Search Documents

By Neil Williams

The brecciated dolostone-hosted (Mississippi Valley-type) and associated shale-hosted stratiform Pb-Zn deposits at McArthur River occur adjacent to a major syndepositional fault, the Emu fault. Base-metal zoning, mineral parageneses, and Pb and stable isotope ratios indicate that both types of deposits formed contemporaneously from metalliferous brines that flowed into the host sediments from the Emu fault. Derivation of brines from underlying evaporitic sediments is suggested. Geochemical evidence indicates that the mechanism of ore formation was sulfate-reduction coupled with oxidation of organic matter. The textural relationships of stratiform sulfide mineralization to diagenetic dolomite concretions, chert blebs, volcanic glass shards, and inter-ore breccia beds, indicate that the reactions proceeded diagenetically within about 100 m of the sediment/water interface.

Jan 1, 1979

By Russell H. W. Chadwick

Reviewing events in the minerals industry, in economic geology, and in my own exploration work, I find that the most compelling subject for comment is the increasing ferment in ore deposits theory. New discoveries and continued investigations of bedded deposits of lead and zinc, copper, iron, uranium, etc., coupled with the availability of much new and significant data from sedimentary and metamorphic petrology, geochemistry, and oceanography, has led many economic geologists like myself to become disenchanted with former simplistic notions. Now disenchantment among serious people should presuppose both valid objections to the old, and valid new substitutes. I can sum up my own position and, I believe, what most of the recent writers on ore deposits theory are trying to tell us, by saying that a physico-chemical (bench science) approach to a natural science is neither correct nor useful, and that the obvious cure is a return to the study of the geology of ore deposits. More specifically, ore should be viewed merely as an unusual concentration produced, in stages, by the natural processes inherent in the geochemical cycle. In criticizing the conceptual basis of a science, one is involved simultaneously in the inherent character of the science, its subject matter, and the old and new concepts. I have found it impossible to make a clean separation along those lines. As a result, and as the title suggests, these are not-quite-random reflections on genesis, a matter near and dear to all true treasure hunters since Agricola.

Jan 1, 1967

Throughout the 1970s, the US Bureau of Mines rode an ebb tide in Washington political circles. In rapid fire succession, the agency lost its mine health and safety enforcement responsibility (1973), a large portion of its energy research responsibility (1975), and then its fuel statistics functions plus a sizable portion of its coal R&D (1977). By 1978, johnny-come-latelies in the Energy, Labor, and Interior Departments had siphoned away from the Bureau some $125 million in program responsibilities as well as 900 of its employees. The bruising decade came to a close with a Department of Natural Resources proposal that, in its original form, would have scattered the Bureau's responsibilities to the winds. "There is no doubt in my wind," said Lindsay Norman, acting director of the Bureau of Mines (see box), "that were the Bureau to continue down the path it was on, the next step was closing the doors and going out of business." The doors are still open, but erosion of responsibilities had a devastating effect on the resources available to fulfill the Bureau's mission. Devastating, too, in terms of internal morale, considering the Bureau had six directors in a 10-year span. "When the troops are in the trenches and are being shot at," Norman said, "they need a leader-hopefully, a permanent one- that can get them advancing. This is something the Bureau did not consistently have in the 1970s." In September 1978, Roger Markle climbed aboard as director of the Bureau to rejuvenate the 70-year-old agency. He resigned only six months later* but the program Markle set in motion is being carried through by Lindsay Norman. Since Norman's appointment as acting director, he has spent considerable time on the road explaining his agency's redefined goals. At one such stop in Duluth, Norman and his two deputy directors, Charles Kenahan and Mike Kaas, answered the following questions. Lindsay, you were the principal architect in the Bureau's 1979 reorganization. How about a glimpse of what that entailed? Toward the end of the 1970s, after almost a decade of steady dismemberment, we reached what we felt was a critical point in the Bureau's history-we had the choice of redefining and strengthening our organization to meet the mineral challenges ahead, or continuing down the path toward the agency's eventual demise. We felt the Bureau's mission too important to abandon, so in 1978 with Roger Markle as director we initiated a six-month, no-holds-barred intro spection of just what the Bureau should be doing, why, and toward what ultimate national needs. And what did this self-reflection reveal? That there is, indeed, a unique federal role for the Bureau of Mines-that of a lead agency for influencing mineral decisions and pioneering tomorrow's technologic advances. Don't confuse us with policymakers, we're not. But we are policy analysts; we're scientists, engineers, and mineral professionals who can offer a sorely needed source of objective, accurate information to decision makers in both the public and private sectors. I feel there is no better brain trust in government than the Bureau when it comes to mineral expertise-of course, I'm biased. Do I understand you to say the Bureau of Mines is an advocate agency for the minerals industry? We plead no parochial interests, nor ought we, but from our viewpoint a sound minerals industry is extremely important to the broader national goals of security and a healthy economy. US dependence on foreign sources for critical minerals, the increasing noncompetitiveness of some US mineral sectors, and the array of land use issues surrounding mineral-rich lands all have much more serious implications than many otherwise informed people seem to recognize. In your estimation, how vulnerable is the US to foreign mineral suppliers? Let me make a distinction between dependency and vulnerability. The

Jan 4, 1980

By G. W. Johnston

INTRODUCTION For many years mining at the Stobie mine of the Inco Metals Co. consisted mainly of fill-type mining for higher grade ores and block caving or blasthole open stope mining for lower grade ores. Open stope mining, although quite favorable in the initial stoping phase, has always presented problems in the pillar recovery phase, especially at depth. In 1966, sublevel caving was introduced. This method is ideally suited for low-grade ore and can be applied very successfully to intermediate or higher grade ores providing proper controls are enforced. Sublevel caving has three distinct advantages: it is highly adaptable to mechanization; it recovers the ore in one operation; and it provides adequate ground sup¬port and safety regardless of mining depth. This method does, however, make extra demands, particularly for new types of supporting services. The constant presence of rock makes quality control of the grade of the ore being extracted essential. Increased de¬velopment, different types of ventilation, roadways, and maintenance are only a few of the many changes re¬quired. The care and maintenance of the fleets of diesel equipment and the modification of equipment is a con¬stant challenge. CHOICE OF SUBLEVEL CAVING The question arises, why mine by sublevel caving? Fig. 1 shows a typical problem encountered by the open stope or blasthole mining method. Near the surface there is little or no ground support problem. As mining progresses to an intermediate depth, however, ground failure starts to occur in the supporting pillars. If open mining is carried beyond this point, the critical depth is soon reached, accompanied by hanging wall caving, ex¬tensive pillar failure, and the danger of losing control of the mining cycle. The rock caved from the hanging wall mixes with and dilutes the ore being extracted from the blasthole stopes. Ore losses occur when pillar failure pre¬vents drilling and development of part of the ore. The interruption to the mining cycle causes serious curtail¬ment in production until ground failure is controlled and the mining method changed to adapt to the new conditions. Having recognized the limitations of open stope min¬ing, alternatives were sought. The first alternative (Fig. 2) was to fill the open stopes with sand fill be¬fore extensive pillar deterioration occurred, recover the pillar ore by fill mining, and then convert to total fill mining below. If the ore grade is high enough it can support the costly fill method. Recovery will be at a much slower rate and will therefore extend over a longer period of time. On the other hand, sublevel caving gives complete primary mining recovery in a short time and is very adaptable to mechanization, which is now a necessity to combat spiralling labor costs and give greater produc¬tivity per man. Sublevel caving is ideally suited as a mining method for low-grade ore bodies which eventually reach a criti¬cal depth for open stope mining. DEVELOPMENT The development phase comes first and of course its main purpose is to gain access to the ore and provide a route for ore removal from the mine. Initially a 20% inclined service ramp is driven in the footwall rock (Figs. 3, 4, and 5). It is preferable to start at the top of a mining block and drive the ramp down¬ grade so gravity can assist in mucking the blasted de¬velopment round, and also access can be gained more quickly to the initial production area. The ramp nor¬mally turns at 3.1 rad (180°) about every 152.4 m (500 ft) to keep it reasonably close to the rock disposal

