Search Documents

By Lena Paar

"Underground construction poses certain challenges for all parties involved because the actual ground conditions are often unpredictable. Highly complex projects like tunnel construction are affected by various uncertainties. To address this complexity, the construction contract has to be flexible enough to be adapted to the actual conditions (e.g. divergent ground conditions, work delays). However, the adaptation of a tunnel construction contract does not guarantee the absence of a margin of interpretation. The perfect construction contract is an illusion because ex ante statements of the actual ground conditions are not feasible. This paper will discuss contractual parameters that must be considered in order to enable an effective adaptation of the contract during excavation. It is therefore necessary to discuss the following topics: decision-making competence, variable remuneration, fair-risk allocation, value engineering and partnering between client and contractor. INTRODUCTION Thinking of tunnel construction processes, engineers’ first (or at least second) association is about ground conditions. When constructing under the surface, the project is directly related to the ground conditions; however, ground conditions are known fairly well in advance. The estimated conditions can be the same or can also differ from the existing ones. A clear view of the conditions is possible only by driving through the section. What Hoek calls “Geological unpredictability which is guaranteed to provide some surprises in even the simplest tunnelling job” is, in addition to contractual issues, one of two critical aspects of modern tunneling (Hoek 1982). Almost no research tries to figure out, what flexibility in this context means and how to approach it in the contracts. Papers dealing with the New Austrian Tunnel Method (NATM) pose some principles to meet the requests for flexibility (cf. Austrian Society for Geomechanics 2011). However, it remains unclear how to create contracts in order to make them “flexible” enough to react to divergent ground conditions."

Jan 1, 2016

By R. Venkataramani

Crushed stone operations have become more difficult due to rising costs of labor and equipment, with the consequent reduction in profit margins. Competition from other operators and the encroachment of vertically integrated companies place severe restrictions on available markets. The seasonal demand for stone precludes any definite production level, and changes in productivity have to be accommodated. These influence profitability, and therefore production plans must be continuously adjusted to keep pace with rapidly changing conditions. The basic problem of stone companies seeking to maximize profits is one of balancing stone production costs, costs of inventory holding and stock-piling, marketing costs and any other charges accruing over time against the selling price of stone. Because of high peak demands, slack period production must be stored and then distributed to supplement peak period production. For a multi-plant operation, there is a need to evaluate at the same time the interaction between the plants and the various marketing sectors. In a multi-plant operation with different production capacities and production costs, stone producers are interested in the answers to the following questions: 1. How much stone should be produced at each plant in each time period? 2. What should be the optimum stone shipment from each plant to each market? 3. What are the effects on net returns and shipping plans, if production capacities are altered at the plants? These questions have many different answers that, will satisfy demands. From the point of production scheduling, the minimum production cost may be the objective. From the inventory standpoint, the best solution will be to synchronize production with sales. However, when the transportation of stone is also considered, the desired end is to achieve that delivered cost which maximizes the company f s net return. Besides, only an extremely naive analysis ,wouId attempt to

Jan 1, 1971

By Steve Kral

"Each January, tunneling and underground professionals gather in New York City for the George A. Fox Conference. The one-day event offers attendees the opportunity to listen to their peers outline what’s new in the underground construction industry, get updates on major projects in North America and have a chance to catch up of old friends.The conference is put on by the Underground Construction Association of SME. This latest conference attracted about 370 specialists in the industry. The theme for this year’s event was “Water Tunnels, Past, Present and Future.”The technical session included talks focused on major tunneling projects, including the massive California Water Fix program and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Metropolitan tunnel redundance program in Boston. The conference also included an update on the Gateway Project from Phil Rice from WSP and Mahammed Nasim of Amtrak as well as a Tunnel Industry update.The following is a sample of a few of the presentations. Technical presentationsDEP’s Tunneling Program Evolution. James Mueller is the agency chief engineer of New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Its mission is to plan sustainable infrastructure investments for the future of clean water and the environment in the city and its watersheds, he said. The agency’s goals are to synthesize information across bureaus within DEP to allow data-driven decision-making. It is also to optimize internal agency processes and systems related to the implmenation of engineering programs within a structured assessment process. The agency also prioritizes projects and funding within a structured integrated planning process. And it standardizes project performance and delivery to meet the needs of the agency in alignment with industry standards and market capabilities."

