Search Documents

By Duluth Engineers' Club, Engineers' Club of Northern Minnesota

"The early mining of iron ore in Minnesota was carried on with the most primitive kind of tools. The pioneers used only such equipment as could be packed from Duluth through one hundred miles of forest to the first mines on the Vermilion Range and the operations were carried on with picks, shovels, hand drills and wheelbarrows, the ore being hoisted in buckets with a horse winch and carted in horse drawn wagons to the stockpile. This was about the extent of the mechanical equipment of the Minnesota iron mines in the early eighties.As soon as a railroad was pushed through from Two Harbors to the Vermilion Range the equipment began to be improved upon; wood burning steam boilers were installed and small steam puffers displaced the horse-winches, wheelbarrows were aban¬doned and small cars were introduced. Hauling the hoisted ore in wagons was discontinued and trestles were built so that the ore could be stockpiled more cheaply through the use of cars and high piles. These same stockpiles were loaded by hand into the 10 and 15 ton capacity railroad ore cars.Within a few years a marked change took place—the hand drill gave place to the air drill, such as No. 3 Rands, Ingersolls, Sargents and some Sullivans. Tramming was done by mules, the ore hoisted in. self-dumping skips, hoisting engines were intro¬duced and it seemed as though mining as a business in Minnesota had come to stay. At this stage someone conceived the idea of making the stockpile floor about three feet above the top of the ore cars to facilitate the hand loading of stockpile ore for trans¬portation. This was done through the use of wheelbarrows at first and later by using I-ton cars running on tracks laid on the stockpile floor."

Jan 1, 1920

By James M. Barker

The borate deposits of Death Valley, first exploited in 1882, were a major world source of boron-bearing products until shortly after very large deposits near Boron, California (Kramer) came on stream in 1926. Borate mining in Death Valley then became moribund, with most extant deposits held as reserves backing Kramer. Tenneco began borate operations following acquisition of claims in 1967 and is the only active borate producer inside Death Valley National Mon¬ument. Borate ores, confined to the lower Furnace Creek Formation (early to middle Pliocene), initially precipitated in a shallow lake fed by boron-rich volcanic hot springs associated with the Basin and Range province. Later diagenesis and remobilization plus regional folding, faulting, and erosion altered and complicated originally simple borate mineralogy and distribution. Dominant ore minerals are ulexite (NaCaB509.8H20), probertite (NaCaB509.5H20), and colemanite (Ca2B6011.5H20). Tenneco currently operates two open pits near Ryan, California. Mining is by bulldozer-pushed scrapers hauling waste and front-end loader/off-highway truck combinations for ore and waste haulage. Archeological, environmental, and aesthetic considerations influence both mine plans. Boraxo Pit, opened in 1970, has deep ore (stripping ratio 10 to 13:1) which occurs along a fault and as beds in shale on the hanging wall. Problems include pit wall instability (adverse bedding), non¬ripable calcareous shale (11,000 fps), and mixed ore separation. Sigma Pit, opened in 1975, has shallow (stripping ratio 1 to 1). low dipping, bedded ore in shale. Massive ulexite and "granular" un- cohesive colemanite present problems in mining and milling. Colemanite is crushed to -6 inches, washed, dried at 350°F, then calcined at 800°F with 100 tpd capacity. Crushed (-6 inch) ulexite or probertite is Raymond milled to customer specifications with a capacity of 1000 tpd.

