Search Documents

By William A. Hustrulid

The subject of surface mine development is large. This section covers the fundamental concepts involved in both the open pit mining of thick or steeply dipping deposits as well as the strip mining of thin, shallow, and relatively flat-lying seams or beds. Design involves the marrying of geometries, ore and waste characteristics, equipment, and economics so that the desired result is achieved. Generally, there are many possible combinations from which to choose. For example, extraction over a short time period requires one strategy while quite another is applied for longer times. Variations in supply and demand require some flexibility of operation. Customer requirements impose certain constraints regarding the set of possible designs. Over recent years, planning and operating considerations for surface mining imposed by environmental requirements have increased markedly. There have, at the same time, been enormous advances made in the design aids available to the mine planner. Computer simulation of the various options, whether it be for mine design or equipment selection, provides detailed information for decision making in real time. A significant challenge to the engineer/planner is how to best use the aids avail-able. Because of the widespread use of commercially available and in-house computer software by industry, this section does not deal with the details of planning (for basic coverage of mine development, see Section 7). Rather, some of the basic concepts are stressed. The principles involved in equipment sizing and selection are discussed. A highly important but sometimes over-looked aspect of planning, haul road design, is also covered. For surface mining operations of the future, in-pit crushing and conveying will become even more important. Some of the considerations for application evaluation are included. The section concludes with some future concepts for surface mining.

Jan 1, 2008

By Jozef S. Stachula

"INCO Limited operates eleven under-ground mines in the Sudbury area. The mines are located on the rim of the Sudbury Basin, an oval with the axis in the range of 27 km and 60 km. The ore dips to at least 3000 m below surface. The ores are mined primarily for nickel and copper. Total ore production from underground is in excess of 55 000tonnes per day.Over 40 surface fans have been installed since the late 1960s. All of the fans are adjustable pitch, axial flow units. A major factor influencing ventilation design in the last 30years has been the introduction of diesel equipment underground. Volumes per fan have ranged from 60 m3/sec. to 330 m3/sec., with motors from 100 hp to 2500 hp.Fans of the axial flow type have been commonly used for main fan installations at Canadian mines for many years. The standard arrangement has been to mount these fans horizontally, i.e. with the fan shaft and the long axis of the housing horizontal. This is a natural arrangement for an underground fan, but for a surface installation, a vertically mounted fan has definite advantages.The surface area taken up by a typical vertical fan installation is generally about one quarter that of a horizontal fan of the same capacity (Rutherford, 1957). This is not a problem with isolated fans and fat surface out crop sites, but where the installation is to be near existing buildings, or where there are poor surface soil conditions, space and cost considerations greatly flavour vertical fans."

Jan 1, 1996

By Halter L. Gould

Since the turn of the century there has been a marked increase in population, industrial and economic growth, and in energy requirements in the United States. During this time our energy needs have been met largely by natural gas and petroleum, but as our reserves of these materials are depleted, we are going to depend more and more on our large reserves of coal. The mining of coal for electrical power production has increased at a rapid rate during the past decade. Over half the coal produced in the United States in 1971 came from mines utilizing surface mining operations (Paone, et al, 1974). Surface mining is expected to increase as the rising cost of oil places more demand on coal for energy. About 57 percent of the coal reserves in the United States lie in the area west of the 100th meridian. About one-quarter of this can be mined by current surface methods. This would involve the disturbance of approximately 1.5 million acres (600,000 hectares). By the year 2000, projections indicate disturbance of about 200,000 acres, or 300 square miles, in the West. Mined areas receiving more than 250 mm of annual precipitation can usually be revegetated without irrigation if the spoils are properly shaped, the surface layer consists of suitable plant growth media, and proven techniques in rehabilitating disturbed rangeland are applied. Areas receiving less than 250 mm of annual rainfall or with high evapotranspiration rates pose a more difficult problem. Revegetation of these areas can probably be accomplished only with major inputs of water and good management (National Academy of Science, 1974).