Mar 1, 2019

By C. P. Davenport

At the risk of belaboring certain facts which have so often been stated in the past, please bear with me while I set the stage. What are the projected electrical power needs of the nation and of the Northwest during the next 15 to 20 years? No one who has researched the subject over its historical past has reached a substantially different result than the following simple conclusion: electrical power requirements are doubling every decade. There are some who question the necessity of a power company's need to install capacity every ten years equal to what it has done during its entire previous history; there are even those who would argue that such growth should be arbitrarily curtailed. We are not here today to decide who should have light, heat, jobs and comfort, for we know that a power company must, by law, meet its responsibilities of providing the energy the public expects when the switch is thrown. The Northwest area (the States of Oregon and Washington), for which I speak, has the same case history of electrical power need as does the nation as a whole, and the requirement boils down to roughly an average of a million kilowatts of new capacity each year over the next ten years and we can estimate an average two million kilowatts per year in the 1980's. This is simple arithmetic, but the problems of meeting this exhausting schedule are a real challenge. The subject to which I address this paper is the role that Western Coal will play in the 6 billion dollar investment in these power generation stations. That 6 billion dollar figure represents today's dollar value and you may wish to apply your own escalation - frankly, I haven't the courage.

Jan 1, 1972

By Lloyd E. Haight

After accepting the invitation to make this appearance today, it occurred to me that the subject matter which had been assigned to me, namely, the purpose and role of an advisor, was, contrary to what; some people might think, a controversial subject. In my brief lifetime, I have discovered that the world is full of advisors; that is to say, there are many people who undertake to render advice concerning subject matters upon which they may, or may not be qualified to speak. It shall be my purpose today to set forth what now appears to be the function of the members of the Advisory Council to the U. S. Public Land Law Review Commission; and, in so doing, I hope that I do not offend the Commission or any other-member of the Advisory Council with whom I serve. It has always been my personal conception of the role of an advisor that he should tender advice when it is requested, and then only if he has prepared himself concerning the matter upon which the advice is being given. I am sure it was the Congressional intent at the time the Public Land Law Review Commission was established indeed it was the hope. of Congress--that those of us who were to become members of the Advisory Council were informed upon certain particular subjects and then at the proper time express our opinions upon these subjects-and, by the same token, not attempt to enter opinions upon problems with which we have no experience in theory or in actuality. Some wag once said that if Columbus had had an advisory council, he would still be waiting at the dock in Spain, and there is more truth than fiction in that statement. With this problem in mind, let us examine the purpose of the Advisory Council itself.

Jan 1, 1967

By Sheldon P. Wimpfen

Man is a short time resident of the planet Earth. He does not have the memory to fully comprehend just what is going on. His span of knowledge can be related to the life of the world to see that this is the case. A museum at Grand Canyon features a geologic clock that compresses Earth's age of 4.5 billion years into 24 hours. Man's estimation of the earth's age has changed radically in the past half century. In 1930, one prominent geologist asserted that the age of the Earth was ". . . at least 600 million years." Later, physicists used radioactive clocks to conclude that the Earth's age was 1.6 billion years. More recently, geologists have found rocks in northwestern Australia estimated to have formed 4.5 billion years ago. As we learn more about what is underfoot, the estimate of Earth's age might change again. The Grand Canyon's 24 hour clock shows that the dinosaurs were the dominant life form for 165 million years. Then an event occurred that wiped them out about 65 million years ago. The prevailing theory is that an asteroid struck the Earth and generated enough dust to wipe out the vegetation upon which most dinosaurs fed. During Earth's existence, there have been at least 12 such mass extinctions - the worldwide disappearance of diverse animal groups. On a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years and that may continue to exist for another 4.5 billion, it seems reasonable to expect that further mass extinction's will occur. According the Grand Canyon's 24hour clock, the 165 million year reign of the dinosaurs amounted to about five minutes. On that 24 hour clock, the world has been dinosaur free for almost two minutes.

