Search Documents

By R. C. Kirkman

Your interesting and well-written paper brings up the issue of the purpose or use of a mineral property appraisal, specifically the value of these evaluations when the quality and quantity of the mineral resource to be exploited have not been thoroughly investigated. I am not a practicing professional in regards to valuation of limestone investment opportunities. I simply wish to make a few generic observations about the appraisal process in order to stimulate meaningful thinking by appraisal professionals whose reports may be reviewed by professional investors and "laypersons" alike. It is my contention that the analysis given in your paper is very thorough, considering the data that was made available to you. But I would not like to be the person responsible for investment decision making without having a feel for the risk involved. Therefore, the reviewer must classify this type of analysis as relatively "subjective" because they have not received an indication of the inherent risk involved in exploiting a mineral resource. This risk can best be quantified by using probabilistic methods in conjunction with the quality and quantity of the mineral to be produced. Most appraisals passively ignore this problem. Specifically, you have accurately identified the various costs and values entering the economic appraisal process. These can usually be quantified with a great deal more certainty than the capability of the resource to provide 25 years of quality material. Also, in Cases A (West Virginia) and B (Alabama), you are fortunate enough to have previous operations data. What if there had never been production from these properties? How does a potential mineral property investor evaluate the resource capability to meet various projected financial outcomes without spending a good deal of up-front capital to drill and delineate enough quality resources for a 20-plus year operation.

Jan 1, 1990

Discussion of the paper presented at the Manchester Geological and Mining Society's general meeting held in Manchester, April 11th 1916, with Mr. Leonard R. Fletcher, President, in the chair, included questions asked and points for discussion raised by Bramall V., Paton J.D., Fletcher L.R., Siddall F.N., Stoker A. and Stone T., in particular on how to eliminate dust

Dec 1, 1916

Discussion of the paper presented at the North Staffordshire Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers' general meeting held in Stoke-on-Trent, March 27th 1916, with Mr. John Gregory, President, in the chair, included contributions by Gregory J., Cadman J., Hartley J.W., Wain E.B. and Henshaw A.M., followed by the author's reply

Dec 1, 1916

By F. L. D. Cloete

The following discussion relates to the paper by G. S. Hansford, C. D. Levy, and J. W. de Kock that appeared in the March 1976 issue of the Journal (vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 363-369) Competition for student members Each year the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy offers a prize (or prizes should the entries warrant it) of up to RI00 for the best paper or dissertation on a topic appropriate to the interests of the Institute. Engineering in South West Africa The SW A Engineering Profession Steering Committee was established on 4th April, 1977, its purpose being to formulate an Act covering the engineering profession in South West Africa.

Jan 1, 1978

By Gibson J.

Written discussion contributions to the paper presented at the North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers' general meeting held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 12th February 1916, with Mr. T.Y. Greener, President, in the chair, comprise comments by Kilpatrick W.M., Routledge W.H., Watson J. and Smith W., along with the author's reply. Also briefly noted are the demonstration of two pieces of equipment, an incline chock and a cage arrestor

Dec 1, 1916

DISCUSSION: The value of incentive payments in the mining industry by K; SMITH Published in the Journal, May 1974 H. P. CARLISLE* The author has drawn attention to one of the most important of mining problems, viz productivity, and in so doing has highlighted, perhaps inadvertently, the difficulty of assessing productivity. Competition for Students Each year the Institute offers a prize (or prizes should the entries warrant it) of up to R100 for the best paper or dissertation on a topic appropriate to the interests of the Institute. Corrigendum The Journal, May 1974, p. 377 We regret that the last portion of A. A. Hazell's contribution to the paper 'The value of incentive payments in the mining industry' by K. Smith was printed in the wrong sequence.

Jan 10, 1974

G. A. Moore—The tin-fusion method has been a very favorable possibility for many years. The authors apparently have settled the question that delayed the method for a long time by showing that no hydrogen is absorbed in the tin. This, of course, is very important. I want to make a few remarks concerning the absolute accuracy of analysis, which must be the final basis for deciding among the various methods. From the figures in the paper, there seems to be some re-maining slight discrepancy on the actual amount of hydrogen present in various samples which may be presumed essentially identical. (This is of the order of the precision of individual analyses but appears in averaged results.) From the analyst's viewpoint, the tally of hydrogen content can be regarded as occurring in three portions. First is a large portion which comes off easily and automatically during sample storage and later on heating in the apparatus. This is fairly easily analyzed. Second is an item which may be either positive or negative in the tally sheet. In warm or hot evolution, this is a portion which, in practice, can never be re-

