Search Documents

H. H. Kellogg (Columbia University)—The accurate measurements of the equilibrium gas ratios for the reaction: Pb(1) + H2S = PbS(c) + H2 [I] reported in this paper are a distinct contribution to the literature, and the authors are to be congratulated. I wish to comment, however, on the correlation of the data which is presented. The authors show a straight line correlation of log H2S/H2 vs 1/T, Fig. 1, and are satisfied with this for calculation of ?Fo even when extrapolated to low temperature (427 °C). Heat capacity data for the constituents of this reaction are available (at least to 900°K), however, and ACP for reaction [I] is finite and positive in the temperature range studied. Simplification of the heat capacity equations yields: ?CP= 2.71 + 1.65 x 10-3T (298°-900°K) This positive value of ?CP should result in a small but noticeable curvature of a plot of log K vs 1/T. That the experimental data fail to show such a curvature may be traced to another oversimplification of the author's treatment of their data. They assume that the activity of liquid lead is unity for all temperatures, so that

Jan 1, 1961

Prior to any detailed discussion, I'd like to say that Dr. Aplan has made direct hits on two important considerations: 1) The most demanding need in Fine Coal research is to develop improved methods of sulfur reduction. 2) The areas of particle (impurity) liberation and froth flotation hold real near-term promise as techniques for improved sulfur removal. Digressing for a moment, I thin kwe can all remember the time when the biggest problem facing coal research was simply defined - "No money!" In the mid 70's we suddenly found ourselves dealing with a product worth five to seven times the value it carried in the mid60's. All of a sudden, we're talking about a high-profile, high- value commodity. The coal industry still hasn't made the complete psychological adjustment - especially in the operating areas (prep plants included). We have a valuable material at hand which is, in' many cases still being processed as though it were a two or three dollar per ton item. Simply put, I think that while the industry has made some major strides during this transition, a stronger commitment of attitude (and finances) needs to be made toward deeper definition of beneficiation work. Back to specifics - Dr. Aplan has really highlighted three areas where strong research efforts are needed. 1) Liberation processes - not limited to mechanical comminution - must be more fully studied.The industry certainly needs a better handle on value returned (improved ability to beneficiate) for dollars spent on improved liberation. 2) Flotation processes probably hold the most promise for near- term improvement in fine coal beneficiation technology. Dr. Aplan’s.

Jan 1, 1979

By E. J. Garrison

Discussion by E.J. Garrison A.C. Noble presents a clear and concise summary of the factors pertinent to a competent reserve evaluation of a mineral occurrence. However, I believe that he confuses the difference between a resource and a reserve. By definition, a reserve estimate includes all known economic, legal, mining, metallurgical and environmental factors impacting the recovery of the product(s) found in the deposit. A resource estimate, however, is an estimate of what is there - what is available for exploitation and should not include economic and other considerations. Only after defining the resource, its extent, location, physical and chemical properties, can an intelligent selection process begin of the extraction and processing technologies most appropriate to the circumstances encountered. The early and almost certainly inappropriate application of these often cookbook choices has probably lead many companies to walk away from good properties. (How many mines have been found in others rejects?) An example of the process is the early selection of metallurgical samples, after encouraging values are found in a few holes or surface samples, in an attempt to determine the economics of the prospect. Unfortunately, the sampler does not know how representative of the occurrence the sample is because he does not know what the deposit looks like. As a consequence, the property becomes saddled with a bad metallurgical sample that is often inappropriately used in evaluating the deposit which it does not represent. Reply by A.C. Noble E.J. Garrison asserts that I confuse the difference between a resource and an ore reserve. In fact, this paper was motivated by the observation that resources and reserves are almost universally confused throughout the industry. While Garrison is concerned that too-early consideration of engineering, metallurgical and economic factors will result in dropping properties too soon, some issues that must be considered include: •The purpose of exploration is to discover ore reserves, not to discover resources. •Ore reserves are always smaller than resources. • Decisions on exploration expenditures must be made based on the expectation of the quantity of ore reserves that will ultimately be defined. Noble's Fig. 2 can be used to give guidance as to when it is appropriate to begin reserve calculations. When exploration enters the "flat" portion of the curve, representative samples can be selected for metallurgical studies and appropriate mining methods chosen. It is at this stage that we know enough about the deposit to make intelligent choices of representative samples and recognize constraints on mining caused by the deposits shape, environment and physical properties. Once the appropriate technologies have been chosen, then their cost can be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Early entry of economic and process factors gives the false appearance of reserve status to the resource estimation. It would be more informative and less subject to abuse and misunderstanding if resource calculations were made at a number of cutoff grades. The cutoff grades should be chosen to cover the range of grades found in practice in existing operations of similar type. This would emphasize the open nature of resource estimates and encourage creative evaluation of mining and process technologies. It does not preclude the use of economic, environmental and recovery technology factors in deciding the advisability of continuing exploration expenditures, but would highlight their speculative nature. It is thus hoped that decisions on the future of the deposit would not be made on the presumed suitability of a given technology but on the actually known reality. I agree that resource estimates should be reported as a range of cutoff grades. Since reporting at a cutoff implies application of underlying economics (even by analogy to similar properties), however, it should be clearly stated that resources do not consider economic, mining or cost factors, and that ore reserves will be substantially less. The dilemma of the explorationist is that until the continuity and limits of ore-grade mineralization have been established, it is difficult to make quantitative estimates of either resources or ore reserves. Further industry discussion is needed regarding standards for disclosing early exploration information in such a way as to fairly represent the potential of an exploration property.