Jan 1, 1993

By John W. Kelse

What happens when the skull and crossbones goes on a product? In the case of cancer warnings, the consequences can be severe. If the label contains the term "lung carcinogen", you might expect to compensate a lot of smokers, meet a lot of expensive lawyers, be counseled by equally expensive consultants and pay sharply elevated insurance premiums, if you are able to obtain coverage at all. At the extreme, you may face plant shutdowns, job losses or even Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Regardless of how you fare, you are likely to learn some very disconcerting things about the risk evaluation and regulatory system which required you to label in the first place. If a particular material or product does pose a health risk, you are obliged both legally and morally to warn those potentially exposed. Once that warning appears on the label, however, the consequences are often beyond your control. You and your embattled product become part of a legal/regulatory system which has a life of its own. Therefore, the issue of health labeling is not so much whether one warns but rather whether the warning itself is justified and the reasonableness of what happens afterwards. It is this matter of justification and reasonableness, particularly of cancer warnings, which this paper addresses. Until, as they say, your ox has been gored, we tend to believe that risk is determined by the best available technology and expertise We expect that risk evaluators appreciate the ramifications of their work and place things in proper perspective; that risk has been appropriately demonstrated before it is publicized and regulated; that the time-honored concept of prudence, to err on the side of safety, has not been excessively stretched. Unfortunately, the risk evaluation process is rarely, if ever, this

Jan 1, 1991

By D. Maxton

INTRODUCTION This paper traces the application of High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR) at industrial and pilot scale in Australia. The Argyle Diamond Mine installed the first of two smooth segmented HPGRs during 1990 in an open-circuit secondary-tertiary crushing application to increase throughput. In 2002 a third HPGR was added to improve liberation and so increase the recovery of smaller diamonds. The latest improvements in wear technology (tyre with tungsten carbide studs) were incorporated in the design of this machine. Extensive HPGR pilot-plant trials were undertaken during the 1990s at both the Kalgoorlie Consolidate Gold Mine and the Boddington Gold Mine. The purpose of these trials was to evaluate HPGR as a method to increase throughput, as an alternative to SAG milling, and also to ascertain if downstream benefits existed. One of the challenges for HPGR circuit designers is to translate what occurs at small laboratory and pilot scale into what is likely to happen in a full-scale circuit. Scale-up from pilot machine results is normally recommended by manufacturers. However, such tests need relatively large quantities of material, particularly if meaningful data on wear are to be obtained. Laboratory tests are preferable, as they need relatively small quantities of ore, but may be questioned in terms of how they relate to full-scale operation. Modelling and simulation have played a particularly important role in this respect in Australia. Models are available which have proven to be very accurate at being able to scale throughput and specific energy response from laboratory to industrial machines. More recently, work in Australia has also been done in developing a model which has the potential to scale laboratory wear data as well.

Jan 1, 2004

By Lennart Malmqvist

Decision-making in exploration deals with experience, knowledge, and sometimes faith, but very often financing and profit, mineral resource aspects, employment, and general political ambitions are parts of the scene. At one end of this spectrum, there is the prospector and his decision on the actual project. The exploration business now expands from its pioneering phase for the benefit of a single company to a wider spectrum which includes the benefit of the large mining consortium and a national development program. Its objectives are also to maintain employment and to favor long-term stability in a mining district or a mining company. The prospector then has new aspects and questions to consider such as, what to do in mining districts where there is a shortage of ore resources but there are still useful investments in mines, processing plants, etc. To analyze the exploration process, therefore, seems to be of great importance in a time of rapidly changing conditions. As in other areas of complex decision-making, for example, in the fields of investments, of production, and of the armed forces, computers most certainly have an important role to play in future exploration decision-making systems. However, we must first analyze our own business as closely as possible to find out what kind of information we need, i.e., why we recommend an exploration program as a good or a poor one. An important part of the debate about exploration is the case study. Case studies on exploration are few and most of those written are only about successful exploration programs. Where are the case studies of the failures and the not so successful programs? Every prospector knows that the majority of exploration projects fail. Consequently, the most important experience seems to be hidden in the failures.

Jan 1, 1979

By Roger G. Haga, Richard P. Campbell

Introduction Project scheduling . . . . • What is it? • Why is it done? • Who does it? • How is it done? • When is it done? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this paper. It is intended that by exploring these questions, an understanding of project scheduling, its purpose and benefits can be achieved. The purpose of this article is not to describe in detail "how to schedule", but rather to give an overview of the scheduling function on a project. A successful scheduling effort is dependent upon the people responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring the schedule, and the tools and procedures that are used. These three elements are integral components of project scheduling. What is it? A schedule is the integration of network relationships, resource constraints and the calendar. The schedule identifies when the activities "will" be done, while the network states when they "must" be done. Networking techniques are the most widely accepted scheduling tool for complex projects. The benefit of the network is the simplicity in illustrating, presenting and analyzing the dependency relationships of a project. The logic network is the foundation of the schedule. When calendar dates are applied to the logic network, it becomes a schedule which provides the basis for evaluation of project status, forecasting the occurrence of events and controlling the project. The sequence of activities that requires the longest time to complete determines the overall duration of the schedule. This longest sequence of activities is called the "critical path". The "critical path method" (CPM) is used to describe this particular schedule network methodology. The two common conventions of CPM networks are the "arrow diagram met hod" (ADM) and the "precedence diagram method" (PIM). There are arguments in favor of each of these two methods, and usually the one that is used is a matter of personal preference, project directive or corporate procedure.