Jan 1, 1976

By J. R. Schafler, J. L. Brinkman

"Since the year 2000, 59 miners have lost their lives to explosions occurring in underground coal mines in the US. More accurately, those explosions were methane ignitions that propagated through the mines due to coal dust involvement; despite current explosion prevention standards. There are 4 basic strategies employed to manage the risk of coal dust explosions in many other coal mining countries around the world: removal of the coal dust, wetting of the coal dust to prevent it from becoming airborne, mixing of the coal dust with stone dust to increase the total incombustible content, and explosion activated barriers which make the entire roadway inert. However, American standards only mandate the first 3 of these 4 methods. It is possible that US coal mine safety measures could benefit from the implementation of the 4th method, the use of explosion barriers. This paper will discuss differences/similarities in barrier regulations used in other countries, as well as some potential difficulties with adapting a stone dust bag barrier system to US underground coal mines. Also, details and feedback gathered from two operating mine site trial barrier installations will be shared.INTRODUCTION Since the year 2000, 59 miners have lost their lives to explosions occurring in underground coal mines in the United States (US); 29 miners were killed at the Upper Big Branch mine in 2010, 5 at the Darby Mine No. 1 in 2006, 12 at the Sago Mine also in 2006, and 13 at the Jim Walter No. 5 Mine in 2001.[14] To be more accurate, the explosions that killed those miners were methane ignitions that propagated through the mines due to coal dust involvement.[18, 19, 20, 21] These deaths occurred despite current explosion prevention strategies, standards, and regulatory oversight. This poses the question, can more be done in the US to prevent coal dust explosions and their widespread damage. In review of current practices and regulations from several large coal mining countries, a disparity in prevention strategies arose. The main difference between the US and other countries was that the US does not encourage, mandate, or regulate the use of explosion barrier systems as an additional coal dust explosion mitigation measure. This raised many questions. First and foremost was whether or not the US coal mining industry and its miners could benefit, in terms of safety and fatality prevention, from the implementation of the explosion barrier systems that are used in other countries. Furthermore, are there significant differences between the coal mines in countries where explosion barriers are used and US coal mines, which would preclude the system from being adapted and implemented in the US? Also, what are the similarities and differences in explosion barrier systems, use, and regulations between other countries that use them?"

Jan 1, 2017

By R. L. Godfrey

The Custom Coals advanced coal cleaning plant will be designed with a unique blending of existing and new processes to produce two types of compliance coals: Carefree Coal? and Self-Scrubbing Coal?. Carefree Coal will be produced by cleaning the coal in a proprietary dense media cyclone circuit utilizing fine magnetite to remove up to 90 percent of the pyritic sulfur and correspondingly greatly reduce the ash. While may utilities can achieve full S02 reduction compliance with Carefree Coal, others face higher sulfur reduction requirements due to the higher sulfur content of their existing fuel supplies. For these circumstances, a patented Self-Scrubbing Coal will be produced by taking Carefree Coal and pelletizing limestone-based additives with the finest fraction of the clean coal. These technologies will enable over 150 billion tons of non-compliance U.S. coal reserves to meet compliance requirements.

Jan 1, 1995

By J. L. Carr

Every year, severe injuries and fatalities occur when a miner is struck or pinned by a continuous mining machine, shuttle car, scoop or other piece of mobile mining equipment. Proximity detection systems offer a means to prevent these types of injuries and fatalities by sensing the presence of a miner and disabling machine motion. Although hundreds of these systems are installed and in use in operating coal mines, the influence that coal has on the electromagnetic fields associated with these systems has never been rigorously quantified. NIOSH researchers have conducted tests to measure whether the proximity of coal has a significant influence on a popular design of proximity detection system. The system tested utilizes a low frequency magnetic field generator that would be mounted on the mining machine. At the NIOSH Safety Research Coal Mine in Pittsburgh, researchers measured the performance of a simplified proximity detection system of this type first on the surface then underground at varying distances from a coal face. Analysis of these measurements shows that the presence of coal does not have a measurable impact. Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Reference to specific brand names does not imply endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Feb 27, 2013