Jan 1, 1982

By Sue Sawyer

In October, November and December, teachers at the National Science Teachers' Association (NSTA) area conventions were lured to visit the Minerals Education Coalition (MEC) booth by the promise of free rocks, video tapes, and literature on earth science topics. Teachers were content to stand in lines that at times took as much as an hour and a half to progress through the exhibit. Adding to their interest was the opportunity to converse with people from the minerals industry who were staffing the booth. The MEC was formed by a group of associations and companies in the minerals industry. They felt the need to educate the public about the current-day minerals industry and how it affects everyone's life. The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (AIME) underwrote the major expenses of exhibit space and exhibitor services at all three conventions in 1997. SME members have been active in staffing and chairing the NSTA exhibit booth. But they represented only about one-third of the volunteers for the booth. Additional volunteers were drawn from local minerals companies, associations, interested teachers and other support groups. (See donors list on page 64.) In 1997, the conventions were held in Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO and Nashville, TN. The local SME GEM Committees chaired Pittsburgh and Denver and The Rogers Group Inc. supplied the chairperson in Nashville. Each exhibit relies on a local committee to plan and run the booth. Support is available from the GEM Projects Coordinator at SME headquarters. Usually the chair of the committee is drawn from the local SME membership. It is easy to see why the MEC booth is so popular. Free literature, videos, posters, workshop packets and rock specimens were handed out to about 5,500 science teachers at the three sites. Feedback from the attending teachers was overwhelmingly positive: "Who do we thank for these great materials?" Some of those great materials included Caterpillar's outstanding donation of Common Ground videos and teacher packets for Pittsburgh, Denver and Nashville for every teacher expected to attend. Placer Dome sent enough What's a Mine coloring books and It Comes from a Mine activity books for teachers at all three sites. Newmont supplied all teachers with an excellent poster describing gold processing. Women in Mining Education Foundation had plenty of its classroom activity handouts. The American Coal Foundation provided a list of its educational materials that are given out free to teachers who request them on school letterhead. The National Mining Association had its Facts About Minerals and Facts About Coal available. US Borax provided the funding to reproduce the NMA black and white posters that were published as inserts in Mining Voice magazine. In addition, each site had other materials chosen by the local committees to round out their selections. At each exhibit site, committees raise between $8,000 and $12,000 in cash donations from industry to support the high overhead of producing this exhibit. Usually, there are between 12 and 18 different rock specimens representing a range of mineral ores from aggregates to the metal ores. The committee arranged to have these donated (along with the freight charges to ship them to the site). Literature is also donated by the industry. It covers a diverse spectrum from basic information on rocks and minerals to posters, flow charts, videos and coloring books. Other donations include storage space before the event, haulage of items to the hall and door prizes. These exhibits could not have been staged without the network of SME Local Sections and the able chairs and committees at each site. At this time, credit should be given to their extensive donation of time and effort.

Jan 1, 1998

By Someswar Kesh, Gavin J. Faulkner

Introduction Powered supports in longwall mines essentially operate under two conditions: 1. Static (non-working) 2. Dynamic (working) There is a variety of static conditions which may exist in a mine. These may include a temporary stoppage of work for a few minutes or stoppage of work for days because of strikes or lack of demand for coal. Studies on pressure behavior were made during brief stoppages of work (few hours) as well as a long stoppage of work (two weeks). In dynamic conditions, the pressure variation on supports is expected to follow a certain pattern. However, in many cases that does not happen. Pressure-time characteristics of each leg of the supports were studied. This paper discusses the research findings of the studies made on powered support pressure behavior under both static and dynamic conditions. Studies on Pressure Variation in Static Conditions It has been noted (Brenner et a1.,1975) that the pressure distribution on mechanized longwall faces is random in nature and changes with time and position along the face. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the distribution of support pressures for the front left leg of supports in two different mines. In both the cases it can be seen that the variation of the support pressures along the face is indeed absolutely random. However, the nature of randomness in both the cases is very different. The data in Figure 1 (Mine 1) is much more random than the data in Figure 2 (Mine 2). This can also be seen from the standard deviation of the data (81 26 Pa versus 4000 pa) . By comparing the results of ten other sets of data the same conclusions can be arrived at. Since it was found that in Mine 1, the pressure on support legs was extremely random, batches of ten supports each were taken and the mean pressure plotted. This mean pressure line is shown in Figure 1. It was expected that this would smooth out the variation due to individual props and reveal a better picture of the support pressure distribution. For the case cited, the standard deviation is lowered to 5043 Pa from 8126 Pa which indicates that, on an average, the supports tend to take loads more uniformly, however for individual support legs the load on the supports is very random. The significance of this is that, if the supports are selected on the basis of theoretical load calculations alone (based on the roof block concept or some other concept), only the mean value of the support load required will be known. In the case of a pressure distribution with a high standard deviation, some supports selected on the basis of mean value will fail, while others will be supporting low loads. Hence, for proper selection of support capacity, it is not only necessary to know the average load but also the expected nature of the distribution. The only reason why the supports are supporting the roof in Mine 1 well is the fact that the yield load is above the highest level of load attained. If Mine 2, which has a much higher average load, had the same sort of standard deviation, the loads on the individual legs could easily exceed the support load. For example, if the pressure distribution followed a normal curve and the mean pressure was 36,700 Pa with a standard deviation of 9000 Pa, it is possible that 67% of the supports will be within the pressure range of 36,700 plus or minus 9,000 Pa, or 22,700 and 45,700 Pa. Many of the supports could then exceed the yield load of 40,000 Pa. It is clear then that the mean load is an inadequate criterion for estimating support resistance. The nature of the problem is statistical and such an analysis should therefore be made as far as pressure data are concerned. Statistical Analysis of Pressure Data. In general, in longwall mining and other geo-mechanics studies, it is extremely difficult to specify the exact nature of the distribution of a variable. Under these circumstances, probability