Jan 1, 1986

By M. Javier

"Mining makes civilization possible. It also creates socio-economic problems surrounded by sustainability controversies yet continues extraction without considering the balance and finitude of nature. Nature requires restoration of equilibrium if mining and life on earth are to continue. Mining is still practiced according to Agricola’s views and the consequences it has wrought on our planet demand we critically reexamine it from its very core, to its metrics, to its design, to its technology, to how it is taught, and to reconsider its raison d'être in 2017. This paper offers tools to new mining engineers that are required to transform and solve new challenges. The task before us is to formulate an updated core curriculum that meets the demands and realities of the 21st Century. Mining professionals must rethink and reteach how to redesign mines before shovel hits dirt, how to mine with restoration of nature figured in to the mining design. Mining needs a new extractive technology in order to transform the results of its well-known liabilities. Mining has evolved and its future must be different than its past. Our industry is capable of doing this but it needs to be shown the way. INTRODUCTION The statement that ‘mining makes civilization possible’ is of the utmost importance and has the most value to us. We can examine the past and present appropriately to see the future that we are building. Mining must be addressed in a different way that makes a positive difference and improves upon rather than continues to get the negative impacts of the past. See Fig 1. Mining creates disequilibrium in Nature by producing ore, waste, tailing, dilution of resources, toxic, and pollution to its ecosystems. What is next for mining on a limited planet? Delaying the transformation of mining is not an option to developing an updated and modern mining business-as-usual paradigm. It is hurting the essentials of living in a civilization; our livelihood is in danger to the point of unrest in nature as we generate a lot of eco-print by present mining practices. So, we are urged to eliminate this bottleneck in life by employing a different design. This way, we will have a vision on how to sustain our civilization. [1]. This new design, with input from current and future generations, will be our contribution to posterity."

Jan 1, 2018

By Warnie Flint

According to statistics compiled by the National Safety Council, US Bureau of Mines, American Medical Association, and other agencies, accidental injuries cause more deaths than all the leading diseases. No one is immune to an accident. Probably the best way to describe an accident is to say that it is an unexpected happening. The automobile driver is not expecting a terrifying crash, the electrician does not expect to be electrocuted, nor is the coal miner expecting the roof to fall on him. All personal injuries will not result in death. There is a multitude of victims who are living proof of what accidents can mean to an individual-victims who are blind, paralytic, missing arms, legs, etc. In most instances the earning power of these individuals is gone, and they are utterly dependent upon family or welfare. For many years there seemed to be an attitude that prevailed in industrial America that accidents were inevitable, and that so many fatalities and injuries should be expected. This, of course, was utter nonsense. Since the birth of such organizations as The National Safety Council, American Society of Safety Engineers, and. the US Bureau of Mines, much progress has been made in reducing accidents. The enactment of compensation laws greatly contributed to the progress that has been made. Does this mean that all accidents can be prevented? Unfortunately, it does not. Human psychology indicates that men will work unsafely or perform unsafe acts for the following reasons : 1) Lack of knowledge or skill. 2) Conflicting motivations, such as: (a) to be more comfortable, (b) to save time or effort, (c) to be accepted by a group. 3) Physical or mental condition. Nearly everyone desires his own safety, but not all individuals are willing to do what they know to do to insure their own safety.