By C. E. Schmidt

Homestake crushing and grinding, practice-was completely revised during the period of 1951-1953. During the conversion, both crushing plants at the head frames the Ross and the Yates, were changes at each plant involved replacing the two 8K gyratories with a rebuilt, The flow sheet single thirty inch gyratory for primary crushing to four inch. The gyratory discharges to a seven foot Symons standard cone crusher set at 1-1/8 inch opening. The cone discharge goes to Tyrock screens fed by vibrating feeders. Screen openings, are l/2 inch by 5 inches: at the Ross. Plant, and 3/8 inch by 5; inches at the Yates. Screen oversize goes to a seven foot Symons cone brusher converted to the short head type; the crusher setting is 5/16 inch. Crusher, discharge; is closed circuited with the Tyrock screens, The above crushing installation delivers a minus 5/8 inch rod mill feed to the mill bins. The crushing revision eliminated the-180 heavy South African type stamps, which had previously reduced the 2 inch crushing plant product to a minus 5/8 inch feed for the 10 rod mills, and 8 ball and pebble.; mills, other revisions in the mill flow sheet, resulted in 3 identical units of about 1350 tons per day, capacity per unit, Each unit consists of an open, circuit 6 foot by 12 foot rod mill, fed from two 24 in by 48 inch vibrating feeders of the four feeders available per unit. A gathering belt delivers the ore discharge of the feeders to the Transportoweigher, which in turn discharge s, into the rod; mill feed spout. Rod Mill discharge is the feed for the 9 foot by 11 foot ball mill, The ball mill is closed circuited with a 16 foot by 30 foot Dorr Classifier. The Homestake make amalgamator, for coarse gold recovery in the ball mill circuit, made' necessary a 36 inch spiral conveyor between the classifier rake discharge and, the combination drum and double scoop feeder on the ball mill See Figure l - the flow sheet of the two stage grinding units.

Jan 1, 1958

Many of the world?s largest existing mines are considering substantial step changes in production volumes, compensating for declining ore grades while trying to address increases in world demand for resources. The natural configuration of coal deposits allows for many mine development openings along the strike to access the ore body and thus increase volume. Similarly, with iron ore the nature of the deposits means that additional capacity can easily be added by opening up new mesas and providing extensions to infrastructure. On the other hand most of the non-ferrous metaliferous deposits form vertically and additional extraction volume comes from increasing depth. Underground mining from the base of the strata allows for large extraction rates, but block or panel caving operations develop at rates dictated by the geophysics of the overlying strata and the need for massive tunnelling developments to establish sufficient extraction points for high volumes. For really big mine production capacity, open cast mining still allows the easiest development of more massive mining techniques. But there remains the question of whether there are limits to how large an open cut mine can become in terms of throughput?

Feb 27, 2013

By Donald R. Williamson

Statistical studies at Cyprus Pima Mine indicate that samples from 22 blastholes are necessary for determining average copper grades, within a desired range of precision, for mine-model blocks by arithmetic averaging. The average number of holes in such blocks is 14. Many considerations show that more holes will not be drilled for sampling. A way to determine block grades more reliably than by" arithmetic averaging was sought. Thus far arithmetic averaging has proven to be the best procedure for the particular operation characteristics despite the small number of samples. It naturally follows that expenditure of great effort in sampling blasthole cuttings is unwise.

Jan 1, 1977

By C. Alexander

Stillwater Mining Company is developing a second underground palladium and platinum mine approximately 21 km (13 miles) west of their existing Nye operation in south central Montana. A 5650 meter (18,550-foot) tunnel is required to gain access to the ore bearing horizon (J-M Reef). Access and primary mine development can be accelerated through the use of two 4.6 meter (15-foot) diameter tunnel boring machines (TBM). One TBM was purchased new while the other was purchased used. Machine specifications, site support facilities, portal/launch chamber construction, TBM assembly, startup and operation are discussed in this paper.

Jan 1, 1999

By John N. Murphy

The environmental status of underground mining operations is critical to the health and safety of the miners; particularly in a large mine, the multitude of interacting parameters that can favorably or adversely affect the environ-mental status makes the manpower requirement of the routine checking of specific areas and conditions a formidable one. While the concept of environmental monitoring for miners has been considered for some time, until recently the availability of sensors to reliably measure the parameters of interest severely limited the utility of such systems. The status of sensors for mine use and the evaluation of environmental monitoring systems is reviewed.

