Search Documents

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the 10th annual tabulation of US mineral royalties published in MINING ENGINEERING. The first year, 1982, the author solicited information about royalties and the cost of reserves. That column contained only a few royalties - not enough to tabulate. Since then, the response has been sporadic but the entries have grown to more than 300. Some have been deleted. Some of the older information has been deleted to make room for new entries. All indications suggest that the readers enjoy and use the information. But more information is needed. Russian practice In 1989, this column gave a brief history of mineral leasing and royalty payments as the concept applies to mining in the United States. This year's narrative deals with information about the mineral ownership in Russia. That country is in political and economic turmoil, including administrative systems and methods. And many laws are likely to change. What follows describes the Russian system of mineral ownership as of early 1992, according to Kirill Kavun. He begins "All the subsurface space of the Russian Federation with minerals contained belongs exclusively to the state. This forms the Common State Mineral Fund. Land parcels may be state, municipal, public or private property. They may be let to be owned and used by individuals, juridical persons, national/territorial or administrative/ territorial formations." This seems to apply to surface rights, as known in the US.

Jan 1, 1992

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the 12th year for this column and the 11th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. This year adds 20 to 30 new entries. There are, however, some deficiencies that the readership hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. There are several states where no royalty information was available for either commodity. Readers can help share information about these missing states, so next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sent helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The summer 1992 issue of PDAC Digest recommended"... the most useful technical paper ever published for economic geologists...." "Net smelter return models and their use in the exploration, evaluation and exploitation of polymetallic deposits" was written by R. Goldie and P. Tredger (Geoscience Canada, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 159-171). Last year's column described leasing practices in Russia. Some new information has been gathered since then. Kirill Kavun is the managing director of the International Geoeconomic Center in Moscow. He sent two publications from 1992-"Regulation on the procedure of licensing the use of the subsurface," and "Law of the Russian federation on the subsurface." Both are supplements to the magazine Mineral Re¬sources of Russia, Economics and Management.

Jan 1, 1993

By H. Lyn Bourne

This marks the 15th consecutive year for this column. During 1995, readers were asked to supply royalty data for construction raw materials especially for states where none is available. The response was discouraging and royalty data are still missing for several states for either sand and gravel or crushed stone. Several readers have said that this article has merit but more new information is needed to justify its continuation. Several articles and pieces of news relative to mineral royalties appeared in the trade journals. R. Lee Aston (E&MJ, November, 1995, p. 16N) described South Australian royalties as amended by the government in1994. The royalty rate (a percentage) was lowered but the assessed value for minerals was raised and the current rate amounts to 20 cents//t (18 cents/st).

Jan 1, 1996

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 14th consecutive year for this column and the 13th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. Some holes still exist in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. Construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone - are the most common mineral commodity. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, royalty information for these commodities has been difficult to acquire from some states. Readers can help. Share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Dennis Bryan sent a copy of a report, "Regional Appraisal of Mineral Materials: Carson City District, BLM." The report was authored by real-estate appraisers. It contains more than 50 references to leases of various construction materials in Nevada and nearby states. It gives a thumbnail sketch of each lease and is a good reference. However, the authors erroneously imply that the royalty rate and the in-place value are the same. Several of this year's new entries come from the report. However, the royalties for landscaping materials vary from state to state and by rock type. Some boulders used for landscaping in Nevada have a royalty reported at $1.10/t ($1/st). At the other extreme is lava from Idaho. Used for the same purpose, it has a royalty range of $11 to $18.70/t ($10 to $17/st). Chuanming Tian of Beijing, China has shared some information about the changing mineral royalty policies in China. China first implemented an oil and gas royalty in 1984. In 1992, the government expanded that to include iron ore. In 1994, the royalty policy was extended to all mineral commodities. At the same time, the royalty rate for iron ore increased tenfold.

Jan 1, 1995

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 13th year for this column and the 12th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. There still exist some holes in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, there are states from which the author has no information about royalties for either of these commodities. The reader can help - share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sends helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The PDAC Digest contained an article that distinguished between ‘net smelter return royalty' and ‘net profits royalty’ (Haase). The article also lists clauses and details that Brown suggests should be included in a net profits royalty contract.