Jan 1, 1995

By J. H. Tu

The technical paper correctly points out that the kriging variance is not a good measure of the uncertainty of the estimated (i.e., kriged) value of individual blocks. The authors claim that their proposed jack-knife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from m the original sample set and then taking the average of the rekriged estimates, not only gives good block estimates, but the resulting jackknife kriging standard deviation is a useful indicator of the "true uncertainty associated with block estimates." However, they immediately abandon the idea of using the block-by-block standard deviations, reasoning that these standard deviations are not independent and that there is no easy way to utilize them. There may be another reason for not using them. The jackknife standard deviations for individual blocks given in their example are mostly in the range of 0.004 to 0.005 oz/st (0.14 to 0.17 g/t) with only one block having a high value of 0.012 oz/st (0.41 g/ t). These individual block standard deviations are as low as the jackknife standard deviation for the mean grade of the entire shape, i.e., 0.0041 oz/st (0.14 g/t). Do they represent the "true uncertainty" .of the individual block estimates? Could the authors explain this? In a global shape consisting of a large number of blocks, any given sample will affect the kriged estimate of only those few blocks within its vicinity. This is the rationale for the authors' selective rekriging, making the jackknife algorithm more efficient. On second thought, why not do away with jackknifing altogether? Just cumulate and normalize, if necessary, the kriging weights of each sample used during the ordinary block kriging process, and then compute the global variance from these kriging weights and their respective sample grades? After all, isn't the global mean grade nothing but the weighted average of the samples used in the estimation? Reply by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester The jackknife is one of the many tools in a practitioner's toolbox to solve estimation problems. The strengths of the technique lies in its simplicity, i.e., it uses the concept of mean and standard deviation and the fact that it can be easily combined with other tools, in this case kriging. Because the jackknife kriging (JK) estimate is also the mean of the pseudovalues, the JK standard deviation is attractive just as the standard deviation of the mean explains the variability of the data. The difference is that the pseudovalue calculation in jackknife kriging uses the ordinary kriging (OK) weighting scheme instead of simple arithmetic averaging. The data used to illustrate the jackknife technique in the paper con¬sist of high values that are roughly three times the low values. The resulting JK estimate of the block grades show that the highest estimate is roughly twice the grade of the lowest estimate. The contrast between the low and the high estimate is more evident in the JK estimate than in the OK estimate, even though the mean grades of the blocks for the two estimates are very similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we are concentrating more on the need for a more realistic measure of uncertainty, or precision, for the estimate. Unlike its OK counterpart, the JK standard deviation of the blocks clearly reflects the original data variation. The highest JK standard deviation of the blocks is three times its lowest value. This follows our intuition that, when the samples used to estimate a block is more variable, the resulting estimation variance (or standard deviation) should be higher than the case where the samples are more uniformly valued. However, block-by-block standard deviation or variance is of little practical value in reserve estimation and classification, as well as in mine planning. One is usually more interested in quantifying not the variance of the individual block estimate, but the uncertainties associated with a much larger dimension, such as the minable reserve. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to find a simple way to obtain a single estimation variance or standard deviation associated with the reserve grade estimate. The discussion by J.H. Tu did not mention how one would obtain the global variance from the OK weights and the sample grades. As a technique that offers a data value-based measure of uncertainty for its estimate, the "leave-one-out" jackknife fills this need nicely through the block kriging shortcut approach described in the paper. Note: The first column and the last two columns of Table 3 in the paper should have contained a single number each, namely, an OK estimate of 0.0317, a JK estimate of 0.0333 and a JK standard deviation of 0.0041 oz/st, respectively, for the shape, as are obvious from the text.

