Search Documents

By Adam H. Zimmerman

Introduction Noranda, like similar businesses, is suffering the pain of previously unheard of currency relationships, a cost structure built in better days, and conditions of gross oversupply possible in almost any commodity. Indeed, it does seem like the worst of all possible worlds is out there before us. To understand a Canadian natural resource company, you must know how the country is organized. So far as natural resources are concerned, Canada is not Canada. Canada is 10 provinces and each own the resources situated therein. Thus, the conditions of extraction, exploitation, and operation are all set by the province, while the conditions of trade and currency are set by the Federal government. This means that what may be the rule in Newfoundland may not be the rule in Manitoba or British Columbia. The second thing is that the Canadian currency has been a satellite of the US dollar for a long time. This means that we hold the unenviable and unjustified position of being the country with the second strongest currency in the world. What this has meant to us is what it has meant to an American operator. Since 1980, a pound of copper fetches 214% more for a Chilean than it does for us and a pound of zinc 115% more for a Belgian. From an American point of view, Canada is favored because its dollar is valued at 25% to 30% less than the U.S. However, because of industrial indiscretions in years past, Canada has a locked in labor cost disadvantage that is very hard to cope with. Canada has a unique situation with its labor unions. Many of the unions are, or have been, internationals and therefore gained undue strength in early days. Canada has a third political party of socialist persuasion. It is entirely funded by dues from laor union members. Thus, we have a politicized workforce. And finally, we have a public service that has the right to strike. This had made the public service unions by far the strongest now in Canada. What this means to the mining industry is that there is somebody out there blazing the trail. The unrelenting power of these public service unions probably creates a climate more conducive to excessive wage settlements in industry than would otherwise be the case. Study, Work, and Pray So what do we do when times get tough? In simple terms, we study a lot, we work harder, and we pray a great deal. We study a lot in terms of learning hitherto unknown strengths and weaknesses of our products, processes, and operations. We work hard in the sense that we do everything possible to improve our productivity. And we pray a lot because, so far, anything else we have done has not been enough. Some years ago, Noranda recognized that its principal base and precious metal operations were diminishing. To provide for the future, we should branch out into other resource type operations. These might be countercyclical and also perhaps a little more permanent. For this reason, Noranda entered the potash, aluminum, and forest products businesses. This, of course, was a 'brilliant' strategy that was much applauded in its early days. We built an excellent potash mine, the smallest inte-

Jan 6, 1985

By Walter J. Pachucki

Mining equipment maintenance costs account for a major portion of a mine’s total operating expense. A reduction of maintenance costs while providing required equipment availability translates directly into increased profit for a mine. Therefore, having in place a successful maintenance program can be management’s most direct route to increased profits. One key element of a successful maintenance program is a practical and effective recordkeeping and information system. In recent years, many mining operations have invested in the development or purchase of computerized maintenance information systems. Computerized maintenance information systems can serve as a valuable tool in managing mining-equipment maintenance. They can also be a costly, frustrating waste of time. Why are some systems successful at one operation but a failure at others? Should all mines use computerized maintenance information systems? How does management decide what maintenance software is best for their operation? In an effort to to answer these questions and to better understand what is required to make a mining maintenance information system successful, a study was recently conducted on maintenance information systems used in the mining industry.

Jan 1, 1991

By Jack E. Thompson

Thank you Tom and JM for that nice introduction. The remarks I am about to make rely on a large way on comments made by Barrick's Chief Counsel, Patrick Garver, to an internal meeting of Barrick's senior staff. I plagiarized so much from his notes that I thought that I should provide attribution. I did get his consent to borrow so freely. What I have done is take his general comments and used my conversations with CEO's and other participants in the industry to enhance the message with concrete examples that underscore the points I wish to make. What you are about to hear is my personal view – I am not speaking as a representative of any company. With that introduction, now would be a good time to give you the main theme of my talk: The SEC should change its rule making to a more public cooperative approach. If that were to happen the SEC would avoid some of the harm it has been doing to the companies in this sector and the very shareholders it seeks to protect.

