Search Documents

By Alfred A. Roetzer

In several sections of the country new demands are being brought bar cement users. Among these the demand' for truck shipments; and palletized loads present new problems that do not lend themselves to sample solution. In fact these demands have far-reaching effect in the way bagged cement might be marketed. Early solutions of palletized truck loads filled from existing packing and loading facilities have resulted in' slowdown in packing, additional labor and space for palletizing, considerable experimentation in type and construction of pallets, and usually far from optimum truck handling and loading methods.

Jan 1, 1961

By Len H. Steele

To date VMD have designed, built and supplied nine autoclaves to various mining companies in Canada, the US, and Papua New Guinea. Initially, completely fabricated and lead lined units were shipped. The logistics of Placer Dome's Porgera PNG Project necessitated fabricating and lead lining each autoclave in five sections for transportation to site, each piece weighing approximately 30.5 tonnes. Support equipment such as turning rolls, automatic and manual welding machines had to be set up on site to facilitate assembly of these units which was a challenge in planning. This on site erection programme was completed in three months.

Jan 1, 1992

By E. Sehner, G. Van Weert

Metal chloride pyrohydrolysis is a fifty year old technology, operating satisfactory in many plants around the world, mainly on ferrous chloride, The capabilities and costs of its two equipment options (spray roaster and fluid bed pyrohydrolysis) are well known. Why is the technology not more widely used in mineral processing, beyond the production of MgO and upgraded TiO2slag? After briefly reviewing chloride vs. sulphate process characteristics and existing plant operations, this paper will discuss pyrohydrolysis options for the mine developer using the processing of ilmenite, siliceous zinc oxides and oxidic nickel / cobalt ores as examples.

Jan 1, 2003

By B. J. Arnold

Froth removal rate is perhaps the most important parameter in scaling up from laboratory tests to plant froth flotation circuits. The WEMCO froth factor, the percentage of the froth height over the lip of the cell, accounts for the difference between laboratory and plant froth removal rates. As laboratory tests are generally run with a high pulp level, laboratory results are directly comparable to plant results only when a high froth factor (high pulp level) is run in the plant. When a plant does not have a high pulp level, laboratory results must be modified by using a ratio between laboratory and plant kinetics to predict plant results. This ratio, which accounts for the froth factor is important in testing any new reagents or reagent dosage levels. CQ Inc. researchers have used predictive scale-up equations using this froth factor coupled with equations for kinetics and the residence time distribution in the froth flotation cells. These equations show that modifying the froth factor in the plant can have a large impact on flotation cell yield and reagent use. EQUATIONS DESCRIBING FROTH FLOTATION Scaling up from laboratory- to plant-scale coal froth flotation has been the subject of much research and debate over the years. Determining the proper rate equation to describe flotation kinetics and an equation to describe the residence time distribution in a bank of flotation cells have been particular areas of study. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, various rate equations and residence time distribution equations have been proposed in the literature. These equations consist of one or two parameters giving the rate constant(s) in units of time-1 and a parameter for recovery at infinite time, [Roo]. Dowling, Klimpel, and Aplan (1985) evaluated the rate equations in Table 1 for their ability to fit froth flotation kinetic data and found that all of the equations give reasonably low standard errors. Several of these equations, however, proved to have superior confidence limits for the parameters. Other equations have also been proposed to describe the recovery versus time profile. Most recently, Diao et al. (1992) proposed a first-order form with a sine wave distribution. As indicated in Table 2, investigators have suggested many equations to describe the residence time distribution in continuous froth flotation. To measure the water residence time distribution in a bank of cells, a soluble tracer is often used, with the level of tracer being measured over time at the tailings discharge. This response is then put on a dimensionless basis as described by Austin et al. (1984) in order to compare mixing behavior between cells or under different conditions. Coal flotation cells are generally of the flow-through or hog-trough variety allowing for some degree of backmixing and short-circuiting. While the water residence time distribution (see Figure 1) at the end of one cell in a bank of 1.4 cu ft WEMCO froth flotation cells may approximate perfect mixing conditions (Arnold, 1989), the water residence time distribution at the end of a bank of cells does not. Figure 2 shows the RTD for various flotation cell types compared to that for perfect mixers in series. To better describe the water residence time distribution in coal froth flotation cells, Van Orden (1986) used an equation similar to the perfect-mixers-in-aeries equation. This

