Search Documents

By Donald A. Ranta

Every mineral project or mine is based on a geologic entity-an ore (mineral) deposit. A well-defined mineral deposit and its associated geologic characteristics are the only aspects of a project that cannot be altered. Mine plans can be modified to exploit the deposit using alternative approaches and yielding similar results. A variety of processing methods also are often available producing generally comparable results. Major modifications can be made to other aspects of the project without substantially changing project economics. However, all engineering and metallurgical aspects of a mine must be accommodated to the spe¬cific location and geologic characteristics of the deposit. Geologic data and interpretations form the foundation for both mine evaluation and mine production by providing esti¬mates of reserves and essential information for mine planning and process design or control. Proper geologic work requires a keen awareness of and an ability to anticipate the technical requirements of geotechnical engineers, hydrologists, mining engineers, metallurgists, and other specialists. Geologists are inte-

Jan 1, 2008

By Richard B. Stein

Section 25 has been assembled to give the geological, mining, or metallurgical engineer an overview of some of the important downstream operations that typically follow mining activities. This subject is obviously too broad and complex to be covered in detail within this Handbook. However, the engineer will be interested to learn about the basic fundamentals, and especially how they might affect the economics of the total project from prospecting and mining through to metals recovery and marketing. In this way, it is hoped that the engineer will have a better overall appreciation for the technical and commercial prospects of a mining and metal-producing project.

Jan 1, 2008

By Mike Tracy

This section of the Handbook deals with general principles to be evaluated in the development of a mining operation. It addresses the major issues that must be examined to fully evaluate a mining venture. Of course, one of the main topics to be evaluated is mine planning, which is covered in more detail in other sections (13, 17) of the Handbook and should be referenced in mine development projects. The topics to be discussed in this introduction include equipment and supplies, infrastructure, utilities, and project management. In any of the aspects mentioned, the current existing conditions at or near the mine site must be evaluated. This will include assessment of current use of utilities, infrastructure, housing, equipment suppliers, etc., as well as anticipated growth, both in the supply aspect of these systems as well as projected usage on these systems. After full assessment of both these aspects, an evaluation must be made as to the requirements the project will place on these items. Assessment must be made as to any up-grades required to bring the project on line, what impact the project will have on existing or expanded systems, and anticipated future growth impacts on support systems not only of the project but of other surrounding industry and urban devel-opment

Jan 1, 2008

By Daniel M. Flanagan

"Editor’s note: Each year, Mining Engineering features an industrial minerals review. Several people put in a fair amount of time in developing the material for this issue, all the while doing their own jobs. Thank you to the industrial minerals annual review editor, to the Industrial Minerals & Aggregates Division technical committee chair and vice chairs, and to the authors of the individual commodity profiles. Jim Norman, member SME, of Tetra Tech, is the industrial minerals annual review editor.Joe Garska, member SME, of Imerys, is chair of the Industrial Minerals &Aggregates Division’s Technical Committee.The technical committee vice chairs include:• Hyunjung Kim, member SME, of Chonbuk National University, agricultural materials.• Xihui Lin, member SME, of Kemira, ceramics and refractory materials.• Nikhil Gupta, member SME, of Virginia Tech, chemical raw materials.• Adam Rodriquez, member SME, of Penn State, construction aggregates.• LeDeana Roberts, member SME, of Imerys, fillers and pigments.• Harsha Kolla, member SME, of ChemEOR, sorbents, filters and process aids.• Edgar Blanco, member SME, of FLSmidth, specialty minerals.Their help makes possible this July industrial minerals issue. On behalf of ME readers, the editors thank them.During the past 25 years, U.S. ball clay production (the quantity sold or used by domestic producers) increased from 788 kt (869,000 st) in 1990 to an alltime high of 1.31 Mt (1.44 million st) in 2003 (Fig. 1). Housing construction within the United States, a leading market for ball clay-based ceramics and sanitaryware, began to decline in 2005, which resulted in a considerable decrease in sales of ball clay that continued through the 2008-2009 economic recession. After bottoming out at 831 kt (916,000 st) in 2009, ball clay production steadily increased through 2015 (Fig. 1). Estimated sales in 2015 were 36 percent higher than those in 1990 and 18 percent lower than those in 2003.Four companies (H.C. Spinks Clay Co., Imerys S.A., Old Hickory Clay Co., and Unimin Corp.), mined ball clay in five states during 2015. An estimated 1.7 Mt (1.18 million st) of ball clay valued at an estimated $47.5 million was sold or used by U.S. producers, a 4-percent increase from 1.03 Mt (1.14 million st) valued at $45.2 million in 2014. Approximately 65 percent of total ball clay production was air-float, 25 percent was crude or shredded and 10 percent was water-slurried"

