Search Documents

By Phoebe L. Hauff, Jeffrey P. Kurtz, Paul D. Chamberlin

Clay minerals can be a source of problems in heap leaching operations. The ore for many heap leach operations is commonly acid-sulfate alteration zone rocks which may be found in hot springs deposits as well as the supergene zone of other near- surface gold deposits. Clays can be important constituents of these ores. Swelling clays, such as smectite, can come loose from the agglomerated ore, migrate within the heap, concentrate in pore spaces and often plug up flow channels in the heap Cement is often added to the ore as a binder during the agglomeration process. Lime is added for pH control. Their presence, combined with the sodium cyanide commonly used to leach, can raise the pH of the leach solution to 10 or even 12. This very alkaline solution can cause dissolution of some mineral Some clays, such as kaolinite, are not very stable in high pH solutions. They can be dissolved and reprecipitated as other clay species if sufficient silica and the appropriate cations are available in solution. Silica gels and amorphous materials can also be created from the dissolved kaolinite and other minerals and act as retardants to the flow of leach solutions in the heap. Therefore, before a heap leach operation is built, the operator should evaluate the clays in the ore and test the agglomeration procedure. It is important to know not only the mineralogy and the chemistry of the leach environment but how the minerals and solutions interact and what the products of this interaction are. A hypothesis is presented in this paper that expanding smectite- bearing clays can be generated within the heap. How and why this happens will be explained.

Jan 1, 1987

By Steve Tadolini

Underground roof falls can have devastating effects on the safety of operations personnel, and equipment, and seriously impact production. Immediate steps are usually taken to danger off and secure the area while clean-up efforts are designed and implemented. A critical step, often overlooked due to production demand, is the determination of - why the roof fall occurred so that additional occurrences can be avoided in future developments or what measures can be taken to identify areas that have similar ?symptoms?? Forensic engineering includes the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended. The authors define forensics in ground control engineering as the study of evidence discovered while examining underground roof falls by applying expert observational techniques and established mining engineering principles to determine the probable cause, hypothesize solutions, and design engineering safeguards to prevent reoccurrences. Simply stated, the primary steps in the forensics of underground roof fall techniques are: ?Assess regional and local conditions prior to the event. ? Assess post-event conditions. ? Hypothesize plausible ways in which the pre-event conditions became the post-event conditions. ?Search for evidence that either denies or supports the various hypotheses. ?Apply engineering skill to relate the various facts and evidence into a cohesive scenario of how the event may have occurred. This paper details the proposed technique by utilizing a roof fall case study that required the examination of five primary factors: mine design parameters, excavation geology, method of excavation, method of support, and mining cycle times.

Jan 1, 2009

By Gene E. McClelland

4.1 INTRODUCTION Metallurgical testing is required on any ore, waste or tailing material before amenability to heap leaching treatment can be accurately determined. The amount of testing necessary to determine and optimize heap leach amenability and conditions for any feed material is determined by the ore type, grade, size of deposit, and the overall financial commitment a particular company is willing to make. It is very easy to either "under-test" or "over-test" a particular deposit or feed material. A good heap leach testing program will provide the necessary design information without "bogging" down in too much detail. The three basic stages of ore testing include: • Preliminary--bottle roll tests and small column percolation leach tests; • Detailed--larger column tests, different feed sizes, and feed size optimization; and • Pilot-Scale--Column or field heap. The following subchapters describe the stages of heap leach testing necessary to put a viable property into production. 4.2 PRELIMINARY METALLURGICAL TESTING The two types of preliminary tests that can be undertaken include bottle roll or cyanide agitation tests and small column leach tests. Each of these is described below, along with information about what the test results provide in terms of furthering knowledge of ore qualities. 4.2.1 Bottle Roll Tests The first step in a heap leach testing program is preliminary bottle roll tests at a relatively coarse feed size to determine the ore's leachability. Bottle roll tests are usually conducted on reverse circulation drill cuttings samples (= 1/4 inch (6 mm) in size). Bottle roll tests provide initial information about precious metal recovery, recovery rate, and reagent requirements. The recovery results are to be considered maximums because attrition grinding creates fines and liberates recoverable values that would not be liberated from the material during a static leach. Bottle roll tests can be conducted on up to 25 lb (11 kg) ore charges of up to two inches (50 mm) in size. However, the coarser the feed the more attrition grinding occurs during rolling.