Jan 1, 1993

By Jodie Robertson, Isabel Barton, Cristian Caro

Prior to mining, all rocks contained in a mineral deposit must be placed in one of several categories known as ore types. Each ore type describes a different way that the rock will behave in processing. The ore type determines which process stream a particular mined unit will be sent to, sets expectations for process engineers and metallurgists, and forms the basis for recovery predictions and production estimates. At first, ore types are assigned mainly by geologists based on visible geological criteria (dominant ore mineralogy, estimated grade, rock type, alteration type). As metallurgical tests are carried out and process data accumulate, the resulting criteria may be factored into the ore typing process, typically as assays and recoverable metal using the relevant process(es). Other variables may also be incorporated into ore typing at operations if they are particularly important, such as grindability, preg-robbing, gangue reagent consumption, and the presence of especially deleterious minerals such as talc or smectite. The mine operation department may also redefine ore types and/or process destinations based on economic criteria. A “best” ore type is designated that (in theory) best describes how the rock will behave in processing. Codes representing this ore type are entered into the drill-hole database, then interpreted on cross sections and level plans, and finally added to the block model. Ore types are iteratively reexamined and adjusted over the life of a project. Major difficulties in effective ore typing are (1) lack of communication between geologists and metallurgists, (2) the imprecision inherent in imposing clean categories on messy natural systems without discrete divisions, (3) the need for ore types to provide useful information for a wide range of processes, (4) difficulties in scaling up laboratory test results to mine production, and (5) conflict among geological, metallurgical, and economic criteria for ore typing.

Jul 1, 2024

By M. Albrecht

In the mining industry and particularly in the processing plants, we use some large and unusual equipment. Understanding what it is and what it does is important to good operations, but how do you teach a new employee. When I started out in this field, the information on the processing equipment was easy to come by. Equipment manufacturers readily supplied it; their salesmen, often engineers themselves, knew how important the availability of this information was. Old engineers used their notebooks to train the new engineers. Over time this has changed. Equipment manufacturers have changed hands or gone out of business, and often the older engineers are gone. As a start in reversing this, this presentation will be an introduction to sizing, selecting, and operation of some of this equipment, in particular gravity separating equipment. Major portions of this have been excerpted from A Mining Engineers Notebook: Mineral processing (2).

Feb 23, 2014

By James M. Barker

Marketing is the linchpin of the industrial-mineral (IM) industry. Without markets and consumers for IM products, all other associated IM activities are superfluous. The simple existence of an IM deposit does not mean that it can be exploited. A dynamic interaction between exploration (geology), mining, processing, transport, marketing, sales, and consumers is required for profits. Geology dictates the existence of a deposit, but markets dictate its development, and transportation provides the connection. This is true to such an extent that marketing commonly is called the exploration phase of IMs. Marketing is strategic and includes long-range market-development and planning activities, whereas selling is tactical and more focused on day-to-day consumer interactions. Each will help the other when properly done. Many producers of IMs have failed because of inadequate marketing skill, information, and practice. Over many years at the Montana Bureau of Mines, the many developers seeking technical assistance to find an IM deposit, but who had no marketing plan, always failed. In contrast, the few who sought assistance first on marketing, with the IM deposit to be found later, always succeeded (Richard Berg, personal communication, 1998). Marketing has many facets helped by geologists who must be aware of what marketing is attempting to do. A geologist needs to understand many aspects of IMs: location (deposits, plants, consumers), processing (specifications), transportation (truck, rail, barge, ship), competition (local, regional, national, international), substitutes, pricing, and new developments and market forces of all kinds. Some needed skills are not taught formally to geologists, so well-rounded self-education and on-the-job training are the way a geologist normally enters into IM marketing. The IM geologist generally is associated with marketing either by helping to prepare a market study or by acting on the results of one. Preparing a market study is a two-part process. The first part is relatively simple but requires a time-consuming collation of data into an IM survey (mostly past-and present-oriented). The more difficult and much more important second part entails expanding the IM survey into a market evaluation (mainly future-oriented) that emphasizes forecasting, timing, location, and specific products. A market evaluation generally boils down to formulating the right questions to ask of the right persons. One very good question to ask is, "What could be the market for this specific IM?" while thinking for yourself without excessive recourse to gossip, rumors, promoters, developers, or (at times) IM experts. The evaluation must prove that market potential exists and suggests a marketing plan. Effective marketing is an ongoing process, with the initial marketing plan modified over time, using wide and continuous input to avoid tunnel vision. Industrial-mineral markets are based either on commodity (lower-priced, basic-processing) minerals or specialty (higher-priced, value-added) minerals. IM marketing methods are either product-driven (commodity minerals), a more traditional approach, or market-driven (specialty minerals), but these are neither mutually exclusive nor is one always better than the other. Focusing too much on specialty minerals can lead to problems. A blend of commodity products with specialty products commonly lowers risk and enhances long-term profits. The highest profits occur in specialty minerals at the cost of higher risk and complexity and require intelligent marketing, versatile technical services, and creative research and development. Industrial minerals are best served by an industrial-marketing approach rather than a consumer approach. Modern industrial marketing emphasizes the consumer using the "marketing concept." The marketing concept focuses all management and operational activities on total consumer management and satisfaction similar to the total quality management approaches to excellence.