Jul 1, 2016

Editor?s note: Each year, the June issue of Mining Engineering features an industrial minerals review. Several people put in a fair amount of time in developing the material for this issue, all the while doing their own jobs. Thank you to the industrial minerals annual review editor, to the Industrial Minerals and Aggregates Division technical committee chair and vice-chairs, and to the authors of the individual commodity profiles. Jim Norman, member SME, of Tetra Tech, is the industrial minerals annual review editor. Candace Trimble, member SME, of Oil-Dri Corporation of America, is chair of the Industrial Minerals and Aggregates Division?s Technical Committee.

Jan 1, 2012

By Jack Bedder

"Editor’s note: We would like to thank those who make this annual issue possible. A special thank you goes out to the industrial minerals annual review editor, to the Industrial Minerals & Aggregates Division Technical Committee chair and vice chairs, and to the authors of the individual commodity profiles.Jim Norman, member SME, of Tetra Tech, is the industrial minerals annual review editor.Ebrahim K. Tarshizi, member SME, of Michigan Tech, is chair of the Industrial Minerals &Aggregates Division’s Technical Committee.The technical committee vice chairs include: • Hyunjung Kim, member SME, of Chonbuk National University, agricultural materials.• Xihui Yin, member SME, of Kemira, ceramics and refractory materials.• Nikhil Gupta, member SME, of Virginia Tech, chemical raw materials.• Jasson Giddens and Swadhin Saurabh, members SME, of Oil Dri Corp of America and Mill Creek Engineering, respectively, chemical raw materials.• Snehamoy Chatterjee, member SME, of the Michigan Tech.• LeDeana Roberts and Shubham Verma, members SME, of Imerys and U.S. Oil Sands, respectively, fillers and pigments.• Thomas Hilderbrand and Kaiwu Huang, members SME, of Thiele Kaolin Co. and Virginia Tech, respectively, sorbents, filters and process aids.• Rhaghav Dubey and Edgar Blanco, members SME, of Outotec and FL Smidth, respectively, specialty mineralsAntimony generally occurs along with gold, lead, copper and silver. There are more than 100 antimony minerals, although the sulfide mineral stibnite is the main one.Antimony enters the supply chain either as a result of mining (primary production) or recycling (secondary production). China has by far the largest antimony resources and is, as a result, the world’s center for antimony mine production. In 2016, it accounted for more than three quarters of the global mine supply out of a world production figure of 130 kt (143,000 st), according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The biggest, and most high-grade deposits are found in southern China, with the largest mines located in Hunan, Guangxi and Yunnan provinces. Tajikistan, Russia, Australia and Bolivia are the largest mine producers outside China. A new antimony project in Oman made progress in 2016, producing first metal in April 2016 in test facilities, and then ordered three furnaces for a 26 kt/a (28,600 stpy) antimony metal and oxide smelter that is due on stream in late 2017.Antimony ingot production is not as widespread as is antimony mine production, owing to the high levels of pollution that are associated with antimony smelting. It is for this reason that smelting has been largely confined to China and other Asian countries, where environmental legislation is less stringent.Antimony oxide production is undertaken on four continents with China being the biggest producer. There is also a considerable amount of oxide production in Europe — which relies on imported feedstock, mostly from China. Antimony also enters the supply chain through recycling. Lead containing antimony is produced in a number of countries, mainly in secondary lead smelters. Typically, a blast furnace charge containing used or discarded battery plates, type metal or bearing metal is reduced to lead bullion, which is refined in reverberatory furnaces and melting pots. In the main, the antimony recovered is consumed in metallurgical applications. China was the biggest secondary antimony producer in 2016, and accounted for 25 retardants and lead-acid batteries. Flame retardants accounted for roughly 50 percent of consumption in 2016 with batteries representing about 25 percent. Other end uses include plastics and heat stabilizers, ceramics and glass and a variety of metallurgical applications. Demand has been sluggish since the global financial crisis, mostly because key markets failed to recover strongly from the downturn, particularly in Europe."

