Search Documents

By John R. Spencer

Today's coal market offers many unique buying and selling opportunities. By reviewing past and present marketing practices, new contracting philosophies can be developed with cooperation between the buyer and seller that can lead to a more stable market. This paper presents an analysis of the past and present coal markets and techniques that are currently being used in contracting that are intended to develop a more stable market place in the future.

Jan 1, 1987

Mr. Shepard's paper was unfortunately delivered extemperaneously so no record is at hand. He spoke most interestingly and at length on the oil shales of Colorado, giving his opinion as to the ultimate outcome of the oil shale industry. He explained his idea that it would be built up of comparatively small plants, each of which would make the crudes, or more exactly would roughly divide the crude into its fractions, piping or shipping the fractions to a Central Refinery, using the residue for fertilizer, as it runs very high in fertilizer salts. He recommended that this plan be taken up by Coal Producers, that they consider the possibility of breaking up coal and selling its more refined products in place of selling raw coal. He spoke at length of the various outlets for products of distillation. Mr. McDermott gave a very interesting talk later on work that is being done in the Northern Colorado field along these lines. Mr. McDermott mentioned the strange fact that coaly materials such as mother of coal appeared to give just as good or better results under distillation than did lignite coal. Messrs. Randall, Howe, Goddard, Danford, and Nash added interesting data covering the use of pulverized fuel, and this data will be collected and offered to the Institute later in the form of a paper. Mr. Young spoke of the use of powdered coal in small units for small plants, mentioning the system now being offered by an Eastern Iron Works for small heating plants.

Jan 1, 1922

MR. SHUBART: Mr. Miller's paper mentioned the two processes that seemed to be a success, the Smith process and the Piron process. I suppose the main difference is this, that Smith's process is to furnish domestic fuel and the by-products while the Piron process that Ford is installing is for fuel for power plants. I would like to ask Mr. Miller something about the commercial cost of the process. With the briquette you must make it cheap enough to sell. What are the commercial possibilities of Smith's briquette? MR. MILLER: It is pretty hard to say what the cost would be at this time, owing to the fact that slack has advanced double, or even more at the time I was in New York with the plant, but at that time it was costing $1.10 for the operation. You can add to that, of course, the cost of the coke. One dollar and ten cents was the entire cost of plant operation. It takes about one and one-half tons of coal to make a ton of briquettes. One dollar and ten cents takes care of all the material, cost, labor, handling, etc. Labor was much cheaper then. I would say it would cost about $2.20 now. The cost of coal is what you can buy it for on the market. I don't think, however, that the carbocoal process will ever meet with any great favor for the simple reason that it is really a prepared fancy fuel. It is going to be nice for people in offices where they want a grate or for families where they want a nice clean fuel. It leaves no stain on the fingers, no odor to it. It seems in carbonizing coal we change the carbon molecule. For instance, we are all familiar with the diamond. It is carbon, yet it requires a tremendous heat to burn a common little diamond. But you can set a piece of charcoal afire, which is also carbon, with a match. The molecular form has been changed in carbonizing coal, i. e., it is larger. Carbocoal will fire very readily, it can be started with a piece' of paper. I think the Piron process will be the process, i. e., to simply take out the tars and light oils, then fire direct-have the distillate plants right on the job. CHAIR: Can Mr. Shubart tell us something of the mechanical part of the Piron process? MR. SHUBART: The Piron process is of interest because Mr. Ford is taking it up. He has made so few mechanical mistakes it makes us feel that it is a success. Piron is a chemist of high accomplishment and reputation. The thing about the proces is its simplicity. Mr. Smith's is a very elaborate process, but Piron has gotten around all that. Piron feeds the raw coal in at about one-half inch mesh or smaller. He feeds it into a retort about 55 feet long, 16 feet wide over all. He has a hearth about 6 feet wide and the length of the retort. The base of the hearth that carries the coal is a conveyor, a flat cast iron conveyor, a very massive affair, very accurately made, so that there is no loss of coal. Between the upper and lower strands of the ' conveyor is a bath of molten lead which gives an accurate control of temperature. For best results he must have temperature of not under 800 F., not over 1,300 degrees F., about 1,100 or 1,200 F. seems to be ideal for getting greatest yield of oils and the best tars and other by-products. This lead bath has a system of flues running through it that