Jan 1, 1994

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the sixth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data plus more than 100 new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. An article in the December 1984 Kentucky Coal Journal could have far reaching applications. It explains that a banking firm examined the "reserve risk" as one of six factors for analysis when financing a coal project. The firm concluded that coal reserves in Kentucky are worth an average of $0.29/t ($0.26 per st) in-place. The banking firm based this in-place value on its examination of more than 50 leases. In-place value is especially important when trying to establish a mineral value for a given deposit. Ernie Lehman wrote to this author after last year's column appeared and he quoted the lease rates for lead and zinc on federal land. He states, from first hand information, that the leases are based on a percentage of net smelter return as follows: 4% for the first five years, 4.5% for the next five years, and 5% thereafter. The figures used in last year's column ($ per st) came from dividing reported royalty income by reported production. The information reported last year merely translates the results of the net smelter return (as written in the lease) to royalty income per ton to the US Government for the various years. Statistics from the Minerals Management Service of the Federal Government show that oil and gas account for 40% and 53%, respectively, of the Federal royalty income. Coal accounts for about 4% and all other minerals, the remaining 3%. Oil and gas leases are mostly at 12.5%. Most of the coal leases are at 12.5% for surface mining operations and 8% for underground mining. Many of the other commodities are leased at 5%, which has been true for decades. Relative to Federal leases, this year's table shows some percentages and some costs per ton. This was done to give information about the leases and also to show income produced by various commodities. Note that some commodities have a variation in $/ton even though the royalty percent is the same. These variations result from a combination of factors that influence the value of a mineral commodity. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; *quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give the location - either by state, US geographic area or Canadian province; the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), tons (/T, 2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.7646 m3 1 cu ft = 0.2832 m3 1st=0.9078t 1 acre = 0.4047 hm or m2 In several cases, the royalty is a percentage of the sales price of the finished product and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: G. Anderson, B. Brown, R. Ganis, K. Hauser, E. Lehman, and S. Sims. Their help is appreciated as are the contributions by those who asked to remain anonymous. This column requires additional information each year. That data must come from people in the minerals industry who have royalty information. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write the author at the address given in the author's box or call 313-462-0005.

Jan 7, 1988

By M. T. Ityokumbul

Flotation columns and their variations are increasingly replacing conventional cells in mineral-processing circuits. While the operational characteristics of columns differ from those of conventional cells, the same scale-up methodologies are being employed. This practice may be attributed to a poor understanding of the factors that control throughput. The use of tall flotation columns is frequently justified because of the need for an increased particle residence time. However, it is shown that longer particle residence times alone do not translate into increased recoveries. In this paper, throughput data from several industrial flotation-column installations is presented. Also, an attempt is made at using dimensional analysis to provide a scale-up methodology for the factors controlling column throughput.

Jan 1, 1997

By M. T. Ityokumbul

Flotation columns and their variations are increasingly replacing conventional cells in mineral processing circuitry. While the operational characteristics of columns differ from those of conventional cells, the same scale-up methodologies are being employed in design. This practice may be attributed to poor understanding of the factors controlling throughput. The use of tall flotation columns is frequently justified on the requirement for increased particle residence time. It is shown that longer particle residence times in the column cell alone do not translate into increased recoveries. Throughput data from several industrial flotation column installations is presented. An attempt at using dimensional analysis to provide scale-up methodology for the factors controlling column throughput is made.