Jan 1, 1986

By P. D. Chamberlain, R. M. Nadkarni, D. J. Kinneberg

Introduction The relationship between precious metal miners and gold refiners has been uneasy over the years. Reasons for this uneasiness and lack of trust include technical factors, economics of scale, and cultural differences. Technical factors take two forms. First, concentrates, precipitates, and sponge produced at the mine site are notoriously difficult to sample. A nonrepresentative sample can be the cause of misunderstanding and distrust. Dote, however, is relatively homogeneous and can be correctly sampled and analyzed with greater reliability. Second, the technology and chemistry of fine gold and silver production is complex and quite different from dote production. Most mining companies are content not to be involved with additional processing steps. From the standpoint of process economies, it is easy to see why miners and refiners are separate groups. Mine location is dictated by the natural occurrence of ore bodies. Heavy capital investment requirements for infrastructure in remote locations usually limits companies to produce the first marketable product from a mine. Beyond that point, the economies of scale and large capital investments for refineries generally dictate that the outputs of several mines be combined to feed a single refinery. The refin¬ing process is so complex that refineries are generally built in larger cities with a skilled labor pool. Therefore, only the largest mines can afford to refine their own output. Lastly, there are cultural differences between the miner and the refiner. The miner, particularly the small gold miner, is by definition a risk taker in a risky business. Refineries, on the other hand, have historically been operated under legal or implied monopolies approved by the government. The government is interested in owning gold, either for currency reasons or because many national mints are major users of gold coins. It is not surprising, then, to find that miners may regard refiners as part of an unresponsive government bureaucracy or, worse, as "city slickers." It is easy for the two groups to distrust each other with these different backgrounds. The interface between miner and refiner does exist and affects nearly all precious metal mining companies and most refineries. This paper discusses the technical and economic aspects of the interface. It points out how both parties can improve the relationship. Technical interface Precious metals selectively dissolve to produce a pregnant solution. They are then recovered from solution by zinc precipitation (Merrill-Crowe process) or by absorption onto activated carbon. This is followed by stripping and electrowinning. At this point, the mining company must decide whether to ship precipitates (or sponge) to refiners or to produce a dote. Some factors the company must consider are the ability to sample precipitates, concentrates or sponge, security of storage, and production rates. An important factor is the incremental cost (capital and operating) of converting precipitates or sponge into dote at the mine. Generally, mines prefer to melt precipitates or sponge to dote to avoid prob¬lems associated with sampling them. There are three types of fur¬naces used by mining operators to melt precipitates to dote. The first and most widely used is a sil¬icon carbide crucible heated ex¬ternally with a gaseous liquid fuel. The crucible is easy to use and slag can be skimmed before pouring dote. This simple system is capable of handling 1 t/a (32,000 oz per year) gold. It could cost as little as $20,000. More complex systems could cost up to $200,000. The second type of furnace is the gas- or propane-fired rever¬beratory furnace. This is usually used only by large-scale opera¬tors in the silver business. Precip¬itates in reverberatory furnaces come in direct contact with the flame. The large volumes of flue gas can carry significant amounts of dust and fume that must be re¬moved from the gas before dis¬charging it to the atmosphere. In the days when the Rand re¬finery in South Africa used reverberatory furnaces, the silver leaving the furnace in the form of vapor and fume was estimated at 2.2% of the total silver charged to the furnace. The gold in the gases was about 0.03% of the gold charged. Most of this silver and gold was recovered in the exhaust gas scrubber system. These scrub¬ber systems can be more costly than the furnace itself.

Jan 10, 1986

By K. Mulukhov

Introduction The depth of open-pit mines continues to increase. The typical designed depth for large quarries is now in the 300 to 600 m (1,000 to 2,000 ft) range, with some quarries even reaching depths of 700 to 800 m (2,300 to 2,600 ft). The cost of handling material from such deep mines can be 60% to 70% of the total cost. The capacity of using a cyclic means of transport, such as trucks or skip hoists, continues to drop as the depth of the mine increases. In addition to the problem of maintaining relatively low slope angles for haul roads, increases in environment pollution and increased fuel consumption make the use of trucks ineffective below 100 to 150 m (300 to 500 ft). In handling large quantities of bulky materials, i.e., more than 15 to 20 Mt/a (16 to 22 million stpy), under fixed terminal points, belt conveyors are preferable in almost in all cases. An exception is when the lump size of the load is too high for the conveyor to handle. Belt conveyors in mines can handle loads having a maximum lump size of no more than 250 to 300 mm (10 to 12 in.). The use of a movable crusher prior to the belt conveyor in an open-pit mine would make the process very expensive. Such an operation could not compete with truck haulage on a cost basis. Belt-car conveyor The main factor that restricts the lump size for conventional belt conveyors is collision impacts between the load-carrying belt and idlers. These impacts are completely eliminated in the belt-car conveyor, which was previously described by Mulukhov (1977). The unique feature of the conveyor is that the load-carrying belt is supported by moving cars. Each car consists of a troughed cross strap that supports the belt with the load and two rollers, on which the cars move along upper and lower rails. Cars are connected by two endless chains revolving over sprockets. The system uses conventional drive pulleys, tail pulleys and return idlers. There are no fasteners between the carrying belt and the car cross straps. The conveyor belt simply drives the cars along by the force of friction between the belt and the straps. A belt-car conveyor was first installed in 1970 at the Karatau mining operation in Kazakhstan. The system was an elevating conveyor with an inclination of 20° and was located on the final part of the truck haul road. The conveyor transferred blasting phosphate ore from the quarry to the crushing plant. A bunker was mounted between the trucks and the conveyor. The maximum lump size was typically 1,200 mm (48 in.). However, there were some lumps as large as 1,500mm (60 in.), which was greater than even the belt width (Fig. 1). Because the prototype belt-car conveyor was intended only for industrial trails, it had a relatively short length of about 50 m (160 ft). Nevertheless, the conveyor yielded a substantial profit over the cost of truck haulage. Naturally, the first question one might ask is why such a system is not now widely used. The reason was the further development of a huge transporting complex for the whole quarry at the base of the belt-car conveyor. After successful industrial trials from 1971 through 1973, which demonstrated the systems engineering feasibility, the State Planning Committee of the USSR included the development of the belt-car conveyor in its plan for the development of the national economy. However, mistakes were made. First, a single organization was not in charge of the development. Second, a plant that was not specialized in belt conveyors was put in charge of the design and manufacturing of the conveyor system. In addition, the crusher was installed before the stacker, which negated the major advantages of the belt-car conveyor. For loading the conveyor, a special blade feeder with pendulum suspension was developed, but it was found unreliable. The main conclusion was that, in-