Jan 1, 1923

By J. R. Kastler

It becomes my pleasant duty to call the meeting to order. This is our fiftieth regular meeting. And the session we are opening today, I am sure: will be as interesting and informative as those in the past. These gatherings present a fruitful opportunity for an exchange of experiences and ideas that will aid all of us in our work in the various segments within the coal industry. Walter Johnson and his Program Committee have arranged a wonderful program for us; Walter, due to his standing in the industry and his large acquaintanceship with the leaders of the industry, has really gone to town in bringing outstanding speakers and personalities to deliberate with us in our proceedings. A lot of things have happened since we last met; in the operating end, and in safety we have made marvellous headway, but we have slipped badly in the marketing end. However, I am sure the messages and discussion you will hear will point out ways and means of overcoming at least some of our difficulties. Before we get on with the program, I want to thank our hard working Secretary, Fred Whiteside, who, by the way, is a charter member of the Institute and has attended every one of the fifty meetings we have held; and the various committees who have been meeting for the past several months and who have arranged this fine program you are to hear. I hope all of you enjoy the convention; the business as well as the social sessions.

Jan 1, 1954

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

MR. GIBSON (continuing): In connection with the coal from this mine, I will say that it is not a very dirty coal. The vein where most of the coal comes from is about eight feet thick, and two feet from the bottom there is a small boney band about two inches thick. The breaking shot has to be placed over the, band, therefore breaking the boney into fine particles which goes off with the slack. This coal is a very good domestic coal and the slack is in great demand for various power, plants, such as sugar plants, smelters and other industries, but where this, boney is broken up and goes into the slack, it is very injurious in effect and retards the sale of the slack. Therefore the Spring Canyon Coal Company went to the expense of' building this plant, costing over $250,000, just in order to get that, two inches of boney coal out of the rest of the vein. The market in, Utah is very critical, and in order to sell coal, the product must be thoroughly clean in every way and, as Mr. Murphy says, I believe they have succeeded in making a very good commercial product. In any event the Spring Canyon Coal Company put out more coal than any other one mine during the last year, 1924, they had the largest production. I thank, you. (Applause). PRESIDENT MARKS: With the assistance of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Miller, I am sorry you could not get the pictures a little better synchronized with the story. MR. F. C. MILLER (Chief Chemist The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, Pueblo) : We had seven slides to show eighteen different views on the screen and we did remarkably well. (Laughter.) PRESIDENT MARKS: Is there : any further discussion on this paper? MR. G. B. JONES (Mining Inspector, Victor-American Fuel Co.) : I would like to ask a question on the

Jan 1, 1926

By C. P. Crawford

In the current issue of Link-Belt News is this quotation: "Advancing waves of other people's progress sweep over the unchanging man and wash him out." As we look over the industrial world today we are struck by the many waves which are sweeping over backward industries. Mergers are being consummated in all lines of endeavor. General Motors are making radios and the Bendix Brake Company are making airplanes. Railroads which twenty years ago were called to account by the Federal Government for their efforts to form combinations are today being ordered to combine. But what is of immediate concern to the coal industry is the fact that there is now in existence or in project a total of 3,641 miles of pipe lines to carry natural gas to most of the country's industrial centers. This is the wave of progress which is sweeping toward you and me. If we are to grasp the significance of these many changes, we must widen our vision so that we may learn some- thing from 'the other fellow's experience. The first lesson is that cost of production alone is not a measure of profit. It is an interesting fact that the production of an article represents a definite loss until that article has been sold for a price in excess of its total cost, and the money is in the hands of the producer. If this is true, then the selling price is more important than the production cost.

