Search Documents

By Richard Kojo Gabah

Western mining companies are entering an African critical minerals market where access is harder to secure, risk is being priced more sharply, and execution advantages are increasingly decisive. The continent holds significant reserves and production potential of cobalt, lithium, copper, graphite, manganese and rare earths critical to the energy transition, yet Chinese-aligned capital has built a structural edge in access and execution speed. Simply signing narrow offtake agreements to buy output is no longer sufficient. Western firms win when they convert quality orebodies into bankable projects by reducing aboveground risk faster than competitors through integrated infrastructure access, durable fiscal alignment, and credible local value creation. Western mining companies will break into Africa by pairing capital with partnership, building corridors enabling infrastructure and power, designing credible value addition pathways and operating in a way that is politically durable through transparency, community benefit and fiscal terms that share upside in commodity upcycles. This feature article offers a practical playbook for mining executives and investors. The core argument is straightforward. Winning in Africa requires competing on the full system around the mine. Corridors and power, processing pathways, contract durability, community benefit and regulatory execution are now decisive variables in project valuation and capital access.

Mar 1, 2026

By Gordon R. Haworth

Conditions affecting minerals investments are continuing to change at an increasing rate, and in this paper we will attempt to predict the course of mine financing in the future. We will first review the situation historically and then examine the problems and constraints that are now making the financing task more difficult. Suggested solutions are discussed, and a new method of financing a group of mining projects is hypothesized.

Jan 1, 1977

By Neil Westoll

Extensive Global Network ?Working together, AECOM provides clients with a unique blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence. ?43,000+ team members worldwide ?450+ offices ?100+ countries ?6 continents The Changing Climate ?Climate change is ?official??IPCC 2007 ?Climate change will create instability, change and opportunities ?Companies that are resilient and adapt will survive and evolve ?CO2/GHG emissions will be curbed by legislation ?How will this affect the mining industry? ?How can the mining industry adapt to the new realities?

May 1, 2009

Despite the strange names given to its parts, the eye is not a very complicated organ. If you think of the eye simply as a detector of light, you will be able to understand the mechanics of central vision, peripheral vision and adaptation described below. These three processes of seeing are basic, not only to mining, but also to everyday activities. A number of simple experiments are described In this chapter to demonstrate different types of seeing processes. Try the experiments. They really make the point. Light rays reflecting from objects enter the eye through a lens and fall on the back surface called the retina. The retina 1s lined with millions of tiny light sensors called "rods" and "cones." These sensors, in turn, are connected to the brain by the optic nerve.

Jan 1, 1976

By A. Ojanen, T-L. Huggare, A. Kuivala

An electrolytic zinc plant with a capacity of 90,000 tons/year went on stream in Kokkola, Finland, in late 1969. It is a standard electrolytic zinc process plant; however, it has been subjected to several process improvements and enlargements during its time of operation. A fluidized bed roaster treats 500 tons/day of zinc concentrates which also contain mercury. Since the mercury evaporates completely in the roasting process, a mercury removal unit has been added to prevent, contamination of sulphuric acid produced in the neighbouring acid plant. The same unit also removes selenium from the roaster gases. In a separate unit, about 6 tons a year of metallic 99.999% mercury is recovered. The neutral leaching, originally a batch process, has been converted to a continuous operation, and a residue treatment system comprising hot acid leaching and jarosite precipitation has been added. Purification comprises a "hot arsenic-zinc dust" step and a cadmium removal step with zinc dust, both operated batchwise. Purification residues are used to make about 200 tons/ year of 99.99570 cadmium in a process developed by Outokumpu Oy. The electrolytic precipitation of zinc carried out at medium current density gives zinc of 99. 995% purity.

