has increased with leaps and bounds due to the rapid rise of the automotive industry, the widening use of oil as a fuel under boilers and the development of the. Diesel engine. The production for 1921 is estimated to have been 469,639,000 barrels. During the same year more than 125 millions of barrels were imported from Mexico. The oil industry, including the production, transportation, refining and distribution of petroleum and its products, is now the third largest in the country. Present Condition of the Industry During and immediately after the war the demand for petroleum exceeded the domestic production plus the imports from Mexico with the result that our storage oil was heavily drawn upon. Prices for crude exceeded all previous levels in the history of the industry. Pennsylvania crude sold for $6.10 per barrel and Mid-Continent crude for $3.50. Such prices stimulated wildcatting greatly with the result that several important new oil pools were discovered. Then as production increased the depression came which caused a large falling off in consumption. Pennsylvania crude fell to $2.25 per barrel and Mid-Continent to $1.00. Large oil companies such as the Standard, Sinclair and Empire took advantage of the situation, erected additional storage tanks and bought up millions of barrels to hold until better prices returned. Prices have already improved owing to a better market, but the domestic production coupled with the Mexican importations is still in excess of the demand with the result that the surplus is being stored. At the close of the year 1921, the U. S. Geological Survey estimates that there were 183,890,000 barrels of crude in storage in this country, the largest stocks in the history of the industry, yet an amount sufficient to supply the country for only 119 days at the present rate of consumption. Price reductions are again anticipated in some quarters but in view of the probable falling off in the Mexican output in the near, future due to the rapid rate of exhaustion of several of the most important pools and in view of the expected increase in consumption of gasoline and kerosene during the spring and summer months it is more likely that the present price level will be maintained. Present Sources of Domestic Supply Seven major oil fields are recognized by the U. S. Geological Survey in the United States. These are the Appalachian, Lima-Indiana, Illinois, Mid-Continent, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountain and California. Two of these, Mid-Continent and California, supply about seventy-five per cent of the present total domestic output

Jan 1, 1922

The final session on Wednesday morn¬ing was given over to a panel discussion of safety questions submitted by members of the institute. Mr. Murray presided, and Lyman Fearn, chief, Wyoming Dept. of Mines & Minerals, Rock Springs, Wyo., was moderator. Members of the panel were: John A. Garcia, chief mine inspector, New Mexico; Leonard Ford, mine foreman, Frederick- mine, CF&I, Valdez, Colo.; A. C. Moschetti, chief, coal mine inspection branch, USBM, Denver; Kirk V. Cammack, mining engineer, USGS, Denver; Joel N. Van Sant, chief engineer, St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Coal Co., Raton, N. M.; Emery Olsen, safety engineer, coal mine and quarries, U. S. Steel Corp., Dragerton, Utah; F. J. Peternell, safety engineer, Union Pacific Coal Co., Rock Springs; and J. J. Reddy, mine inspector, Colorado Dept. of Mines, Grand Junction, Colo. On a question concerning the effect of roof-bolting on the maintenance of a breakline in pillar removal, Mr. Van Sant reported that some experience at his company's mines indicate that wood supports are not necessary to make the break although shooting is sometimes done to get it. Furthermore, bolting improves the roof in these pillar areas and extraction has increased about 20%. Mr. Fearn concurred in describing operations in parts of Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1953

Presiding: Herman Van Houten, Senior Marketing Counselor, Joy Mfg. Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., and John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal &Coke Co., Carbondale, Colorado. The Keynote Speaker, Senator Jennings Randolph from West Virginia, was unable to come due to pressing business in Washington. A film presentation on Surface Mining and Reclamation, "Energy Bridge," Courtesy of Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Company, Denver, Colorado, was shown and was prefaced by comments from James V. Fisher. "Advantages of Longwall Mining in Western Coal Production" was a paper presented by David W. Wisecarver, Supervisory Mining Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Wisecarver graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1949. After two years with International Harvester and two years in the U.S. Army, he joined the engineering staff on a Bureau of Mines underground mining operation in Virginia for eight years where he saw duties as mine surveyor, shift boss, and assistant maintenance superintendent.

Jan 1, 1977

Jan 1, 1974

By Robert E. Hanes

Coal Perspectives We are the ?Saudi Arabia of Coal Reserves? (Billions of Short Tons) [ ] However, China & India have added approximately one half of the U.S. installed base capacity for electrical generation, in TWO YEARS ? and it took us some 50-60 years to install our coal fleet.