Jan 1, 1999

By Lourens Scheepers

Mining induced seismicity and rockbursts have been part of the deep level gold mining industry in South Africa for many years. One could be forgiven for thinking that we should know everything there is to know by now to have rockbursting under control to a level that it has minimal impact on safety and production. Well, we don’t… There are things we know that we know, and they are implemented, or should be. There are thigs we know that we don’t know, and they are researched, or should be. There are things we don’t know that we don’t know, and, well, we don’t know… We know that seismicity and the associated potential for rockbursts generally increase with an increase in stress (increase in mining depth and/or mining span and creation of remnants) and proximity to faults and dykes. We know there are a number of potential sources of events in a mine; that is: mining abutments, pillar abutments, mining faces and geological structures (faults and dykes). We know there are a number of event mechanisms associated with these sources; that is: slip on a geological structure, shear through intact rock and bursting of the rock near the edge of a mining excavation. One of the tools used more and more and with increased success to identify event source mechanisms is Moment-Tensor analysis (MT). This typically assist in differentiating between three event mechanism components: volumetric deformation component, axial deformation component and slip / shear component. The insight gained from MT assist greatly in identifying the most likely event source to assist in understanding the rockmass response to mining. We know that the seismic response in our mines are mining induced (not natural). This may seem trivial, but it is important to realise that we influence the seismic response with the way we mine, and by how much we mine (extraction ratio). Therefore we put design rules and strategies in place to reduce the seismic hazard and we install rockburst support in our mining excavations. We know the seismic response to mining is influenced by the properties of the rockmass, including strength, stiffness and brittleness, but quantifying its influence is typically more difficult than expected. We know numerical modelling can improve the engineer’s understanding of the potential rockmass response associated with designed mining layouts and strategies. For our environment (narrow, tabular large area) elastic boundary element modelling remains the most convenient and practical approach, but it overestimates the stress at mining abutments and underestimates the stress further away from these abutments. Adding a crushing (based in limit equilibrium) modelling approach vastly improves the boundary element modelling ability to simulate the deformed (interpret fractured) zones and associated redistribution of stress. We don’t know how to quantify what an acceptable seismic risk is. We don’t know if we can mine remnants at an acceptable seismic risk. Some remnants are extracted surprisingly easy, others serve us with devastating rockbursts. The limit equilibrium modelling shows potential to significantly improve our ability to quantify the rockburst risk. We don’t know if large-scale preconditioning is possible and will be effective to significantly reduce the seismic risk associated with remnant and pillar mining. Research is required (and has been initiated). Vast areas of ground have been extracted historically in the South African gold fields. Most gold reserves are now in deeper ground (4000 m) and historic remnants (areas left before due to mining difficulties) as well as pillars (regional stability pillars). If we cannot find ways to extract these reserves at acceptable risk levels, the future of the South African gold mining industry is very short.