Jan 1, 1988

By Pooyan Asadollahi, Praveen Krishna, Michael Joye

"Durability design for underground structures is an increasing focus of designers and owners in the underground construction industry. Many owners have expanded their requirements for durability design, with specific requirements for structure lifecycle and designer certification of structural durability. This paper describes current trends and best practices including: defining the underground structure lifecycle, historically durable underground structures, design methods for underground structure durability built of reinforced concrete, and durability of materials. Criteria to be used for defining end of structure life and owner’s maintenance responsibilities are crucial to lifecycle contract requirements. Current practices of several major owners are presented. Design methods are presented including United States code requirements. Current best practices for enhancing the durability of materials used in underground construction are discussed including: low permeability concrete, steel reinforcement concrete cover, the use of steel fiber, and testing for verification. INTRODUCTION Durability design is increasingly being recognized as an essential component of good design practice. Infrastructure owners recognize that to serve the public interest, constructed facilities must be lasting and durable. The public understands that structures with limited service life result in increased costs and add to their daily inconvenience with frequent repair and reconstruction. Engineers are increasingly asking not only is the structure strong enough but will it last for generations. Durability design requirements are no longer just adherence to some accepted practices, but are based on analytical approaches, with results that can challenge our beliefs in what construction materials and details result in a durable structure. This paper describes current industry requirements and practices for durability design of underground structures, and offers some suggestions regarding future trends and developments. SERVICE LIFE DEFINITION The service life of a structure is the sum of the time to onset of deterioration, called initiation period (ti), and the subsequent time period of deterioration ending when the structure is no longer functional, called propagation period (tp). Figure 1 shows a conceptual service life diagram. These time periods can be substantially affected by the level of maintenance performed during the life of the structure."

Jan 1, 2016

By Vas Choudhry

INTRODUCTION Traditionally mineral processing equipment has been procured based on (equipment) specifications prepared by the engineers. As newer materials of construction are being used for equipment manufacture and plant control systems become more sophisticated, the need for thorough and detailed specifications is greater than ever. For example, it is not uncommon to find plants looking at grinding circuits consisting of semiautogenous mills with variable speed, gearless, drives of large horsepower. Technical specifications for the mill, wrap- around motor and control system must, therefore, be carefully prepared to ensure that the respective equipment supplied by vendors meets overall grinding needs. Various engineering and design companies have expended considerable time and effort in developing the specification format. Equipment manufacturers have also given significant effort to developing data sheets aimed at collecting information regarding not only the duty of the equipment, but also the conditions under which it will be operated. As engineers moved from one company to another, the specification format became cross-fertilized and further developed. As a result, specifications on file with various engineers have improved considerably over a period of time. Equipment specifications from earlier projects are commonly used as a basis for tailoring new ones. To keep equipment specifications short, general technical considerations are often compiled as separate specifications. For example, general considerations applicable to the design, manufacture and supply of the mechanical equipment are consolidated under "Standard Requirements for Mechanical Equipment” and included along with that specified for purchase. As the economic feasibility of the project has been established during earlier studies, purchase-related activities can be initiated following completion of the specifications. Procurement itself is a major activity, however, in this chapter only those activities directly related to the purchase of equipment will be discussed. PREPARING EQUIPMENT SPECIFICTION Specification for process equipment or machinery is written in such a way as to define exactly what is required of the equipment. Generally, mechanical

