Search Documents

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

The meeting was called to order with President George B. Pryde in the chair, and C. M. Schloss, acting Secrcetary. The meeting immediately pro¬ceeded to the reading of the papers. Mr. L. S. Ickis read a paper by A. L. Jones, entitled, "Underground Sub-Station Control," and elaborating on the general topic of automatic sub-stations. The discussion was led in part by Mr. E. H. Weitzel, acting as Chairman, in Mr. Pryde's temporary absence. Mr. S. R. DeBoer, who specializes on landscape architecture, gave an interesting talk on the subject of "City Planning and Landscape Architecture for Western Coal Camps." Notes were taken of this talk, which will be found in the proceedings. Mr. Pryde then resumed the Chair; There was no discussion of this paper. Mr. Thomas Foster, of Reliance, Wyoming, then read his paper on "Coal Dust in Mines." After the discussion of Mr. Foster's paper, the discussion of Mr. McKeehan's paper on track bonding, read at the Salt Lake meeting, was resumed, and this discussion will be found printed separately in the proceedings. Mr. Schloss then read an amusing and friendly telegram from C. H. Stevenson, of Price, Utah, which caused considerable merriment, and the Chairman asked Messrs. Weitzel, Littlejohn and Schloss to form an appro¬priate answer, and they answered it in the same spirit. The Chairman then announced the banquet for Wednesday evening and the Theatre Party for Thursday evening. The meeting then adjourned. The meeting resumed at 10:15 A. M., Thursday, February 14, 1924. The Chairman announced a photograph of the meeting to be taken at noon, on the Post Office steps, after which the Chairman appointed a nom¬inating committee, consisting of George A. Murphy, F. W. Whiteside and

Jan 1, 1924

By Paul Schmechel

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

Jan 1, 1986

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

By Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

The 65th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President Joe T. Taylor, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Palo Alto, California. Manager of the Stanley Hotel, who welcomed the guests to the Stanley. After a few remarks, he introduced Bob Dean, for- mer Manager of the Stanley Hotel and again associated with the Stanley, who also made a welcoming talk as Mr. Dean has hosted the Institute at the Colorado Hotel in Glenwood Springs and in Estes Park. Mr. Taylor introduced President Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Stan was raised in the machinery end of the coal industry following the footsteps of his Dad who was one of the founders of the RMCMI in 1912. And following his Dad's years of service to the Institute, 12 of them as Secretary, Stan has been active as Chairman of the Hotel & Registration Committee for 16 years, and, prior to his election as President, was General Chair- man for two years He is a graduate of the University of Colorado with a degree in mechanical engineering. He served our country in World War II and retired as a Colonel, Army Ordnance, after 43 years in the Reserve. He is a Trustee of National Jewish Hospital and was their President for 3 years. He has been active in many Military and professional societies, and in civic projects. I give you our President, Stan Shubart, for his remarks.

Jan 1, 1969

By Stuart A. Sanderson

Founded in 1876 - oldest continuously operating mining association in the United States 700 Members representing mineral resource industry in Colorado and the west Spokesman for the industry before the legislature, agencies, Congress, and the courts

Jan 1, 2010

ARTICLE I - General Section 1. Name. The name of the corporation shall be The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Section 2. Objects and Purposes. The objects and purposes of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the nature of the business to be carried on by it are as follows: (a) To sponsor educational programs pertaining to coal mining technologies and production techniques, mining management and safety, federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations pertaining to coal mining, and other energy related issues. (b) To disseminate to the public and to educational and scientific institutions knowledge, and the results of study and research into recent developments in coal mining technologies and production techniques, mining management and safety, federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to coal mining, and other energy related issues. (c) To do and engage in all lawful activities that further or are consistent with the preceding objects and purposes of the corporation. Section 3. Nonprofit Corporation. This corporation shall operate as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Colorado. ARTICLE 11- Principal Office and Corporate Seal Section. 1. Principal Office. The principal office and place of business of the corporation in the State of Colorado shall be in the County of Jefferson, Colorado, or at such other location as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine. Other offices and places of business may be established from time to time by resolution of the Board of Directors. Section 2. Corporate Seal. The seal of the corporation shall be inscribed with the name of the corporation, the year of its incorporation, and the words "Colorado" and "Seal," and shall be in a form approved by the Board of Directors, which may alter the same at pleasure. ARTICLE III - Members Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classes, consisting of active members, life members, and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges, and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. Section 2. Qualifications. The members of the corporation shall have the following qualifications: (a) Any individual interested in the goals and purposes of the corporation may become an active member of the corporation upon payment of such annual dues as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time by resolution. (b) An individual who has devoted long and dedicated service to the corporation and to its goals and purposes may become a life member of the corporation upon being elected to that status by the Board of Directors, and such individual shall retain such status for life. (c) An individual who has been at any time an active member of the corporation and who has reached 70 years of age may become a senior member upon payment of such annual dues as the Board of