Jan 1, 1978

Introduction Surface mining is a business, and the objective of most businesses is to make as much money as possible within certain responsible constraints. Businesses normally measure their potential to make money by estimating the discounted cash flow rate of return on new projects or the net present value for ongoing projects. These estimators of profitability are calculated using the following well-known equation: [ ] where i is the year, n is the total number of years, A, is the after tax net cash generation in year I, r is the discount rate and NPV is the net present value. In its simplest form, when the value of r makes the NPV equal to zero, the discounted cash flow-rate of return (DCF-ROR) is defined. The maximum economically recoverable reserve is identified at the point where the NPV or DCF-ROR is at a maximum. Depending on the measure used (DCF-ROR or discount rate) for calculating the NPV, the definition of recoverable reserve will be different for exactly the same deposit. Maximization of the measure of profitability and the economically recoverable reserves should not be separated from the mining method and sequence of exploiting the reserve. The surface mining methods may involve multiple-pass development of the resource, mining to the ultimate limit in one pass or a combination of the two methods with backfill. Multiple-pass development When planning a multiple-pass mining operation, it is important to determine the width of pit expansions that are appropriate for a specific situation. Production personnel typically want wide, open work areas where operations can be set up to run at peak efficiency. While this is understandable, the trade-off between highly efficient production operations and an overinvestment in stripping should be carefully weighed. As long as safety is not compromised, a few cents per bank cubic yard increase in operating cost due to lower productivity by working in more confined spaces may well be offset by a decrease in the overall short-term stripping requirements. A mini study on productivity and cost should help quantify this cost before deciding on minimum phasing requirements. The bigger challenge associated with establishing smaller work areas is securing operations and management buy-in to marginally lower productivity when reporting results. When cost reduction is the important management goal and everyone is focusing on unit costs, one sometimes loses sight of the goal of total cost management and, even more importantly, maximum profitability. The first pit should be defined by the first grouping of recoverable mineral that has the highest after-tax unit value and forms a feasible mining unit. The assumed mining of the first pit should be followed by the assumed mining of the second most profitable practical pit or pit expansion. If this process of grouping and sequencing is followed until the profitability approaches zero, the general sequence required to extract the maximum economically recoverable reserve is identified. The curve in Fig. 1 is constructed for a rate of production, R, and a quality management strategy, Q, by calculating the NPV for a series of sequences, with each sequence assuming that the operations are terminated on successively lower profit pits. These values are plotted to form the curve in Fig. 1. If the operation ceases on a pit that has too high of a profit, opportunity is lost, and the NPV is lower than the maximum. The NPV curve peaks and starts to decline before the zero-profit pit is assumed mined. This occurs because the money invested in advanced stripping would have made more money invested at the discount rate than by mining the next pit expansion. Therefore, the maximum economically recoverable reserve is defined by the pit limit corresponding to the maximum NPV. There may be an opportunity to refine the definition of the "ultimate pit" around the maximum-value point. The precise definition of the ultimate pit early in the mine life may or may not be important today, depending on how far off in the future these limits will be reached. By the time an operation must decide on its last increment of economically recoverable reserve. much of the

Jan 1, 2000

By Tegner C. Johnson

Just a few years ago my company was referred to as the Marion Steam Shovel Company. We still make shovels, both two and eight crawler types. The eight crawler stripping shovel appears to have been replaced by the walking dragline for overburden removal and in some cases for the mineral as well. The walking dragline appeared in the coal fields in the early 1930's. It owes its popularity today to the fact that it can cope with overburden depths in excess of 100 feet and with blasted sedimentary rock, all at an 0 & 0 cost of ± 10¢/BCY.