Jan 1, 1986

By Mark W. DeLawyer

The base of the stone quarry still stands today, as imposing as any Mavan temple or Egyptian pyramid. For 80 years it has been a reminder to those who must sweat to earn a wage. There are no plaques to indicate its impressive history. Rather, it stands as a towering monument to the masons and stone cutters who built it-a testimony in stone to that most demanding and back-breaking of industries. Take your imagination back to the limestone quarries at Split Rock, near Syracuse, NY. The sound of an occasional steam drill and the mighty roar of a dynamite explosion herald progress. The ring and crash of a hundred sledge hammers are music in the calloused hands of the quarry men. It is a symphony of man against nature. Hundreds of sweat-soaked men break up the blue Onondaga limestone for the "sodi ash," the popular name for the quarry owner, the Solvay Process Co. Nearby, expert stone masons fit mammoth 454-kg (1,000-1b) blocks of cut stone into place, building the foundation for what may have been, back in 1902, the world's largest stone crusher. Consider for a moment, a modern stone quarry. The business is now essentially one of machine against nature. The shovels, drills, conveyors, and locomotives help make the quarry of today a profitable venture. Now consider the quarry of the early 20th Century. Anyway you look at it, a tougher, more demanding life would be difficult to imagine-12 hours a day, all kinds of weather, breaking up tons of rock that had been drilled, blasted, or pounded from the bowels of an uncooperative earth. Before proceeding, it might be prudent to briefly describe the history of the Split Rock quarries. Before the purchase of the quarry lands by the fledgling Solvay Process Co. in 1889, the quarries already had a reputation literally chiseled in stone. Most of the municipal buildings in Syracuse were made of it, as well as over half of the Erie Canal, including the engineering marvel of the time, the Montezuma Aqueduct. This was where the Canal passed not only through, but in some

Jan 11, 1982

By L. Adler

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to describe in engineering terms the singular and basic operational kinematics of all excavating and bulk handling equipment. The safe and efficient use of equipment will be fostered by enabling the engineer to conceptually duplicate the operators' "tasks" in directing and controlling it. A simple graphical and notational scheme will be introduced to define the essential gross repetitive motions. The significance of this effort includes filling a vital analytical gap at the work face, and in establishing direct communications between the engineer and equipment operator. Since all types and sizes of earth- moving equipment are covered, a major concern has been to integrate equipment specialties into d single encompassing discipline. Equipment types are closely related to the working conditions, and their selection and evaluation are also considered. The extension to human factors analysis is natural and predictable. Since human [actors are involved, the operational analysis can also be considered a catch-all for many subtle vagaries. BACKGROUND Symbolic modelling linked to a notational system will be developed and intensively used. This constitutes the "language of science," providing a shorthand method which gives immediate recognition, is fluent, explicit, reinforcing, unequivocal and provides limitless associations. Many examples of symbolic modelling exist in chemistry, physics, the military, engineering sciences and it is a major tool in mapping. Its use is so ubiquitous that it often goes unnoticed. On the other hand it must be realized that something is lost in simplifying and idealizing what is an extraordinarily complex occurrence. The components describing the basic operational kinematics of equipment include: (1) the vehicular motions as a rigid body and (2) the job-end motions focussing on excavating (Adler, 1985). These provide all of the components in the load-haul-dump sequence (L-H-D) , and will yield three dimensional expressions. Complex patterns can also be assembled from these simple elements. An existing equipment designation employed in earthmoving will be integrated into this approach (Carson, 1961). Along with the basic motions, corresponding working conditions will be noted.

Jan 1, 1986

By James I. Mathis

Should an arbitrary reduction factor be applied to laboratory compressive strengths when designing pillars? The answer is, as is the main contention of Peng's article, probably not. Many factors affect the strength of the material remaining in the pillar. On the other hand, outside influences will influence the strength testing results from the lab. This is not the first article, nor the last, to discuss the discrepancy between the two strengths. As was discussed in the article, actual pillar strength is affected by several factors. The two mentioned were: • The scale effect of discontinuities. How large must the pillar be so that the increase in discontinuity count with size will not decrease the strength. • Non-uniform strengths and lithologic units within the pillar. The scale effect of discontinuities is important. What size block must be tested so that the rock mass strength is actually measured? For a highly fractured rock mass, or coal with a high cleat density, this sample may be quite small. Conversely, if an unaltered, moderately jointed, quartz monzonite was examined, the sample block would likely be very large. This is the subject of ongo¬ing research. More to the point, if the tested sample is sufficiently large to model the rock mass strength, then no reductions should be made in the lab strength based on this factor alone. Non-uniform strengths and variations in lithologic units will also affect the pillar strength. I am not an expert in coal mines, having gained my experience in hard rock metal mining. These problems, though, are commonplace. However, strength sampling for pillar strength determination involves sampling material from within the lithologic unit that will form the pillar, not from pieces of material found on the floor. In addition, this sampling should cover the entire range of strengths of the material in the pillar-hard units (such as the partings described by Peng), as well as soft units. Testing results should then be included in the pillar design. Contrary to statements in Peng's article, at least one rock mass rating system (Laubscher, 1990) allows for the compositing of strong and weak units into a design rock mass strength that can be used for pillar design.