Jan 1, 1994

By Lyman Fearn

Men and institutions are what they are largely because of inheritance. Out of the past comes experience that enables men to build more wisely than did preceding generations. The field of possibilities has widened as the horizon of men's vision has been extended. The realization of these possibilities has depended largely on the application of men's natural endowments, brain and brawn, to the problems at hand. In the field of mechanized mining, Wyoming has a greater percentage of men with vision, who have a realization of the possibilities of mechanized mining, than any other state in proportion to tonnage production. With the introduction of mechanized mining systems have come problems that have caused the men who are connected with the safety work much thought. Discussions on mechanical drilling, cutting, loading, conveying, haulage, etc., have come in for their share of the debate. There have been a few attempts made to show that mechanical mining is safer than are the more primitive ways of doing underground work by man power. We also have a number of places in the coal producing States of the United States, where the mechanized systems have been abandoned chiefly on account of the safety element involved bringing about condemnation of the system by State inspection forces. Certain types of scraper systems have been condemned, and some have voiced opposition to long faces. This would lead us to believe that the question is still a debatable one as far as the safety element is concerned. It is only fair that we discuss the operations of mechanical systems and from the results obtained take analysis of conditions as they exist, basing our conclusions from the results obtained.

Jan 1, 1928

Earl W. Baker W. P. Bigler Lyman Fearn Leslie H. Johnson V. O. Murray Max C. Scheble Fred L. Smith who left the world better for their having lived in it . . .

Jan 1, 1986

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

By Fredrick D. Palmer

U.S. ENERGY: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST Assessing Goals, Needs and Resources ?Decision-makers must balance the needs of average Americans with the need for: ?A strong economy ?A clean environment ?A secure nation ?Events of recent years ?terrorist acts, multiple energy crises and a global focus on sustainable development ?magnify the need to balance these principles ?Coal ?domestic, abundant, affordable and increasingly clean ?meets these needs like no other energy source

Jan 1, 2003

By William Perry Pendley

Let us go back in time, back to when a Navy veteran from the South was President of the United States, a man from the Rocky Mountain West was Secretary of the Interior and a leading environmentalist was head of the EPA; and there followed what many perceived of as a war on the West-on our water, on our timber, on our oil and gas and mineral exploration, and on our small communities. It's easy to think that I'm talking about the administration of James Earl Carter, III of Georgia, but I'm not. I'm talking about this administration, the administration of George Herman Walker Bush of Texas. I say that as a life-long Republican who never voted for a Democrat and who worked hard to put George Bush in the Oval Office. Many of us wondered, in 1988, what Vice President George Bush meant when he said; "I am an environmentalist." Well, now we know. In his State of the Union address, which was otherwise lacking in specific detail, George Bush said two very specific

Jan 1, 1990

By T. H. Butler

February 22nd, 1926. Mr. Benedict Shubart, 521 Boston Building, Denver, Colorado. Dear Mr. Shubart: 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. As before, am advising you that these suggestions do not have the approval of the entire Safety Committee, but rather are the individual opinions of several members who have expressed their wishes in the form of letters to me. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Dan Harrington and Mr. Wm. Littlejohn for their assistance. Would recommend the following amendment a to the various sections. Section 1. Wherever possible 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. 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. 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 genera- tor set and hoists, may use a voltage of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings. Section 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stoppings they should be properly insulated with porcelain or rubber tubing. Whenever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same

Jan 1, 1926

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

PRESIDENT WETZEL: The meeting will come to order. We are pleased to see a few of the more hardy survived last night's-ordeal and are present this morning. The Secretary has some correspondence which he will read. SECRETARY WHITESIDE: Gentlemen, I have a couple of telegrams and a letter which I would like to read to you at this time. First, a telegram addressed to Mr. Wetzel: "Regret greatly necessity canceling my plans to be present at meeting. Appreciate your conveying my best wishes to members for successful and profitable session.

Jan 1, 1942

PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Gentlemen, the next order of business, if you wish to discuss it is Mechanical Loading. We still have a little time left that could be devoted to that subject, and the meeting will be open now for that purpose. Where is Mr. Edge- worth? J. E. EDGEWORTH (Foreman, Union Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming): Here. PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Yon start the ball rolling. Tell us what you are doing in the Rock Springs District, on the mechanical loading. SECRETARY SHURART Mr. Edgeworth is the man at the face handling the coal. He never sees the light of day these late winter mornings.

Jan 1, 1927

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

By Charlie Monroe

Savage Company History ?C.A. Savage & Son was founded in American Fork, Utah in 1946 by Kenneth Savage and his father. ?Kenneth?s brothers, Neal and Luke joined the company soon after, and remain involved today. ?Since 1988, the company has focused on its strength, expertise in providing high-quality Operating Services & Logistics Management. ?Today, Savage provides comprehensive services in the following Industries: ?Crude Oil Refining ?Sulphur & Fertilizers ?Coal Production and Mining ?Electric Power Production ?Industrial/Chemical Services ?Lumber and Forest Products ?Railroads

Jan 1, 2005