Jan 1, 1930

The 68th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Max A. Robb, Vice President and General Manager, U.S. Fuel Company, Hiawatha, Utah. Mr. Robb welcomed the members and guests and was pleased with the large attendance. He then introduced President Joseph E. Ward, former District Man- ager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. (Retired). A brief biography follows: Mr. Ward is a transplanted Westerner, having spent the greater part of his life in the Eastern and Southern areas of this country. In 1927, he graduated from what was then the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, Pa., with a B.S. degree in Mining Engineering. He dropped out of school for a period between his Junior and Senior years and worked in the coal mines in order to obtain sufficient money to complete his education. Practically all his adult life since graduation, has been spent in or around the coal mines in this country. After graduation, he worked the next 15 years of his life as an underground supervisor, first for the Hudson Coal Co., in Scranton, Pa. and later for the U.S. Steel Corporation in Birmingham, Alabama. He then went into sales, selling basically to the coal mine industry and other mining operations. The last 13 years of his business career were spent as a district manager for Joy Manufacturing CO., 10 years of which were in the Coal Division of their Denver office, covering the Rocky Mountain area. He retired in August 1970 but still retains an active interest in the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the Rocky Mountain Coal Industry it supports. He is a widower, his wife, Thelma having died in July 1970. He has two children and six grandchildren.

Jan 1, 1972

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

By Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925

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 Dan Jackson

9:00 a.m., June 28, 1983 MR. MORTENSEN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Again, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to another session of the 79th meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. The thing again that has always been impressive are the activities that we've had so far. The success in the meetings has been delightfully encouraging to all of our committee people. Please welcome the chairman of the session, Charlie Margolf. MR. MARGOLF: Thank you, Vernal. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It would be my privilege to serve as the session chairman this morning. To allow the maximum time for our speakers, I'll turn the microphone over to Bernie Bernstrom who will introduce our first speaker. MR. BERNSTROM: Thank you. As Vernal mentioned, Dan Jackson will be our first speaker. He is the Western Editor of Coal Age Magazine. Dan really doesn't need an introduction to this group. He's belonged to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute about 25 years. Dan is a native of West Virginia and he's an ex-coal miner. He graduated form West Virginia University as an electrical engineer and worked for Amherst and West Bending Coal prior to employment by Coal Age Magazine. Back in 1972 Coal Age moved him to Denver from New York City. MR. JACKSON: When Vernal Mortensen asked me speak to the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute earlier this year I found it impossible to say no to the guy because of what he has contributed to western coal. Little did 1 know that the subject he had in mind would be entitled, "An Outsider's View of Western Coal." At first I asked myself-I've been associated with the coal industry for some 38 years, 12 years in national operations and 26 years reporting on it. You might say that I've been married to two industries, coal and the business press for 26 years, but today I'll put on my business press hat and try to make an impression of what an outsider might think of western coal. But at the outset, let's get one thing straight: When you say press, whether it's business press, the media or whatever, and you heard some comments yesterday as far as what the media has done .to this industry and there's been some definitions bandied around as to just what an editor is. One of the most recent ones has defined an editor as a person who can talk on any subject with an open mouth. Now that's not my case. Secondly, I don't give long talks. Several years ago I was giving a rather lengthy talk to a group similar to this and it was halfway through the talk when I noticed one guy on my right looking at his watch quite frequently. I didn't mind that too much because all of us do that once in a while, but when he looked at his watch, took it off and shook it, I thought, "My God, better cut short." But for more than a decade western coal has enjoyed substantial annual increases in production from some 30,000,000 tons in 1970 to some 264,000,000 tons in 1981, but 1982 was a different story. We lost about 6,000,000 tons of production in that year. In 1983 it's expected to be a little worse than '82. Coal historically doesn't rebound from a recession as quickly as other industries. It takes about eight to 10 months longer for us to really get moving again and I'm afraid that you'll still have to don your fighting helmets and flack jackets when you go out into the market to sell your product. Western coal, as you know, has problems and al l of them are not going away when the recession ends and they won't go away overnight. I'm sure most of you are aware of what those problems are. Carl Bagge and Jim Harris, along with other speakers, at this meeting have educated us well on those problems and I'm sure you'll hear more from Jim Watt at today's luncheon. If everyone in this room were asked to list three orfourof the most serious problems facing western coal, I'd make book that the total of the answers wouldn't vary by more than 3 to 5%, if that much. But coal is not the only mining segment in the U.S. with problems. Metal and non-metal mining has its share, too. I'd like to step back into the past for a few minutes, if I may, to a time when our problems were just beginning. Since 1979 a third of the nation's mines, including coal, metal and nonmetal have been shut down. The total volume of all mining in the U.S. in that year totaled some $24 billion. Today that figure has dropped some 21 %. The after tax rate on return for mining companies has fallen from 6'/% in 1980 to minus 3% in 1983. But that's really not where our problems began. They began 20 years ago when a profound change began taking place in the U.S. economy. Our economy had been growing at about 2'/-3% annually without exception except for the great depression. Our inflation rate was about I'/%, interest rates were running about 6%, and the federal budget was $77 billion, really great figures compared to today. From 1960 to 1980 the federal budget increased almost 1.000% and taxed paid by individual families increased by 700% during that same period. Despite the huge increases in taxes, the federal deficit kept getting larger and larger year after year and within this 20 year period the national debt climbed to a trillion dollars. Economic progress of this type can't continue indefinitely without some serious consequences. The result of that economy, well, you know what happened and there is a direct relationship of that

