Search Documents

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942

By Glen A. Zumwalt

Coal's Dynamic Legacy The first session presented by Mr. Zumwalt emphasized Western coal development, the heritage of the industry and its growth in the West. The session began with a brief description of the geologic origin of coal followed by a short history quiz given the audience to stimulate their curiosity and involve them in the presentation. Slides and flip charts were used as visual aids and a demonstration of energy resources and uses was made by playing the famous Skyline jelly bean game. Coal Mining Today Today's coal mining practices were dealt with in the second session as Mr. Zumwalt appeared dressed in the garb of the modem day miner. He then led a discussion of coal production in the Western states, its uses and the different techniques used in extracting coal from both a surface and an underground mine. Current coal transportation and markets were also touched on. Our Exciting Future Recent coal growth in the marketplace and new uses of coal products to the year 2000 were dealt with in the final session. Mr. Zumwalt covered things that currently impede the expanded use of coal and things that can negatively or positively affect the future use of coal. In each of the three sessions, Mr: Zumwalt was ably assisted by Mrs. Janet Gwilliam, his secretary at Utah Fuel Company.

Jan 1, 1984

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

By Warren C. Bracewell

At your request, am submitting to you several suggestions for the amendment of our safety code which you felt should be kept up to date. These suggestions are the individual opinions of the several members of the Committee who have expressed (heir wishes to me in the form of letters. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Daniel Harrington, Mr. Wm. Littlejohn, Mr. Warren Bracewell, Mr. James Dalrymple and Mr. Hugh McLeod. Would recommend the following amendments Section 1. Wherever practical trolley wires should be securely hung to roof or timbers at a distance of not less than five feet and not more than six and one-half feet above rail and six inches to one side. Spacing of hangers should be from 20 to 25 feet apart. (Adopted.) Section 2. 500 volts D. C. should not be allowed in any installations. Trolley wires should not carry a voltage of more than 250 D. C. nominal voltage. (Referred back.) Pumps, mining machines and other small machinery units where A. C. power is used should not carry a voltage of more than 220. Large units, such as pumps, motor generator sets and hoists, may use a volt- age of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings, on haulage-ways or where men travel. (Adopted.) Section. 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stop- pings they should be properly insulated with porcelain compound or rubber tubing. Wherever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same should be secure1y guarded and should also be protected with a cut- out switch, same to be pulled before men are allowed to get on or off trips. (Adopted.)

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1973

President Ziolkowski called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Jack Leech read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and approved. The Resolution Committee was asked to give its report. The following was submitted: (1) RESOLVED, WHEREAS, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the Coal Mining Industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of the following: James A. Flint John L. Paynich Joseph E. Ward NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that there be spread upon the minutes of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute 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 regard and sympathy of the members of the Institute.

Jan 1, 1981

Jan 1, 1979

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1954

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 Margaret N. Maxey

Man's capacity far fretting is endless, and no matter what difficulties we surmount, how many ideals we realize, there is a stealthy pleasure in rejecting mankind or the universe as unworthy of our approval. - Will Durant Until recently, reasons for favoring one or another energy alternative were advanced on the basis of technical considerations and economic realities. However, it is an indication of the cultural climate of our society and growing realization of why energy is our master resource that many citizens have begun to express concern about the social and ethical implications of our energy deci¬sion-making. A vivid indication of this shift toward ethical concerns is reflected in the attention being focused on conservation - even to the point of regarding it as a virtual panacea equivalent to a "free energy resource." Among others, the authors of a publication by Resources for the Future cautions us about the difficulties of defining conservation. They also point out that unrealistic expectations for achieving the high levels of conservation claimed by true believers may boomerang if, at the same time, we are morally required to maintain economic growth and robust productivity for the basic well-being of more people. In its economic meaning, conservation signifies the most economic or cost-effective applications of energy, together with other resources, in a given process or activity. To achieve conservation that is cost-effective, saving energy alone is not sufficient; the cost involved in saving the energy must be no greater than the cost of the energy that is saved. Using its thermodynamic meaning, conservation and efficiency are viewed as constrained by physical laws and measured against ideal limits set by these laws and processes. Since achieving higher levels of technical performance is not without costs, the economic meaning of conservation must be factored into technical possibilities. It is the ethical, equity and environmental meaning of conservation that concerns us here. In its third meaning, conservation consists in moderation as a value which appears inherently worthwhile both in itself and in relation to social choices dedicated to achieving distributive justice. The value of moderation seems predicated on the assumption that natural resources and the environment have fixed, finite, exhaustible capacities for satisfying human needs. Hence norms for moderating human behavior appear to require prescriptions by some authority. Such norms presuppose some agreement on "essential" uses of energy. However, the difficulties of setting behavioral norms loom large, because "... it is as difficult to determine essential energy consumption as to determine what is essential in any other phase of consumption, whether it involves food, clothing, shelter, or recreation." The ethical meaning of conversation is further complicated by a centuries-old argument over the proper exercise of stewardship - i.e., how best to develop natural resources. On the one hand, the preservationist position insists on an inviolate, "hands-off" policy and stands opposed to ongoing development of wilderness areas and mineral resources. On the other hand, the "scientific conservationist" who preaches the "gospel of efficiency" insists on development of resources based on principles of sustained-yield, multiple use and - in the case of competing claims - reserving resources or land for their "higher use." Current confusion reigns among opinion leaders in the environmental movement because they appear to have lost the genius of the original Conservation ethic, developed in the 19th century. They seem to think that conservation is preservation. The question I wish to explore is whether a single-minded, exclusive pursuit of "conservation" in its economic, thermodynamic and preservationist meanings may actually do more harm than good in serving the ethical goals of conservation. There

Jan 1, 1986

By Bret K. Clayton

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 1972

By Grainne A. Matthews

Jan 1, 2008

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 4, 1952, Albert M. Keenan, Chairman, presiding. CHAIRMAN KEENAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have our third and final clay of our program, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your attendance, both in the past meetings and this one this morning... I am particularly delighted to see that we are all here this morning after the very enjoyable banquet last night. It is a little difficult to get people gathered up after such an occasion.

Jan 1, 1952

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

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1964