Jan 1, 2003

Two years ago, about the only US mining ventures that could turn even marginal profits were precious metals. In 1986, the price of gold dramatically increased, as did earnings from precious metals, mostly gold mines. First quarter results for 1987 show that gold will again be the most profitable type of mining in the US. All this money being made in gold resulted in many new mines being opened and hundreds of old workings being re-evaluated. The Society of Mining Engineers has put together a technical program to aid in developing precious metals mines. Small Mines Development in Precious Metals will take place Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 1987 at Bally's Hotel, Reno, NV. For registration and hotel information see page 426 or contact Meetings Department, SME, P.O. Box 625002, Littleton, CO 80162-5002, 303-973-9550. Topics at this meeting will include Problems Facing Small Miners; Understanding Geology and Ore Reserves; Mining-Production Options to Maintain Competitiveness; Processing for Precious Metals; Financing and Economics that Work for Small Miners; and Understanding the Environmental and Permit Maze. Problems facing the small miner The small miner has found and started most of the productive mines in the world, says Alfred G. Hoyl, of Coal Fuels Corp., Rollinsville, CO. Hoyl will state his case for small mines development in the opening session of the program. He will make the point that government regulations must never restrict the small mine or miner. And the mining industry must be careful not to crowd out the independent miner. "To restrict small mining is to say to our young men and women entering the mineral industry `There is no place for you as an independent.' Small is a relative term and we must never feel that starting small will restrict our possibilities of becoming big." In the same session, David J. Starbuck, Starbuck Minerals Management, Mayer, AZ will take a look at why smaller precious metals mines are profitable. Mining companies have changed their perspective on reworking previously mined properties. They are looking at abandoned properties in older mining districts. The attitude is that smaller operations in these districts can be profitable with the present economic climate, more advanced technology, and better management. Small, independent mining companies may not have the same resources to draw from as the majors. But there are affordable technologies available that fit into the independents' budget. Betty Gibbs, of Gibbs Associates, Boulder, Co will explain how a personal computer can help a small operation to analyze data more effectively and respond quickly to changing conditions. Scenarios will be developed that will describe how PCs can be incorporated into all phases of an operation. Financial institutions are becoming more willing to consider venture capital for small precious metals mines, according to Stanley Dempsey, Denver Mining Finance Co., Denver, CO. This may be in the form of equity or debt, he says, but they want to receive assurances of the quality of the resource. And they will ask about the ore reserves. Next, the potential lender will want to know about the mining method and en¬vironmental regulations. Dempsey will discuss these requirements. Once a high grade gold mineralization is located and reserves proven, it must be evaluated to determine which recovery process is best suited for this deposit. Robert Martinez, Amselco Minerals, Ely, NV will evaluate processes for such a deposit located in Mexico. Heap leaching, vat leaching, and a carbon-in-pulp circuit are all viable options, he says. He will explain which recovery process proved to be the most economic. Other papers in the introductory session include How to Best Use Consulting Firms to Accelerate the Development Process, by H. Schreiber and R.P. Fronk, both of Behre Dolbear-Riverside, New York, NY. And W. Mayrsohn of Asamera Minerals, Denver, CO will present Marketing Fundamentals that Work for Small Mines. Understanding geology and ore reserves In the current scheme of fast-track exploration and mine development, insufficient time and thought is given to understanding the geology of a deposit as it relates to controls of mineralization and subsequent mine development, say D.S. Bolin and J.W. Rozelle, of Pincock, Allen & Holt,

Jan 6, 1987

By C. Allen Born

There is a saying, the greater the gratitude, the shorter the speech. That puts me in a quandary, because while I am grateful for the honor you do me today, I also want to talk about a subject very important to all of us. A few months ago, when I was asked to submit a title for my talk, I chose "Quality where it counts." I did so because perhaps the most important thing we at Amax did in our restructuring was to commit to quality in all our businesses - quality people, assets, and operations. Together, they create quality performance, which produces quality growth and increased shareholder value - our prime corporate mission. We are dedicated to quality. At Amax, quality means everything. Today, I want to discuss quality in another context - the need for it in American education and what we have to do to achieve it. If we ignore this need, we will all suffer the consequences. And they will be upon us far sooner than the next century, barely a decade away. I think almost everyone in this room works for an organization that had to restructure in the 1980s. Mining companies that did not, just didn't make it. Well, we did. As an industry, we are seeing improved profits, positive cash flow, and a more competitive position in the world marketplace. But all the restructuring we have done, all the hard work, and all the pain that was part of it, will be in vain if, down the road, we do not have the educated people we need as workers. We need them to design, manufacture, and market the products that use the basic materials produced by the mining industry. Simply put, we are at a crisis point in education today. That is no new revelation. Nearly six years ago, the National Committee on Excellence in Education published its report, "A Nation At Risk." Since then, things have not gotten better. The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, US News & World Report, and Fortune have all recently published stories about the sorry state of education in the United States. The subject has become the topic of TV talk shows as well as national commissions, and for good reason. The pool of young people entering the US labor force is dwindling. In the next decade, 10 million fewer will enter the job market compared to the 1970s. But fewer of them will be qualified to do the jobs available to them. Here's why: • 20% of today's high school students drop out before they are 18 and another 20% graduate functionally illiterate; 40% of today's fourth graders think the world is flat; • 20% of today's sixth graders cannot locate the United States on a world map; • one of every three ninth graders cannot figure the change for a two-item meal - and I'm talking about a Big Mac and fries. These are not just problems of minority kids in big city ghettos. Fully 40% of all young working Americans cannot add up their lunch bill. Three out of every five college freshmen need some kind of remedial work. These statistics are frightening. Particularly so because, while the work force is becoming less qualified and our public education system is getting worse, our products and technologies are becoming more complex. We are approaching a time when we will have machines that recognize handwriting but people who cannot write. We will have technology to take voice commands, but people who do not know what they are talking about. The accelerating pace of technology is changing the nature of the job market. The fastest growing jobs now, and in the years ahead, are in professional, technical, and sales positions requiring the highest education and skill levels. Most of these jobs will require the use of a computer. Yet, 95% of today's graduating high school students have never laid a finger on a computer keyboard. While our education system is failing the students it is supposed to serve, other countries are doing far better. In a

Jan 1, 1990

By Koji Nakanishi, Masayoshi Karasawa, Yasuhiro Morimoto

"Shin-Yokohama station (tentative name), one of the station of the Sotetsu - Tokyu through line (ST line), is under construction by the OPEN – CUT method. The Underground Soil–Cement Steel Diaphragm Wall is implemented as an earth retaining wall. This earth retaining wall is utilized as a main body of a subway station. It is the first time to utilize this earth retaining wall as the main body. There are two difficult issues for this project. One is that this station is planned under busy major road and there are many underground utilities, for example, an electrical transmission line. Because of that, construction area is limited. The other is that this station is located in a thick soft clay layer. This layer has a high risk of consolidation settlement because of draining during main excavation. Thus, high water tightness is required for this earth retaining wall. This paper reports design and construction methods for the Underground Soil–Cement Steel Diaphragm wall introduced as a part of the body of the subway station.1. OUTLINE OF SHIN-YOKOHAMA STATION 1-1. Location and structure of Shin-Yokohama Station Shin-Yokohama station is an intermediate station on the ST line connected to the Tokaido-Shinkansen bullet train, the JR-Yokohama line and the Yokohama Municipal Subway. Access to Tokyo and the Tokaido- Shinkansen from the eastern part of Yokohama city will be improved by this project. In addition, the number of estimated passengers of this station is one hundred thousand people/day because a soccer stadium (Nissan Stadium: 72,000 people), a huge indoor arena and a hotel are located in this area. This station consists of 4 stories and 3 spans (Max width; 29m, Depth; 33m, Length; 325.5m). Completion image is shown in Figure 2. Generally, stations have 1 platform and 2 trucks. But this station has 2 platforms and 3 tracks because some of ST line trains return at this station and a train deadheads from Hazawa station to this station in an emergency. This station is planned as 4 stories underground station, and the platform is on the lowest story. The reason why this station is in such a deeper position is to prevent the alignment from interfering with the Yokohama Municipal Subway station and foundation piles for bridge piers existing along the alignment. Even under the constraint conditions, earth covering should be shallow as much as possible. As a result, the tunnel edge is very close to the foundation pile, and the gap is only about 2m (Figure 3). In addition, passengers will be able to change trains easily from the ST line to the Yokohama Municipal Subway or vice versa at this station."