Jan 7, 2017

By Jack Bedder, Nils Backeberg

"Native antimony metal is rare and antimony generally occurs together with gold, lead, copper and silver. There are more than 100 antimony minerals, although the sulfide mineral stibnite is the main economic mineral.Antimony enters the supply chain either as a result of mining (primary production) or recycling (secondary production). China has by far the largest antimony resources and is, as a result, the world’s center for antimony mine production. While China remains the leading primary producer, accounting for 69 percent (80.5 kt or 88,700 st) of the global 117.5 kt (129,000 st) in 2017, market consolidation and regulatory inspections across China leading to closures of facilities have caused a significant decrease in Chinese output from 115.8 kt (127,600 st) in 2015 (81 percent of global production).Tajikistan and Russia are the next largest producers of antimony after China, both ramping up production in recent years. Russia could significantly increase its supply of antimony if Polyus moves ahead with supplying 10-12 kt/a (11,000–13,200 stpy) of contained antimony from gold tailings. Australia and Bolivia are also significant mine producers outside China. The value of the different ores varies based on the metal content of the concentrates, with the most valuable gold-bearing ores sourced from Australia’s Costerfield Mine and the least valuable mercury-bearing ores sourced from the Anzob Mine in Tajikistan. On average, Bolivian and Russian ores trade at an intermediate value between those from Costerfield and Anzob. Nearly all of the rest-of-world production is exported to China, where the ores and concentrates are processed into antimony ingots and oxides.Antimony ingot production is not as widespread as is the case with antimony mine production, owing to the high levels of pollution that are associated with antimony smelting. It is for this reason that smelting has been largely confined to China and other Asian countries ,such as Vietnam and Myanmar, where environmental legislation has historically been less stringent. Tajikistan has become a growing producer of antimony ingot since 2014, coming from the commissioned metallurgical plant at the Anzob Mine.Antimony oxide production is undertaken on four continents with China being the biggest producer. There is also a considerable amount of oxide production in Europe (mainly Belgium and France), which relies on imported antimony metal feedstock, mostly from China.A new antimony project under construction by Strategic and Precious Metals Processing (SPMP) in Oman made progress in 2016 and 2017, and after producing first metal in April 2016 in test facilities, was set to be commissioned in the first quarter of 2018. Commissioning had been moved back to June 2018, with a potential ramp-up to 2-3 kt/a (2,200 to 3,300 stpy) of antimony metal by the end of 2018. SPMP is also reviewing producing antimony oxide as part of its flow sheet."

Jan 7, 2018

By R. L. Virta

Four companies mined ball call in four states in 2009, H.C. Spinks Clay Co. Inc. (owned by Lhoist Group), Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Co. (owned by Imerys Group), Old Hickory Clay Co. and Unimin Corp. Production, on the basis of preliminary data, was 820 kt (904,000 st) with an estimated value of $39.4 million. That was a 15-percent decrease in tonnage from 967 Mt (1.1 mil-lion st) with a value of $44.3 million that was produced in 2008. Tennessee was the top producing state with 59 percent of domestic production, followed by Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky. About 71 percent of production was airfloat, 18 perc

Jun 1, 2010

By R. B. Hopler

Explosives R&D has historically been motivated by coal mining. Whether to solve safety problems or to improve productivity and cost, the result has been the same: better explosives products and initiation systems. This process continues at an accelerated pace today due to the tools presently available to the explosives and mining industries.