Jan 1, 1977

By J. D. Vincent

The Mission By-Products Plant at the Mission Concentrator of the American Smelting and Refining Company, some 20 miles south of Tucson, Arizona in the Twin Buttes mining area, has been in operation slightly over a year. The plant produces a molybdenite concentrate a copper concentrate and, at times, a zinc concentrate. An intensive test program of over three years was conducted at Mission to make the recovery of molybdenum economic. Briefly it was found necessary to make a scavenger concentrate in the copper mill before it was possible to recover economic quantities of molybdenite. By so doing there were resulting additional recoveries of copper, silver and zinc. This program resulted in the design and construction of the existing plant. A paper by the authors discussing the test work and the design was presented at the, October 1965 meeting of the American Mining Congress in Las Vegas, Nevada, by Mr. Wayne Bossard.

Jan 1, 1966

By O. R. Bell

In Australia's remote North West are located the operations of Cliffs Robe River, one of the world's largest iron ore projects. Initial project cost was $US300 million and required the construction of a deepwater port, two toms for 3000 people, a 105 Mw power station and 170 km of railroad, all in harsh, arid country over 1300 km from the nearest industrial centre. The ore occurs as goethite cappings on scattered mesas and averages 57 percent iron. All aspects of the project are reviewed from pre-operational research, through project construction to current operation.

Jan 1, 1979

By Thomas Bubanovich

Engineers at the Freeman United Coal Min¬ing Company, located in West Frankfort, Illinois, have been using a computerized production planning and maintenance reporting system, which have been designed exclusively for underground coal mining. This paper will explain a dynamic graphical simulation and computerized time study system that has been used to design and evaluate underground production systems for optimizing productivity. Also with the aid of customized software, detailed records on changeable components of underground equipment, including the vendor's name, date installed, operating and maintenance hours, etc., have helped Management to select the best available components for their equipment. The MPASS System, Mine Performance Analysis Simulation System, developed through a cooperative agreement with Freeman United, Ketron Inc., and the U. S. Department of Energy utilizes new methods to analyze and design production systems in underground coal mines. The MPASS System is a menu-driven user oriented system of interactive computer programs, which form five major subsystems. The subsystems: 1. Simulation 2. Time Study 3. Mine Background Reports 4. File Maintenance Subsystem 5. Statistical Analysis Subsystem

Jan 1, 1987

By Thomas B. Dellinger

Since 1950, rotary-drilled, large-diameter holes, "big holes", with depths to over 300 feet and diameters of over 30 inches have become numerous and widespread. Fifty such holes have been drilled for access shafts to LPG mined caverns, Over 70 holes have been drilled for various other commercial activities. Over 150 holes have been drilled by the AEC for atomic testing purposes. These holes have ranged up to 300-inch diameters with 1600-foot depths, 120-inch diameters with 570-foot depths, and 72-inch diameters with 4800-foot depths. Equipment is now available to drill a wide range of ?big holes? for varied requirements. At least a dozen drilling contractors are participating or have participated in the drilling of "big holes". The accompanying tables show pertinent historical, technical and economic data on over 250 holes. The illustrations to be presented concurrently with this paper show the various equipment and accessories now in use. (See Appendix I for captions of illustrations.)

Jan 1, 1966

By CHRISTOPHER D. HEBERT, SCOTT W. HOFFMAN

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SME nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither SME nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any statement or views presented here are those of individual authors and are not necessarily those of the SME. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.