Jan 1, 1993

By Kenneth L. Clifford

We have heard a lot during the recession about the mining industry now competing in a world market for sales of such commodities as copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, iron ore, and phosphate. If the US mining industry is to survive, do we not have to reduce direct operating costs to a minimum? How significant is labor cost compared to consumables, electricity, fuel, maintenance, materials, and transportation? Ore grade is ultimately the dominant factor; but can we offset its dominance by improving productivity? Is the US mining industry perhaps only 25-30% as productive as it might be? What prevents the industry from being more productive? Can we retrofit older plants to be more productive or does it take a new plant with the largest equipment available for each unit operation? Present Productivity A copper industry study a few years ago covering 13 US copper concentrators ranging from about 10-45 kt/d (11,000-50,000 stpd) showed that productivity did not vary with capacity above 18 kt/d (20,000 stpd). Operating productivity varied significantly, however, from about 180-635 t/d (200-700 stpd) per operating hourly worker in most units, but one operation had 900 kt/d (1,000 stpd). Concentrators with more than 545 t/d (600 stpd) per hourly worker were in the 23 kt/d (25,000 stpd) or more category. Maintenance productivity covered about the same range, but most concentrators were in the 270¬635 t/d (300-700 stpd) per hourly maintenance worker. Again, one company stood well above others by exceeding 1 kt/d (1,100 stpd). Total hourly productivity ranged from 125-280 t/d (140-310 stpd) per hourly worker for most concentrators. The company with the most productive operation, however, was above 455 t/d (500 stpd). Salaried worker productivity for most operations was in the 725 t/d to 1.2 kt/d (800-1,300 stpd) per salaried worker range. The best operation was 2.2 kt/d (2,400 stpd). The end result is, of course, tons per day per total personnel. Most operations fell in the 110-220 t/d (120-240 stpd) range with the best operation at 400 t/d (440 stpd). This is the productivity definition that is most directly related to unit costs. Many of these operations have made some productivity progress

Jan 11, 1983

A chartered bus with about 30 attendees of the just completed 1998 SME Annual Meeting headed toward Green Cove Springs, FL, which the author had been told was located somewhere south of Jacksonville, FL. In conjunction with the meeting in Orlando, RGC (USA) Mineral Sands provided a tour of its facility. The author had worked with heavy minerals on a laboratory scale, performing the usual gravity and magnetic separations, but had never been to a heavy mineral mine and processing facility. Years ago as a metallurgist, the author once applied for a job in a heavy mineral operation in Florida -it may have been the same operation. After turning north on to Highway 95, the endless billboards promoting beach-front retirement communities proved the Atlantic ocean was just a few miles away (although the author never caught a glimpse of it). After another hour, the bus suddenly turned west and continued inland for about 65 km (40 miles). The thought occurred, "We are talking about beach sands, what are we doing heading away from the ocean?" As the bus continued inland, the author was struck by the flatness of the land and by the lakes, rivers and wetlands. He was also impressed by the many fine stands of pine and hardwoods. The office of RGC (USA) Mineral Sands is located about 16 km (10 miles) south of Green Cove Springs. Upon leaving the bus, members of the tour were greeted by Graeme Sloan, general manager, and Elliot Mallard, manager of mining. They provided some general information about the operation, including a slide show. RGC's Florida operation produces four concentrates: zircon (ZrSiO,), rutile (TiO,), ilmenite (FeTiO,) and leucoxene (an alteration product of ilmenite containing 67% to 70% TiO,). With a work force of about 170, the annual production of the above products is about 23,27, 45 and 14 kt (25,000 30,000 50,000 and 15,000 st), respectively. RGC also has other mineral sand operations, in addition to gold and base metal mines, mostly in Australia.