Jan 1, 1995

At first glance the staid Joralemon background does not seem to equate with the life of adventure that irresistibly called me for over 70 years. But my ancestors had their adventures too. My father's family were Dutch Reformed Protestants who had energy or daring enough to come to America to escape the Catholic persecution that followed the Massacre of St. Bartholemew. The first Joralemon came from Friesland to New Amsterdam m 1636, just after Peter Stuyvesant. My father's mother's family, the Berdans, were French Huguenots who came to northern New Jersey only a little later to escape the Catholic domination in France. Some say that the first Berdan to come to America was given all the land between the Passaic and the Hacken-sack Rivers by King James. Whatever, the Berdan family settled there and was able to make a scanty living by farming and selling their produce in Manhattan. The spirit of adventure in my mother's family was just as tenuous. Gamaliel Beaman was pastor of a shipload of Puritans who came to Massachusetts in 1636. Gamaliel's descendents were peaceful farmers and some ministers in New England and later New York State. They had got all of the adventure out of their systems in the long and dangerous voyage across the Atlantic to escape religious persecution. The Joralemons and the Berdans married into families that had been in America almost as long as they had. On my father's side the Berdans, Doremus, DeGreys, Vanderbeeks, and Varicks showed by their names their Dutch or French Huguenot stock. The only one who achieved any fame was Peter Varick, who was George Washington's military secretary during the American Revolution. After this he was nine times mayor of New York and was one of the founders of Kings College, later Columbia University. He was responsible for one of my few ancestral claims to distinction. When the Marquis de Lafayette made a fare-

Jan 1, 1976

By Carl L. Morris

This short dissertation concerning "what the client expects from the engineer" is directed mainly at the design and construction of metallic ore concentration or beneficiation plants. However, practically the same conditions apply to the design and construction of cement and lime manufacturing facilities, with the exception that the latter facilities reflect the client's and engineer's concepts of customer service and in some cases reflect promotional considerations for the product manufactured and distributed. The client expects his engineering contractor to contribute in an efficient, cooperative, and economical manner current industry-wide know-how and experience to the specific project under consideration through the client's organization

Jan 1, 1969

By Barry J. Hansen

Mining can make two major contributions to the cleanup of the environment. The first of these is the extractive technology that has become highly developed as a result of centuries of development. Of equal impor­tance are the methodology of analysis and the development of engineering solutions that are the stock in trade of the mining industry. Despite the differences between the industries, the processes for the development of a mine and the cleanup of a hazardous waste site are similar. The characteristics that impact the ability to develop a suitable process for treating an ore body or correct­ing an environmental problem are those relat­ed to the distribution of the contaminant or metal in the host material.

Jan 1, 1991

By Hans von Michaelis

It is appropriate that this opening session of HAZPAC '91 and Randol Gold Forum CAIRNS '91 should address the question of what the two industries can learn from each other. The panel is made up of members with experience in both industry. Several are experts on managing both hazardous waste and the mine/mineral processing environment. There is a marked difference in the regulatory needs with respect to treating and disposing of mining and mineral processing wastes, and "hazardous" or industrial waste materials. The topic of this paper is on the things that the two industries have in common: Many of the processes and technologies that are being used or are currently being developed for treatment of hazardous waste are the same or similar to the processes that have been used for decades or k,nger in the mineral processing industry. Hazardous waste treatment and remediation of contaminated solid and/or groundwater is a relatively new industry. Many of the practitioners in this new industry are relatively inexperienced in most of the "new" technologies that are being applied or developed.

Jan 1, 1991

The purpose of this talk is to report the answers to the-'two following questions: I. What unique services does the mining industry expect of mining and mineral processing engineers? II. What suggestions does industry offer to educators to help revamp curricula to meet the needs of a changing industry? As the result of many questionnaires filled out in person by presidents, managers, superintendents, chief engineers, metallurgists, and other responsible individuals in operations and management of large and small metal and nonmetallic mining companies in the U. S., and to some extent abroad, we now have some, specific answers to the above questions. Although answers to questionnaires continue to arrive at this writing (February 10) the volume already received is sufficient to clearly justify certain conclusions and observations. A copy of the tally of the first 117 questionnaires received accompanies this report, and I am certain that a compilation of additional questionnaire data will merely reinforce, the trends in thinking that have been' established thus far. Here are the results of the survey:

Jan 1, 1961

By Betty L. Gibbs

Computer software for mining applications has been in development since before 1970. These packages cover tasks from exploration data management through final reclamation planning. These programs were originally written in Fortran and have evolved into colorful, user-friendly packages. Programs that produced printed symbol maps now show color, three-dimensional image of an ore deposit on a computer screen. Pictures can be rotated and looked at it from all directions and layers can be peeled off to show other parts of a model. Computer users have also evolved. In the early Fortran days, users had to learn computer operating systems, have someone punch data cards, set up run files and wait a day or so to find out if there was one little mistake somewhere that caused the program not to run. With today's technology, users sit at their desks in the office, key in some data, read other data from digital files and build a model within days, rather than weeks or months.