Jan 1, 1997

By D. G. Krige

Discussion by D.G. Krige I read the paper "The jackknife approach" with interest. There appears to be a widespread misunderstanding of the kriging variance as a measure of the error variance of the kriged grade estimate of an ore block. Virtually all mineral deposits display skew frequency distributions and are subject to the well-known proportional effect. Thus, it is usual to find in an ore body, when subdivided a really into subpopulations, that the variances of the grades (or the total sills of the variograms) for the subpopulations will be correlated with the corresponding mean grades (usually linearly with the squares of the mean grades). Thus, the variogram will be station. When this feature is evident, the relative variograms for the subpopulations (i.e., with variogram values divided by the relevant mean squared) will be similar, or they could even be accepted at an averaged model for the whole ore body with stationarity. Using this approach, the kriging variance will reflect the relative error variance that is to be multiplied by the kriged block grade estimate squared to yield the usual kriging variance for purposes of confidential limits. The objection that the kriging variance does not take into account the local grades used for a block valuation then falls away. In the example given by the authors, the global mean grade is not recorded. But the global variance, taken at the value of the total sill, is 0.005, whereas the variance of the 11 values used in the example is 0.000152. The two variances differ by a factor of nearly six. If the relative variogram approach is applicable in this case, the need for a jackknife technique will fall away. Also note that, for skew distributions, the confidence limits for ore-block estimates will be skew as well, and symmetrical normal limits will not apply. RepIy by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester There are a few interesting ways to utilize the block-by-block kriging variance that the authors have encountered. One of them is to classify a particular block into a proven-probable reserve or a possible-resource category, using a somewhat subjectively determined kriging variance value. Here, the kriging variance still represents the drilling density, i.e., data configuration more than the data values. Professor Krige mentions another ingenious approach through the use of relative variograms. This will yield a block kriging variance that takes into account local (block) grade, as he correctly points out, for purposes of confidence limits. However, we are more interested in quantifying the uncertainties associated with grade estimation in a much larger scale than a block. e.g., for a mining phase or the minable reserve. The jackknife, through the block kriging shortcut, provides a simple solution to obtain a single estimation variance for a general shape. The authors' main reference discusses different ways to handle skewed distributions typical in mineral resource estimation, e.g., the weighted jackknife approach or data transformation. Also, as with any technique, we can always improve our estimate by subdividing into smaller populations that are geologically and statistically separate domains. As we have mentioned; the jackknife is but a tool in our collection of tools to solve estimation problems. The jackknife's appeals are its simplicity and versatility. It is handy when no other solution is available, or when the available solution is not practical. It is used with other methods, not to replace them altogether. ?

Jan 1, 1997

In recent years, with the advent of new steelmaking procedures, the emphasis has turned away from conventional teeming and has been directed toward continuous casting. This paper points out the fact that there are still new methods being considered to decrease the problems and costs associated with conventional teeming. Although Inland has had no experience with the repair of mold lugs, we do find some problem with damaged ears associated with mechanically capped steel. When pouring bottle tops, any crane movement or leak from the pouring nozzle may result in steel over the top of the mold which, in turn, may result in the shearing of the mold lugs during stripping. Recent back pouring practices increase the chances of this occurring. At Inland's steelmaking shops, we have tried to combat this problem by various methods such as burning the steel from around the top of the mold at the pouring stand with oxy-gas torches. Last year, No. 4 BOF began a conversion from round to elliptically shaped bottle top caps. This change has greatly reduced the chance of splashing due to crane swing by increasing the dimension in the direction on normal swing. The answer to this particular problem is, however, tighter control of pouring performance. We are presently engaged in a process of re-education of personnel and experimentation with different materials and designs of nozzles, heads, and sleeves to help us achieve our goal.