Jan 1, 1998

By Howard L. Hartman

If I told you tonight at the outset that my prognastications for the future of mine ventilation were imparted to me by a palm reader or inspired by a vision, you'd dismiss what I had to say before I said it! If, on the other hand, I told you that my forecasts were the result of an elaborate computer model, derived from a complex algorithm, which in turn relied on finite element analysis -- and the entire projection confirmed by on-site experiments with a turbo hybrid-flow mine fan -- you'd sit up in anticipation and hang on my every word!! All of which places me in a terrible dilemma, because my predictions really lie somewhere in between. My intent is to talk to you out of my background of forty years in mine ventilation, looking ahead to conditions that I expect to prevail in the next fifteen years. You may be curious why I picked an unlikely time span of 55 years for my overview, and my response is that it bridges a career lifetime. "The last forty", of course, corresponds with the period of my professional employment since graduating with a B.S. and M.S. here at Penn State. "The next fifteen" bridges the period I expect (the Lord willing) to remain professionally active -- and coincidently brings us into the beginning of the 21st century. (I must confess to stacking the deck a bit: Since it's infinitely harder to look ahead than to look behind, I purposely minimized the forecast period and maximized the history! Besides, "forty" and "fifteen" have a nice phonetic ring, perfect 20/20 vision sums to "forty", etc., etc.). With these disclaimers, I'll invite you to join me now in a fast 55-year overview of mine ventilation, of necessity limited to a broad-brush treatment of the subject. (After all, this is an after-dinner talk, not a marathon!) In each- segment, I've selected the seven topics that seem to me of paramount importance: in the first part, seven accomplishments in retrospect, and in the last, seven expectations for the future. (The number "seven" needn't confound you, either: In the bible, it signifies "wholeness" or "completeness".))

Jan 1, 1987

By W. Holding

Since the 1975 International Mine Ventilation Congress in Johannesburg there has been a trend in South Africa towards making the mine ventilation departments responsible for monitoring the total environment. This includes the taking of noise and illumination measurements and there is in fact a debate taking place as to whether the departmental title should be changed to 'Environmental Control Department'. The organisers of the 2nd international Mine Ventilation Congress have decided that noise and illumination will not be included as Congress subjects and 'Total Environment' includes only those facets which are open to debate at the Congress. The choice of mine is significant in that while most Congress papers from South Africa will be devoted either to coal mining or to the somewhat unique deep level gold mines, Prieska Copper Mine is a mine which can easily be identified with similar mines in many other parts of the world. The mine is situated some 750 km south west of Johannesburg and about 600 km north east of Cape Town. Current production (ore and waste) is about 340 000 tons per month and the total underground labour force is just over 2 000. The ore body is a massive sulphide, the main minerals being copper and zinc and the method of mining is sub-level open stoping. Daily average surface temperature conditions range from 85°F (29.5°C) dry bulb and 69.8°F (21°C) wet bulb in mid-summer to 42°F (5.5°C) dry bulb and 36.5°F (2.5°C) wet bulb in mid winter. The information presented in-this paper is limited to what can be gathered by mine ventilation staff as part of an on-going exercise and is obviously not as comprehensive as would be the case if a fully equipped research establishment were to become involved. The paper will be divided into three sections 1) Gases 2) Dust 3) Heat In each section statutory and/or other standards will be set down followed by a discussion of assessment and in some cases control methods.

Jan 1, 1980

By Raja V. Ramani

The importance of adequate mine ventilation for good health and safety conditions has been recognized since miners first ventured underground. All over the world, governmental actions on mine health and safety are directly connected with mine atmospheric environments, their assessment and control. These governmental actions have been, and continue to be, motivated by the repeated experience that potential threats from inadequate control can evolve, either suddenly or in the long-term, into unpleasant reality, with catastrophic health and safety consequences. These governmental actions are also an indication of the remarkable professional progress being made in the field of mine ventilation. Surely, no developed country allows underground mines to operate without strong measures for the control of ventilation under legislation specific to the mining industry. In the United States, the federal government's responsibility for mine safety has evolved over the years through a series of legislative actions beginning in 1865 and continuing through 1910, 1941, 1947 and 1952. The passage of the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966 (the 1966 Metal Act), the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (the 1969 Coal Act) and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 (the 1977 Mine Act) are the most important milestones in this long legislative history. The 1977 Mine Act adopted many of the stronger features of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, perhaps the most significant piece of legislation on workers' occupational health and safety in US history. It is worthwhile to ask, "How far has the United States come in mine ventilation since the enactment of the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act?" This Act and its associated regulations defined in great specificity many standards for healthful and safe operation of a mine and, in some cases, what constitutes good ventilation practice. Since 1969, the frequency and severity of disaster-type events in US coal mines has decreased markedly. A primary reason for this achievement is the strength of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act's regulatory features in such areas as methane concentration control, dust control, intrinsic safety and explosion-proof enclosures, minimum air quantity and quality standards and air distribution and escapeway provisions. These requirements greatly influenced mine ventilation planning, engineering and practice, leading to increasingly safe working conditions.