Jan 1, 2003

By Tom Skodack

Mine and tunnel contractors face a complex environment-one in which economic risks are high, operating costs grow ever higher, ore grades are lower or recovery more difficult, and civil construction projects are intensely competitive on a world-wide scale. Within the context of this environment, the risks and rewards of proper machine selection for rock excavation have become proportionately large. Speed, depth and scope of analysis, and extensive supporting information are indispensable in the selection process. Equipment designs and their applications are also myriad and diverse. Several equipment alternatives and excavation techniques may have to be evaluated at once to choose the most cost-efficient approach. The following examples are typical of the current demand for more detailed equipment analysis: • An aggregate supplier starts a new quarry. He knows his targeted tonnage, blasting restrictions, and previous operating costs from other quarries. But he must improve on his old costs. What drill pattern, hole size, and bench height will give lowest cost per ton? How many crawler drills and what type will produce this tonnage most efficiently? • A mine is using a fleet of twin pneumatic ring drills for long hole drilling to initiate their cave. The mine is facing both air shortages and increasing operating costs with decreased efficiency in the ring drill fleet. If they invest in new hydraulic long hole drills, what impact will each drill unit have on production? Each twin drill unit? What configuration gives best operator efficiency and subsequent reduction in manpower? Which configuration gives the best return on investment? • A tunnel contractor is bidding a long straight water tunnel by conventional drill and blast methods. What is the optimum number of drill booms for the tunnel cross section and excavation schedule? How many rounds per day can he achieve? What are his total project drill, blast, and muck costs? In the past, such questions could be answered, but only approximately at best. One good prediction could involve many hours of laborious calculations that had to be repeated each time a new parameter was introduced or an existing parameter changed. In 1980, increasingly complex analysis, coupled with increasing need and quick response times demanded by industry, led Atlas Copco's project department to turn to the computer. New computer programs based on theoretical considerations and three decades of worksite performance data were developed for evaluating mine and tunnel contractors' equipment needs, productivity, and partial or total operating cost calculations for most conventional drill and blast excavation techniques-including shot rock loading and transportation. This Computerized Analysis of Rock Excavation-or CARE-program has since been available to the mining and construction industry. From each program specific results can be pre- dicted, including: • Productivity Calculations-Rock drill penetration rate for a given drill, hole size, and rock type, optimized for the best drill steel life; net machine productivity (drill-out time or drill meters-footage-per shift); total drill round time, including charging, blasting, loading, and haulage; suggested drill pattern, computer printed, including hole size for a given rock drill, rock type, and associated blasting restrictions for either drift rounds or benching applications; long-hole drill meters (ft) per drill shift; breasting down (upper drilling) drill meters (ft) per drill shift; and comparison between continuous loading machine capacity and LHD capacity. • Operating Cost Calculations-Operating costs expressed as cost per drill meter (ft), cost per cubic meter (cubic yard) of excavated rock, and cost per meter (ft) of tunnel advance. These costs may be calculated using as many cost centers as the mine, quarry, or tunneling contractor wishes. Specific operating costs may cover drill rig operating costs only, less capitalization; drill rig operating costs, including amortized equipment investment; drilling and blasting costs; drill, blast, load, and haulage operating costs; long-hole drilling operating costs per drill meter (ft) or per blasted cubic meter (cubic yard) of rock; and loading and transport operating costs. In all the above cases, any number of cost and capacity calculations may be run by simply changing important cost center variables to judge their net effect. Accuracy as a Function of Input Data and the Statistical Data Base Accuracy of a projection clearly depends heavily on the data base from which the projection is drawn.