Jan 1, 1974

By O. W. Shimer, D. C. Helms, C. E. Brown

The early history and progress of anthracite stripping, from the first known operation at Summit Hill in 1821 through 1917, was covered in 1917 in a paper by J. B. Warriner,1 then chief engineer, now president of the Lehigh Navigation Coal Co., and stripping methods between 1917 and 1931 were the subject of a paper in 1931 by H. H. Otto,2 of the Hudson Coal Company. The present paper is confined to methods used today on pitching beds in the western middle and southern anthracite fields. The anthracite industry, not unlike other large industries, had been affected for more than a decade by the adverse economic conditions of the country. High development and operating costs and the competition of other fuels caused some collieries to be closed temporarily, while others were permanently abandoned. In order to obtain a larger tonnage at a lower development cost, a larger stripping program was put into effect by many companies. In 1932, stripping operations accounted for 3½ million tons, or 7 per cent of the total anthracite production of the year, and in the next 10 years this increased until more than double that amount, or over 14 per cent of the total production, was from stripping operations. These figures represent the total production of the entire anthracite region; unfortunately, the figures have not been separated from the different fields. There are some operations in the southern and middle western fields where the tonnage obtained from stripping amounts to more than 30 per cent of the total colliery production. Stripping operations on pitching beds present difficult problems. Owing to the various geological formations, a different situation is encountered in nearly every stripping pit; and because of the proximity of an overlying bed, it is very often necessary to load the entire overburden into trucks and haul it out of the pit to the dump area, although back filling and casting is done whenever possible. Beds in the areas described in this paper pitch from 20" to 90° and some are on the invert in many sharp folds and faults. Planning The more successful strippings have had adequate engineering analysis. Some work is being done without much preliminary planning, but many strippings would have failed completely if close supervision by the engineering department had not been maintained. Locations of stripping areas are determined as follows: I. By constructing cross sections over the areas and drilling sufficient diamond-drill or well drill holes to study the strata and to determine the location, thickness and pitch of the beds.

Jan 1, 1946

By Frank H. Macpherson

Few people realize the tremendously important part that Saline and Pulaski Counties in central Arkansas have played in the winning of the war The present favorable war situation might have been very different if we had not had the bauxite produced during the past two years from these two small areas, a total Of about 15 square miles. As a general statement, it can be said that the Arkansas bauxite deposits are, individually, relatively small, irregular in thickness, somewhat scattered and, therefore, compared with coal or iron-ore or open-pit copper deposits, relatively ill adapted to a rapid and drastic expansion in output. A few years ago it would have seemed an impossibility for these two counties to produce over six million long dry tons of bauxite in one year. However, with the cooperation of the operators, that is what happened in 1943, when the state of Arkansas achieved the seemingly impossible with a production of 6,020,684 1 long tons (dried equivalent) of bauxite ore during the calendar year, compared with an average annual production of 323,7252 tons in the period 1931 to 1941. It became apparent early in the year '94' that the united States soon might be drawn into the war, and, therefore, that an immediate study of the domestic metal situation was necessary. Aluminum is by far the most important metal used in the manufacture of aircraft and many other implements of war and it was evident that there would have to be a tremendous increase in the domestic production of bauxite, which is practically the only present source of this metal. AS more than 95 per cent of the known bauxite reserves of the United states was in Arkansas, careful preliminary studies were made in that state by representatives of the united States Bureau of Mines, the United States Geological survey and the War Production Board in the summer of 1941 Reserves in other states also were studied. The result of these studies was a recommendation by the War Production Board that mining in the bauxite.producing areas of Arkansas be geared for maximum production, in order to supply sufficient ore for this country's war requirements and, if necessary, to supply the war needs of Canada as well. The annual goal of eight million long tons (dry weight) set for Arkansas by the war Production Board was exceeded in 1943, when in August the output reached a rate equivalent to more than 8,300,000 long tons, dry basis. Because of the comparatively small tonnage of bauxite reserves, Congress appropriated funds for an extensive drilling program to be carried out by the Bureau of Mines in cooperation with the Geological Survey. Drilling began in May 1942 but owing to delay in delivery of drills, and trucks upon which the drills were mounted the program did not get into peak operation until early in 1943. By the end of July 1944, the Bureau of Mines records indicated an addition to the Arkansas reserves of 10,000,000 long tons (wet basis) in place,

Jan 1, 1946

By Irwin H. Reiss

Gentlemen, the title of my paper is Surface Mining An Interim Land Use. Surface mining has become one of the major controversies of our time. This has happened in spite of the fact that all surface mining to date has involved only 6 million acres out of a total of 2300 million or approximately one-fourth of one percent of the total land area in the United States. I'm not going to dwell on whether peoples' perspectives are out of focus in light of the area involved, the energy crisis, national security, or the international balance of payments problem. While these things are all critically important, it is not the function of this paper to relate to them. Maybe the amount of attention attracted to surface mining is out of proportion to a lot of other things, but I don't feel that we should use that as a basis for procrastination. However, let me categorically state that anything that affects the surface of the earth is a form of land use --- be it an interstate highway, a power plant site, a golf course, a corn field, a strip mine, or the plot of ground on which your house is located.