Dec 1, 2019

By Larry D. Patts

Section 317(e) of the Federal Coal Mine Health & Safety Act of 1969 directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare standards under which all working places in a mine shall be illuminated by permissible' lighting while persons are working in such places. Section 317(e) further provides that such Working places shall be illuminated within 18 months after such standards are promulgated. In accordance with this section of the Act, there was published in the Federal Register for December 31,1970 a notice of proposed ru1emaking which prescribed the illumination to be provided in the working p1 aces of underground coal mines. In 1ight of written comments, suggestions, and objections to this proposed ru1emaking, the proposed standards were with-drawn and reproposed in the Federal Register for Wednesday, October 27, 1971. In light of further comments, suggestions, and objections, a public hearing was held on April 4, 1974 and standards were again reproposed and published in the Federal Register for April 1, 1976. Promulgation of the final lighting standards took place on October 1, 1976 which means that the underground coal mining industry must comply with face illumination requirements by April 1, 1978. As mentioned previously, the first proposed ru1emaking for illumination of underground coal mines was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1971. In early 1972, Consolidation Coal Company (Consol) and the United States Bureau of Mines agreed to a cooperative study of underground face illumination; Conso1 felt that expertise in this field would become increasingly important. Conso1's initial efforts in illumination were aimed at investigati.ng practical lighting systems for underground face equipment. We were concerned with installing unobtrusive lights which provided sufficient face illumination for safety, but at the same time were readily maintainable, electrically reliable, and physically sheltered from damage.

Jan 1, 1977

By J. Restrepo, N. Ripepi

"The International Organization of Standards defines risk as “the effect of uncertainties on achieving objectives (15).” In mining, many uncertainties can influence the outcome of personal or professional objectives and are often difficult to predict. Risk management, the minimization and control of adverse effects from exposure to identified risks, is a well-established concept that can summarized as “being smart about taking chances” (12). Risk management now consists of management processes unique to numerous organizations across many industries, as varying sectors encounter a variety of needs, including the analysis and mitigation of risks related to physical security, product liability, information security, various forms of insurance, regulatory compliance, and workplace safety (12). The reoccurrence of multiple fatality events in the US mining industry, especially the underground coal sector, suggests an opportunity for improved methods of major safety hazard identification, assessment, and mitigation. A risk management approach would include ready identification and mitigation of these risks, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and rapid integration. While many solutions to reducing the risk of mine disasters have been proposed including stricter regulation and improved technology, a comprehensive risk management approach has yet to be fully integrated in the US mining industry. In December of 2006, R. Larry Grayson of the National Mining Association’s Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission called for “a new paradigm for ensuring safety in underground coal mines, one that focuses on systematic and comprehensive risk management as the foundation from which all life-safety efforts emanate (7).” A risk management approach has already been implemented with success in Australia’s minerals industry as part of a transition during the mid-1990s from a prescriptive based health and safety attitude to a more proactive, duty-of care [risk-based] philosophy (13, 16, 17).FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES The fundamental components of a comprehensive risk assessment/management program are well-established within the realm of mining health and safety. Figure 1 depicts the elements of a typical mining hazard management framework. The first step in any safety-based risk management system is to identify and assess hazards by their location, nature, and magnitude within a mine. Next, a decision is made about choosing to eliminate, mitigate, or tolerate each hazard. Ideally, a hazard will be eliminated during the design stages of mining, though dynamic mining conditions often require continuous improvement and reevaluation of existing hazard controls. If elimination is not possible, hazard mitigation actions can consist of methods, rules, equipment, competencies, or other mechanisms. If a hazard is simply tolerated, as many inherent mining hazards must be, then specialized administrative controls must be utilized to minimize losses. During this process, the performance of each action is monitored and modified as needed (13)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Robert P. Kennedy, Andrew H. Merritt, Edward J. Cording, Thomas R. Kipp