Jan 1, 1973

By WALTER VOIGTLANDER

FOR nearly 100 years wire rope has been fabricated in much the same way. To the great majority of mine superintendents wire rope is just wire rope, little or no semblance of individuality or identifying characteristics. Such an impression was fairly justified until three or four years ago when a practical means was found of performing or preshaping the wires and strands. This discovery permitted a revolutionary change in wire rope manufacture. Instead of merely twisting a number of wires into a strand, then twisting several strands into a complete rope (which twisting would naturally result in great internal strain, thus reducing the resiliency and over-all efficiency of the completed rope), the preformed wires and strands were laid in place without force or twisting. The obvious result was a rope more nearly approximating mechanical perfection. The applied loads are more evenly distributed throughout the component wires and strands, thus reducing unbalanced wire stresses. This results in a higher safety factor. The fact that preformed rope will not unravel when untied at the ends proves the absence of a torsional stress that exists in ordinary rope. A greater useful allowable stress in the wires is therefore possible in actual operating service.

Jan 1, 1926

By AIME AIME

WHEN H. I. Smith joined the Institute back in 1908, he was an instructor in mining and metallurgy at Penn State the college from which he had graduated the year before with a B.S. degree. He had not gone far afield for his education, for he was born, February 15, 1984 at Finleyville, Pa., a small village some fourteen miles south of Pittsburgh and without doubt famous chiefly as H. I.'s birthplace. The summer that he graduated he took a trip to the copper mines Arizona and Mexico and en route worked for four weeks for the Portland Gold Mining Co. at Cripple Creek, Colo., as a mucker and trammer. The next summer he roamed farther afield mines and metallurgical works in Europe. Wishing to see more of Arizona, he left the Penn State faculty early in 1909 and went out to Wenden in that State to become mining engineer and assistant superintendent of something called the Corona Copper Co., with 72 mining claims and a one-mule-powered whim for a hoist. When that job folded he helped build the Santa Fe railroad from Parker. Ariza., to Danby Cialif., and then came back to Pennsylvania to enter Government services as a junior mining engineer with the Bureau of Mines.

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1939

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1933

Jan 1, 1934

By Bradley Stoughton

FRom 1886 to 1889, approximately, Henry M. Howe was engaged most actively in preparing his Afetallugy of Sieei, which became the foundation for his leadership in the science of physical metallurgy of steel. During the same period, Hadfield was developing the first of the industrially-important alloy steels, and Riley was initiating the commercialization of nickel steel. Both of these alloys are treated briefly in Howe's book; indeed, he missed practically nothing of interest in all the steel literature preceding 1889. There had been many good books on steel before his, but none of the same character. His genius, like that of Aristotle and Francis Bacon, manifested itself in the painstaking collection of data, followed by their coordination and interpretation. Not only manganese and nickel steels were discussed, but several which most of us, with our tendency to overlook the past, are wont to regard as exclusively recent developments, such as: silicon, chrome, copper, tungsten, vanadium, titanium, chrome-tungsten and many other steels. But Howe never devoted much special attention, in his writings, to alloy steels; the science of the relations of iron and carbon offered field enough even for his capacity for constructive thought. And, today we find the science of alloy steels in much the same condition as was the metallurgy of steel before Howe wrote his first great book. Many, many important facts have been presented to the world, especially by Sir Robert Hadfield, James Riley, Henri le Chatelier, Kotaro Honda and his associates, Maunsel White, Harry Brearley, and a host of others. Several books have been devoted wholly or chiefly to alloy steels, such as those by Hibbard, Mars, Heyn and Wetzell, Grube, Burnham, Gillett and Mack, Billón, Brearley, Monypenny, Becker, Savoia, Sauveur, Guillet, Tammann, Guertler, Goerens, Guia, Wuest, Ledebur, Schenck, Aitchison, Osann, Guettier, Buchetti, Escard. The vast number of data on the subject are indicated by a bibliography' which was collected in preparing this address. It covers the years 1911 to