Jan 1, 1972

By R. J. Sweigard, R. V. Ramani

G.F. Learning The paper by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard is a wonderful description of the labyrinthine web that has been spun about the mining industry by energetic bureaucrats and politicians over the past 50 years. The remedy for the problem, however, is not more of the same, but less. That may be difficult for the industry to achieve, for it is not a technical solution but a political one. And the current fervor for more detailed planning at all levels of government and private enterprise has become deeply ingrained. The authors recommend the provision of more information about mining and mineral resources to "macro" (i.e., government) land use planners. They apparently overlook, however, the already strong tendency on the part of most government land use planners to consider themselves omniscient. Thus, giving them more information about the technical problems of mining will only make them want to get more and more involved in the "micro" (private, site specific) mine development and production plans of the individual mining firm. In fact, this has already happened at all levels of jurisdiction from municipal to federal government. Examples are legion. The most effective way to ameliorate the adverse impacts of government land use planning on existing and potential mining operations is to: (1) introduce greater flexibility in the definition of land use zones by local and state governments; (2) adopt realistic and relevant ambient environmental performance standards in governing relationships between mineral land uses and concurrent or subsequent nonmining land uses; (3) allow greater leeway for economic considerations in land use decisions in contrast to the explicit legalistic approach now in vogue; (4) recognize that all minerals are not the same and that sand and gravel mining should not be treated the same as underground metal mining, coal stripping, oil field production, or in situ leaching; and (5) eliminate the notion that mining operators should be responsible for determining in detail the use of land by subsequent owners of mined land. This last bit of conventional ethic really makes no more sense than requiring the builders of every shopping center or government office complex to provide detailed plans for the use of that land when its use for shopping or government is ended. Did the builder of Ebbetts Field plan for Brooklyn after the Dodgers went to Los Angeles? Should the developer of the Bingham Pit plan for suburban Salt Lake City after the copper mining goes to Chile? The nation's mining industry must address these questions before further bankrupting itself to provide more data to planners and spending thousands of dollars per acre to create land that when reclaimed is worth only a few hundred dollars per acre. Reply by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard We thank Mr. Leaming for his valuable contribution. His views on the problems of land use planning and mineral resources are most welcome additions to our paper. As the title indicates, our paper was more concerned with the impacts of land use planning on mineral resource conservation than with the details of the planning process. On the whole, his five recommendations would be helpful for mineral resource conservation. However, we would suggest that the argument he presents for his final recommendation does not address the differences between mining as a land use and commercial or institutional uses. We believe that this difference is the crux of the issue. We share Mr. Leaming's desire to ameliorate the adverse impacts of land use planning. Possibly the most detrimental impact is the loss of mineral resources. Any development, whether mineral or community, that does not give proper consideration to other resources can result in permanent loss or sterilization of resources. With proper planning, some of these losses can be avoided. As our paper indicated, one factor that limits the consideration of mineral resources, and ultimately leads to their sterilization, is the generally inadequate levels of resource characterization and understanding of the unique nature of mineral resources and mining operations. The last point raised by Mr. Leaming is also important. In terms of reclamation and land use planning in mining districts, we certainly do not advocate spending more than what the results are worth. The main thrust of the paper was to explore the avenues for conserving the mineral resources so that, at some appropriate time, the issue of mining and reclamation can still be addressed.