Apr 26, 2022

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the sixth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data plus more than 100 new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. An article in the December 1984 Kentucky Coal Journal could have far reaching applications. It explains that a banking firm examined the "reserve risk" as one of six factors for analysis when financing a coal project. The firm concluded that coal reserves in Kentucky are worth an average of $0.29/t ($0.26 per st) in-place. The banking firm based this in-place value on its examination of more than 50 leases. In-place value is especially important when trying to establish a mineral value for a given deposit. Ernie Lehman wrote to this author after last year's column appeared and he quoted the lease rates for lead and zinc on federal land. He states, from first hand information, that the leases are based on a percentage of net smelter return as follows: 4% for the first five years, 4.5% for the next five years, and 5% thereafter. The figures used in last year's column ($ per st) came from dividing reported royalty income by reported production. The information reported last year merely translates the results of the net smelter return (as written in the lease) to royalty income per ton to the US Government for the various years. Statistics from the Minerals Management Service of the Federal Government show that oil and gas account for 40% and 53%, respectively, of the Federal royalty income. Coal accounts for about 4% and all other minerals, the remaining 3%. Oil and gas leases are mostly at 12.5%. Most of the coal leases are at 12.5% for surface mining operations and 8% for underground mining. Many of the other commodities are leased at 5%, which has been true for decades. Relative to Federal leases, this year's table shows some percentages and some costs per ton. This was done to give information about the leases and also to show income produced by various commodities. Note that some commodities have a variation in $/ton even though the royalty percent is the same. These variations result from a combination of factors that influence the value of a mineral commodity. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; *quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give the location - either by state, US geographic area or Canadian province; the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), tons (/T, 2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.7646 m3 1 cu ft = 0.2832 m3 1st=0.9078t 1 acre = 0.4047 hm or m2 In several cases, the royalty is a percentage of the sales price of the finished product and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: G. Anderson, B. Brown, R. Ganis, K. Hauser, E. Lehman, and S. Sims. Their help is appreciated as are the contributions by those who asked to remain anonymous. This column requires additional information each year. That data must come from people in the minerals industry who have royalty information. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write the author at the address given in the author's box or call 313-462-0005.