Jan 1, 1993

By Tim O’Neil

More than 5,300 mining professionals from around the world attended the SME Annual Meeting and Exhibit, March 1-3 in Denver, CO. Seventy three technical sessions highlighted innovative technologies and applications for the development of mineral resources. And the exhibit featured 421 companies worldwide and 632 exhibit booths. The 1999 SME Annual Meeting had 10% international attendance. Professionals from outside the United States were guests at the first SME International Reception.

Jan 1, 1999

The past four years since the 2008 MINExpo have been a roller coaster ride for the mining industry, with highs and lows and everything in between. One of the natural consequences of this uncertainty has been a number of significant consolidations and mergers, and this trend has trickled down into the crushing industry. And while there have been some significant changes to this sector of the mining industry, many of the big players have weathered the storm. The following is a look at some of the mineral processing companies that will be at MINExpo. McLanahan Corp. McLanahan Corp. is an example of the changes in the sector. The crushing and grinding stalwart acquired Universal Engineering, expanding its traditional focus on soft mineral crushing to hard rock crushing. At MINExpo, it will be showing off three new pieces of equipment, the LabMill Crusher, the Rocker Tooth Crusher and the Recessed Filter Press.

Jan 1, 2012

By E. Lee Bray

"Editor’s note: The editors thank those who make this annual issue possible. A special thank you goes out to the Industrial Minerals Annual Review editor, to the Industrial Minerals & Aggregates Division Technical Committee chair and vice chairs, and to the authors of the individual commodity profiles.Jim Norman, member SME, of Tetra Tech Geo, is the industrial minerals annual review editor. Edgar Blanco, member SME, of Freeport- McMoRan, is chair of the Industrial Minerals &Aggregates Division’s Technical Committee.The technical committee vice chairs include:• NickTushar Gupta and Sallie Gaillard, of the USGS, members SME, agricultural materials.• Abhishek Choudhuryand Xihui Yin, members SME, of Montana Tech and Kemira, repectively, ceramic and refractory materials.• Bobbi Strange and Riddhika Jain, members SME, of Outotec, Martin Marietta and Outotec, respectively, chemical raw materials.• Snehamoy Chatterjee, Alyssa Kendir and Alind Chandra, members SME, of BMT, Universityof Kentucky and Michigan Tech, respectively,construction aggregates.• Subham Verma, Gauran Soni and Freddy Sime, members SME, fillers and pigments.• Kaiwu Huang, Thomas Hilderbrand and Ricardo Santander members SME, of Virginia Tech, Thiele Kaolin and Carbo Ceramics, respectively, sorbents, filters and process aids.• Rhaghay Dubey and William Rapier, members SME, of Outotec and a consultant, respectively, specialty minerals.On behalf of ME readers, the editors thankTwo U.S. alumina refineries produced an estimated 1.5 Mt (1.65 million st) of alumina from imported bauxite in the United States in 2018. The 500-kt/a (550,000-stpy) refinery in Burnside, LA, owned by Almatis Inc. produced specialty alumina used in the abrasives, ceramics, chemical and refractory industries. The 1.2-Mt/a (1.32 million-stpy) refinery in Gramercy, LA, owned by Noranda Alumina LLC produced alumina mostly for use in aluminum smelters but also produced specialty alumina. An upgrade project at the Gramercy refinery to convert 200 kt/a (220,000 stpy) of capacity to produce more profitable specialty alumina was completed in the first half of 2018, and another project to increase capacity was started but a completion schedule was not available. The amount of new capacity was not disclosed, but it would be used to produce nonmetallurgical grade alumina. The 2.3-Mt/a (2.5 million-stpy) refinery in Point Comfort, TX, which was temporarily shut down in March 2016, remained closed throughout the year."