Jan 4, 1985

By G. F. Leaming

The paper by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard is a wonderful description of the labyrinthine web that has been spun about the mining industry by energetic bureaucrats and politicians over the past 50 years. The remedy for the problem, however, is not more of the same, but less. That may be difficult for the industry to achieve, for it is not a technical solution but a political one. And the current fervor for more detailed planning at all levels of government and private enterprise has become deeply ingrained. The authors recommend the provision of more information about mining and mineral resources to "macro" (i.e., government) land use planners. They apparently overlook, however, the already strong tendency on the part of most government land use planners to consider themselves omniscient. Thus, giving them more information about the technical problems of mining will only make them want to get more and more involved in the "micro" (private, site specific) mine development and production plans of the individual mining firm. In fact, this has already happened at all levels of jurisdiction from municipal to federal government. Examples are legion. The most effective way to ameliorate the adverse impacts of government land use planning on existing and potential mining operations is to: (1) introduce greater flexibility in the definition of land use zones by local and state governments; (2) adopt realistic and relevant ambient environmental performance standards in governing relationships between mineral land uses and concurrent or subsequent nonmining land uses; (3) allow greater leeway for economic considerations in land use decisions in contrast to the explicit legalistic approach now in vogue; (4) recognize that all minerals are not the same and that sand and gravel mining should not be treated the same as underground metal mining, coal stripping, oil field production, or in situ leaching; and (5) eliminate the notion that mining operators should be responsible for determining in detail the use of land by subsequent owners of mined land. This last bit of conventional ethic really makes no more sense than requiring the builders of every shopping center or government office complex to provide detailed plans for the use of that land when its use for shopping or government is ended. Did the builder of Ebbetts Field plan for Brooklyn after the Dodgers went to Los Angeles? Should the developer of the Bingham Pit plan for suburban Salt Lake City after the copper mining goes to Chile? The nation's mining industry must address these questions before further bankrupting itself to provide more data to planners and spending thousands of dollars per acre to create land that when reclaimed is worth only a few hundred dollars per acre. ? Reply by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard We thank Mr. Learning for his valuable contribution. His views on the problems of land use planning and mineral resources are most welcome additions to our paper. As the title indicates, our paper was more concerned with the impacts of land use planning on mineral resource conservation than with the details of the planning process. On the whole, his five recommendations would be helpful for mineral resource conservation. However, we would suggest that the argument he presents for his final recommendation does not address the differences between mining as a land use and commercial or institutional uses. We believe that this difference is the crux of the issue. We share Mr. Learning's desire to ameliorate the adverse impacts of land use planning. Possibly the most detrimental impact is the loss of mineral resources. Any development, whether mineral or community, that does not give proper consideration to other resources can result in permanent loss or sterilization of resources. With proper planning, some of these losses can be avoided. As our paper indicated, one factor that limits the consideration of mineral resources, and ultimately leads to their sterilization, is the generally inadequate levels of resource characterization and understanding of the unique nature of mineral resources and mining operations. The last point raised by Mr. Learning is also important. In terms of reclamation and land use planning in mining districts, we certainly do not advocate spending more than what the results are worth. The main thrust of the paper was to explore the avenues for conserving the mineral resources so that, at some appropriate time, the issue of mining and reclamation can still be addressed. ?

Jan 1, 1986

By Harmon E. Keyes

Harmon E. Keyes (Chemical & Metallurgical Engineer, Eagar, Ariz.)-Chemical dissolution of chalcocite by acidic ferric sulfate is well known. Resulting elemental sulfur may be oxidized to sulfuric acid by heated ferric sulfate. Laboratory tests at Southwest Experiment Station, USBM, Tucson, generally confirmed stoichiometric relations of 1 part Cu dissolved to 1.750 parts ferric iron reduced, using CP chemicals, dried ore samples, and apparatus cleaned with potable water. Recirculation with open-drainage percolation to increase copper in leaching solvent was followed successfully when appropriate, both in laboratory and Pinto Valley pilot tests. Before 1924 attempts to produce ferric sulfate by aerating ferrous sulfate solution were known. Initial oxidation was satisfactory, but rate slowed below practicality as oxidation progressed and acidity increased. Also, due to hydrolysis of ferric sulfate, a ferric precipitate of hydroxide and basic sulfate resulted. Both laboratory and pilot plant tests gave similar results, regardless of whether CP ferrous sulfate or scrap iron cementation discard solution was used. Rapid oxidation of ferrous hydroxide by air alone is well known to analytical chemists. I demonstrated a process to produce acidic ferric sulfate solutions by precipitating ferrous hydroxide with milk of lime, aerat-

Jan 1, 1973

By F. W. DeVries

The subject article is an excellent comparison between two potential oxidants, molecular oxygen and hydrogen peroxide, as used in the Palangana field at the time of the trials. The tests showed no advantage to using hydrogen peroxide; however, it would be unwise to generalize that the experience in these trials was universally true. During the time of the work cited, extremely high levels of an unusual impurity were recycling in the lixiviant, which substance was a catastrophically destructive catalyst for peroxide. Since this material was not removed before recycle, it was not surprising that much of the peroxide fed was decomposing in the feed piping and never made contact with the uranium mineralization. Under these conditions, indeed, peroxide showed no improvement over oxygen. This is, however, perhaps the most adverse environment encountered to date in US in-situ uranium leaching. In other operations, peroxide has proved advantageous where two factors have been exploited: 1.Despite the tendency for Hz02 to decompose to water and oxygen in the in-situ leach environment, its higher redox potential before decomposition has provided higher leach rates. In some formulations, overloading beyond the O2 saturation equivalent with peroxide has allowed higher oxidant levels, and higher leaching rates, when overloading with molecular O2, led to vapor-locking.