Jan 7, 1988

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the seventh annual tabulation of royalty information. It is also the first year in which some data have been deleted to make room for new data. The concept of royalties evolved from a time when the government owned all of the land, including mines, to the situation where free miners won the right to claim minerals but paid a portion of their production to the royal treasury. Today, a mineral royalty is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights for the privilege of producing the mineral commodity. However, some people incorrectly believe that the selling price and the royalty are the same thing. The contract between the owner (lessor) and the mining company (lessee) is the mineral lease. Some clauses that are common to mineral leases include: identification of property, granting clause, reservations, definitions, royalty rate, taxes and title, indemnity, termination, inspection, assignability, successors, and reclamation. There often are variations in royalty rates for a given commodity that reflect differences in location, quality, market conditions or public versus private ownership. History In the time of ancient Rome, the government owned the mining properties by virtue of conquest. It would lease the mines to favored citizens who would pay rent to the State. Various conditions of sovereign ownership of both land and mineral rights continued in Europe until the Renaissance. As the laws evolved for land ownership by private citizens, the concept that minerals belonged to the State (King, Crown, sovereign) continued until about the 15th century. Free miners challenged the notion of sovereign ownership and won the right to discover and claim minerals. But a portion of their production had to be paid to the sovereign - a royalty. So, the original concept of a mineral royalty was a tax on production that was due to the Crown or Church. The term mineral royalty, as it is known today, is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights (formerly the royal owner) for the privilege of mining and producing the mineral commodity. The owner of the mineral rights, the lessor, and the mine operator, the lessee, enter into an agreement to mine the property. The agreement is the lease. While this concept is common, there are some who do not understand that the royalty is a portion of production paid to the owner as agreed on in the lease document. This author has seen reports where the selling price of a commodity has been quoted as the royalty. ("They get 70 cents a ton royalty at their pit and the guy down the road only has a 65 cent royalty.") These reports have been authored by people not familiar with the mining industry. Lease clauses In addition to the amount to be paid the lessor, there are several other items to be addressed in the lease agreement. The following list may not be all inclusive, but briefly describes most of the common clauses any good mining lease should contain. Identification: This opening clause names the owner (lessor) and the operator (lessee), the address of each, and gives the legal description of the property. Granting clause: This part of the lease gives the time period or duration of the agreement and information about renewal periods. It also has language about the exclusive right of the lessee to mine the property. Reservations: If the owner wants to exclude any portion of the property or set some specific conditions about the operation, there needs to be a clause that describes these reservations. Definitions: This section should address some of the technical terms that the lessor may find confusing - short tons versus cubic yards, dollars versus percentage of average selling price, any escalator indices such as consumer price index or producer price index, and material mined versus material sold. Royalty: This section spells out what the royalty rate will be, how often it will be paid, if there is an annual minimum, the pay dates, and how the records will be kept. This section also describes the conditions under which the lessee is exempt from the annual minimum - natural disasters, strikes, governmental actions, or other causes referred to as force majeure. Taxes and title: The lease needs to identify who is responsible for the property taxes, severance taxes (if applicable), and other taxes that relate to the mining activity - taxes on equipment, improvements, or stockpiles. This is a good place in the lease for the owner to certify his ownership of the property and its mineral rights and also certify that no other leases are in effect. The lessees may want language that allows them to pay mortgages or other debts on the property to keep their lease in effect. Indemnity: This portion of the lease identifies that the lessee assumes the risks for lessee's mining operation. Lessor should expect indemnification by the lessee through standard insur¬ance policies - workers compensation, liability and property damage. Termination: Both the lessor and lessee want language that will allow them to terminate the lease. This section of the lease describes the conditions under which one of the parties may terminate the lease (failure of the

Jan 1, 1989

By John Marsden

Despite the recent pullback in metal and mineral prices, and the associated market adjustments, the mining industry is still facing a serious issue with the declining availability of graduate expertise. This is due to a combination of an aging workforce, retirements and retrenchments, coupled with a lack of suitably qualified graduates entering the workforce. The issue has certainly improved since 2004 when the industry picked up the rates of hiring graduate engineers and mining/mineral school enrollments picked up in response. This hiring effort has helped to cover the ?gap? years from about 1985-2000, when industry demand for graduates was particularly poor. However, the recent market pullback is likely to set back this progress, as recruitment and hiring wavers as a result of cost cutting measures and economic uncertainty. A key issue for the mining industry is how to ensure the survival and growth of relevant ?core? degree programs. Such programs include mining, metallurgical, mineral processing and geological engineering. The mining industry needs a healthy, high-level education program to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately qualified graduates for the mining industry. Two-thirds of the professionals entering the minerals industry who graduated within the past 40 years graduated prior to 1985. Since 1985, we have been living off the legacy of graduation classes from the mid-1970s and early 1980s. It is estimated that we have been producing graduates at approximately 40 to 50 percent of the sustaining rate since about 1985. Further growth in the domestic industry would increase graduate requirements significantly, and the export of U.S.-graduates to other parts of the world (as is currently occurring) also impacts the total graduate requirements.

By L. M. Gochioco

The U.S. coal industry is under-going dramatic changes to meet the challenges of the keenly competitive fuels market. The application of innovative technologies is needed to improve safety and to increase productivity in order to make coal more competitive as a fuel. As more coal companies shift into capital intensive longwall mining, there is a clear need to invest more in exploration before mine plans are made. Coal seam anomalies may create adverse mining conditions. The early detection of these anomalies could make the longwall mining safer and more productive through improved planning. A standard exploratory drilling program can provide only limited geologic information. The seismic reflection technique can be used to detect coal seam anomalies and is effective in reconnaissance surveying. Recent advances in the quality of coal seismic data have increased the success rate of seismic surveying. Therefore, surface seismic surveys, coupled with selective drilling, will come to play an integral role in coal exploration in the 1990s.