Jul 1, 2019

By Ronald C. W. Webber‑Youngman, Philani Larrance Ngwenyama

Entrapments are a huge risk in underground mines. This happens when miners (or any other persons who have entered underground) survive the initial event of an accident, become trapped or lost in unknown and life-threatening locations after evacuation, and remain unaccounted for. At this point, every second counts, and emergency response is highly desired for any chances of saving survivors. The survival chances of the missing persons depend on how quickly they can be located. Rescue teams are often deployed to search for the missing persons underground. However, the rescue teams are forced to search in random and presumed areas of the mine. This is due to the unavailability of information pertaining to the whereabouts of the missing persons. Not only the provision of accurate locations, but various other types of information such as post-accident two-way communication can enhance the survival chances of the missing persons. This information can be provided by a fit-for-purpose missing person locator system. A wide variety of missing person locator systems are already commercially available, some are in testing phases and others in prototype and development phases. This includes tracking, tracing, location detectors and post-accident two-way communication systems. These systems have unique functionalities, capabilities and limitations; making it difficult for mines to select the most effective, applicable and suitable system specific to their mine. In this study, the user requirements for a fit-for-purpose missing person locator system were developed. The purpose of the user requirements was to provide a guideline to facilitate the system selection process. The user requirements can also be used as a tool to measure and evaluate the performance of the selected missing person locator system. The user requirements were also used to predict the success of the selected system under different missing person incident scenarios. The development of the user requirements showed a potential for many other benefits for missing person locator systems.

Nov 2, 2023

By S. Frisch

Selenium (Se) in effluent waters has become a significant challenge for a number of industries. Toxicity studies and new reports of occurrence have certainly caused increased scrutiny and actions in the mining industry today (Sandy, DiSante, 2010). While initial activity in addressing selenium-laden waters were conducted in the coal mining industry, today a much broader range of mine types are beginning to search for solutions to selenium treatment of their mining waters, including both hard rock mining operations (gold, nickel, zinc, etc.) and soft rock mining (phosphate, uranium, etc.) Throughout North America, new regulations covering selenium discharge are either in place or being developed. While a number of physical/chemical approaches show promise in selenium treatment, when considering optimal cost and treatment efficacy issues, biological treatment ? particularly fixed-film biological treatment - is reported to be one of the most promising approaches to managing selenium-containing waters. Among biological treatment options, the fluidized bed reactor (FBR) has undergone extensive pilot testing for Se treatment in the last three years, including eight pilot programs, and the first FBR system is now operating at a coal mining site. In all tests, the FBR has been shown to be a highly cost-effective approach to selenium treatment based on its physical and performance characteristics. This is consistent with its history for reaching low levels of treatment in similar service for other oxyanions including perchlorate, nitrate and various metals. With the results from the most recent testing, the technology has been shown to be adaptable to an ever-broadening range of influent water conditions and flow rates, in varying terrains and weather conditions. Selenium occurs in various valence states from -2 to +6 (Sobolewski, 2005). The speciation of selenium plays a critical role in understanding the effectiveness of any approach for removal, especially to low levels. Elemental selenium is insoluble and has little effect on living organisms. Colloidal fractions are known to occur. In aqueous environments such as coal mining runoff, selenium is most often found as the oxygenated anions of selenite (SeO32-, Se4+) and selenate, (SeO42-, Se6+). Selenium is commonly found in mining waters in concentrations ranging from 3 to >12,000 µg/L. The U.S. National Primary Drinking Water Standard MCL is 50 µg/L for selenium (EU 10 µg/L; WHO 40 µg/L). The National Fresh Water Quality Standard is 5 µg/L for selenium. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that the National Fresh Water Quality Standard be lowered to 2 µg/L to protect fish, waterfowl, and endangered aquatic species. Several states have followed with enforcement actions at these same low levels. In Canada, permits may require stakeholders to monitor levels in water or biota, or to comply with guidelines, at either the National or Provincial levels, which can be as low as 1 or 2 µg/L in surface waters. Treatment of selenium in all mining waters presents a series of challenges. It can be present in relatively dilute concentrations and in streams with variable and often high flow rates. It can be present in many soluble and particulate forms, which may affect process design and treatability. The conditions of influent selenium-containing waters can vary, with issues such as temperature, pH, total dissolved solids and other contaminants affecting the ability to remove selenium selectively and economically. Treatment of selenium often results in the generation of a concentrated by-product requiring disposal, and re-release from residuals can occur. Beyond these issues, the physical environment of a mining operation can offer challenges such as remoteness and harsh and/or cold weather. Currently available selenium treatment technology (Table 1) includes biological treatment and a number of physical-chemical processes ? such as ion exchange, membrane filtration and adsorption ? that vary widely in efficiency and cost. Most treatment options remain either too costly and/or unproven for selenium-containing streams for reasons that include poor removal efficiency, variability in volume and composition of influents, system sizing and logistics considerations, as well as operating requirements.