Jan 1, 2016

By John K. (Original by) Berry

The handling and disposal of mine water is a much larger problem than is apparent at first glance. Many more tons of water are removed from underground coal mines in the United States each year than tons of coal. In the old anthracite region of Pennsylvania the average was around 32.7 t (36 st) of water for each ton of coal produced, while bituminous mines average about 4.5 or 5.4 t (5 or 6 st). Water encountered in the mines may come from several different sources. In mines with light cover and without a firm solid roof, rain may seep directly into the workings. This is also true of deeper mines where pillar falls have broken the roof to the surface. The top under creek beds is generally faulty and broken and water comes through the roof at this point. Deeper mines are frequently overlain by water-bearing strata and pillar breaks and faulty top can admit water, while places running to the dip often accumulate water which comes up through the bottom. In all cases, except where passing under a year-round stream, the amount of water made is usually pretty closely connected with the weather-more water during the rainy season, less in the dry, although the deeper a mine is, the longer it is before changes in rainfall are felt. Another source of water, not connected with seasonal changes, is old water, accumulated over a period of time in abandoned workings of the mine, or from flooded adjacent mines. Here the water filters through the coal, the parting, or comes up through cracks in the bottom. Similarly, core holes, drilled to prospect the property, can be a source of unexpected water and modern safety requirements for dust-allaying water at the working faces can turn a pleasant working area into a soggy mess over the weekend if the system is not properly maintained and operated. Why water must be disposed of is obvious. If allowed to accumulate, sooner or later the mine will fill up, or at least it will become "roofed" in low places, blocking ventilation and traffic. It must be controlled long before it reaches this stage. Water standing in the working faces is unpleasant for the men who have to work there and also cuts down on the amount of work they can do, as they must watch where they step all the time. It is especially unpleasant in low coal.

Jan 1, 1981

By Lee W. Saperstein

The SME Research Council assists SME and its constituencies in establishing research directions that will benefit the mining industry and its professions. It also provides information about these directions to its membership, to government and to related industrial societies. The 1995 Research Forum, organized and chaired by George Luxbacher, was the second in a series of meetings organized to develop these directions. A copy of the full proceedings is available from SME for $12 plus postage and handling. The first research forum (Saperstein, L., 1993, "Technology for the Future, MINING ENGINEERING, Vol. 45, No 11, November, pp. 1382-85) invited mining industry representatives to discuss the unsolved technical problems that were keeping the industry from greater economic and environmental efficiency. The second forum asked academic researchers to discuss the same general topics from their perspective. It came as no surprise that, in general, the two sets of presenters tackled the same problems. There was no surprise when the academics spoke of the need for fundamental long-term research. What may have been surprising was the number of university people who spoke for near-term research that leads to measurable economic returns or savings. The closure of the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) has changed the objectives and attitudes of the SME Research Council. From being a point of liaison between SME and USBM - a conduit of items from each party to the other the council is now much more on its own. This isolation presents opportunities and hazards. The opportunities are exciting because the council could be the focus for mineral industry research policy if it were properly structured. The hazard is obvious - if there is no bureau, it could be argued, why maintain the council? Many people believe that SME should take the first course and become the beacon for research policy. More than ever, money is being spent on minerals industry research by the federal and state governments - particularly at the mineral-oriented land-grant universities - by industry and by consortia among these groups. SME could be at the hub of these programs. There is a general concern that industry is less able to maintain an economic edge by means of geologic discovery. According to Titley, there will be fewer major, new world-class discoveries except, possibly, at the continental and tectonic-plate margins. Consequently, economic advantage will go to those companies and nations that stay ahead technologically. Given the inevitable diffusion of technology, it can be concluded that technology development, underpinned by research, must be continuous to maintain profits. This is a change from earlier years when change would occur in relatively rare major steps that were interspersed with extended periods of technological equilibrium. Over the fiscal years 1994 to 1997, there has been a 24% cut in research spending by the Department of the Interior (figures from the American Association for the Advancement of Science). This is the largest budgeted percentage cut in research funding of any federal department. Even so, there is still a substantial amount of federal research funding expended in the mineral and extractive-energy industries. The US Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, Departments of Defense and Energy and others expend substantial funds on minerals industry research. Industry - producers and manufacturers - is also spending large sums on research and research-like activities. This activity argues that there is a role for SME's Research Council. Providing focus Consortia. The closure of USBM has resulted in the migration of expertise to consulting firms and to other entreprenrutisl research entities. Many of these groups are creating ad hoc consortia among themselves, nearby universities and industrial partners. The Research Council is well placed to provide an open forum for these con¬sortia. Presentations of research results, as went on in the annual meetings of the Generic Mineral Technology Centers, can help to establish an. archive of results and an avoidance of duplication of research. A continuing sense of research directions can evolve. National Science Foundation. No discussion of consortia would be complete without mention. of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) programs for Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) and Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI). NSF is aware of the gap in federal support of science and technology caused by USBM's closure.

Jan 1, 1997

By S. Budirsky

J.B. Gwiazda's article deals with an interesting problem that has not been studied thoroughly up to now. Gwiazda has proposed a technical solution that eliminates horizontal load imposed by the supports on the roof. That load is due to a discrepancy between the trajectories of the canopy and the overlying strata. It is true that the improved lemniscate guidance system proposed by Gwiazda could eliminate the horizontal load but, on the other hand, it would represent a higher cost of the supports, and it would complicate the already complicated mechanism of powered supports. That is why we must be convinced that the proposed improvement is actually needed. From that point of view, the following questions should be elucidated. As shown in Fig. 1, the point O travels along the curve a, which produces horizontal load on the roof in the direction of the coal face. As stated by Gwiazda, "such a high load is capable of destroying the roof above the support, causing rock debris to be scattered around the face." The results of our measurements carried out in coal mines of the Czechoslovak part of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin show that the convergence in the modern type of powered supports does not exceed several millimeters (not more than 10) per hour. Similar conclusions were drawn from field measurements performed in the Polish part of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin (see S. Romanowicz and H. Szopka in Proceedings, Scientific and Technical Symposium Simmex '85, Katowice, Poland, pp. 73 -83). The small vertical closure of the supports also induces a small horizontal displacement of the canopy. In addition to this, the transmission of forces between the roof and the canopy is influenced by the layer of debris on it, i.e., the canopy slides without imposing a greater horizontal load on the roof. This was deduced from field measurements of Voest-Alpine F 4/4600 powered supports equipped with rams instead of the common front lemniscate links (denoted as 1 in Fig. 5). In these supports, the pressurizing of the space of piston rod (la in Fig. 5) causes the rams to close, which induces horizontal load on the roof in a direction toward the coal face. After the setting of a support unit, the pressure in the piston rod space was found to drop, frequently to zero, because the small horizontal sliding between the canopy and the debris or inside the debris caused the horizontal reaction from the roof to fall to zero, although the debris were pressurized by vertical setting load. As a consequence, there was no horizontal load imposed by the canopy on the roof. A rise of the horizontal load was recorded only after the passage of the shearer and during lowering of the adjacent units. Thorough information on the results of the afore- mentioned field measurement is given in the paper, "Analysis of the performance of shield powered supports installed in a thick seam," published in Mechanizacja i automatyzacja gornictwa, 1982, No. 12, pp. 38-46. An English translation of the paper is available from the author. We have deduced from our observations that horizontal load imposed by the canopy on the roof in the direction toward the coal face is useful for roof control because it limits the displacement of the immediate roof toward the gob particularly during the rise working. We came to the conclusion that horizontal load on the roof toward the coal face should be induced on purpose. Could Mr. Gwiazda prove with the results of field measurements his contrary opinion? Has the small horizontal displacement of the canopy toward the face actually had an adverse effect on the roof? As shown in Fig. 2, during the setting of a support unit, the canopy imposes a horizontal load on the roof in the direction of the gob. In this case, I share Gwiazda's opinion that the horizontal load could have an adverse effect on the roof. Nevertheless, two important circumstances were neglected - the horizontal compliance of the supports and the interaction of adjacent units. The question of the compliance was analyzed precisely by I. Krumnacker in Gluckauf -Forschungshefle, 1984, NO. 5, pp. 219-223. He found that due to the clearance between the hinge pins and the eyes of the sheild and due to the elasticity of the steel structure,