Jan 1, 1927

By William Campbell

FiRst I must express my deep appreciation for the honor of being privileged to give the Howe Memorial Lecture this year and at the same time my feeling of inadequacy to do justice to the subject. The first Howe lecturer was most fittingly, Professor Sauveur, his contemporary and friend, and the subject was beta iron. Last year the second Howe lecture was delivered by Dr. Mathews, one of his most distinguished pupils, who spoke on austenite. This year, the Howe Professor of Metallurgy was chosen to deliver the third annual lecture, and the subject ought to be martensite. No one but Professor Sauveur could have brought to life what was considered by many to have been dead and buried, and he so persuasively and convincingly proved to us by his experiments the existence of something that the followers of that new cult "X-Ray and Crystal Structure " would have us believe is simply alpha iron. And Dr. Mathews from his wide practical experience was so easily able to convince us that austenite was not only the most wonderful of the iron-carbon series, but that it was the wonder alloy of the future. If I were to follow in the footsteps of my distinguished predecessors, I would talk to you about martensite. But when I had planned this lecture, I found that I was writing about Professor Howe and his work and his influence on the science of metals of today, and that martensite had become the secondary theme. And when finally I was obliged to choose a title, I remembered that it was in 1901 I came from Roberts-Austen with a letter of introduction to his very dear friend, Henry Marion Howe, at the Columbia School of Mines, to continue my work at the next bench to Dr. Mathews. Since then a quarter of a century has gone by, and during that time all branches of science seem to have been remade, so great has been our advancement in knowledge and discovery. And now that Metallography has finally established its place as an important branch of science, with its own textbooks and literature, I would like to review what seem to me to be the most important advances we have made in the last 25 years. To do this, I would start with Howe's "Iron, Steel and Other Alloys," and end with Jeffries and Archer's " Science of Metals." In the preface of the former, Professor Howe wrote: My warmest thanks are due to the friends who have aided me with their counsel and knowledge. In particular, let me thank most sincerely Prof. Margaret E. Maltby

Jan 1, 1926

By Henry D. Hibbard

At the beginning of a Henry M. Howe lecture it seems fitting to refer to Howe's great contributions to steel metallurgy, and particularly to the literature thereof. Most of my predecessors in this role have been able, from their association with him, to give direct testimony as to his great services; but although connected with him for years in a business way, I am less familiar with what might be called his academic side, except as it is embodied in his utterances, written and oral. Howe was adept in his genial way in extracting information in any line which, at the time, was of interest to him. In a technical lecture one expects as a rule new knowledge—something about recent advances relating to the subject. On this occasion, however, I will ask you to go back with me to the primary department of steel lore, as the title of my lecture shows, to review the more fundamental features in that field for the purpose of seeking some gaps which we can fill and so give the subject renewed interest. In thus going back one must inevitably repeat many familiar facts, but that seems to be necessary in order to reach a clear understanding of the unrecorded matters. The full interpretation of a steel analysis is at present unattainable, though much progress toward that end has been made. The ultimate analysis, giving the percentages of the five commonly determined elements, does indeed usually give a fair idea of what the steel is, and is ordinarily enough, with knowledge of its history and physical condition, to enable it to be assigned to some purpose or use for which it is reasonably suitable. But discrepancies arise. Every maker and every user of steel knows, from at least occasional examples in his own experience, that the ultimate analysis is insufficient by itself to enable one to tell positively, from its interpretation, either the mechanical properties of the steel or its adaptability to the purpose for which it was made. Further, if, while having the specified composition, it is abnormal or unsatisfactory, why it is so. Good, bad and indifferent steels may have substantially the same ultimate analysis.