Jan 1, 1951

T.B.King (Depaytment of Metallurgy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)— A valuable contribution of the authors is in the factual information which they have been able to gather; this type of information is quite difficult to obtain. In many respects, however, it would have been better if they had not subsequently embarked on a discussion of the chemistry of the converter process. It seems inconceivable that the authors do not refer to the papers of Schuhmann and his associates14 which have set the thermodynamic foundation for the whole copper smelting operation. In addition, a very useful review on the physical chemistry of copper smelting by Ruddle 5 appeared as long ago as 1953. An examination of this literature would have convinced the authors that there is no cause to be surprised at a correlation between the magnetic content and the silica content of converter slags, though they rightly point out that one should distinguish between the total magnetite content of the slag and the amount of magnetite which may be considered to be in solution. It is not true that the lowest melting converter slag is that corresponding to the eutectic between ferrous oxide and silica. The simplest slag system which can be considered is a three-component system, since both ferric and ferrous iron are present. As Schuhmann, Powell, and Michal have shown, there are lower melting compositions than this eutectic in the ternary system. The most unfortunate impression given by this paper is that the driving force for chemical reaction is determined by the heat of reaction: of course the entropy change must be taken into account. It would have been more correct to list, in Table VI, values for free energies of formation. Nor can it be said that the data in Table VI represent the "best available data." They do not corregtond with any of the recent, acknowledged sources. F. E. Lathe and L. Hodnett(author's reply)— We are pleased that Dr. King finds the factual information in our uawer of some interest. Dr. King suggests that it would have been better if our analysis and discussion of the data had been omitted, largely because our list of references is so. incomplete. If he will carefully read our introduction, he will see that the questionnaire was sent out in the hope of obtaining data which would throw light on certain questions relating to the use of converter refractories. We did not attempt (nor would the AIME have published!) a complete review of the literature on copper converting, as Dr. King has apparently assumed, nor indeed a complete analysis of the data submitted, but tried only to find a sound basis for the choice of refractories, taking into consideration common variations in converter practice. We hope our paper indicates that, by raising the silica content of the converter slag and operating at a higher temperature, the normal circulating load of magnetite can be greatly reduced, and the whole reverberatory-converter operation improved to a major degree, with resultant important savings. Under such operating conditions, chrome-magnesite brick may be expected to stand up better than those of straight magnesite. Regardless of the choice as between these brick types, however, we find the cost of converter refractories to be so low in comparison with other converter costs as to justify operation under the more severe conditions suggested. Valuable as are the papers by Schuhmann and associates and the book by Ruddle, we make no apology for omitting reference to them, nor for using heats of reaction without mention of entropy changes or free energies of formation. Our primary object was to interest the practicing copper metallurgist, with whose language we may claim to be fairly familiar; we think it would have been unwise to include the highly theoretical phases of the subject which Dr. King suggests. The interest shown in our preliminary paper presented at the New York meeting in 1956, and the trends in practice whtat we have observed since that time, suggest that we did not wholly miss the target. In conclusion, we sincerely hope that Professors King and Schuhmann will independently review the data obtained in our questionnaire and submit a paper giving their own recommendations as to the choice of refractories and the particular converter operating conditions which will result in the lowest overall cost of copper smelting and converting.

Jan 1, 1960

E. Hill, South Norwalk, Conn. (communication to the Secretary*) :—The phenomenon described by Dr. Ledoux, involving an apparently abnormal high temperature in the air-cylinders of compressors, has not been, so far as I know, discussed in technical literature. The common formula for the adiabatic compression of dry air does not account for heat suficient to flash ordinarily decent cylinder-oils, nor do the text-books include in their theoretical statements any quantitative consideration of the effect of leaks in the ideal machines which they contemplate. This lack I have endeavored to supply by preparing, in the form of a circular, for the use of the customers and correspondents of the Norwalk Iron-Works, a brief mathematical