Jan 1, 1988

By Barrie Butt, V. S. Znamensky

The opportunity for an exploration geologist to follow a successful exploration project through the feasibility, financing, construction, development, and exploitation phase is rare. In addition, it is not often that the exploration geologist can be present during the mining of a deposit to explain why certain actions were taken or interpretations made, and to find out how these interpretations turned out in actuality. At the Woodsreef chrysotile asbestos mine in New South Wales, Australia, mining has been- in progress for seven years and the writer of this chapter has been intimately associated with the project during the five years of exploration and seven years of exploitation. The Woodsreef mine has had major production problems, the majority of which have stemmed from the unique characteristics of the ore body and fiber. Because of the latter feature, much research has been undertaken by Woods- reef and other scientific organizations in Australia, England, and Canada regarding the Woodsreef fiber. The answers to some of the problems have negated some accepted concepts of asbestos ore milling and led to the development of new techniques. Some of these new techniques include the adoption of microscopic fiber counts as a routine procedure, the modification of accepted evaluation procedures, the development of new machines for dedusting fibers, and the recognition of a fiber with a unique milling behavior pattern and, possibly, properties. The problems experienced can be broadly divided into those associated with the geology and the physical properties of the fiber. It is possible that the same features may manifest themselves in other deposits around the world, and if they can be recognized during the exploration stages, a feasiblity evaluation may be just a little closer to the actual. The Woodsreef chrysotile asbestos deposit (latitude 30°24' S, longitude 150°44' E) is located 80 km north of Tamworth, NSW, Australia. The mine has been in production for six years and has a present scheduled mining rate of 33.11 Mt/y. An eight rock line mill treats an average of 7000 t/day, after beneficiation, and yields fiber grades in the range of group 4 to group 6 with some floats. The estimated re- serves of 30.56 Mt, with an ore to waste ratio of 1:3.0, are contained in two main zones that are designated the North and South zones. Mining started in the South Zone in 1972 and then, be- cause of the higher ore value, moved to the North Zone in 1975. Presently, there are two distinct open cuts referred to as the South and North pits that will eventually be worked together. The Woodsreef mine is owned by Woodsreef Mines Ltd. and is operated by Chrysotile Corp. of Australia Pty. Ltd., and is one of only two producing asbestos mines in Australia. The second mine is at Baryulgil, (latitude 29°13' S, longitude 152°37' E), and is operated by a subsidiary of Woodsreef Mines Ltd. This operation produces about 500 t/y for a captive market. An exploration program is being conducted in the area surrounding this small producer with a significant degree of success. The concepts developed during the exploitation of the Woodsreef deposit are being incorporated in the evaluation of the Baryulgil area, and if the Baryulgil deposit proves to be eco- nomic it is hoped that this approach will eliminate some of the major crises that have beset the production at Woodsreef during the first four years of operation. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Woodsreef deposit, and more important, to

Jan 1, 1986

By Gordon Miner

GENERAL DESCRIPTION At the Star mine, Hecla Mining Co., located in Burke, Shoshone County, ID, the mining method is horizontal slicing (timbered or untimbered) cut-and-fill using hydraulic sand backfill. Back stoping as well as breast stoping is used; see Fig. 1. The annual produc¬tion from all cut-and-fill mining is 259 816 t (286,400 st). The average depth ranges from 366 to 2408 m (1200 to 7900 ft). A majority of the tonnage comes from an average depth of 2240 m (7350 ft). Average travel time to the stope is 1 hr. GENERAL ORE BODY REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS Size and Ground Conditions The ore body is 610 to 1219 m (2000 to 4000 ft) along the strike and 2408 m (7900 ft) on the dip, with an average vein width of 2.6 m (8.5 ft). The dip is essentially vertical. The ore body is heavily sheared and broken on the main fault structures; it is more competent on the wall veins but everywhere subject to rock bursting at depth. The hanging and footwalls are strongly fractured on the main fault structures, again more competent but still fractured on the wall veins. All host rock is Revett quartzite. Value and Production Requirements The ore value is $56 per ton. Production require¬ments are 1089 t/ d (1200 stpd), five days per week. Why Cut-and-Fill? The slusher extraction method is the most satisfac¬tory and practical for narrow vertical veins with sheared walls. The method must be quite selective to be com¬mercial. The veins are too narrow for rubber-tired ex¬traction and the grade is not high enough to make resuing practical. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Development Access to the main shaft is by the 3.2-km (2-mile) main haulage tunnel. The level intervals in the vertical timbered shafts are 61 m (200 ft). Vein development is by crosscut and laterals located 30.5 m (100 ft) into the vein wall. Vein crosscuts are on ±61 m (200 ft) centers. Access to the vein is by raises carried up with the stope. The raises are equipped with four wood¬cribbed chutes (two orepasses reinforced with angle irons, one manway, and one timber slide, Figs. 2-6). The initial cut is located 6.7 m (22 ft) above the main level (Fig. 1). Stoping Cycle Detail Sampling: Grab samples are taken from the mine cars. Channel sampling of the faces and backs is done when necessary. Drilling: For stope drilling, Ingersoll-Rand 300M percussion drills are used, with Ingersoll-Rand 300M and Gardner-Denver RB83M stopers, used for back stoping. Breasting down is done with Gardner-Denver S83FM jacklegs. The back stoping rounds are 0.9 to 1.8 m (3 to 6 ft) and the breast stoping rounds 1.5 to 3m (5 to 10 ft). Blasting: For stope blasting DuPont Tovex 100 watergel with fuses and igniter cord is used primarily. Approximately 60% of the blasting is done with am¬monium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO). For development headings and shaft sinking, DuPont Drivex watergel with Ensign Bickford Nonel Primadet primers is is used. Mucking: Broken ore is removed entirely by slusher in the stopes. These are mostly 3.7-7.5-kW (5-10-hp) Ingersoll-Rand air-powered or 7.5-37.3-kW (10-50-hp) Ingersoll-Rand electric-powered. In the horizontal de¬velopment headings Eimco 12B and 21 and Atlas Copco LM-56 overshot mucking machines and a 0.76 (1 cu yd) hydroelectric Wagner HST-1 LHD (load-haul-dump) unit are used. Rockway for Extraction: The cribbed chutes (Fig. 7) are nearly vertical and hexagonal in shape and are made of spaced 152 x 203-mm (6 x 8-in.) timber, reinforced with varying weights and sizes of angle iron, depending on wear requirements. Rectangular cribbed chutes are used where ground pressure is not a problem. Cribbing is added in 2.4 or 3-m (8 or 10-ft) extensions accord¬ing to the floor height (whether timbered or untimbered). See Figs. 8 and 9. Backfilling: Backfilling is done with hydraulic sand consisting of classified mill tailings at 65% solids. The fill contains approximately 20% 325-mesh fines. The tailings are pumped 3353 m (11,000 ft) at 50-55% solids 22.7 dry t/h (25 dry stph) with a duplex piston pump. Cycloning increases the tailings density to 65% solids. Fill storage is in a 998-dry-t (1100 dry st) agi