Jan 1, 1981

By F. G. Heivilin

There will be 3 billion people moving into cities by 2050. Permitting is both the biggest obstacle and the biggest opportunity for mining. The problem is not if we have the right minerals, but how we can permit and produce it in a ?Sustainable? manner. A ?Permit? and a ?Sustainable Development Plan? may soon be the same thing. How do we produce the minerals we need with: 1. The lowest possible carbon footprint. 2. Social license from community outreach by being a catalyst and not a problem in a ?Green World.? 3. Enhanced water supply during all stages of production. 4. Meeting requirements of our customers for service, quality, & cost. How important is it to have a complete ?Sustainable Development Program?? First, no plan is complete!!! It is a work in progress subject to continuous improvement. We need to work together to get the results we want. The goal of the world communities is to become carbon neutral by 2050. What is the mining community?s goal? Do we have one???? When a Clorox, Colgate Palmolive, Wal-Mart, Toyota, or Caterpillar buys a product, what are your chances of getting an order without a good program in place? The answer is it will be difficult or impossible shortly and you will be requiring the same thing with your suppliers. This is an opportunity if you are in the lead and it soon will be a necessity for most mining and processing companies requiring much extra effort to catch up. For some mines it was a necessity to get most of the SD plan to get permitted. The number of companies in the extractive industries with a full Sustainable Development Programs is expanding rapidly as shareholder demands for transparency continue to grow.

Feb 27, 2013

By R. L. Derick

On a regular basis, mine personnel should obtain air samples directly from active underground areas as well as remotely from sealed locations. These samples provide mine officials with data relative to the makeup of the various atmospheres. Should conditions underground change, these results can provide a baseline that can assist officials in determining the extent of change. Relating the concentrations of individual gases to time, applying gases to equations, and examining their change over time are tools that have been successfully used to determine if a heating event exists and, if so, the extent of the emergency. These atmospheric status equations have either been developed for the mining industry or adapted from other industries. They serve as tools to assist personnel in determining the condition of underground mine atmospheres. As long as the problem area continues to be ventilated, certain gases, gas ratios, and equations can be used to determine if a fire exists, what type of material could be burning, and what quantity of coal is burning. Once the mine or the involved section has been temporarily sealed, gases, ratios, and gas-derived equations can assist personnel in determining how conditions within the sealed volume are changing over time. To alleviate potential explosions when fresh air is once again introduced into the sealed volume, equations and a diagram have been developed to predict the likelihood of an explosive atmosphere. Similarly, prior to commencing recovery of a mine or section, equations exist that can assist in determining if the fire will rekindle when air is reintroduced. This paper serves as an overview to remind and/or instruct readers about gas-sampling methodologies and gas analyses to assist in determining the status of underground atmospheres.

Jan 1, 2006

By D. E. Walsh

With the exception of the development of large scale mining equipment (haul trucks, draglines, shovels, etc.), there are likely few other candidates responsible for the ability to exploit large tonnage, low grade deposits, than the development of large capacity comminution equipment and circuits; crushers and grinding mills. Ball mills are often the final step in the comminution process and are responsible for providing what should be the optimum particle size distribution of ore to subsequent mineral concentration steps in the flowsheet. Because comminution processes are such high cost centers for milling operations, both capital and operating costs, an enormous amount of research has been conducted to study and model their performance, in order to improve efficiencies (Kelsall, et al., 1969; Austin et al., 1984; Napier-Munn, et al., 1999; Powell and Smit, 2001). With respect to modeling ball mills, estimates of the breakage rates for individual size classes of ore particles are fundamental, as are the particle size class breakage functions (the progeny of particle sizes produced from breaking a coarser particle size class), also termed appearance functions. Fundamental research into particle breakage in tumbling mills focuses on how much energy is input into single particles versus how they break and what size distribution of particles results. Several test methods, including JKMRC?s well known dual pendulum test and drop weight test, have been developed for the breakage of coarse particles down to 6 mm in size (Napier-Munn, et al., 1999). Work on the breakage of finer particles is still an area of intense research and single particle breakage is being investigated as are multiple particle, fixed bed methods (Hoffler and Herbst, 1990; Bourgeois et al., 1992; Whiten, 2007).