Jan 11, 1982

By S. O. Warren

From the contractor's viewpoint, suggesting what is now a theoretical industrial approach to safety and a proposal for realistic reformation to accomplish the intended goals, is the tri-parte adversary formula productive, unproductive, or counter-productive? Can industrial safety be regulated and penalized to effectiveness? No manuscript received

Jan 1, 1979

By Georgene Renner

With more than 800 booth spaces sold and 540 exhibiting companies displaying their wares, there was something for everyone on the exhibit floor of the 2014 SME Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, UT Feb. 23-26. The following is a sample of what was offered at the 2014 meeting.

By H. Ehnes

"“Industry 4.0” – “Mining 4.0” - perhaps you have already heard of these terms? These keywords signify the next stage of industrial production. The internet and production technologies are growing closer together. Machines can communicate with one another, wherever they may happen to be located. The “Internet of Things” is the appropriate term. But what does SAFETY 7.0 mean? It is both brand new and traditional at the same time. It also has to do with the success of companies, with efficient production. And yet there is a great deal more at stake. It has to do with our lives and our safety – the supreme commodity in this world. What exactly SAFETY 7.0 means, what the number 0 stands for and the meaning of the number 7, and what this all has to do with mining will be explained in the following article. Mining is a fascinating undertaking. Mining is indispensable for a country’s economic development, whatever that may concern: infrastructure, energy supplies or raw materials for industrial production. Mining has brought forth many technological developments and innovations that can currently be found in our daily lives. Mining is impressive, grandiose and repeatedly fascinates mankind with its immense dimensions. Miners throughout the world still work hard and, for this reason, are bound to one another in a special way. In mining, every man looks out for the other; you have to be able to rely on each other. That creates a strong bond. The other side of the coin is that mining and disasters belong to normality in the media and thus also in our perception. Accidents at work and even catastrophes occur in mining, quarries, or raw material operations almost on a daily basis somewhere in the world. They are often associated with extremely serious injuries, or even a fatal outcome, for the miners affected and, in turn, dramatic consequences for the families of those involved. It could be in China, India, Russia, or somewhere in Africa, Asia or America – it mostly does not happen in front of our door or in our neighbour- hood. Perhaps because of this in the daily concert of negative headlines, we do not register these catastrophes any more in our minds. We write them off under the heading “Nothing special”, since there are, day in day out, more terrible news items about wars, civil wars, famines, or ecological disasters. Things only really change if there is a dramatic number of deaths or when we are personally affected, close by in the vicinity, or can witness the rescue action live. In Europe, these three mining disasters in particular have recently generated media resonance:"

Jan 1, 2016

"History - How did you get into mining and involved with SME?Unlike many past presidents, I do not come from a mining lineage. I liked math in high school and believed I wanted to be an engineer. I told my math teacher that, and he laughed in my face. I believe that humiliation is what carried me through engineering school. At the time my ability to go to college relied on how inexpensive I could make it. My brother told me that there were a lot of scholarships in mining engineering, and I should apply to mining schools. As usual, he was right and I was off to the University of Idaho to study. My first summer break I got a job with Hecla at a mine in Arizona. I was a laborer on a shotcrete crew. I knew after the first summer that I loved underground mining, and I never considered changing disciplines. Looking back, I was working in miserable conditions (hot, humid), on a miserable job (shotcrete), where I got injured, and two summer student roommates died in a car accident on the commute home after work. I had every reason to hate the industry, as I had seen virtually everything bad about what we do. But I didn’t, I loved it. I said I was good at math, I never said I was smart.I joined SME in college because I was told to by the head of the mining school, Dr. Jack Hoskins. You did what Jack told you to do. I got involved because I went to an annual meeting and the papers in the underground sessions were terrible. I refer to bad papers as the “Tensile strength on cable bolts in sub-arctic regions on Tuesday” papers. Real snoring fodder. I don’t remember who I was complaining to, but they told me to quit my grumbling and fix it. So I chaired a session, and tried to get only good quality papers, something that has been my mantra for years with the Mining & Exploration Division. I also volunteered to help the local sections too. Then one day I woke up as president.What is your opinion of the health of the mining industry?The mining industry is in bad shape. Coal is under attack and will likely never recover to its former greatness. Our President has banned new coal leases, and the state of California is forcing people it does business with to divest their interests in coal companies. And that all happened in just in a few short weeks this January. Usually in America you get a trial before you are given a death sentence, but not with coal."