Jan 1, 1983

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

"Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: "It gives me a great deal of pleasure to call the Fifty-Second regular meeting to order this morning. "I think that you will agree with me that we have an excellent program planned for the next three days, comprising various interesting and educational subjects by authors of prominence, which will be of keen interest to all of us in the coal industry. "The Program Committee, chairmanned by John Peperakis, has done an excellent job in securing this very splendid talent for our convention. "I would like to say a word as to the, condition of the coal industry in our part of the country as well as elsewhere. I believe we can look at it with more optimism than in the past several years, particularly in the state of Colorado, with which I am more familiar. "Annual coal production in Colorado gradually dropped from around 12 million tons during the years of World War I to as low as 8 million tons during the last war, and to less than 3 million tons in the year of 1954. We believe that it touched bottom that year, as in 1955 the state production went up again to nearly 3,400,000 tons, equivalent to an increase of 15%. As you know, the national increase in bituminous coal production for the year of 1955 was roughly 2000 over 1954. "The national increase for the first two months of 1956 over the same period of 1955 is approximately 2100. Colorado's production is running around 1000 over the comparable period of last year, and the 5 states represented by our Institute came up with a nice increase in 1955 over 1954 of 1000. "Figures on the increase so, far in 1956 for this group of states are not readily available, but I fully believe that. our industry locally, as well as nationally, is now starting out on a steady rise despite the fanfare of nuclear energy and its more glamorous competitor, solar energy. Many authorities tell us that real competition from these sources is a long way off and that the atomic energy program will consume far more coal than is displaced by nuclear power. "I do not mean to infer that we coal people are out of the woods by a long way' so far as holding and regaining markets, for our coal. The captive operators, which are well represented here, have not lost their market for coking coal, since coke is still a necessary

Jan 1, 1956

PRESIDENT PRYDE: I think that the overcutting machine undoubtedly presents a great many benefits, especially where the roof is frail. I have found a good substitute for the Arcwall, getting a lighter machine by equipping a machine with a turret truck, you get a much lighter weight, and while the cutter is not movable vertically, you cut not on top of the seam, but about the middle of it. MR. SC'HLOSS: I would like to ask Mr. Pryde the advantages of cut- ting with this turret-mounted Shortwall machine. PRESIDENT PRYDE: It is better for development work in narrow places. In development work you have a lot of narrow places. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Chairman, we were compelled at Winter- quarters, one time, to introduce them for reason of sand rolls'. We have in that mine a condition-we have sand rolls from twelve inches to two and a half feet, sometimes higher than that-usually twelve inches to two and a half feet, and we had to get some of the C. E. 7's on the turret there and used them for advance work not only in the entries, but in rooms; not only in that particular district, but in fact all the districts in the mine-we have abandoned the power trucks. You can cut without unloading, and that is one of the principal advantages, and when the sand rolls come in it enables you to cut over the top of the sand roll, but the particular objection, we were working a nine-foot wall, and some of the coal was twelve feet thick, so that the miners have raised a little objection to the drilling.