INTRODUCTION Measurement of certain data associated with nuclear testing necessitates the reception of waves at the instrument location which are unaffected by reflection off internal structures or tunnel surfaces. Therefore, in order to provide necessary facilities for the fielding of experiments in support of the underground nuclear testing program, the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) commissioned a cost and feasibility evaluation pertaining to the design and construction of large underground cavities in Rainier Mesa. The effort included research into past experience pertaining to the excavation and support of large underground caverns, assessment of the geological conditions which exist in Rainier Mesa, preliminary design of the chambers and their rock support systems based upon the geological setting, development of mining plans for the excavation of the caverns, and estimation of the cost and manpower schedule to complete construction. This paper summarizes the results of the feasibility evaluation. The investigation was limited to modified hemispherical configurations ranging in size from 24.4 to 91.4 m (80 to 300 ft) in diameter. Two cavity support systems were considered. The first employs internally installed rockbolts as the means of primary rock support while the second involves the use of annular tendon galleries located above the chambers from which primary support members are introduced prior to general excavation. The internal support configuration was considered for cavities with spans of 24.4, 36.6, 48.8, and 54.9 m (80, 120, 160, and 180 ft) while the external support configuration was considered for cavities with spans of 54.9, 73.2, and 91.4 m (180, 240 and 300 ft).

Jan 1, 1979

By David G. Chedgy

The Meadow River No. 1 Preparation Plant, owned by Sewell Coal Company, a subsidiary of the Pittston Company, was commissioned in the spring of 1974. The plant is designed to process 400 TPH of 5" x 0 raw coal. The 5" x 114'l fraction is processed in a Heavy Medium Vessel with the 114 x 28M reporting to Deister Tables for cleaning. The 28M x 0 fraction is cleaned in flotation cells, with the froth going to clean coal vacuum filters and the tailings to a static thickener where the underflow is reclaimed on Refuse Filters prior to disposal. The noise dosage a worker receives is determined by the ratio of the length of time the worker spends in a particular noise environment divided by the noise exposure in that particular environment. If the worker is exposed to several different sound levels, his total dosage would be the sum of each of the individual dosages. The equation for determining the dosage is: [ ]

Jan 1, 1976

By D. Burkhard, E. Herth

"Geologic structure and properties are the primary influences on ground control at San Juan Mine. Geotechnical properties of the coal seam and near seam strata, the presence of above seam sandstone paleochannels and water, are thought to be the leading contributors to ground control issues. It is the confluence of specific geologic conditions rather than isolated features that most often produce adverse conditions. Altering primary support installation and mining practices are done when unfavorable conditions appear during development. Installation of standing support is most often employed when adverse conditions develop at later dates. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING San Juan Mine is an underground coal mine located on the western flank of the San Juan Basin in northwest New Mexico. The San Juan Basin is contained within the south eastern region of the Colorado Plateau geographic province. The basin contains multiple coal bearing formations and is also a major producer of coalbed methane gas. San Juan Mine is stratigraphically located within the Fruitland Formation. From a prominent monocline marking the western boundary of the basin, the formation dips gently to the east towards the center of the basin. The primary driver for the deposition of coal bearing formations within the basin was the Cretaceous Inland Seaway. Multiple cycles of transgression and regression driven by sea level rise and tectonic subsidence deposited rock types from marine shale’s to terrestrial sandstones. The Sevier Mountains to the west of the seaway likely provided the sediment supply for the Fruitland Formation. During a major cycle of seaward regression, the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone Formation prograded over the marine Lewis Shale. The coal bearing Fruitland Formation followed, being deposited over the Pictured Cliffs. The Fruitland Formation contains numerous coal seams and is approximately 400 ft. thick at San Juan Mine. Fruitland Formation coal seams are numbered in order of superposition. San Juan mines the Fruitland number 8 seam. Dating has placed the age of the seam at approximately 73 to 75 million years [1]. LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The Fruitland 8 coal seam dips approximately 1-3 degrees towards the E-NE. At San Juan Mine, the seam displays a mild plunging, synclinal structure, the axis roughly bisecting the mine from west to east. The number 8 seam consists of five coal benches and four volcanic ash band partings labeled sequentially based on superposition. The lowest portion of the seam is the 8-1 bench, the 8-2 through 8-5 benches following sequentially to the top of the minable seam. Ash band partings are labelled P1 through P4 from bottom to top respectively. The presence of distinctive partings and benches allows for seam definition and aids in identifying mining horizons."

Jan 1, 2016