Jan 1, 2011

By R. J. Sheets

"INTRODUCTION What is the primary responsibility for geo-engineers in mining? Early in my career, I was asked this question by an experienced engineer. After explaining some various tasks, I was informed that the main responsibility was to monitor. Although this proved true for many cases, I came to understand that monitoring is merely one means to achieve the primary responsibility of a geo-engineer – ensure the safety of all personnel. The potential for groundwater to impact stability allows this responsibility to be shared with hydrogeologists as well. Inherently, we monitor to identify risks; we analyze designs and develop models to mitigate risks; and we are provided opportunities to explain to supervisors the geo-risks to personnel and mine plans that will result from particular courses of action. A couple years ago, I took an opportunity to share experiences from the first several years of my career as a geotechnical engineer with junior geo-engineering staff within my company. The intent was to share situations that were a part of my development, so they could learn and understand their responsibility to the safety of all personnel. Similarly, the purpose of this paper will be to share these thoughts with new geo-engineers in the industry in order to help prepare them for the challenges they will face. WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE? A senior hydrogeologist shared an experience that occurred in their career. The experienced hydrogeologist had spent some time with the hydrogeology staff, most of them relatively new to the mining industry, to understand how they viewed, and carried out, what they perceived as their responsibility at an active mining operation. After a couple months of observing and mentoring, the senior hydrogeologist met with everyone and posed the question above. I am sure that most junior geo-engineers would start explaining different tasks or projects that they must complete. The list would include monitor groundwater levels, track slope movement, evaluate designs, build models, oversee drilling programs, etc. These individuals did as well their supervisor. After going around the room allowing each individual to answer, the experienced hydrogeologist provided them the real answer to the question: SAFETY. If you examine the root intent of nearly every responsibility geotechnical engineers and hydrogeologists have, it is to apply our professional skills to ensure the safety of our workforce. When the objective of safety from the geotechnical and hydrogeology disciplines is achieved, inherently accomplishing the mine plan should follow suit, or it should significantly minimize the impact by gravity or groundwater. The objective of a hydrogeologist is to ensure the soil or rock around an open pit or underground mine is dewatered; this specific objective will reduce pore pressures which could lead to a possible ground failure. They ensure a working bench/UG level is dry, so operations are not dealing with adverse conditions while mining. A geotechnical engineer is expected to use all available information and engineering judgement to provide design recommendations, so that the mine will not catastrophically fail. Additionally, they will implement the monitoring systems to identify hazards in advance in the event that the design is flawed and people need to be evacuated. We all know that safety is important to everyone; however, our particular set of technical skills play a significant role in ensuring the safety of a large portion of the global mining workforce."

Jan 1, 2018

By M. Javier

Mining is most vital to our civilization. The current model of extraction technologies was designed without an expiration date and therefore generates environmental effects that are severe. Mining results-effects have been traditionally accepted and promoted around the world since Agricola described mining. Mining’s extractive technology is outmoded and standardized and inflicts negative results-effects on nature. Those results are liabilities dimensioned in legacy and type of nature able to provide to the next generation. In order to design, build, and transform mining effectively we must ask: What is the vision of mining? Mining has exhausted its antiquated mindset of over 200 years. Now it merely pilots us into crisis. The challenge today is to resolve the socio-environmental conflicts globally with a radical transformation of the mining business at its core. This paper illustrates that old mindsets must be radically updated or the concept of mining will continue to be trapped. Changing the mindset will enable discourse toward a new destiny. These changes will change mining for the better. We are able to evolve and get different results than in the past by pursuing a new legacy to live in harmony with nature for many more years. INTRODUCTION Minerals are supported by the law of conservation of mass. They have the unique characteristics of being finite, exhaustible, unsustainable, and have an unlimited recycling. Minerals are also hard to find because we have explored and virtually exhausted the whole crust of this planet. Orebodies that used to be considered world class are almost exhausted. In the short-term, it would be almost impossible to find new world class orebodies unless they could be extracted from the ocean, the moon or other planets like Mars. Mining is designed to extract minerals for profit and to keep civilizations functioning. Subsequently, mining has a social issue that is an economic issue. Thus, mining must be seen as a real and urgent subject matter that must be protected in thought and in fact. The actual mining extractive technologies produce disequilibrium in nature that has unknowable effects in the course of time. History is filled with the negative consequences to nature due to the model of mining. The evidence of these effects from mining’s model is apparent in repetitive liabilities around the world. The effects negatively impact nature without any consideration to how these impacts will manifest themselves in the future. This model of mining is widespread and extolled in every corner of the planet because it is old and familiar and although wasteful and outdated, we do not want to expend financial resources from profit or elsewhere to explore newer ideas, methods, or technologies that would help us keep a sustainable harmony between extraction and nature. We need a new vision for mining today and to explore in what way academia can and must play a social role in the teaching of mining methods. We need to question why we continue to support the old model of mining and to ask ourselves what prevents us from updating and modernizing the method of mining to meet the current needs not just of civilization but the urgent needs to undo some of the damage to the earth. This paper hopes to develop a method to change our minds about how we conduct the business of mining in order to control the destiny of it.