Jan 1, 1974

By R N. Humphries, R J. K Thompson

Large-scale coal mining in South Wales dates back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the birth of ironmaking on an industrial scale. This rapidly gave rise to new and large communities with immigration from far and wide across the United Kingdom (UK). These new communities were largely dependent on coal mining and served as the main form of employment and social cohesion until the industry’s demise in the 1990s. With wholesale mine closure and the concomitant loss of employment, the extensive environmental degradation and chronic mine-related illness left a deep scar on the psyche on many still living in the South Wales mining communities. This coupled with memories of strife in the 1980s has resulted in ongoing hostility toward the surface coal mining of the remaining accessible coal reserves in the proximity of these communities.The purpose of this paper is to set out the historical basis of the concerns of these legacy mining communities in South Wales and explain how they are being positively addressed by both the recently evolved planning and regulation system and by today’s surface mining industry. Reference is made to experience gained from two recent applications for surface coal mining adjacent to former mining communities. Ways are suggested in the approval process that surface mining can work in more harmony with the local communities through working partnerships between the mining company, the authorities and regulators and the affected communities. It is concluded that partnership is key to creating a more responsive mine-operating culture and a means to securing approval for future surface coal-mining prospects in South Wales, and probably elsewhere too.CITATION:Humphries, R N and Thompson, R J K, 2014. Surface mining and legacy mining communities in South Wales, UK, in Proceedings Life-of-Mine 2014 , pp 399–412 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Jul 16, 2014

By Don Cchultz

The United States Forest Service, as a land managing agency, is responsible for the surface administration of National Forest lands. The basic objectives of management are protection and utilization of renewable resources such as water, forage, timber, wildlife, recreation, and clean air. Much of the National Forest land in this country is open to mineral prospecting and development. When large de-posits of minerals are extracted from the forest environment, especially by surface methods, there are oftentimes conflicts between accepted mining methods and the objectives of other resource management goals. Such is the situation in Southeast Idaho where several members of the phosphate industry are operating on and adjacent to the Caribou National Forest. In 1966, the phosphate industry and the Caribou National Forest became mutually concerned with the problems of rehabilitating mined areas and minimizing potential damage to adjacent forest areas. A Cooperative Administrative Study was initiated with industry supporting the Forest Service financially and with equipment, material, and manpower, as well as interest and enthusiasm. The objectives of the study are to provide basic, applicable information pertinent to: 1. Protecting the quality of water emanating from mined water-sheds. 2. Providing for soil stabilization on mined areas. 3. Returning mined areas to surface resource production. 4. The feasibility of making mined areas esthetically acceptable. It was concluded that the following separate--yet intergrated--fields should be studied in order to obtain the desired information:

Jan 1, 1971

By Engineering Staff

"This paper briefly describes the surface mining operations at Smoky River Coal Limited (formerly McIntyre Mines Limited, Coal Division) near Grande Cache, Alberta. Geology, mining methods, equipment, manpower and reclamation and environment topics are discussed. Introduction Smoky River Coal Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of McIntyre Mines Limited of Calgary, Alberta, produces a high quality, low sulphur, low volatile bituminous coking coal from its minesite located at west central Alberta, approximately 20 km from the town of Grande Cache and 360 km west of Edmonton (Fig. I). Most of the coal property is contained within a 30 km long by 20 km wide block lying in a northwest-southeast direction in mountainous terrain. Elevations vary from 920 m above sea level ·at the plant·site on the Smoky River to 1,600 mat the upper levels of current and proposed mining operations. A total of 11 coal seams have been identified. Only two seams, No. 4 Seam and No. 10 Seam are currently considered of major commercial value. These seams are recovered by both surface and underground mining. Approximately 650Jo of the plant feed coal is obtained from a conventional shovel/truck surface mine; the balance is mined underground by room-andpillar methods. Background In 1921, McIntyre Mines Limited acquired some 26,300 hectares of coal leases at Smoky River. Since then the leases were explored intermittently by different companies including McIntyre. In the mid-l 960s exploration activities increased and several feasibility studies were completed. Development of the area was undertaken by McIntyre in 1968 and, in August of the same year, a long-term contract was signed with a consortium of Japanese steel mills for delivery of 2 x 106 t of clean coking coal for 15 years commencing in 1970. Production was focussed on underground mining, using longwall methods."