Jan 1, 1999

By Paul H. Miller

After passage by the Congress, Public Law 95-87, the "Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977" was signed by President Carter on August 3, 1977. This law, in its simplest form, was intended to control the environmental effects of surface coal mining and to ensure that mined land is restored to a condition equivalent to that prior to mining. Immediately after the signing, the wheels of government bureaucracy began turning to establish a new federal agency -the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement or OSM -in the Interior Department that would implement the provisions of the Act. Since this took time and because the Congress had not yet provided funding for OSM, a special task force was assembled within the Interior Department to begin the task of writing interim regulations to implement the Act. With respect to the use of explosives, the Act specified that a blasting plan be included in the application for a mining permit. The blasting plan will outline the procedures an operator will use to meet specified environmental protection performance standards. The performance standards established by the Act require explosives to be used only in accordance with existing state and federal laws and regulations and with regulations to be promulgated by the regulatory authority. The regulatory authority was defined as either a state agency operating under an approved state program or the OSM operating under a federal program. As a minimum, it was specified that the regulations should include provisions to require that: 1) a blasting schedule be published in a local newspaper and be mailed to local governments and to all residents living within 1/2 mile of the blasting site . 2) daily notice be given to residents in the area prior to blasting. 3) blast reports be prepared that are maintained for three years and available on request to the public. 4) blasts be designed to prevent injury to persons, damage to property outside the permit area, adverse impacts on underground mines and adverse effects on ground or surface water channels or availability outside the permit area. 5) upon request of residents or property owners within 1/2 mile of the permit area, preblast surveys shall

Jan 1, 1978

By Jeffrey M. Christian

Gold prices are rising, in what is coming to be seen as the beginning of a longer term upward trend. After languishing between $325/oz and $364/ oz from early 1991 into early 1993, prices began rising in the first half of 1993. Gold rose from a low of $326/oz in March 1993 to $414/oz on an intraday basis in early August. There was a speculative sell-off at that point, which took gold prices quickly back down to $350/oz briefly in October 1993. At that time, there still was a fair degree of skepticism about gold's price prospects. Many banks believed that gold prices could not mount a sustained rally. As prices dropped in August and September of last year, these suspicions seemed to be confirmed. Gold prices quickly rebounded, however, reaching $395/oz by early January 1994. The strength of this renewed increase led many banks, investors and others that had held negative views of gold to grow more positive. They began buying gold and trading it from the long side of the market. The result was that gold prices remained strong during the first quarter of 1994, trading between $375/oz and $390/oz.

Jan 1, 1994

By Andrew Neale

ERIC GUTIERREZ: With that, we'll go ahead with the final speaker of the day, Andrew Neale. Andrew has a master's of science degree in mineral processing from the University of Alberta. He worked at the Falconbridge in Sudbury area, also at Brenda Mines, and then he became part of the Brenda Process Technology group in British Columbia. He joined Freeport in late 1993 in Indonesia, and was involved in process control and automation. He is now the senior manager of metallurgy in New Orleans. He's responsible for designing Freeport's new 100,000-ton-per-day expansion concentrator, which is currently being commissioned. Please welcome Andrew. ANDREW NEALE: With the ongoing explosion in digital computing power, there seems to be no limit to what can be modeled, simulated, and controlled in the mineral processing plant. However, at each stage of development of a control system, it is necessary to complete a cost-benefit analysis for justifying the move to a higher level of control. Incremental improvements in plant performance, while often significant, must be weighed against the costs of implementation and long-term maintenance. This presentation will provide examples of what the author believes are misplaced or misguided process control efforts and make a case for the KISS principle as applied to process control.