Jan 1, 1993

By L. Arbore

Introduction Mine operators are interested in energy conversation in two ways. With our finite sources of energy, we are concerned for future generations. In addition, as mine operators, we want to minimize energy costs. Moving material represents a substantial amount of the energy used in mining operations. Wheeled vehicles are used extensively to move materials. And they derive all their energy from fuel. Energy is also required to overcome the vehicle's inertia, and internal and external frictional forces. Included in the vehicle's frictional forces is its suspension. Tires are an important part of this suspension. What influence do tires have on the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle? Does tire construction affect this influence? As far back as 1896, it was apparent that tires were a factor in fuel consumption. A test was devised in France using a coal-fueled steam-driven auto. The test measured whether there was any fuel savings with the new pneumatic tires rather than of the then commonly used solid tires. The result was a 28% savings in water and a 29% savings in coal on pneumatic tires. Today, the pneumatic tire is accepted, but there are differences in present constructions. Tire Construction: Bias vs Radial There are basically two types of tire construction, bias and radial. Bias tires have been around for about 60 years. Radial tires are more recent. They were developed to improve a tire's ability to withstand higher speeds and loads, as well as to improve tire life and vehicle handling. Another advantage of the radial tire is its lower rolling resistance. This characteristic results in lower fuel use by a vehicle. This has been demonstrated with passenger cars and over-the-road trucks. It is now being demonstrated with earthmoving equipment. A basic description of both types of tire construction should now be reviewed: The casing of a bias-ply tire is made up of crisscrossed textile plies or layers. The cords of these plies run on a bias, from bead to bead. The cords of each ply run on an angle relative to the cords of the adjacent plies. As the tire rolls and deflects, the angle between the cords changes, like the blades on scissors (Fig. 1). The cords of one ply pull one way, and the adjacent ply pulls another, straining each other. This movement generates heat. Since the same layers of cords wrap around under the tread, they

Jan 9, 1984

When I reached Warren after the "de luxe" South American expedition I had little idea what was in store for me. From the large check Thayer had handed me just before I left New York I was pretty sure the future would be good, and that before long it would involve Anaconda. Evidently, Mr. Thayer had left it to Dr. Ricketts and John Greenway to work out the details The next morning Greenway asked me to come to his office and told me that he and Dr. Ricketts had discussed the question and that Anaconda would make me an offer I could not refuse. They proposed to pay me almost $1000 a month, more than twice my current salary. They had agreed that I should stay with Calumet and Arizona for the rest of the year to help with Bisbee development and anything I could to assist with the New Cornelia plans and construction Of course I could not turn down such a flattering offer, as I had about reached the limit of advancement with a much smaller company in anything save a high executive job, and it would be a long time before I could be ready to change from exploration and geology to operating. Greenway and I agreed that I would stay with him for the remaining eight months of 1916 without any particular title but helping in any way I thought would be most useful. Bisbee and Ajo Study It turned out to be a busy half year, in addition to many good times with my Bisbee friends. The Uplift Club did not meet as regularly as in earlier years, but Mason Ross, Jim Lewis, Bill Gohring, Roy Mitchell, Hubert d'Autremont, Arthur Notman, and I did have many "bull sessions" and poker games. I saw much more of Greenway than before and made many trips with him to Ajo and later to the new