Jan 1, 1985

By Ian R. Muirhead

Over the past year or so, a number of mining companies have been meeting to examine the role of research in surface mining and, in particular, how to establish a collaborative research effort for the surface mining industry. A review has been completed which has identified the topics that are of interest to the surface mining companies for undertaking collaborative research. This has identified key subject areas such as Operations & Equipment; Maintenance; Environment & Reclamation; and Stability. Specific research projects for the initial research effort have been selected which include Wireless Data Communications, Analysis and Management; Application of GPS in Mining; and Tires for Heavy Haulers. In addition, attention has also been focussed on finding a suitable low cost, but effective, organization to coordinate and manage the collaborative research. The recently formed CONRAD Organization (Canadian Oilsands Network for Research and Development) appears to be a suitable candidate and discussions are ongoing with that group. This paper provides a summary of the review of surface mining research needs and of the status of the establishment of a collaborative research body for surface mining.

Jan 1, 1996

By R. K. Singhal

In 1990, Canada produced 69.4 million tonnes of coal of which some 65 million tonnes was produced by surface mining methods. The two Western Canadian provinces, Alberta and British Columbia produce approximately 55 million tonnes of coal by surface mining. These two provinces also provide the bulk of the metallurgical coal for export. The geological conditions in the Western provinces particularly in the mountain region are complex. The coals are friable and the seams are steeply inclined, sheared, intensely folded and faulted. There may be as many as 15 to 20 coal seams present with true thickness ranging from 2.5m to over 8m. Most of the Canadian surface mines are large (over one million tonnes per annum) using modern mining equipment such as shovels, high capacity trucks and draglines. At present the industry is going through another of its up and down cycles but has continued to make impressive gains in productivity. This has been achieved through greater mechanization, better management practices and a will to succeed in a highly competitive world market. This paper presents an insight into the current status of the Canadian Coal Industry and essentially updates the information given by the authors at previous SME meetings.

Jan 1, 1992

By F. J. Murrell

No other region of the world is enjoying the tremendous growth of power use that is currently being experienced in Asia. Fortunately for those of us in the coal industry -particularly in Asia -the preponderance of the power plants being planned or under construction designed to use coal as the power plant fuel. This has produced a significant increase in the demand for steam coal, which has in turn encouraged many of us in the industry to develop new coal mines. One country that has enjoyed very substantial growth in coal production is Indonesia. This developing country of 195,000,000 people who live on the nearly 13,000 islands of Indonesia have emerged very quickly to become the third largest exporter of steam coal, following only Australia and South Africa. Almost all coal in Indonesia is mined by surface mining methods. This paper will examine the surface mining of coal in Indonesia, as it continues to be an important part of the supply equation for coal in Asia.

Jan 1, 1996

By R. Singhal

Canada's coal production is approximately 65.4 million tonnes of which 95 % is produced by surface mining methods mostly from the three Western provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan). The mines are highly mechanized; productivity gains during the past few years have ranged from 60 -80%. Truck/Shovel methods are common although Saskatchewan lignite is almost exclusively mined by draglines. This paper provides an overview of Canadian Coal mining industry vis a vis surface mining. Emphasis is on application and utilization of mining equipment and associated mining methods.