Jan 1, 1983

By G. Chi, M. C. Fuerstenau, R. C. Bradt, A. Ghosh

Technical Papers, Mining Engineering Vol. 49, No. 12, pp. 70-75, Discussion by McIvor, R. and Fink, R. P. We must challenge what we consider to be dubious statements in the above-mentioned article. Much of what is reported was published elsewhere over a year ago (i.e., in their reference: Chi, G., Fuerstenau, M.C., Brandt, R.C. and Ghosh, A., 1996, "Improved comminution efficiency through controlled blasting during mining," International Journal of Min¬eral Processing, Vol. 47, p. 93). There is nothing unusual or significant about a 10% or more difference in grindability between two materials of apparently similar origin and other attributes (such as chemical assays, hardness and specific gravity). Consider also that: • the materials came from different locations in the pit; • only two sets of four blastholes were considered per blast: • spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was also altered; • only two pairs of data were collected; • the impact of sampling error and bias, • both of which could be significant in this case; and • normal experimental error in parameter measurement and calculation. It is clearly inappropriate to draw any conclusions with regard to cause-and-effect relationships without first presenting a thorough error analysis. A substantial number of randomly selected test and control areas might provide meaningful statistical evidence of the claimed effect of the variables being studied. Even that appears doubtful, however, because Figures 3 and 4 show about as much variation in crushing energy for the two "regular" conditions vs. regular and altered conditions. On a separate, but also important issue, broad experience with autogenous/semiautogenous milling has shown that smaller or weaker feed material results in reduced tonnage. ? Reply Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of Messrs. Mclvor ant Fink. The points raised are addressed in the order of presentation. As the commenters noted, there are parallels between this article and a previous manuscript. The reason for these complementary articles is that the audiences for the two publications are different, although there is obviously some overlap. We believe that the different audiences each profit from the technical aspects of the two manuscripts. We are not in agreement that a grindability difference of 10% is insignificant. The laboratory work is corroborated by data obtained at plant scale, which confirms that an increase in throughput of the same magnitude (between 5% and 10%) is achieved when the blasting pattern is modified, i.e., reduced from 9 to 8 m (29.5 to 26.2 ft). This increase in throughput translates into substantial power savings for ore grinding. No differences in appearance in the rock were noted between the two adjacent areas. Rock in both areas belonged to the same rock mass/block, which was quite homogeneous and without geological features in between that could create drastic differences in comminution characteristics. Given the resources, we would have sampled from all of the holes. Additional data would certainly have been desirable, as would have been additional funding to expand the study. Their comment, "spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was also altered," is not clear. Figure 1 does not show the initiation sequence. Without the initiation sequence, we do not understand how the commenters concluded that spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was altered. The commenters may be trying to make the point that the four-hole configurations with respect to the original bench face are not exactly the same. In fragmenting the

Jan 1, 1999

By R. F. Kovar, R. N. Torbin, R. E. Gundersen

I have to express my .surprise and must send a note of warning concerning the use of polyurethane foam as described in a paper by R.N. Torbin and R.F. Kovar, entitled "Innovative Shaft Lining Method," published in your February 1989 edition. In September, 1986, 177 miners lost their lives when they were exposed to fumes downwind from a fire in a tunnel lined with polyurethane foam. Whilst polyurethane exhibits reasonable fire retardent properties in small-scale tests, mass use in a tubular configuration, exacerbated by the furnace effect of cross-radiation, can lead to a rapid, uncontrollable conflagration. I do not wish these comments to detract from the engineering achievements of the authors but rather to sound a loud warning as to the application of the system. Any shaft designed for human access- be it for transport or shaft work - and any intake airway, should not consider the use of polyurethane foam. It only needs a slip with a cutting torch or an electric fault to initiate a disaster. Many countries have banned or restricted the use of polyurethane foam in the workings of a mine and maybe alternative foams (e.g. phenolics) can be used or developed