Jan 1, 1904

Adolph Greiner, Seraing, Belgium:—I have nothing special to add to Professor Hubert's paper except to say that there are some little things that it would be well to have corrected when the paper comes to be published. In dealing with the thermal efficiency of the engine, you will find that the 29.84 per cent. was a very high one. Professor Hubert has forgotten those engines built under the Cockerill type, but he has referred to them in Appendix 11. At our works at Cockerill we have built 63 engines, giving 63,000 h.p., and the other companies who have received licenses have built 113 engines, making 103,000 h.p., and aggregating 176 engines and 166,000 h.p. Eight years ago I had the pleasure of giving to the Institute the results obtained up to that time. Since then a good many engines have been constructed. In 1898 I thought a blast-furnace producing 100 tons of pig iron would allow 3,000 h.p. Professor Witz and Professor Hubert show that with the same production of pig the new engines take 3,800 h.p. out of the gas. At present at Cockerill we make 700 to 800 tons of pig iron per day, and we hope to have 26,000 h.p. in a few years. At present we have only half of that in gas-engines, but we hope to have in five or six years all the gas out of these furnaces to the number of 25,000 or 26,000 h.p. Tom WEstGarth, Middlesbrough, England :—My contribution is not a paper in the ordinary sense of the word, because I am sure you will agree with me that what I have written is only supplementary to the other two papers. The notes are schedules of the larger-size gas-engines built by British engine-makers, of 500 h.p. and upwards. If you look at the schedules you will find that in England gas-engines have become quite ordinary motors for a good many purposes. It was at first thought that gas-engines were troublesome, and ill-

Jan 1, 1907

R. W. Raymond, New Pork, N. Y.:—I think Mr. Bache has put his finger on the chief source of the danger of dust-, or gas-and-dust, explosions in collieries. 1 mean the persistent determination of the miners' unions to increase their weekly wages by the excessive use of explosives. This would not be feasible if coal-miners were paid by the day; but this form of payment is, for many reasons, not economically practicable; and the universal practice is to pay for the winning of coal according to the quantity produced. If the miner, by using a large amount of powder, can throw down a large amount of coal without corresponding labor on his own part in undercutting and drilling, he will receive more money for less work, provided he is paid for everything—merchantable coal, worth-less dust, slate, and " bone "—resulting from such a method. My attention was called to this matter many years ago by an admirable report of Prof. W. B. Potter, a past- President of the Institute, on the conditions obtaining in this respect in the Illinois coal-field. It was made very clear in that report that considerations of danger to workmen or loyalty to employers could not be relied upon to prevent miners from employing this perilous and wasteful method of increasing their own immediate receipts. So far as I know, only three remedies have been attempted, namely: the enforcement of discipline as to the methods of mining; the refusal to pay for dust, etc., produced by the miners'methods; and restriction upon the use of explosives, effected by requiring the miner to purchase them from the employer, at a price so high as to make it unprofitable for him to use them in excess. All of these attempted remedies have encountered the bitter opposition of the miners' unions. The enforcement of discipline has become almost impossible, if discipline be (as it should be) understood to involve punishment for the violation of rules when no disaster has followed. I

Jan 1, 1910

HeRbert A. MeGRaw, San Luis de la Paz, Guanajuato, Mex. (communication to the Secretary*) :—Although Mr. Bordeaux prefaces his paper with the statement-that it is a general outline of practice in the Republic, many of his statements seem to be made from the view-point of a particular case, which does not always agree with general practice. For the purpose of calling attention to some of these variations, I respectfully offer the following comments: The operation of crushing and grinding is performed by so many different methods and systems that it is useless to select any one as the standard. However, primary crushing in rock-breakers followed by stamps is thus far so general that it might be so classified. Whether or not it is the best way, is open to question. Regrinding may be performed by any of the various types of Chilean mills, Huntington mills, or similar machines, or the material may be taken directly from the stamps and delivered to the tube-mills. Mr. Bordeaux's statement that " the slimes can be treated only by decantation; the new Butters slime-filter, as used in Nevada, does not seem to be successful with silver-ores," is surely an error. All over Mexico many of the purely silver-ores are being successfully handled by the Butters or similar filters, such as the Moore and the Burt filters, and a letter to the manufacturers of these filters will undoubtedly bring a list of the silver-ores now being successfully treated in this way. The statement that crushing silver-ores in solution is impossible is equally erroneous. Most modern mills crush the ore in solution, in some cases containing as much as 0.12 per cent, of KCN. I cannot for the moment recall any modern mill in Mexico which does not follow this practice. There may be some reason for it in particular instances, but, generally speaking, the practice is to crush in solution. Care in installation avoids any mechanical loss of cyanide, and the chemical loss is so small as to be negligible.