Jan 1, 2015

By Russell L. Wood

Introduction It is the morning after and there is one monumental hangover among many, if not most, of the oil companies that invested in mining in the past decade. How an oil company looks at mining depends on the time period. A few years back, around the time of investment, they were probably looking at a balance sheet of their own that was beginning to go wild. Many of their commodity prices already increased two-, three-, or fourfold, with no end in sight. There was a need to invest their earnings someplace before the stockholders or the government got too interested. And that someplace needed to be an industry where their own management skills could be applied. In mining there was an industry amazingly similar to their own. Both worked with nonrenewable natural resources, dealt with the same types of government agencies, and had the same type of critics and pressures from the general population. Oil executives saw mining as an industry that was somewhat backward as compared with their own. They also saw how a generous ration of the capital and management skills, so handsomely bestowed upon the oil industry, could be used to great advantage. But, looking at mining through the eyes of an oil company today, this is what might be seen: • An industry that has been spectacularly unprofitable for the past few years; • An industry of many commodities, any of which can go bad on short notice for protracted periods, for a variety of unpredictable and uncontrollable reasons, or for no reason at all; • A labor-intensive industry, often beset by labor problems. And with only limited potential for further economic mechanization or automation in today's primitive mining environment; • An industry confronted with external, foreign, and political problems, with no reasonable expectation of near-term relief; and • An industry that does not appear to have many "up" periods in its immediate future. And, there is little chance for either big, fast bucks or long periods of large, steady earnings. What Went Wrong? The visions of a few years back seemed as correct then as today's viewpoints seem to be now. What happened to change these views? What went wrong? The simplest and easiest answer is that if the economy was normal back then, nothing would have gone wrong. This is an easy answer but, unfortunately, probably incorrect. Let us take a broad overview. Certain events enabled and prompted oil companies to invest heavily in mining. These same events were major factors in precipitating the worldwide recession that has grievously injured mining and has brought those mining investments into disrepute. Taking a somewhat narrower, but still broad overview, the simi-

Jan 3, 1985

By George Weinman

GEORGE WEINMAN: Our first group leader for the discussion, "Ups and Downs of Downsizing," wishes to remain anonymous. ANONYMOUS PRESENTER: When George and Jamie asked me to do this, I thought a while about what to say and went through several variations of what I’ll present today. I came up with the title "Ups and Downs of Downsizing." A lot of downsizing has occurred in all of our industries-mining in particular. While this downsizing has gone on there's no doubt that all of us produced more and more, probably with less and less people and less and less resources. But I contend that there's also a big downside associated with this. I disagree with a point made in the keynote presentation yesterday, the point being that vendors are bringing new technology to us. I can agree that the major changes associated with equipment and similar items are being brought to us by vendors. But I do contend that there's an awful lot that's getting away from us-especially if you factor in the integrated supply or the strategic alliance or the various and sundry related purchasing techniques. I contend that we are missing a lot of, let's call it, lesser technology; not major equipment changes, but different tools, different techniques for doing things, different left-handed widgets. The integrated suppliers, to some degree, are bringing this to us; but I am concerned about the small guy who comes up with a good idea but deals through integrated suppliers rather than having direct contact with plant people. They're probably going to go somewhere else and market their wares. That's what I'm hearing from a lot of smaller vendors. I also think that we are losing a lot of our knowledge base. Every time you shrink an organization somebody leaves. The bottom line: less people. When a person leaves-and I don't care who he or she is, be it the janitor who's cleaning the bathroom, the operator, the engineer-when that person leaves there's some knowledge that goes with that per- son. And sometimes that knowledge is quite valuable. I've worked more or less at the plant "low." I can't tell you how many excellent, viable projects have come from people who said, "Look here. There's a better way of doing this." And, you know, they were right. Now, maybe they didn't have the resources or the expertise to develop these ideas into full projects, but they had that basic idea. Someone may say, "Well, if we put a no. 6 skyhook here, so we can lift this particular pump without bringing a crane from 30 miles away ...." No. 6 skyhooks are a bit expensive, but what if we put together a little structural steel here or whatnot?