Jan 1, 1994

By Frank C. Appleyard

As the environmental movement gained force during the past few years, it was inevitable that attention would be focused on surface mining, and we have seen this method of extracting minerals from the ground come under heavy attack by conservation groups, the press and television, legislators at all levels of government,, and the public at large. It is difficult, and in some situations, perhaps impossible, to measure either the need for, or the results of, land reclamation in absolute terms. Therefore, much of the criticism of surface mining has been based upon subjective analysis rather than hard data, with the result that discussion of the subject often includes a fair amount of emotional response. To be fair, this reaction is not limited to just our critics; even we hard headed engineers sometimes respond in the same way, an observation with which you may agree when I finish this talk. This leads to the thought that whether you are for it, or against it, land reclamation in many respects is a state of mind. That is, our reaction to it can vary considerably, depending on how far we have thought it through. And think it through we must, because the pressures being brought to bear need to be met with positive actions if the problem is to be brought under control, and in the next few minutes I would like to discuss from a management point of view some ideas which might aid in this thinking process. It would be a mistake, I believe, to think that the current energy crisis will suddenly bring the environmental movement to a stop, and therefore, we can relax and go back to running our busi¬ness the way we used to. This is not realistic; on the contrary the energy crisis is focusing attention on the limitations of our natural resources as nothing else could, and with respect to land

Jan 1, 1974

By David De Lemos Pires

Mining is essentially a materials management process where materials are classified, excavated, moved to a desired location, processed at a cost and sold for a price hopefully to generate a profit. ?How much is that cost and can it be reduced?? is the age-old question. The requirement for a paradigm shift with regard to materials movement in search of low-cost production has not just happened by chance but, rather, has been driven by agents of change that include mining companies, consultants, governments and equipment suppliers. During the past 100 years of mining, surface mining technology has involved humans with hand tools, humans with machinery and unmanned automated equipment. In the past 50 years, surface mining technology has evolved and now takes the form of trucks and loaders (TL), in-pit-crushing conveying (IPCC) and autonomous haulage equipment (AHS).

Dec 1, 2013

By David De Lemos Pires

Mining is essentially a materials management process where materials are classified, excavated, moved to a desired location, processed at a cost and sold for a price hopefully to generate a profit. ?How much is that cost and can it be reduced?? is the age-old question. The requirement for a paradigm shift with regard to materials movement in search of low-cost production has not just happened by chance but, rather, has been driven by agents of change that include mining companies, consultants, governments and equipment suppliers. During the past 100 years of mining, surface mining technology has involved humans with hand tools, humans with machinery and unmanned automated equipment. In the past 50 years, surface mining technology has evolved and now takes the form of trucks and loaders (TL), in-pit-crushing conveying (IPCC) and autonomous haulage equipment (AHS).

Dec 1, 2013

By Ernest Bohnet

Each mining operation is unique in some aspect ownership; ore body location, size, geometry, grade, mineralogy, hydrology, or geotechnical parameters; or constraints such as environmental regulations. However, all mining operations are alike in one aspect; the prime objective of any mining project is to maximize the return on the investment. This is the golden rule, or in the language of mining, the investor?s law of conservation. A mineral resource, by definition, does not become a minable reserve unless the mineral or minerals can be extracted economically (and legally). The three preceding sections have covered the various types of surface mining options. The choice of the most economic method is dictated primarily by the type of de-posit to be mined, the mining rate, and the physical characteristics of the deposit.

Jan 1, 2008

By M. K. McCarter

Surface mining applies to extraction of mineral resources from water and sediments of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans; from solutions circulating through broken rock and soil; and from rock and soil excavated from the earth. Surface mining is responsible for the majority of mineral production in the United States and a substantial portion of the world?s total production. This section deals specifically with extraction methods which employ mechanical processes in a relatively dry environment to free minerals from the earth. The following section, Section 15, deals exclusively with aqueous methods. With recognition of the importance of reclamation in all activities which temporarily disturb the earth?s ecosystems, it is appropriate to classify mechanical extraction methods as either deferred reclamation or concurrent reclamation. Deferred reclamation is necessary when the shape and logistics of the excavation require that it remain open throughout the productive life of he project. Upon exhaustion of economic reserves, the opening is then reclaimed in a manner consistent with public safety, environmental acceptability, and land use policy. Methods employing deferred reclamation are commonly referred to as open pit or quarry mining. Metallic ores, industrial minerals, and coal are all extracted using open pit methods. Typical examples are provided in Chapter 14.1.

Jan 1, 2008