Jan 1, 1991

K. T. Aust and J. W. Rutter (General Electric Research Laboratory)—We find it difficult to reconcile the activation energies determined by Gifkins with his general conclusion that "migration during both creep and grain growth can thus be treated on the basis of the same model" (that of Lucke and Detert). Gifkins finds the activation energy for grain boundary migration during creep to be 24.5 kcal per rnol and that for grain boundary migration during grain growth to be 7.5 kcal per mol. The calculation carried out by Gifkins of the activation energy for grain boundary migration during grain growth, using the Lucke and Detert model, gives a value of 20 to 24.5 kcal per mol, rather than his experimental value of 7.5 kcal per mol. The theory of Lucke and Detert was developed to account for the rates of migration of grain boundaries in the presence of impurities during grain growth. The theory does not take into account the effect on the boundary migration of another, simultaneous process such as creep deformation and would be expected, therefore, to be applicable only to migration during grain growth. The fact that Gifkins measured a different activation energy for boundary migration during grain growth (7.5 kcal per mol) from that during creep (24.5 kcal per mol), although the specimens were of the same composition, shows clearly that such an effect exists under his experimental conditions; the presence of a simultaneous creep deformation markedly affects the boundary migration process in comparison with what would be observed under the same conditions but without the creep deformation. The failure of McLean's equation (Eq. [4] of Gifkins' paper) to give a satisfactory dislocation density difference for boundary migration during creep is not surprising, since the activation energy which must be used in this equation refers only to the elementary atom transfer process of grain boundary migration. This activation energy value is approximately 6 kcal per mol for zone-refined lead, as determined in both the grain boundary migration experiments of Aust and Rutter31, 32 and the grain growth experiments of Bolling and Winegard.33 Using this activation energy value, McLean's equation gives reasonable agreement with observed migration rates for grain boundaries moving free of the influence of impurities.31, 32 The value of 24.5 kcal per mol is probably associated with the presence of impurity atoms, as Gifkins suggests. It should be noted, however, that this value was obtained using lead of only one composition and measurements at only two temperatures. The work of Aust and Rutter3"' on the effects of tin, silver, and gold on grain boundary migration in zone-refined lead in the temperature range from 320" to 200°C, as well as the work of Bolling and Winegard34 on the effect of silver and gold on grain growth in zone-refined lead, shows that the measured activation energy is markedly dependent upon the kind and amount of solute present. Gifkins' work does not permit evaluation of the effect of the 8 ppm of impurities other than oxygen present in his specimens. One incidental point: the symbols used to designate the experimental points of Fig. 6 appear to be in incorrect order in the figure caption. As the caption is printed, it would indicate that larger grain sizes were obtained after annealing at 47°C than at 100°C, which does not agree with the text (point M, p. 1019). Finally, it seems clear from Gifkins' results that any serious attempt to determine whether grain boundary migration and grain boundary sliding during creep occur with the same activation energy, as Gifkins suggests and McLean rejects, must take into account the effects of impurities on these two processes, Although the work of Weinberg35 indicated that adding small amounts of copper, iron and silicon to aluminum did not affect the grain boundary shear behavior, it should be noted that his starting material contained approximately 60 ppm of impurities. Gifkins' results indicate impurity effects at an impurity level of 8 ppm, suggesting strongly that the most significant impurity range to be investigated lies substantially below that value. R. C. Gifkins (author's reply) — As Drs. Aust and Rutter suggest, the results under discussion may have to be reinterpreted in the light of their own work on grain boundary migration, which was not available to me when the paper was written. Because of their work, Aust and Rutter attach more importance than I did to the activation energy for grain boundary migration during annealing (7.5 kcal per mol) obtained from a "direct" plot of log-rate against the reciprocal of absolute temperature. At the time it was obtained, this value seemed rather low, although it was similar to the value obtained by Bolling and Winegard.36 It was then, and still is, difficult to accept this value because of the low value of the index in the power law for grain growth, which seemed to indicate the influence of impurities. It was also concluded that the low value of the activation energy might have arisen from the manner of selecting rates of grain growth which were truly comparable at the two temperatures. There were many other indications in these experiments and those on recrystallization during creep3? that an impurity, probably oxygen, was of importance. The model for grain-boundary migration which Lucke and Detert had proposed was an obvious possibility and its use yielded an activation energy for boundary migration during annealing of 20 to 25 kcal per mol.