Jan 1, 1976

By H. A. von Schonfeldt, H. Douglas Dahl

INTRODUCTION During the past decade, significant pro¬gress has been made in applying rock mechanics principles to mine design problems by a great number of researchers. Some of these new techniques have found their way into the engineering and planning offices of the operating mine. In spite of these advances, however, the application of rock mechanics in the day-to-day mine planning and design of our domestic coal mines is rela¬tively rare. There are a number of reasons responsi¬ble for this relatively slow progress, not the least of which is the question of how to measure the success or cost effectiveness of a sizable rock mechanics effort in an opera¬ting mine. Firstly, the properties of geologic materials generally vary over a wide range and it is, therefore, difficult to assess whether an improvement in the mining conditions is due to a design change or due to a change in the geologic conditions. A second reason for the slow acceptance of rock mechanics in engineering thinking is the fact that some of the concepts are quite difficult and that physical evidence of their validity to mine design is still rare. Thirdly, com¬munication between research, engineering and applications oriented people appears to function only intermittently. In our view, however, the most important impediment lies in the "state-of-the-art." Exactly how much can rock mechanics help the mine operator? The best that rock mechanics can do at present is determine whether one approach is better than another when weighed against some design objective (stress, strain, deformation). We cannot determine the abso¬lute best ground control design -- only what is better. If ground control is lost, the statement that "it's the best one we looked at" means very little to the harried operator. While the "state-of-the art" has advanced a great deal, it has certainly not been reduced to an engineering matter in that design hand¬books are available -- they are not. The success of a rock mechanics program, there¬fore, can be determined only over a long period of time of continuous effort.

Jan 1, 1977

By Leonard Harris

Most of those involved in the mining industry are aware of the negative feelings that the well-informed citizens of this country, also known as the American public, have for the industry. As noted in an issue of Mining World News, “The general public perceives mining as dirty, noisy, destructive and belonging somewhere else.” The same theme was raised at a conference in Scotland in July 1991. It was noted there that mining has an unattractive public image around the world “as dirty, dangerous work that pollutes and degrades the environment.” Why is this? Why does mining have such a bad rap? I’m afraid that some of the blame rests with the mining industry itself - both in the past and in the present. Hopefully, we can do something about this in the future. And hopefully, the information here will help the reader to spread the word to offset the negative messages being issued almost daily by industry foes. I hope this will become more than just the words of another miner talking to miners and their friends. In the past, belching smokestacks and polluted streams and waterways were common sights. Today, the negative results of mining operations can also be seen in the form of waste dumps, leaked acid mine waste water and dust blowing from tailings piles. Some will argue that mining did nothing illegal in the past, and that all the regulations in force at that time were carried out to the letter. That may be so. The fact remains, however, that mining did these things, and the evidence is very clear in many parts of the country. It is visible to the well-informed citizens, in spite of the fact that many mine sites have been cleaned up and new technologies, such as flash smelting, dump leaching, pressure leaching and bioleaching, have greatly overcome many of the pollution problems. What is not so visible is the importance of the mining industry in our daily lives. Not long ago, knowledge about our non-renewable mineral resources ranked low on the list of qualifications for being a well-informed citizen. Events during the past two decades have changed this scenario. Politicians, writers, newscasters, economists and administrators, as well as the ‘public,’ are expressing opinions and forming judgments on oil company profits, desecration of landscapes, waste disposal sites and pollution by the extractive industries.

Jan 1, 1992

By Michael Drozd

Introduction Flotation is a recovery process that utilizes natural or chemically-introduced hydrophobicity of minerals to separate ore from gangue by attaching the ore particles to bubbles. Flotation has been known since 1906, when it was patented by E. L. Sulman, H. G. K. Pickard and John Ballot. Flotation's first documented plant use was in 1911, when it was used on gravity tailings from a zinc plant. Cyanide leaching was first patented in 1887. Most early precious metals flotation was linked to lead or copper concentrates. Most precious metal flotation is linked to sulfide recovery and utilizes such reagents as xanthates, dithiophosphates and thiocarbanilides. But the involvement of flotation in precious metals recovery does not have to be limited to active flotation of the gold and silver bearing minerals. Flotation can be used to remove interfering minerals, such as carbon, or cyanicides, such as copper, arsenic bearing minerals or other cyanide complexing minerals. Cyanide Leaching The use of cyanide to recover precious metals is the backbone of the industry. The various recovery processes that use cyanide are: 1. Leaching-Counter Current Decantation(CCD) Merrill-Crowe 2. Carbon-in-pulp (CIP) 3. Carbon-in-leach (CIL) 4. Vat leaching 5. Heap leaching These processes are selected depending on ore grade, ore leaching characteristics, reserve size and capital limitations. Ore grade is used as the first criteria to determine the type of cyanide plant required. However, the reserve size can determine whether a ground ore alternative is used. The ore leaching characteristics may indicate that the higher recovery, associated with a process that employs grinding, is the only economic recovery alternative. There are some extremely large leaching plants with grades that would be non-economic for some existing heap leach plants. Many factors, such as strip ratios, metal recovery and reserve size, determine what the ultimate plant design will be. The exact processing scheme that is used, is a multifaceted decision matrix, which gives the process metallurgist some job security. Precious Metal Recovery Using Flotation Flotation recovery can conceivably be used on any ore that has been ground. Many operations utilize gravity separation on the ore to remove native gold from the ore prior to sending it to cyanide leaching. On certain ores, where the gold is in visible nuggets or particles, this processing alternative is advantageous because the native gold cyanide recovery is