Jan 1, 2008

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

Jan 1, 1984

By Bill Reid

Jan 1, 2007

[Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel Corp., 919 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah 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, Thomas Chief Coal Mine Inspector, Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver 2, Colo. Anderson, Merlynn D U.S. Fuel, P.O. Box 5022, Dragerton, Utah Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Ankeny, Marling J Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1959

By Sam Andrews

Mr. President, Officers and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is my first attempt to prepare and read a paper before your association. The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I understand, was formed for the purpose of increasing knowledge relating to coal mining in all its various branches by study, research and discussion. In writing my paper, I have tried to be as practical as I can, at the same time, present my arguments so that they can be easily understood. When I use the word science, I mean organized common sense. I humbly ask my hearers to be a little patient, while I read my paper, and be "to its faults a little blind, and to its virtues a trifle kind". Western Europe is said to be the cradle of the coal mining industry. We are told that the Ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of coal long before the Romans invaded and conquered their country. The Romans were never too proud to learn from the outer barbarians, and possibly acquired the precious secret from them: We are told that it was not until the 13th century, that the coal mining industry, assumed any noticeable importance in Britain, and on the Continent. In the year 1259 Henry the 3rd granted a charter to the freemen of New Castle on Tyne, allowing them to mine coal. For a long time it was used in the arts and manufactures only, wood continuing to be the common domestic fuel. As has been the case with almost every great benefit, the introduction of coal as a fuel was stoutly resisted at first, and we find its use prohibited in the city of London in the reign of Edward II, by Royal proclamation ; which was soon discovered to be injurious and foolish, and consequently withdrawn. It is interesting perhaps, to know how this Royal proclamation was brought about. A lady of the Royal household was riding in her coach one day through a village in which coal was burned as a fuel, and she suffered such a cough by inhaling the coal smoke that she decided to call a council of suffragetts, who ultimately decided that the burning of coal was injurious to their health and complexion. They drafted out a petition and presented it to the king, who speedily issued the order that no coal was to be burned in the city of London. The penalty for disobeying this order was death by hanging. We are informed of one poor man who continued to burn a lump of' coal on his fire in winter time; he was arrested, sent to prison and condemned to death; the judge in passing the sentence solemnly stating that if he was not allowed to get a fire that was hot enough in this world, he felt that he surely would be allowed one in the next.

Jan 1, 1921

By Robert M. von Storch

Chairman Doc, distinguished guests, and fellow members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It's a genuine pleasure to meet with you again at the 54th regular meeting. I might add that it is always pleasant to be at the top of the batting order. The field is wide open since there is no danger of repeating something already said. At the same time, I am aware that the lead-off speaker has a responsibility to avoid stepping on the toes of subsequent speakers. I promise to confine my remarks to areas other than those to be covered by the well qualified speakers that follow. During our meetings at this convention, many fine papers will be presented. Our thanks are due Bob Williams and his hard working program committee for the superior selling that brought so many eminent speakers to our meeting. And, of course, our special thanks go to Doc Schloss, general chairman of this meeting. Doc and his able colleague, Stan Shubart, have been the spark plugs that fired up all of the arrangements we are enjoying here in Glenwood Springs. I'm sure all of us are appreciative of the many hours Doc has devoted to seeing that our meetings will be pleasant and profitable. When we mention arrangements, we always think of that master arranger, Fred Whiteside, who, as a charter member and secretary-treasurer of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, has had more to do with more matters around these parts than just about anyone I can think of.

Jan 1, 1958

The Tuesday Morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. E. C. DeMoss, Vice President, Utah Construction & Mining Company, San Francisco, California. Mr. DeMoss introduced Mr. C. Howard Hardesty, Jr., Senior Vice President, Con¬tinental Oil Company, New York, N. Y. Mr. Hardesty spoke on the "Relationship of Coal to Progress in Oil Industry." Mr. Hardesty was born in Fairmont, West Virginia, 1922. He is an attorney by profession; he attended Mercerburg Academy in 1939 and received a Bachelor of Science degree from Duke University, 1943. He then served three years in the U. S. Navy and returned in 1946 to obtain his LL.B. from West Virginia University in 1949. Mr. Hardesty has had an outstanding professional career which started as a partner of the law firm of Furbee & Hardesty, Fairmont, West Virginia. He subsequently was West Virginia's State Tax Commissioner and President of the West Virginia Bar Association. In 1963 lie became General Counsel of Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; in 1964 he was made Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Consolidation Coal. In 1966 he was elected Executive Vice President of Consol, and, shortly after it was merged with Continental Oil Co., he was made Senior Vice President of Continental. He is married to the former Doris Wilson; they have two children and reside in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Jan 1, 1968