Feb 23, 2014

By K. J. Ma, L. Ma, J. Stankus

The paper’s intent is to evaluate pumpable foamed cementitious mine seal material by determining the shear strength of a generic foamed cement in the laboratory. The tests were conducted on three scales: small-size specimens, consisting of cylinders 4 in. in diameter or 3-in. prisms; double shear medium- size specimens, measuring 13 in. by 10 in.; and large-size specimens, measuring 6 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft. The small-specimen shear tests resulted in average peak and residual shear strengths of 128 psi and 56 psi, respectively. These values are fairly consistent with published shear strengths of foamed cementitious material. However, the other two types of shear tests did not achieve the shear strength of a typical pumpable foamed cementitous mine seal material. Based on the test results, the paper concluded that the structural analysis of cement foam seals should be based on their residual shear strengths, approximately 20 psi, determined from small laboratory-scale tests of the cement foam/concrete or rock interface, and not be based on their peak strengths.

Jan 1, 2015

By Steve Kral

"Liebherr, as most anyone involved with the global mining industry knows, is one of the world’s largest makers of mining and construction heavy equipment. The familyowned company has been around since the 1940s and, according to Stefan Heissler, by the end of next year, will employ about 44,500 people worldwide. Heissler is a member of the board of directors of Liebherr International AG.It all started for the Switzerland-based company when Hans Liebherr first recognized a need for heavy equipment in the construction industry, Heissler said. His first product, introduced in 1949, was the TK10, a mobile crane that, at the time, was a groundbreaking innovation to the heavy construction industry. From there, the company began its growth into a world-leading heavy equipment manufacturer that always relied on innovation.In October, Liebherr gathered a group of mining and construction magazine editors in Leoben, Austria to take a look at the company’s latest addition to the global mining and construction markets. On the mining side, Liebherr provided a demonstration of its T-236 100-t (110-st) haul truck and the PR- 766 50-st (55-st) crawler tractor. The one-day demonstration took place at the Erzberg iron mine near Leoben, where both machines are being proven.The Erzberg Mine, operated by VA Ersberg, has been in operation for about 1,300 years and is said to be Europe’s largest surface mine. It employs about 230 people and mines about 12 Mt/a (13,200 million stpy) of ore, producing about 3 Mt/a (3.3 million stpy) of fine-grained iron ore.T-236 rigid-frame truckThe new T-236 rigid-frame dump truck, with a diesel electric drive system, is Liebherr’s entry into the 100-t (110-st) class and is the first in this class with a four-corner, oilimmersed braking system. The haul truck was first introduced during the 2016 MinExpo in Las Vegas, NV. The unit has since successfully completed its testing phase and is currently in its first field operation trials at the Erzberg iron mine in Austria."