Jan 1, 1990

By Timothy J. Matthews, Timothy J. Batchler, Daniel J. McElhinney

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Mine Roof Simulator (MRS) at the Pittsburgh Mining Research Division was commissioned for operation in 1981. The MRS was originally designed for longwall shield research and was the only hydraulic press in the world with the capability to apply biaxial loads to these large structures. The results of this forty-year research program have contributed to improved performance and increased knowledge of longwall shields, mobile roof supports and hydraulic cylinders in the mining industry. Also, considerable research and development have been conducted to develop standing support technologies for the mining industry. The Support Technology Optimization Program (STOP) was developed to evaluate how these various technologies can impact and improve both ground control conditions and mine safety. Additional MRS research has included the performance of ventilation stopping walls including the development of a new testing protocol to evaluate the transverse loading capabilities under arching load conditions and evaluating the performance characteristics of welded wire screen as used in underground mine roof surface control. The NIOSH Mine Roof Simulator has been a reliable and valuable tool for the past forty years for the evaluation of safety structures used in mining, and this research has contributed significantly to the advancement toward safer mines. This paper will summarize those research results and provide a glimpse of planned future activities.

Ravensthorpe Nickel Operation (RNO) is a major new mine and processing plant currently being constructed by BHP Billiton in a ?green field? site near the small town of Ravensthorpe, about 150 km west of Esperance and six hours drive from Perth in Western Australia. Ensuring that the project has a positive overall impact on the surrounding region and that this extends well beyond the life of the operation will be a major challenge for RNO, state and local government, and the local community. For the last two years, the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) has been assisting RNO management and the RNO Community Liaison Committee to develop a community sustainability monitoring framework for the project. This paper reports on the process that was used to develop the framework, describes the main elements and briefly discusses key learnings from the exercise.

Jan 1, 2007

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 13th year for this column and the 12th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. There still exist some holes in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, there are states from which the author has no information about royalties for either of these commodities. The reader can help - share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sends helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The PDAC Digest contained an article that distinguished between ‘net smelter return royalty' and ‘net profits royalty’ (Haase). The article also lists clauses and details that Brown suggests should be included in a net profits royalty contract.

Jan 1, 1994

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the eighth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for nearly 30 new entries. Several articles and publications have appeared recently that relate to mineral royalty or mineral valuation. R. B. Parsons wrote "Mining agreements, royalties and profits" (CIM Bulletin, November 1988). He distinguished between net smelter return (NSR) and net profit interest (NPI). Parsons used examples to show the difference between these royalty payment methods. Mining Engineering (January 1990) carried an article by H. V. S. Tingley entitled "Using business due diligence to help evaluate mineral deposits." The article identifies some factors that must be examined during mergers or acquisitions in the mining industry. Since each mining operation is unique, each has risks and opportunities that need recognition and evaluation. The author suggests that a team is necessary for a proper evaluation because no one person has expertise in all of the factors that must be examined. Also in January's Mining Engineering was "Limestone mining: Reserves and valuation," by B. C. Lewis and R. P. Moran. They presented two case studies of valuation of limestone reserves. One was a 109-hm2 (270-acre) parcel in West Virginia and the other a 121-hm2 (300-acre) tract in Alabama. The authors discussed risk, discount rates, and royalty methods as financial parameters in valuation of limestone reserves. Two papers were presented at the SME meeting in Las Vegas, NV in 1989 that bear mention. J.G. Russell's talk was entitled "Valuation of industrial