Jan 1, 2019

By M. Javier

"The impact of mine closure is perceived through a veil of compliance to human laws and regulations rather than the laws and equilibrium of nature. This perception motivates present research. Understanding the causes and effects of mine closure defines levels of responsibility. This understanding evolves from mine closure's legacy. Mine closure is characterized in perpetuity by three aspects: Future liabilities; level of technologies for extraction and, usage of mineral resources. These aspects must be updated to a rationally appropriate level. This paper will address the following questions: Will the minerals remaining in the process of mine closure ever be recovered? Will the mine closure inhibit the availability of minerals for the next generation? How many mines are designed to perform a successful mine closure? Do we close the mines or do we close nature? Is it responsible to continue mine closures as we do them today? Is mine closure a complement of mine operations or a contradiction of mining? Do we need to perform mine closures, yet? This paper reviews mine closure practices and principles with the level of responsibility to nature and for the next generation.PREFACE The planet has irreversible issues to deal with regarding the depletion of mineral resources and contamination occurring from human activities. The population increased exponentially to more than seven billion, this high population with its lifestyles, demands a higher supply of minerals. In spite of these conditions, mining is a vital industry to keep ""civilization"" in society. This is evidenced by what we see around us, in that everything ""made"" in society is directly or indirectly due to mining. Hence, mining cannot be avoided or ignored. Society misunderstands the importance of mining in relation to other activities. At this time, mining is fragmented and economically oriented to supply cheap minerals to a market with peculiar characteristics regarding products that could be designed for recycling and stimulate nature’s equilibrium. These issues add important “variable factors” to the equation, when they are considered as parameters for the next generation. It also raises many questions regarding principles and attitudes about morals and ethics exercised in all anthropogenic activities. The industry's practices have many flourishing paradigms which are subject to a variety of criticisms and observations. Some of these observations will be described in this paper. It is important to clarify in advance a ""normal disclaimer"" about the ""apparent contradiction"" that could take place in the writer's comprehension when we abruptly ""jump to conclusions"". We must remember that we are profiling the future in an arena that demands a better understanding of solutions to problems created by actual mining."

Jan 1, 2015

By Richard L. Bullock

Believe it or not, mine evaluation and feasibility studies are as old as the industry itself. In the first recorded writing on mining by Agricola (1556), he gave several clues as what to look for in evaluating a mine, to determine if it was economically feasible. Below is the guidance from Agricola, with my interpretation of what he would include today. Now a miner, before he begins to mine the orebodies must consider seven things, namely: ? The situation (the geography/topography). ? The conditions (the geologic/mineralogic and mining conditions). ? The water (availability, hydrology and ownership). ? The roads (plus the railroads, power lines, all other infrastructure). ? The climate (the weather-rainfall/environment). ? The right of ownership (the land and legal entitlement). ? The neighbors (the social environmental concerns of the area). It is amazing how much of his guidance has not changed in 455 years. Yet Agricola gives no guidance on determining the correct cost, or determining the correct commodity pricing. But he does give a few words of caution on the related ethics involved on buying mineral properties: ?A prudent owner, before he buys shares, ought to go to the mine and carefully examine the nature of the vein, for it is very important that he should be on his guard lest fraudulent sellers of shares should deceive him.? Three hundred years later (1866), to further amplify this point, in the most famous thing that Mark Twain never said, as an introduction to a lecturer to an audience of gold-miners at Red Dog, CA, the famed author/humorist allegedly described a mine as ?a hole in the ground owned by a liar? (Farrar & Rinehart, 1935). So, one might conclude that between these two dates, the mining industry did little to improve its reputation. Unfortunately, since Mark Twain allegedly made those remarks, we have not done near enough to gain accountability for the mineral industry.

Jan 1, 2011

By Gordon O. Prickett

In two case studies we look at strategies of acceptance that the analyst can employ to gain entrance and to see his problem solution out to use. The first example comes from metal mines. The problem area was excessive usage and cost of wear parts in the concentrator and an atmosphere of crisis over frequent and unexpected breakdowns. The second case pertains to coal exploration. Better methods were being sought for representing coal quality in developing reserve tonnages. The first strategy is - Develop a detailed Human Impact Statement. The second strategy is - Write down in plain language with the keeper of the problem what he will consider as success in dealing with his problem.

Jan 1, 1978