Jan 1, 1910

William Kent, New York, N. Y.:—The Institute may congratulate itself on the opportunity of reading the splendid address of President Brunton. It is an admirable summary of the progress that has been made in the mining and metallurgical arts in recent years. The paper rightly gives the chief credit for this progress to the aid which has been rendered to these arts by the advances in mechanics, chemistry, and electricity. It is notable that most of the headings in Mr. Brunton's address refer to the work of the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer, and the chemist, rather than to that of the specialist in mining-operations. It seems that the most successful mining engineer of the present day is the one who makes the most intelligent application of the inventions and designs of engineers and others who are not directly engaged in mining. A tabulation of the headings of the address, grouped as below, shows this most clearly. Work of the Mechanical Engineer—Rock-drills, hoisting-machinery, tramming, pumping, ventilation, dredging, Sampling, concentration, briquetting, fume-recovery. Work of the Electrical Engineer—Electric machinery for hoisting, pumping, tramming, lighting and signaling, electric transmission, electric smelting. Work of the Chemist and Metallurgist—Explosives, chlorina-tion, cyanidation, roasting, lead-smelting, and copper-smelting. Work of the Geologist—Economic geology. Work of the Mining Engineer—Mine-mapping, surface-mining, timbering, tunneling; and planning and supervision of the work in general. The mining engineer of the present day, who is in responsible charge of a large plant, finds his chief work not in doing those things he was trained to do as a specialist, but in making use of the knowledge of geologists, chemists, and electrical and

Jan 1, 1910

DR. PeRsifor Frazer, Philadelphia, Pa. (communication to the Secretary):* Mr. Campbell's very interesting contribution, after complimentary mention, finally decides against the acceptance of the classification proposed by me in a paper bearing the same title and read at the Wilkes-Barre meeting, May, 1877.2 That paper was written primarily for the Second Geological

Jan 1, 1906

Mr. A. Bement, Chicago, Ill. (communication to the Secretary*) :—Mr. Campbell, in proposing his method of sampling coal-seams, has rendered an important service in insisting on the presentation of an adequate history of the sample; and it is to be hoped that his suggestion will meet with further recommendation. In my opinion it is fully as important that a complete description of the sample and the conditions surrounding its taking be given, as the results of the analysis itself; and if such should become standard practice, coal-analysis would assume greater value. As it is, the published data are very confusing, and only to an extremely small extent are they really useful. The method suggested by Mr. Campbell, however, cannot have a general application; for example, in the Eastern Interior coal-basin, particularly at the present time, the output consists largely in grades other than mine-run, which in Illinois, for the year 1905, was only about 24 per cent. of the total product; and inasmuch as Mr. Campbell's method of sampling cannot give values for any other grade than mine-run, my contention that, at best, it can have but a limited application, is apparent. To illustrate the argument, there are two coal-seams, with the characteristics of which I am particularly familiar; each seam, as it lies in the ground, contains almost exactly 10 per cent. of ash; the lump coal from one of these seams ranges from 10 to 11 per cent. of ash, but from the other seam it does not average more than 6 per cent., although, as before mentioned, the average percentage of ash in the full seam is the same for each case. A careful and proper sampling of coal-seams, to be followed by analyeis, is to be commended in connection with all investigation; in fact, it should precede any careful study. A serious error, however, may be made in attempting to use such results to set values on the product as shipped or received. The only

Jan 1, 1906

W. L. SaundeRs, New York City (communication to the Secretary*):—Notwithstanding the sweeping statements made by Mr. Clarke in this paper, the friends of compressed air are not dismayed. There is no war between electricity and compressed air. Each one has its field of usefulness, and in that field each is supreme. In spite of commercial interests, in spite of prejudices and the enthusiasm of the inventor, the thing that is best will survive and flourish. At least ten years ago, our engineering papers contained large advertisements and pages of reading-matter about the application of electricity to mines, recording the introduction of numerous rock-drilling plants, and claiming that the problem had been solved, greatly to the advantage of the miner and with promise of large profits to the manufacturers of electrical apparatus. Edison and Thomson labored to apply electricity to mines, and each believed that the probabilities of success were great. This was the period of the solelloid rock-drill, which mas admirably suited, theoretically, to the percussive principle and in the development of which hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent without satisfactory result. I have searched in vain for a standard mining equipment where electric rock-drills are in constant, commercial operation. During a recent trip made from New York to California, I visited most of the important mines of the West and failed to discover a single electric equipment, so far as this class of mining-work is concerned. If any one will inform me where there exists today an electric-drilling equipment in constant service in mines in the United States, I shall be glad to receive the information. Mr. Clarke has been for some years an active and intelligent writer on the subject of electricity for mining. Whenever his