Jan 1, 1990

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 14th consecutive year for this column and the 13th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. Some holes still exist in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. Construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone - are the most common mineral commodity. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, royalty information for these commodities has been difficult to acquire from some states. Readers can help. Share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Dennis Bryan sent a copy of a report, "Regional Appraisal of Mineral Materials: Carson City District, BLM." The report was authored by real-estate appraisers. It contains more than 50 references to leases of various construction materials in Nevada and nearby states. It gives a thumbnail sketch of each lease and is a good reference. However, the authors erroneously imply that the royalty rate and the in-place value are the same. Several of this year's new entries come from the report. However, the royalties for landscaping materials vary from state to state and by rock type. Some boulders used for landscaping in Nevada have a royalty reported at $1.10/t ($1/st). At the other extreme is lava from Idaho. Used for the same purpose, it has a royalty range of $11 to $18.70/t ($10 to $17/st). Chuanming Tian of Beijing, China has shared some information about the changing mineral royalty policies in China. China first implemented an oil and gas royalty in 1984. In 1992, the government expanded that to include iron ore. In 1994, the royalty policy was extended to all mineral commodities. At the same time, the royalty rate for iron ore increased tenfold.

Jan 1, 1995

By H. Lyn Bourne

This marks the 15th consecutive year for this column. During 1995, readers were asked to supply royalty data for construction raw materials especially for states where none is available. The response was discouraging and royalty data are still missing for several states for either sand and gravel or crushed stone. Several readers have said that this article has merit but more new information is needed to justify its continuation. Several articles and pieces of news relative to mineral royalties appeared in the trade journals. R. Lee Aston (E&MJ, November, 1995, p. 16N) described South Australian royalties as amended by the government in1994. The royalty rate (a percentage) was lowered but the assessed value for minerals was raised and the current rate amounts to 20 cents//t (18 cents/st).

Jan 1, 1996

By S. Kim Juniper

"This presentation aims to serve as a primer on conservation, research and regulatory organizations interested in the environmental impact of deep-sea mining. It will also consider a recent, early-stage proposal for an experimental SMS mining operation aimed at increasing our understanding of mining impacts and ecosystem recovery.Over the past 5 years, as deep-sea mining has been moving closer to reality, it has attracted growing attention from deep-sea biologists, conservation groups and operators of deep-sea research vehicles and observing systems. Several new international research organizations have emerged that have a direct interest in deep-sea biodiversity conservation, and the environmental impact of ocean mining. These include INDEEP, which evolved from the 10-year Census of Marine Life program, the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative that has recently hosted several high profile international meetings, and the VentBase forum of academics, industry and regulators that aims to develop environmental best practices and informational documents for all stakeholders involved in Seafloor Massive Sulphide (SMS) mining. InterRidge, currently hosted by China, represents a decades old partnership of deep-sea biologists and economic geologists who discovered the more than 100 known hydrothermal vent fields and SMS deposits on midocean ridges and in other settings of seafloor volcanism. In 2012 InterRidge formed an industry liaison group to examine how the mid-ocean ridge researcher community could contribute to the development of environmentally responsible practices for the exploration and exploitation of SMS deposits. While initial meetings with industry were promising, InterRidge members are currently debating the relative merits of sharing exploration know-how and understanding of vent ecosystems with industry, against the need to maintain their independence as stewards of deep-sea ecosystems."

Sep 1, 2014

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the ninth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for more than 30 new entries. Several articles and publications crossed the author's desk this past year that relate to mineral valuation and mineral royalty. Tom Loucks presented a paper, "The Valuation of Hard Rock Mineral Property," at the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation in Santa Fe, NM in July, 1990. His paper gives an indepth explanation of the definitions and concepts related to mineral valuation. It includes descriptions of numerous legal cases that have dealt with mineral valuation and proper reference is given for each case. Loucks works for the Denver Mining Finance Co. Gold royalties generally range from 5% to 7%, net smelter return. However, Severn Brown sent information that shows a much wider variation. Echo Bay Mines reported in its 1989 annual report royalties that range from 1.5 % to 30% for gold from various gold properties. Brown also sent a copy of an article that appeared in the Dec. 27, 1982, issue of Fortune magazine. This issue carried an article by Walter Guzzardi, Jr. "The Huge Find in Roy Ash's Backyard." The article gives the history of Newmont's leasing in Nevada on property that became the Carlin, Bootstrap and Blue Star Mines. The article states that the initial royalty was 10% that escalated to more than 16%. Another property, the site of Gold Quarry, provides an 18% royalty to the same own¬ers. The article makes interesting reading for those interested in mining history.

Jan 1, 1991