Jan 1, 1998

By K. Fountain

In Novemeber of last year I visited a mica mine in Hunan Province, China. For nine months , we had been trying to sell Chinese mica to a customer in Belgium. Talking to the customer was like negotitating with a stone wall. The buyer refused to communicate any -thing other than his steadfast refusal to consider Chinese mica. He would not advise us what he wanted, what specifications or grades. He would give no indication if our price at market, or reasonable, or totally out to lunch. He would not even accept samples. It took no genius to guess that the mica buyer had at some time in the past bought a shipment of Chinese mica and had received a disaster. I invited the mica mine in Hunan in order to see for myself what could be done - without massive investment in equipment and instruments - to upgrade the quality of the mica for export. We had seen this type of customer reaction before. One disgruntled customer who had pur¬chased pigment grade barites direct from China ranted and raved about unreliable and inconsistent quality. It did no good to explain to him that China is a big country, with hundreds of mines scattered throughout many areas, each producing a different product. Our further explanation that Chinese export organizations also varied in degree and efficiency of customer service fell on deaf ears. Samples had no effect on his perception. Eventually we showed him photoraphs of two mountains of pigment grade barites. One lot was our sales of pigment barites to a major European minerals processor. Our Chinese barites stood proudly white and beautiful next to a hill of other material which now appeared at best mediocre and dull by comparison, and which the buyer had decided to reject after he received our Chinese barites. Finally the customer was sufficiently impressed to look seriously at our guaranteed specification and the outturn analysis performed by our other customer.

Jan 1, 1987

By Zachary D. Jones

"Construction projects involve a great many risks. The risk that material prices will increase during construction or that the work under construction will be destroyed by fire, storm or some other act of God are just a few examples. In tunneling or other underground projects, one of the most significant risks is that the subsurface conditions encountered during construction will differ from what is expected. Each of these risks must be accounted for, managed and, ultimately, the duty of one party or the other to bear. The primary tool used to allocate the risks among the parties is the construction contract.How construction contracts allocate the risk that subsurface conditions will differ have changed substantially over the past century. Today, construction contracts typically allocate the risk through a series of provisions. The first is the differing site condition or changed condition clause. That clause, when included, typically provides that the owner bears the risk that the subsurface conditions will differ from what is indicated in the contract documents or what is reasonably expected. The second clause is one that provides that the contractor must conduct a reasonable site investigation and bear the risk of any conditions that such an investigation would reveal. The third provision includes disclaimers that are often included in geotechnical data provided by the owner (or the owner’s engineer) to the contractor which attempts to limit the information on which the contractor can rely. Because these risk-allocating devices seem to be somewhat conflicting, a brief discussion of each provides critical insight in understanding how the modern construction contract allocates the risk of differing site conditions.At the start of the 20th century, construction contracts looked substantially different than they do today. For example, one contract for the construction of a public water tunnel in Chicago, IL, drafted around 1895 contained the following clause:The contractor must take the work entirely at his own risk. No extra allowance will be made for quicksand, hardpan or boulders."