Jan 1, 1924

By Ted Schwinden

It's my pleasure to welcome the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute to Montana. Now that you've ended a 74 year history of meeting outside our borders, I hope you'll be back more often. Even if I can't convince you to come back before 2060, when another 74 years will be up, I'm confident the Kalispell and Flathead Lake area will do the persuading for me. In recent weeks, I've made a number of speeches around the state pointing out just how wrong the revenue projections in Montana's state government made in April of '85 were when we came to April of '86. Since the middle of this month, Montana's legislators have been in Helena struggling to balance a state budget that, by the end of fiscal year '87, threatened to be some $88 million in the red. Other western states reliant on natural resource and agricultural economies have found themselves caught in the same deflationary spiral. The "window of opportunity" I proposed and the 1985 Montana Legislature passed, couldn't have been opened at a more difficult time. What was envisioned as an incentive to expand Montana's coal production, and our tax base, ran aground on low oil prices and excess hydroelectric power. De- spite the one-third severance tax rebate offered on new coal production, year-to-date figures published in the June 2nd Coal Week show that production in Montana is down almost 10 per- cent from last year. Again, we're not alone. Production in Wyoming is down 8 percent and in North Dakota, it has dropped 13 percent. An over- all 3 percent production decline in western states looks even worse when contrasted against a 12 percent increase for your eastern competitors. Montana's "window of opportunity" had the potential to be a significant signal to your industry. That potential was quickly tempered by the inability of Arab nations to stabilize world energy prices. If any of us had forgotten, the last twelve months have reminded western states that the well-being of our natural resource economies has a tremendous impact on the ability of all levels of government to provide services. The past year has also driven home that in the world of business and in the business of the world, risk-taking is still the name of the game. The Western Governors recognize the problems facing this industry - and our states - and we're prepared to fight for the future of western coal. In the past two decades, legitimate environmental concerns have created a vast body of new legislation affecting coal producers. The industry has been required to meet new reclamation standards - tough regulations relating to ground water, air quality and wildlife habitat. To the industry's credit, coal companies have hired professionals with the technical know-how to do it right. Rather than considering reclamation laws to be an unreasonable burden, today's coal company is more likely to view its reclamation efforts as a source of corporate pride. In a sense, the industry and the agencies which regulate it have matured together . . . although at times OSM is reluctant to admit that either of us capable of or willing to play by the rules. Certainly some abuses exist and OSM's oversight has been helpful in ensuring parity between those states willing to comply and those that would rather defy federal law. Nonetheless, penalizing the more modem and responsible western coal industry for abuses that occur elsewhere is both unfair and counterproductive. Federal penalties range from "cruel and unusual" reporting requirements to the proposed electricity tax that would effectively force utilities and ratepayers who have already met the sulphur emission standards to subsidize those who have dodged their cleanup responsibilities. As a member of the Alliance for Acid Rain Control, I have joined corporate leaders, academicians, environmental representa-

Jan 1, 1986

PRESIDENT MARKS: This is a matter, I think, in which we are all very much interested, and I know We will have considerable discussion on the subject. MR. GIBSON: Wouldn't it be a fact, Mr. Trick, if a mine was laid off on the block system, it would require less ventilation, less cubic feet of air per minute, and therefore you would have that much better ventilation by

Jan 1, 1926

By C. Arthur Carlson

"It now becomes my privilege and duty to call to order this fifty-first meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. "I bid you a hearty welcome and I know by your attendance at these meetings you will gain a great deal of valuable information, as well as have a wonderful time. "We have been very ably represented by Mr. John H. Emrick as General Chairman, assisted by our good friend Mr. Fred W. Whiteside, our secretary and treasurer. I know they have worked very hard in selecting the various committees, who in turn - by the looks of our program have gone all out to prepare material that should be of great interest to us. I trust we will be attentive to the subjects presented and freely enter into the discussions, also relating our problems and experiences. I am sure this will prove both profitable and beneficial to all present. "The main purpose of these conventions is to become acquainted with each other, renew old acquaintances, talk over our problems, and have a little fun and relaxation from our every day routine. "Let us not forget the manufacturers, the distributors, the operators, or the press because it is through their splendid support that this organization is successful. "Since our last meeting we have gained many new members, whom we especially welcome. We are sorry to have lost a few. I am mindful, at this time, of two very good members from my home state who have passed away, Walter Wetzel, a former president of this institute, and Lee Alger, at the time of his death, Vice-President from Utah. We also lost very recently our assistant Secretary-Treasurer, Everret Davis. These men contributed a great deal to the institute and the coal industry in general. I am sure they are greatly missed by all who knew them."

Jan 1, 1955