Jan 1, 1998

By Marianne Snedeker

In September 1985 we published a questionnaire asking about the content of MINING ENGINEERING and about your interests. By Dec. 10, our cutoff date, we had 430 responses, representing about 1.5% of the 28,238 people who received the September issue of ME. In the data that follow the tabulation and percentages are based on the number of individuals who responded to the particular question. About ME Through responses to the questionnaire, we were hoping to learn more about you, your interests, and how the magazine could better serve you. Those of you who responded told us something positive - you look at or read the magazine. Of the 430 respondents, 428 or 99.5% indicated that they had read or looked through the July and/or August issues. Those of you who refer to the magazine once are 207 or 48.5%. Those of you who refer to the magazine two or three times are 193 or 45.2%. Those of you who refer to the magazine four or more times are 27 or 6.3%. How much time do you spend reading the magazine? Of those responding to this question: 64 spent up to 1/2 hr 15.0% 224 spent up to 1 hr 52.6% 115 spent up to 1-2 hr 27.0% 23 spent more than 2 hr 5.4% In an informal survey among our staff, we determined that most people spend 1/2 to 1 hr reading magazines to which they subscribe at home. Does that match your experience? Many of you, 335 or 79%, clip your magazine for further reference. Also, many of you, 313 or 73.6%, do not pass your copy on to another reader, indicating that you are clipping it or receiving the magazine at home. Those magazines that are passed on reach: 1 person 3 0.7% 2 people 64 15.1% 3-5 people 34 8.0% 5 or more 11 2.6% Answers to what portions of the magazine you find useful indicated that the top three were Industry Newswatch, feature articles and Technical Papers; see Table 1. The "other" category included advertising - display, classified, Employment, and Professional Services - Washington Survey, New Products, Free Literature, book reviews, technology news, and Coming Events and Short Courses. We asked your appraisal of the technical level of the magazine. Of those responding, 39 or 9.1% indicated that it is too technical, 55 or 12.8% indicated it is not technical enough, and 335 or 78.1% judged it to have the correct technical level. In response to the question about whether you like to read an occasional feature that is not technically oriented, 21 or 5.1% said no, but an overwhelming 94.9% (393) said yes. Of the specific

Jan 1, 1986

By R. Adsero

The analysis of equipment trends in AUSIMM?s Revision of Monograph 19; Australasian Mining and Metallurgy Operating Practices (AMMOP) in the paper by Dight et al (in press) raised some interesting and in parts disturbing trends in the Open Cut Mining Industry. According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics the US mining and petroleum industries? productivity is down by 12% since 2004 while the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the productivity of the Australian mining industry is down by 34% since 2001. In terms of open cut equipment median output for draglines is down by 15% since 2003; electric rope shovels are down by 41% since 2003; hydraulic excavators are down by 39% since 2008; front end loaders are down by 39% since 2007 and trucks are down by 41% since 2006. Clearly the boom has not been good for the efficiency of the mines. During this same time, best practice (defined as the average of the top 10% by annual output per unit of input) has declined but not by as much as the median (eg. shovels down by 8%, excavators down by 19% and FEL?s down by 5%). This paper will build on the analysis of AMMOP to understand the differences occurring between median and best practice and identify the factors contributing to the decline in performance. As the industry enters a period of potentially lower prices for commodities and reduced margins pressure will be brought to bear on mine sites to start moving more with the equipment they have. An understanding of where efficiency has been lost will be a key component in that. The information contained in AMMOP, and the subsequent analysis of that information in papers such as this one will be crucial to reversing the decline in open cut equipment performance.

Feb 27, 2013

By Richard Adsero

The Australian Bureau of Statistics and the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics publish data for a range of industries, allowing a measure of performance to be quantified, called multifactor productivity (MFP), and allowing performance between industries to be compared on a consistent basis. At the time of writing, the last released data was for 2011-2012. For Australia, the plot of mining industry productivity and a basket of the 12 most significant industries in Australia?s economy (including mining) are shown in Fig. 1. For the United States, mining and petroleum and all manufacturing productivity are also displayed in Fig. 1. The trends are as follows: ? The MFP in the Australian mining sector rose 36 percent from 1986-1987 to 2000-2001. There was a 47-percent decline in MFP from 2000-2001 to 2011-2012 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). ? The MFP in the United States mining sector rose 17 percent from 1986-1987 to 2004-2005. There was a 7-percent decline in MFP 2004-2005 to 2010-2011, (Topp et al., 2008).

Sep 1, 2013