Jan 1, 1993

By M. Dean Kleinkopf, John Callahan, William M. Shepard, R. N. Schnepfe

Despite lower prices and the uncertain future of nuclear power, uranium continued to be the big attraction in 1979 exploration activity. Uranium again dominated exploration programs across the US-not only in primary producing states such as New Mexico and Wyoming, but in potential producing areas from the northern counties of Minnesota to the Grandfather Mountain region of North Carolina. The moratorium on uranium leasing was lifted in Colorado and Montana, and exploration activity intensified accordingly. In Wyoming, what may be the biggest uranium deposit in the state was discovered by Anaconda Copper Co. near Jeffrey City, but in general, there were few major discoveries and activity was concentrated on existing exploration programs. The Department of Energy expects 1979 uranium exploration expenditures to total $339 million, compared to the $314 million spent by industry in 1978. Surface exploration and development drilling in 1979 is estimated at 16.1 Mm, up slightly from 1978 figures. Gold demanded its share of the spotlight in 1979. Soaring prices lured prospectors, investors, operators, and speculators to Alaska, California, Colorado, and Washington in a small-scale gold fever. Exploration for molybdenum remained strong in Alaska, Colorado, and Washington, where mineralization at the Mt. Tolman prospect is now estimated at 816 Mt averaging 0.09% copper and 0.10% molybdenum disulfide. Again this year, one of the major deterrents to exploration was the drive to set aside huge areas of land as wilderness preserves. In Alaska, where Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus has withdrawn millions of acres under the Antiquities Act, BP Alaska decided to close its Anchorage office, reportedly due to the lack of public lands available for mineral exploration. In both geophysical and geochemical activity, the year is best characterized as one of consolidation and development of previous advances in the state of the art, without any fundamental breakthroughs. Many companies were active in the development of instrumentation. Continuing interest in spectral IP resulted in the introduction of two instruments, one by Phoenix Geophysics, the other to be announced shortly by Geotronics Corp. Radiometric and borehole logging equipment received considerable emphasis, reflecting the continued interest in uranium exploration. MINING ENGINEERING'S review of 1979 exploration activity, including state-by-state highlights and a review of geophysical and geochemical activity, begins on the following page.

Jan 5, 1980

In spite of our deep conviction that it would be wrong for the United States to enter World War II, when, after Pearl Harbor, we were actually in it, I felt that I must do all I could to help. The country had been so good to me that I could not decently stay on the sidelines. My first thought was that I might help with supply and administration in the Air Force, as in World War I. So on the evening of Pearl Harbor I wired the chief of our Air Force in Washington saying that I had been on Gen. William Mitchell's staff in World War I and was offering my services again. I received a noncommital answer, but after a couple of weeks was told to take my physical examination. I passed it, but nothing further happened. After helping to make plans for the wartime operations of Summit King and Desert Silver, Dorothy and I went to New York to spend Christmas with Molly and Peter, both of whom were in college in the East. I had to complete a report on the Argonaut mine in California first, though the war made my recommendations of dubious validity. Before Christmas I received wires from Temple Bridgeman, Phil Wilson, and other friends who had taken positions with government agencies responsible for securing mineral products needed for war use. They urged me to join them. It was evidently a case of not whether but how I could be most useful. After six uncertain days with the family in New York I took the night train to Washington on the 28th of December. I had a hectic day there. First I saw Arthur Bunker and Phil Wilson at what became the Aluminum and Magnesium Division of the War Production Board. Their office was in an old converted barracks. They asked me to examine magnesium deposits in Nevada at once, and then to look at other magnesium and aluminum properties. After leaving

Jan 1, 1976