Jan 12, 2017

By J. Noll, J. A. Organiscak, A. B. Cecala

"In recent years, significant strides have been made to optimize the design of filtration and pressurization systems used on enclosed cabs of mobile mining equipment to reduce respirable dust and other contaminants and provide the best air quality to the equipment operators. This synergetic effort has involved original equipment manufacturers building mining equipment, manufacturers of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for mobile equipment, filtration and pressurization system manufacturing companies, as well as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other government organizations. Considering all the advances made in this area over the last decade, one aspect that NIOSH still needs to assess is the longevity of optimal cab performance with respect to the quality (filtering efficiency) of the filters used in filtration and pressurization systems. In today’s culture, most health and safety professionals automatically believe that HEPA quality filters need to be used to provide the greatest level of protection to workers. Researchers at the Office of Mine Safety and Health Research for NIOSH hypothesized that HEPA quality filters may not be optimal for the mining industry and speculated that MERV 16 rated filters would be more appropriate in most cases. In order to test this hypothesis, NIOSH performed a two-year study comparing both HEPA and MERV 16 quality filters on two pieces of underground limestone mining equipment, being a roof-bolter and face drill machine. Testing showed at the 95 pct. confidence level that there was no statistical difference between the two efficiency filters on both pieces of mining equipment. Since the MERV 16 rated filters were less restrictive and provided greater cab pressure, and since they did not have to be replaced as often as the HEPA quality filters, researchers concluded the MERV 16 filters were the optimal choice for both pieces of mining equipment in this case study comparative analysis. INTRODUCTION When most health and safety professionals today think about filtration efficiencies and their correlation with protecting workers’ health, the normal assumption is the higher the efficiency of a filter, the greater the protection afforded to the workers. The next logical step is to believe that HEPA filters deliver the greatest protection for workers because they provide the highest filtering efficiency. Obviously high-efficiency intake filters are a necessity for an effective cab filtration and pressurization system on mobile mining equipment, but what is the optimal filter efficiency rating for achieving high levels of cab protection factor performance over the service life of filters? To address this question, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has performed an in-depth laboratory research study over the years simultaneously with numerous field studies to retrofit used enclosed cabs on mobile mining equipment with newer and more effective filtration and pressurization systems."

Jan 1, 2016

By J. D. Noll, J. A. Organiscak, A. B. Cecala

Significant strides have been made in optimizing the design of filtration and pressurization systems used on the enclosed cabs of mobile mining equipment to reduce respirable dust and provide the best air quality to the equipment operators. Considering all of the advances made in this area, one aspect that still needed to be evaluated was a comparison of the efficiencies of the different filters used in these systems. As high-efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filters provide the highest filtering efficiency, the general assumption would be that they would also provide the greatest level of protection to workers. Researchers for the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) speculated, based upon a previous laboratory study, that filters with minimum efficiency reporting value, or MERV rating, of 16 may be a more appropriate choice than HEPA filters in most cases for the mining industry. A study was therefore performed comparing HEPA and MERV 16 filters on two kinds of underground limestone mining equipment, a roof bolter and a face drill, to evaluate this theory. Testing showed that, at the 95-percent confidence level, there was no statistical difference between the efficiencies of the two types of filters on the two kinds of mining equipment. As the MERV 16 filters were less restrictive, provided greater airflow and cab pressurization, cost less and required less-frequent replacement than the HEPA filters, the MERV 16 filters were concluded to be the optimal choice for both the roof bolter and the face drill in this comparative analysis case study. Another key finding of this study is the substantial improvement in the effectiveness of filtration and pressurization systems when using a final filter design.