By Leo F. Reinartz

It was with humility that I accepted the invitation of the Board of Directors of our Institute to deliver the Twentieth Howe Memorial Lecture. Many previous lecturers could speak from personal experience of the great work done by Professor Howe. It was not my privilege to be one of his students but, indirectly, I came under the influence of his work many years ago. My mentor in Metallurgy at Carnegie Institute of Technology, Prof. Fred Crab tree, was an ardent admirer of Professor Howe and his work. Professor Crabtree taught me early to appreciate Professor Howe's love of truth and keen desire to find a scientific reason for every metallurgical phenomenon. In this early search, Professor Howe encountered many unexplainable facts. Nevertheless, in the classic text, "The Metallurgy of Steel," published in 1891, he indicated that he believed Research could light the way. Under the heading of "The Treachery of Steel" he said: "In the early use of Bessemer and Open Hearth Steel, many then unexplained and hence mysterious failures occurred. With our present knowledge, an easy explanation of most of them would probably have been seen. But even today certain unexplained and apparently inexpli- cable failures occur in steel; inexplicable in spite of full and intelligent investigation." Then Professor Howe continued to talk about "the trustworthiness of steel" in the following manner: First, the steel-maker has learned by experience. He knows today far better the effects of a high percentage of carbon or of phosphorus; of cracks, pipes and blow-holes; of segregation and imperfect mixing; of over-heating; of finishing too hot or too cold. Knowing, he guards against them more effectually, and keeps at home much steel that he would formerly have sent into the market. Those who would not, or could not learn and do, have been driven out of the business; the conditions necessary for producing good sound steel by the acid Bessemer and the acid Open Hearth processes have been mastered. By and by, the basic process came along with new conditions, new liabilities to unsoundness, a great hue and cry about mysterious fractures followed, and Lloyd's register provisionally forbade the use of basic steel. Much basic steel was irregular and brittle throughout; too much carbon, too much phosphorus, too cold teemings—imperfect mixing. Still there was little doubt that, with further experience, these difficulties of the basic process would be mastered as those of the acid process had been. This shows that Professor Howe could not take anything for granted. Believing that careful research would find the answer to all mysterious phenomena, he was several generations ahead of the practical acceptance and adoption of this principle.

Jan 1, 1943

By Leo F. Reinartz

It was with humility that I accepted the invitation of the Board of Directors of our Institute to deliver the Twentieth Howe Memorial Lecture. Many previous lecturers could speak from personal experience of the great work done by Professor Howe. It was not my privilege to be one of his students but, indirectly, I came under the influence of his work many years ago. My mentor in Metallurgy at Carnegie Institute of Technology, Prof. Fred Crab tree, was an ardent admirer of Professor Howe and his work. Professor Crabtree taught me early to appreciate Professor Howe's love of truth and keen desire to find a scientific reason for every metallurgical phenomenon. In this early search, Professor Howe encountered many unexplainable facts. Nevertheless, in the classic text, "The Metallurgy of Steel," published in 1891, he indicated that he believed Research could light the way. Under the heading of "The Treachery of Steel" he said: "In the early use of Bessemer and Open Hearth Steel, many then unexplained and hence mysterious failures occurred. With our present knowledge, an easy explanation of most of them would probably have been seen. But even today certain unexplained and apparently inexpli- cable failures occur in steel; inexplicable in spite of full and intelligent investigation." Then Professor Howe continued to talk about "the trustworthiness of steel" in the following manner: First, the steel-maker has learned by experience. He knows today far better the effects of a high percentage of carbon or of phosphorus; of cracks, pipes and blow-holes; of segregation and imperfect mixing; of over-heating; of finishing too hot or too cold. Knowing, he guards against them more effectually, and keeps at home much steel that he would formerly have sent into the market. Those who would not, or could not learn and do, have been driven out of the business; the conditions necessary for producing good sound steel by the acid Bessemer and the acid Open Hearth processes have been mastered. By and by, the basic process came along with new conditions, new liabilities to unsoundness, a great hue and cry about mysterious fractures followed, and Lloyd's register provisionally forbade the use of basic steel. Much basic steel was irregular and brittle throughout; too much carbon, too much phosphorus, too cold teemings—imperfect mixing. Still there was little doubt that, with further experience, these difficulties of the basic process would be mastered as those of the acid process had been. This shows that Professor Howe could not take anything for granted. Believing that careful research would find the answer to all mysterious phenomena, he was several generations ahead of the practical acceptance and adoption of this principle.

Jan 1, 1943