Jan 1, 1982

By L. Cui

X. Huang (1997) recently suggested a poroelastic model for simulating the hydraulic fracturing breakdown pressure. His paper began with a discussion questioning Haimson and Fairhurst's (H&F) model. He claimed that the H&F model failed to lead to the Hubbert and Willis (H&W) model as[ a --> 0.] Huang also tried to explain why the H&F model could only work for special types of rock conditions. He pointed out that one possible reason could be that the Terzaghi's effective-stress concept had been adopted. The H&F model (Haimson and Fairhurst, 1969) was derived under the conditions that the borehole wall is fully penetrated (pp = pi) and a drained state is realized (steady pore-pressure field). Cui et al. (1997a) demonstrated that, under drained conditions, the total stresses in the penetrating poroelastic model (identical to the H&F model) degenerate into their counterparts in the elastic model (identical to the H&W model) as [a -- 0.] However, the effective-stress conditions are different for both of these models, because different pore-pressure conditions at the borehole wall were adopted. In the H&W model, p = po was assumed, i.e., the pore pressure field is not disturbed; but pp = pi was assumed in the H&F model. Assuming that Terzaghi's effective-stress controls tensile failure (that was the hypothesis adopted in both the H&F and the H&W models), only the following two special drained poroelastic cases may degenerate into the H&W model for very small a: • when the pore pressure at the borehole wall remains at the same level as the virgin pore pressure for a penetrating model and when the borehole wall is simply impermeable (i.e., the nonpenetrating model, Cui et al., 1997b). Therefore, simply setting a = 0 in the H&F model generally does not lead to the same problem described by the H&W model. On the other hand, when the porepressure boundary conditions do not correspond to the ones in the H&W model, a degeneration of the poroelastic model to the H&W model as [a – 0] should be questionable. The pore pressure at the borehole wall is generally dependent on the injection-fluid pressure and the penetrating conditions at the borehole wall, such as the existence of a filter-cake. For an impermeable wall, pp is independent of Pi, and it is basically an unknown [(how¬ever, pp -- po as t --oo).] For a fully permeable wall, pp is the same as Pi. Between these two extremes, pp should be a function of p; and the permeable condition of the borehole wall, which may be dependent of the leak-off coefficient cf. (the range of cf is from 0 to 1). Theoretically, for a rock with low permeability, a penetrating borehole wall is still possible. For saturated porous materials with very low values of a, poroelasticity shows that a pore pressure will be built up due to the stress concentration subjected to a nonhydrostatic in situ stress field (Cheng et al., 1993). This phenomenon is known as the Skempton effect. The variation of the pore pressure may be evaluated by [AP = 3 B(A rr + 06ee + A (Y,,)] (1) where B is the Skempton pore pressure coefficient. This pore pressure variation dissipates as time increases (it is totally gone as the drained state is approached). The rate of the dissipation mainly rely on the permeability of the formation. The dissipation is very slow for tight formations because their permeability is very low, and it is fast for rocks of high permeability. According to our analyses, the time period for this process could be from seconds (for sandstone's) to a couple of days (for stales). One possible reason that the H&C model did not agree well with the experimental results for rocks with low permeability might be that the time interval between the application of the loading and the fluid injection had not been long enough for the dissipation of the Skempton effect. The effective-stress law basically defines how much pore pressure contributes to the total stress. The difference between Terzaghi's effective stress and Biot's effective stress is that 100% of the pore pressure contributes to the total stress in Terzaghi's definition, while only a certain portion of the pore pressure ((ap) goes to the total stress in Biot's definition. Therefore, when the pore pressure at the boretole wall (pp) is determined according to Biot's effective-stress law, app in the total tangential stress is attributed to the pore pressure. In other words, Terzaghi's effective tangential stress is expressed

Jan 1, 1999

By J. H. Tu

The technical paper correctly points out that the kriging variance is not a good measure of the uncertainty of the estimated (i.e., kriged) value of individual blocks. The au thors claim that their proposed jackknife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from the original sample set and then taking the average of the rekriged estimates, not only gives good block estimates, but the resulting jackknife kriging standard deviation is a useful indicator of the "true uncertainty associated with block estimates." However, they immediately abandon the idea of using the block-by-block standard deviations, reasoning that these standard deviations are not independent and that there is no easy way to utilize them. There may be another reason for not using them. The jackknife standard deviations for individual blocks given in their example are mostly in the range of 0.004 to 0.005 oz/st (0.14 to 0.17 g/t) with only one block having a high value of 0.012 oz/st (0.41 g/ t). These individual block standard deviations are as low as the jackknife standard deviation for the mean grade of the entire shape, i.e., 0.0041 oz/st (0.14 g/t). Do they represent the "true uncertainty" of the individual block estimates? Could the authors explain this? In a global shape consisting of a large number of blocks, any given sample will affect the kriged estimate of only those few blocks within its vicinity. This is the rationale for the authors' selective rekriging, making the jackknife algorithm more efficient. On second thought, why not do away with jackknifing altogether? Just cumulate and normalize, if necessary, the kriging weights of each sample used during the ordinary block kriging process, and then compute the global variance from these kriging weights and their respective sample grades? After all, isn't the global mean grade nothing but the weighted average of the samples used in the estimation? Reply by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester The jackknife is one of the many tools in a practitioner's toolbox to solve estimation problems. The strengths of the technique lies in its simplicity, i.e., it uses the concept of mean and standard deviation and the fact that it can be easily combined with other tools, in this case kriging. Because the jackknife kriging (JK) estimate is also the mean of the pseudovalues, the JK standard deviation is attractive just as the standard deviation of the mean explains the variability of the data. The difference is that the pseudovalue calculation in jackknife kriging uses the ordinary kriging (OK) weighting scheme instead of simple arithmetic averaging. The data used to illustrate the jackknife technique in the paper consist of high values that are roughly three times the low values. The resulting JK estimate of the block grades show that the highest estimate is roughly twice the grade of the lowest estimate. The contrast between the low and the high estimate is more evident in the JK estimate than in the OK estimate, even though the mean grades of the blocks for the two estimates are very similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we are concentrating more on the need for a more realistic measure of uncertainty, or precision, for the estimate. Unlike its OK counterpart, the JK standard deviation of the blocks clearly reflects the original data variation. The highest JK standard deviation of the blocks is three times its lowest value. This follows our intuition that, when the samples used to estimate a block is more variable, the resulting estimation variance (or standard deviation) should be higher than the case where the samples are more uniformly valued. However, block-by-block standard deviation or variance is of little practical value in reserve estimation and classification, as well as in mine planning. One is usually more interested in quantifying not the variance of the individual block estimate, but the uncertainties associated with a much larger dimension, such as the minable reserve. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to find a simple way to obtain a single estimation variance or standard deviation associated with the reserve grade estimate. The discussion by J.H. Tu did not mention how one would obtain the global variance from the OK weights and the sample grades. As a technique that offers a data valuebased measure of uncertainty for its estimate, the "leave-one-out" jackknife fills this need nicely through the block kriging shortcut approach described in the paper. Note: The first column and the last two columns of Table 3 in the paper should have contained a single number each, namely, an OK estimate of 0.0317, a JK estimate of 0.0333 and a JK standard deviation of 0.0041 oz/st, respectively, for the shape, as are obvious from the text. ?