Aug 1, 2016

By T. W. Camm, J. C. Johnson, S. D. Rosenthal

"Most engineers are bright, hard-working, reliable and prefer to avoid conflict. An engineering curriculum tends to self-select these characteristics. By most standards, you would expect workers exhibiting these traits to require minimal supervision. But, is this true? Is this how most current engineering managers lead? Looking at some current theories on leadership combined with personal anecdotes, this article will look at some common misconceptions about leading engineers.Engineers are different. There, it has been said. From cartoons to movies to television shows and more, there is a reason stereotypes of engineers resonate. Yes, you can find a lot of individual variation among specific engineers that you may know, but they do not detract from some of the overarching commonalities that engineers are known for.Clash of culturesWhat distinguishes a professional? Raelin (1985), in his book Clash of Cultures, describes professionals as having superior intellectual training, maintaining their own standards of excellence and being supported by associations that maintain the quality of the profession. Engineers obviously fit all three of these ideas: an engineering degree is still regarded as one of the most difficult to attain. Standards are maintained both through peer review and in academia, through ABET accreditation and through professional associations like SME to promote the discipline and foster technical growth.Six characteristics representing professional status are described by Raelin (1985, p. 9):• Expertise — prolonged specialized training in a body of abstract knowledge.• Autonomy — the freedom to choose the means to solve a problem.• Commitment — primary interest is in pursuing the practice of one’s own chosen specialty.• Identification — identifying with the profession and with fellow professionals, both through formal associations and through peers external to the organization.• Ethics — providing service without concern for oneself or without becoming emotionally involved with the client.• Standards — committed to help in policing the conduct of fellow professionals."

Jan 1, 2018

By W. Hustrulid

"In recognition of his inspiring dedication to the mining industry through education, research contributions and dissemination of practical knowledge, exceptional leadership and excellence in mining engineering practice and for his lecture, “You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.” Recipient of the 2002 D.C. Jackling Award Introduction It is always difficult to decide on the most appropriate title to give to a paper or talk. It is a particularly difficult decision in the case of the Jackling Lecture, because the title becomes part of the award citation. I hope that the significance of this unusual title will become crystal clear as you read the pages that follow. However, to assist you in this journey, I will provide the following few words of guidance. In making a cake, you need the proper ingredients. If one or more of them are missing, it will not be a cake. In addition, the quality of the cake depends on the quality of the ingredients. In my lecture, the "cake" is the U.S. mining industry of the future. A national perspective President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address (Bush, 2002) delivered on January 29, 2002, defined three national objectives: •win the war on terrorism, •protect the homeland and •revitalize the economy. Under the heading "revitalize the economy," he indicated the importance of "good jobs" and "energy production" by saying: "Good jobs begin with good schools. Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil." I wish that he would have broadened his focus and stated instead that: "This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase materials production at home so America is less dependent on foreign sources." With regard to jobs, all jobs are not equal. To paraphrase John Reeves of MidContinent Resources (Reeves, 2002): "If our nation is to prosper, we all cannot make a living by doing each other's wash. Some of us, at least, must be actively engaged in the primary production of raw materials from the riches of the earth and other Americans must turn those materials into consumer products." The unfortunate trend in our country has been to neglect the primary production of basic materials, even those coming next in line. We have left those responsibilities to others while we concentrate instead on performing various services, i.e., doing each other's wash and flipping burgers. This cannot continue. It must be remembered, especially by those in leadership positions, that all "jobs" are not created equal. Some jobs are much more essential to the security and wellbeing of our country than others. We must be sure that the important ones are in place. We cannot produce the basic materials that our nation requires without access to those materials. This leads to my Proposition 1: You cannot have a viable mining industry without a clearly enunciated, positive U.S. materials policy. Background regarding U.S. materials policy Resources for freedom. In January 1951, President Truman created the President's Materials Policy Commission, with William S. Paley as chairman. As expressed in the invitation letter from the president to Paley: This commission, within the executive office of the president, is to study the broader and longer-range aspects of the nation's materials problems as distinct from the immediate defense needs. The task of the commission is to make an objective inquiry into all major aspects of the problem of assuring an adequate supply of production materials for our long-range needs and to make recommendations that will assist me in formulating a comprehensive policy on such materials. The commission should study, together with any other aspects deemed by it to be pertinent, such questions relating to production materials as: - the long-range requirements outlook; - the long-range supply outlook; - the prospect and estimated extent of shortages; - the consistency and adequacy of existing government policies, plans and programs; and - the consistency and adequacy of private industry practices.

Jan 1, 2003