Jan 1, 2014

By M. Deutsch, E. González, M. Williams

"There is uncertainty in ultimate pit limits due to geologic variation and unpredictable economic landscapes. In this work we show how this uncertainty affects the ultimate pit and how it can be analyzed to improve the mine planning process. A stochastic framework using geostatistical simulation and parametric analysis is used to model the effects of geologic and economic variation on ultimate pit limits and overall project economics. This analysis is made possible by a new, highly efficient pit optimization implementation which can be automated and set up to calculate ultimate pits for hundreds of different scenarios in a matter of hours. Quantifying ultimate pit uncertainty early in the mine planning process allows mining engineers to make informed decisions regarding infrastructure placement, and to mitigate the possibility of incurring substantial costs relocating critical mine facilities. INTRODUCTION The mining industry is increasingly concerned with the effects of risk and uncertainty. Uncertain prices, unpredictable global markets, and unknown foreign exchange rates can alter the economic viability of a mining project in substantial ways. This economic uncertainty is compounded by geologic uncertainty. The extent and quality of any given deposit cannot be fully measured and is not known before consequential decisions must be made. These two sources of uncertainty are responsible for the majority of deviation between what happens during operation and what was initially planned. Understanding and explicitly quantifying this uncertainty will lead to better decision making and allow mining engineers and investors to be aware of what may occur. It is unrealistic to believe that one model, estimated from sparse measurements, is enough to capture both geologic and economic uncertainty and allow for optimal decisions. The entire breadth of uncertainty should be considered, as both upside and downside risks have large impacts on the investment potential and operational efficiency of mining projects. The workflow presented here uses Monte Carlo simulation and parametric analysis together to explicitly analyze the breadth of geologic and economic uncertainty as it applies to ultimate pit calculation and long range mine planning."

Jan 1, 2015

By Atmesh K. Sinha

Death and injury rates in mining have been the highest of any industry; the injury severity rates in mines have also been the highest. Tentative figures reveal that 1971 was the best year yet for the bituminous coal indus¬try with the lowest number of fatal accidents. Nevertheless, 177 men were killed at a frequency rate of 0.76 per million man hours. Coal mine accident statistics have been described at various times as unacceptable and intolerable and recently resulted in the enactment of massive legislation. The 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act was passed by Congress "to improve the working conditions and practices in coal mines and to prevent accidents and occupational diseases originating in the coal mining industry." The prevention of accidents in coal mines is the statutory responsibility of mining engineers and the moral responsibility of all who have any part to play in mining coal. The questions to be answered by these men may well be - What are the reasons for the high accident rate? Are the mines as safe as they can be? Are our mines sufficiently manned to insure proper supervision of production cycles and safety requirements? Are our plans for safety committees, safety campaigns, and safety inspections sufficient? Are they producing the results intended? If not, how can these be reorganized to have a greater impact? What is the real cost of an accident? What are the immediate and long-term plans for further improvements? These questions are in no way exhaustive, and the answers are not easy. There are many aspects of mine safety, and any one of them can be the subject of a lengthy discussion. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to limit the analysis to documented fatal electrical accidents in mines so that meaningful conclusions for improvement in electrical accident-experience statistics can be made. In doing this, it is also the intention to emphasize areas of missing information and propose a few suggestions for better hazard analysis.

Jan 1, 1972

By P. F. Mataich

When the subject of plant computers is brought up most people visualize the computer's controlling the entire plant with very little operator intervention. Actually, this picture is true today in only a limited number of cases and will certainly not be true in the minerals industries for many years to come. There are several ways in which a plant computer can significantly contribute to improving plant operation and closed loop control is only one of these. First of all, what are the basic ingredients for good plant control? For good plant control, two requirements must be met. First, the operator must get good information feedback from the process and then he must know what action to take in response to this information. Control information can be obtained through instruments, laboratory analyses, or through simple visual observation. If it is timely and accurate and the operator knows how to use it, then we have the makings of a good plant control system. The computer can be of help in both these areas by getting good data back to the operator and in helping to develop a good control scheme for the plant.

Jan 1, 1966

By David D. Eyer

Since the decade of the 1990s is nearly upon us, I have focused on what I see are the likely trends featured in new large underground coal mines 10 years from now. I do this from the vantage point of having been involved in the installation of large mines for more than twenty years. Little of the equipment resources we have available today was unknown when I entered the coal business in 1960. There were continuous miners, longwalls and diesel-powered equipment in Europe, monitoring systems, computers, heavy media separation systems, froth flotation and conveyors then as there are now. A substantial evolutionary process has occurred with these and other mining machines and processes. Some evolved only to die out, such as boring-type continuous miners; others, such as longwall systems, flourished. My intuition tells me that since there have been largely evolutionary rather than revolutionary developments in the near past, the same is true of the future, at least for the next 10 years. In other words, the elements of what are in the future are with US now. Some, such as computer-based applications, may evolve beyond our wildest dreams -but I doubt it.

