Search Documents

By Gilbert Davis

MR. DAVIS: When the Secretary asked me to continue our accident experience in safety work at Dawson to cover the year just closed, I rather felt that he was asking 'a good deal, for we had said about everything that we could last year. I am not going to say very much, but in line with his request I have merely brought the figures up to date. I want to say, to start, that 1934 was, rather disappointing. It was the poorest year since 1930, as you will notice (indicates on diagram). This first column represents the accidents per thousand shifts worked. We cannot assign any real valid reason for the increase. We think we worked just as hard, but we are rather inclined to lay it onto the times; in other words, to lay it to the unrest and the changing conditions that are existent not only in this country but probably all over the world. We had twelve lost time accidents last year. As I explained last year, a lost time accident with us is an accident wherein the injured man is not able to return to his regular work, the next day-the day following the injury. So this represents (indicating) the lost time accidents per thousand shifts worked. We had one fatality in the twelve accidents which is reflected in the severity rates, which are also based upon thousand shifts worked instead of per million hours. The reason we are on the thousand shifts worked is be¬cause the Copper Branches of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation are all kept that way, and we are on the same basis for easy comparison.

Jan 1, 1935

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

Jan 1, 1931

By NA N/A

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1952

Jan 1, 1930

The 71st Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Steamboat Village Inn, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The session was called to order by William W. Grant, Assistant to Manager of Navajo Mine, Utah International, Inc., Fruitland, New Mexico. Mr. Grant was delegated to open the meeting due to the untimely death of Past President A. F. Geiger. Mr. Grant introduced President Roy Coulson, President and Director of the Kemmerer and Gunn-Quealy Coal Companies, Frontier, Wymoing. His biography follows: Jan. 7, 1922 Born to Jean and Joseph Coulson, Ernest, Pennsylvania 1940 Graduated - Indiana High School, Indiana, Pennsylvania

Jan 1, 1975

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 1964

Jan 1, 1969

Jan 1, 1978

By Kelly A. Cosgrove

Jan 1, 2003

By J. J. Welch

The thought and practices in the field of accounting in the past two or three years are undergoing far-reaching changes, but more important than this is the changing viewpoint of business managers toward accounting reports and statistics. Accounting is no longer considered a necessary burden of business, for progressive managers and operating officials everywhere look upon it as a service. A service of supplying operating men and executives with information on their affairs which enables closer and more effective supervision, to the end that business may be conducted more satisfactorily and more profitably. This service is the real function of accounting in business management. Of the many treatises on accounting published in recent years, the great majority deal with principles and procedures, and were written purely from the accountant's point of view, thus they appeal, and are of interest, chiefly to accountants. Recently, however, the interest displayed by the operating man, be he president, general manager, superintendent, mine foreman or potential mine executive, calls upon the accounting department to serve him in furnishing him with figures showing the financial position and economic progress daily. In order to effectively render this service the necessary co-operation between management, operating and accounting -forces must exist. Satisfactory services may be developed only on a basis of close contact and pulling together between these departments. It is not a one-man job, the responsibilities necessarily rest on all. This co-operation contemplates:

Jan 1, 1932

The 75th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Shirl C. McArthur, President and General Manager, American Coal Company, Huntington, Utah, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. He introduced President Robert E. Murray, President, Western Division and Subsidiary Companies, The North American Coal Corporation, Bismarck, North Dakota. A biographical sketch follows: Since 1974, Mr. Murray has been President of the Western Division of The North American Coal Corporation, as well as President of The Falkirk Mining Company and The Coteau Properties Company, wholly-owned subsidiaries of North American. Previously, Mr. Murray, who has been associated with North American for twenty- three years, served as Vice President-Operations, Vice President - Eastern Division, and Assistant to the President of the Company. In these positions, he was responsible for North American operations in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Utah.

Jan 1, 1979

The Wednesday morning session was called to order by President Lewis at 9:00 am, He called on Bob Wilson to conduct the business meeting. In the absence of any of the Auditing Committee, the treasurer's report, which had previously been examined by them was read. He asked for a motion of approval. It was made, granted and approved. The Resolution Committee was called on to make its report. Mr. Shirl McArthur read the following report: (1) "WHEREAS, the Pneumoconiosis or Black Lung provisions of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act which have been construed and administered largely as a welfare program rather than as just compensation for occupational disease has resulted in enormous expenditures and commitments from the Federal Treasury, WHEREAS, the imposition of the full cost of future welfare oriented black lung awards on coal operators without regard to workmen's compensation standards and without due process in granting benefits is grossly unfair and discriminatory to the coal operator and places an undue burden on the present cost of coal,

Jan 1, 1973

By F. C. Miller

The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company has divided their coal mines into groups or divisions: Las Animas, Huerfano, Fremont and Gunnison counties. Each division is represented by a safety committee composed of three men appointed by the management and three men selected by the employes? representatives. The three men appointed by the management are usually from a group engaged in routine work that is primarily of a safety nature. Mr. Robert McAllister, chief mine inspector; Mr. George B. Parker, superintendent of first aid and mine rescue training; Mr. F. C. Miller, chief chemist, fuel department; and Mr. 0. C. Irwin, assistant chief electrician. The three men appointed by the management act in each of the four divisions. It is the duty of the safety commit- tee to visit each mine three times per year and make a thorough investigation of conditions underground and on top. Their report is in the form of recommendations to the management for their consideration. They are also called to investigate all fatal accidents and learn, if possible, the cause leading up to the accident and recommend precautionary measures that will prevent the recurrence. This committee inspects the haulage roads, air courses, manways, electrical equipment, ventilation, timbering, working places and humidity. In addition, each mine has a local safety committee with the superintendent acting as chairman. It is the duty of this committee to keep in daily touch with conditions underground and on top. They hold weekly meetings and discuss problems related to safety. These men work on local conditions that govern their affairs. As an example: One of the mines has a checking out board at the man-trip parting in addition to the regular checking in and out system as required by law, and this board is checked before the man-trip leaves for the outside, giving the officials a chance to take prompt action in looking up a man who may have become ill or injured. Should a man walk out and forget to check off, there is a penalty imposed. The ventilation of a coal mine is most important and the method of conducting the air to the working face is one of the greatest precautionary measures linked with safety. A quantity of air must be maintained at every working face to insure rapid diffusion of explosive or noxious gases and in a manner without interruption. With this intent in, view, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company is installing fan equipments with capacities of 200,000 cubic feet per minute with dual drives, twin fans in some instances, for insured circulation. Dual drives consist of a steam engine using exhaust

Jan 1, 1925

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

By Bob Burnham

Agenda 1 Overview of forecasting process 2 Review of Pre and Post Recession Forecasts 3 US Demand/Supply Summary 4 Coal Demand by Region 5 Coal Distribution by Census Region 6 Coal Price Outlook 7 Carbon Cases 8 Takeaways

Jan 1, 2009