Jan 1, 1904

E. Windsor Richards, London, England:—In reading this paper the most interesting point to me mas the question of the maximum percentage of phosphorus allowable in the steel rail. Mr. Colby said, and we will all agree with him, that the engineer knew, and even a steel-rail maker grants that phosphorus is the most undesirable constituent of steel. We in England have been for a long time considering a specification for the supply of steel rails. This matter has been taken up by the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Mechanical Engineers, the Iron and Steel Institute, the Institute of Naval Architects, and the Electrical Engineers. Committees have been formed,and the whole matter has received most careful attention. They arrived at last at an analysis which I will read: " The carbon is to be from 0.35 to 0.5 per cent.; the manganese from 0.7 to 1.0 per cent.; the silicon, not to exceed 0.10 per cent.; phosphorus, 0.07; and sulphur, 0.07 per cent." As to the phosphorus, which is the most important point of all in the analysis, we have for many years, and indeed until very lately, always agreed to supply steel which would not contain above 0.06 per cent. of phosphorus. Iron-ores are not quite as good now as they were formerly, and the manufacturers at the meetings of the committees referred to, tried to obtain an increase in the allowance of phosphorus. They asked the Sub-committee to agree to 0.08 per cent. of phosphorus. They tried all they possibly could to obtain that; but they failed. English engineers in Great George Street and all over England, representing the important Associa tions I have mentioned, would only agree to 0.07 per cent. and that is the maximum allowance of phosphorus. Mr. Colby is an able advocate, but with all his ability he would not have been able to persuade the English engineers to agree to 0.08 per cent.

Jan 1, 1907

James DouGlas, New York, N. Y. (communication to the Secretary*):—In my paper on the Conservation of Natural Resources, I referred to the slow replacement of bee-hive ovens by the by-product ovens as a most notable instance of waste. And I quoted from Mr. Parker's report for 1906 an explanation given by him in accounting for the small production of by-product coke. It was that the market for the by-products of the coke-ovens was so limited that some of the ovens constructed were out of operation. His report on the manufacture of coke in 1908' does not record an improvement, and attributes the strange fact that we alone, of all the industrial peoples, delay the adoption of this cardinal improvement from the continuance of the same almost inexplicable cause. To quote again from his report, he says (p. 241): "The year 1908 was not marked by any notable gain in the construction of byproduct coking plants, though some new work was done. There was a net increase

Jan 1, 1910

George Smith, Sydney, N. S. Wales (communication to the Secretary): The very interesting paper by Mr. Emmons on " The Secondary Enrichment of Ore-Deposits " has just come under my notice; and its reference to my own paper* on " The OreDeposits of the Australian Broken Hill Consols Mine "† is therefore only noted some two and a half years after its publi-

Jan 1, 1903

William Metcalf, Pittsburg, Pa. (communication to the Secretary*): I am greatly pleased that some one has at last reached what I have long regarded as the only rational explanation yet given of the reasons why steel hardens. Mr. Field claims originality; and doubtless he is entitled to it, but not to priority, mhich must be granted to Prof. John W. Langley.' The difference between them is that Langley says " Tension, probably molecular," and Field says " Tension, probably atomic "; in either case the vital thing after solution is tension. Mr. Field's argument carries with it the idea of increase of density with hardness; if he mill study the facts farther he will observe that the case is just the reverse; that is, the greater the hardness the less the specific gravity; it was just this fact that led Langley to his conclusion, in mhich I have always concurred. Field agrees with Langley that the first requisite for perfect hardening is complete solution of the carbon, not combination; and all of the facts agree with this conclusion. The fact that increase of hardness causes reduction of density was first brought to my notice some 40 years ago, when Major William Wade was testing Jones & Laughlin's cold-rolled iron, and I mas his assistant. We found the well-known increase of tenacity, compressive strength, torsional resistance, and hardness. Specific-gravity tests showed that the cold-rolled iron was less dense than the hot-rolled bars. Major Wade was so surprised at this result that he gave me a lot of samples to weigh, saying that he was not satisfied with

Jan 1, 1904