Jan 1, 1998

By N. J. Peberdy, C. N. Moreton, K. C. Garner

Introduction During the past decade a major objective of the process industry has been to use digital computer technology to improve plant operating efficiencies. This objective implied some form of optimization, a concept that has various interpretations depending on the view of the prospective user. For the purpose of this paper, optimization of a process plant is defined as the establishment and setting of plant operating conditions that maximize some mathematical yield function, i.e. maximum profit, minimum residue, etc. Analysis of these objectives and the available design and implementation techniques led to the conclusion that digital computer and optimization techniques are not the stumbling blocks, but rather the development and derivation of the mathematical models of the unit operations and process plants to be optimized. Such models should not only describe the optimized (steady-state) objective, but also how one steers to this state (control algorithm). Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the skills associated with the design and operation of process plants, the development of suitable models by a single discipline, such as the process control engineer, was found to be not only difficult but often impossible, due to budget and human resource limitations. To over-come these limitations, a computer aided design (CAD) tool has been developed. It aims to provide a productivity tool to the various disciplines, at the same time coordinating the technical input from each. The system described is but the starting point in an evolutionary development of a tool that, with use, is becoming more efficient and cost effective to use. Development has become an application engineering activity rather than the preserve of the computer specialist. Project phasing The development of a mathematical description of a process plant requires coordination of information from conceptual design to operation management. The activities required to build and operate a process plant are divided into four basic chronological activities or phases. These activities are often undertaken by different organizations and disciplines. As a result, continuity is often lost with the resultant loss of critical design data. The major activities are considered to be: conceptual and flowsheeting; detailing around the P & ID; building and commissioning; and plant operation. The CAD system described provides a design tool to be used for each of these activities, as well as providing continuity between the activities and the disciplines involved. The heart of the system is the dynamic simulation of the flowsheet. Each of the activities will be discussed, leading to two simple examples that demonstrate the use of the simulator. Figure 1 shows a schematic format of the various activities and the path followed by the dynamic flowsheet simulator in the life of a project. Flowsheet development The prime requirements in the design and develop¬ment of a process flowsheet are • selection of the correct unit operations to achieve the most economic (capital and operating) beneficiation of the specified reserve ; • the sizing of the unit operations to achieve the desired results, as a function of the projected feed rates etc., to handle the time related (dynamics) of the process; and • the production of a set of engineering documents showing the drawn and labeled flowsheet with an equipment list and process specification for each of the unit operations. The question may well be asked at this stage why dynamic flowsheet simulation should be considered when steady state modeling has been found to be adequate to date. With the increases encountered in the cost of capital, one often cannot afford the luxury of designing around the compounding worst case technique. Further, a more accurate design of the control surges can be achieved. No information is lost in that the steady state solution is in fact a subset of the dynamic model. In generalized state space modeling, the differential equations describing the process dynamics are illustrated in the following matrix notation: XDOT=A.X+B.U(1) Y =C.X+D.U(2) where XDOT describes the set of first order derivatives of the system state Vector, and X- is the system state Vector; A - is the system matrix operator which in the general nonlinear case is both a function of X and time ; U- is the process input vector; B - is the input mapping matrix; Y - is the set of observations; C - is the output mapping matrix which maps X - onto Y; and D- maps the input onto the observations. Thus, by time integration of the system dynamic equations, described in (1), the dynamic trajectory away from any set of initial conditions can be deter¬mined. Further, by finding the conditions at which XDOT = 0, the steady state solution can be determined.

Jan 1, 1987

By J. H. Tu

The technical paper correctly points out that the kriging variance is not a good measure of the uncertainty of the estimated (i.e., kriged) value of individual blocks. The authors claim that their proposed jack-knife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from m the original sample set and then taking the average of the rekriged estimates, not only gives good block estimates, but the resulting jackknife kriging standard deviation is a useful indicator of the "true uncertainty associated with block estimates." However, they immediately abandon the idea of using the block-by-block standard deviations, reasoning that these standard deviations are not independent and that there is no easy way to utilize them. There may be another reason for not using them. The jackknife standard deviations for individual blocks given in their example are mostly in the range of 0.004 to 0.005 oz/st (0.14 to 0.17 g/t) with only one block having a high value of 0.012 oz/st (0.41 g/ t). These individual block standard deviations are as low as the jackknife standard deviation for the mean grade of the entire shape, i.e., 0.0041 oz/st (0.14 g/t). Do they represent the "true uncertainty" .of the individual block estimates? Could the authors explain this? In a global shape consisting of a large number of blocks, any given sample will affect the kriged estimate of only those few blocks within its vicinity. This is the rationale for the authors' selective rekriging, making the jackknife algorithm more efficient. On second thought, why not do away with jackknifing altogether? Just cumulate and normalize, if necessary, the kriging weights of each sample used during the ordinary block kriging process, and then compute the global variance from these kriging weights and their respective sample grades? After all, isn't the global mean grade nothing but the weighted average of the samples used in the estimation? Reply by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester The jackknife is one of the many tools in a practitioner's toolbox to solve estimation problems. The strengths of the technique lies in its simplicity, i.e., it uses the concept of mean and standard deviation and the fact that it can be easily combined with other tools, in this case kriging. Because the jackknife kriging (JK) estimate is also the mean of the pseudovalues, the JK standard deviation is attractive just as the standard deviation of the mean explains the variability of the data. The difference is that the pseudovalue calculation in jackknife kriging uses the ordinary kriging (OK) weighting scheme instead of simple arithmetic averaging. The data used to illustrate the jackknife technique in the paper con¬sist of high values that are roughly three times the low values. The resulting JK estimate of the block grades show that the highest estimate is roughly twice the grade of the lowest estimate. The contrast between the low and the high estimate is more evident in the JK estimate than in the OK estimate, even though the mean grades of the blocks for the two estimates are very similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we are concentrating more on the need for a more realistic measure of uncertainty, or precision, for the estimate. Unlike its OK counterpart, the JK standard deviation of the blocks clearly reflects the original data variation. The highest JK standard deviation of the blocks is three times its lowest value. This follows our intuition that, when the samples used to estimate a block is more variable, the resulting estimation variance (or standard deviation) should be higher than the case where the samples are more uniformly valued. However, block-by-block standard deviation or variance is of little practical value in reserve estimation and classification, as well as in mine planning. One is usually more interested in quantifying not the variance of the individual block estimate, but the uncertainties associated with a much larger dimension, such as the minable reserve. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to find a simple way to obtain a single estimation variance or standard deviation associated with the reserve grade estimate. The discussion by J.H. Tu did not mention how one would obtain the global variance from the OK weights and the sample grades. As a technique that offers a data value-based measure of uncertainty for its estimate, the "leave-one-out" jackknife fills this need nicely through the block kriging shortcut approach described in the paper. Note: The first column and the last two columns of Table 3 in the paper should have contained a single number each, namely, an OK estimate of 0.0317, a JK estimate of 0.0333 and a JK standard deviation of 0.0041 oz/st, respectively, for the shape, as are obvious from the text.

Jan 1, 1997