Jan 1, 1988

By A. L. Holmes

This presentation in the open pit session deals with the development of a phosphate rock strip mine by CF Industries, Inc., a company that does not presently mine in the Central Florida Phosphate District. Land acquisition, engineering, financing and environmental permitting activities were begun in early 1975; site preparation, environmental monitoring and dragline construction began in mid-1975. The operation is due on-stream in late 1978. The reserve acquisition, permitting, and financing could each easily be developed into a separate paper of interest. Each, however, has been covered before for other mining ventures with similar capital and environment requirements. For that reason, I have chosen to discuss what CF Industries, Inc. is, why it is entering this new sec-tor of the agricultural chemicals business, and, to keep at least some technical basis, what design modifications are possible when the total mine output is used captively and it is unnecessary to have the flexibility to meet the numerous transportation and customer specification considerations. In an attempt to show the size and complexity of the CF organization, a brief description of existing facilities should help show why the big interest in mining phosphate rock.

Jan 1, 1977

By L. Adler

A fairly complex analysis is required to select, or evaluate a piece of excavating and bulk handling equipment and obtain its performance. At present there is little agreement as to what specific points should be considered, and even less on what procedure to follow. This paper provides both of these in a consistent and direct form. The analysis applies to all types and sizes of equipment from the bulldozer and the continuous miner, to the B.W.E. The importance of the equipment characteristics, job activities, and work conditions are stressed and separate analytical stems are established in a flow chart for these. They are combined using suitability tests in the following steps: 1) problem statement, 2) natural conditions, 3) suitability guidelines, 4) appropriate equipment types, 5) operational activities, 6) encumbered space, 7) geometric design, 8) equipment sizing, 9) failure and limits, 10) performance and consumption, 11) public policy checks, and 12) costs and profitability. Public policy and economics while considered throughout receive emphasis towards the end. The procedure is iterative, containing distinct feedback loops. Specifying the steps and sequence provides a necessary structure which has long been overdue.

Jan 1, 1983

By W. E. (Bill) Stanley

Introduction This is an exciting day. It isn't often that you can find the best minds in a particular business gathered together in one place. But that is what we have here. You are the best and the brightest people there are in the business of gold mining. What we discuss at this conference confirms the major issues facing us and sets out the issues governing how our mines and mining companies will be run in the next few years. In looking over the list of papers to be given, I have noticed something. It is something that I have noticed at almost every mining convention I have ever attended. Almost every paper at this conference concerns itself with the technical side of mining. Most of us in this roan are professionals; we are either engineers, geologists, accountants or representatives of some other profession. In getting where we are today, we have had to work hard to acquire the technical skills needed for our individual professions. We are all proud of our knowledge and work hard to claim the right to be considered an expert in a particular technical field or subject area.

Jan 1, 1987

By P. Schmieder

"The close vicinity of mining companies to other sites that are used for commercial and residential purposes or to areas under conservation as well as the fact that the people become more and more sensitive to emissions have led to a negative attitude towards mining operations in the neighborhood. It is above all the use of drilling and blasting techniques that give rise to objections, in the course of which demands for more environmentally-friendly production methods have been voiced. It is in this context that production methods without the use of explosives are considered as an option. After all, the use of such production methods is the only alternative for some quarry operators. The question is what are the true benefits of these techniques and what is the relation between a possible improvement of the environmental effects on the one hand and the technological potential as well as the costs on the other. It is intended to assess the mining techniques for solid rock in their entirety. This paper will therefore look at the aspects for assessing mining techniques in the context of their environmental impact and the costs."

Jan 1, 2005