Jan 1, 1961

By C. H. Gerould

I would like to take a moment to consider our polystyrene-silica replica technique, which was developed at the Dow Chemical Co. and which was mentioned in the paper just given by Mr. Thielsch. He stated that he feared that our replica technique would cause difficulty due to deformation of the metal as a result of the application of pressure during the molding process. We at the Dow have never had any reason to suspect that any deformation of the metal was occurring during the molding process. Our procedure has been to heat the polystyrene to a temperature of 160°C. before applying any pressure, at which temperature the polystyrene is a viscous liquid. By so doing the pressure of the polystyrene against the metal is essentially hydraulic and is therefore applied equally in all directions, which we feel should not cause deformation. Our work using this replica technique has brought forth several indications that deformation of the specimen is negligible. These indications are: I. Direct comparisons have been made between the light and electron microscopes when studying a specific spot on a metal surface. These "same spot" studies were obtained by first taking micrographs at high magnification, with a light microscope, of a specific structure that could be readily recog-

Jan 1, 1947

By R. L. Dietrich

[ ] We at The Dow Chemical Co. have recently done some work on the deformation of magnesium alloys and although it is far from complete there have been a few observations which may be of interest in connection with this paper. In the first place, I should like to point out that the deformation of polycrystalline magnesium alloys has not been completely explained by the work on single crystals. Bakarian and Mathewson found slip on the ( 101) and {002) planes, and (102) twinning as the deformation mechanisms in magnesium single crystals, but in compression when the (002} planes were within ii° of parallel t0 the compression surfaces, fracture occurred at all temperatures up to 340°C (644°F). In commercial working processes, particularly in rolling, an orientation is quickly produced which should be unfavorable to further deformation by the three established mechanisms. The first few reductions in rolling quickly produce an orientation having

Jan 1, 1947

By G. Sanders

Discussion by G. Sanders The studies reported on in this paper were initiated to draw attention to the severe contamination problem in the Section 30 drilling program at Chimney Creek. The lithologic-subset sampling study reached a different conclusion from that presented in your paper, and I wish to comment on your subsequent analysis of the data and your conclusions. Request for more complete data In the section on subsampling, you mention that the subordinate lithologies were separated and sampled, yet only the dominantlithology gold value is plotted in Fig. 4. In a contamination study, the reader is interested in the assay values for the individual subsets. Please include a table of the subsample assay data in your reply. Also, please indicate which analytical methods were used to arrive at the gold values in the subsampling study. Turning barren rock into low-grade ore Figure 5 is very revealing and typical of all of the cross sections in Section 30. Note the long strings of low-grade mineralization spread out for hundreds of feet below the ore zones. There were some very high gold values found in certain contaminated fractions during the subset sampling. The conclusion, here, was that the distinctive, strongly-mineralized dolomite layer was probably loose and crumbly and continued to disintegrate during drilling. This caused salting of the unmineralized rock samples below. Missing the high-grade part of the ore body In your statistical analysis, you directly compare the reverse circulation assays to the diamond drill assays in Section 30. Two points argue against a direct comparison and suggest the differences are greater than the 3 % that you report. First, any core loss in a gold zone most likely means that the true gold values are greater. The drillers lost significant amounts of the clay-rich, Section-30 gold mineralization. Also, the initiated salt-mud system, an attempt to improve the core recovery, met with little success. Second, the practice of not sampling core geologically, but instead sampling on even 5-foot intervals, adds a deliberate dilution to the core assay values by including a portion of nonmineralized rock in the first and last samples of each high- grade intercept. The result is often a pair of low-grade assay values on either side of a high-grade gold zone. In reality, a high-grade gold zone has a very sharp assay wall that is often bounded by barren rock. This sampling method may make the diamond-drill core assays more like the reverse circulation values and may help explain the statistical similarities you found. However, it does not represent the true gold values in the high-grade parts of the deposit. You cannot deny that, by careful geological sampling of the drill core, higher and sharper assay values will be obtained. The low core recovery and the diamond-drill-core sampling method used act together to lower the diamond-core assay values. The 3% difference you found between the reverse-circulation and diamond-core assay values could be much larger when you consider what the true diamond-drill core values would be with optimum core recovery and a geologic sampling method for the core. Should statistics have been applied here? The statement "... that reverse circulation holes have overestimated the values of some ore zones and underestimated the values of others" (p. 345) is not correct. The subsampling confirmed what the cross sections hinted at in Section 30. Namely, beneath the high-grade zones, the reverse circulation holes created, by contamination, large intercepts of low-grade ore in regions of barren rock. Because the low-grade material was not there to begin with, this is not a process of overestimating low-grade mineralization. The next statement that "the average result is similar to that of the diamond drill holes" may apply to the data set numerically, but it is not true when viewed spatially on cross sections. Adjacent reverse circulation and diamond drill holes are almost impossible to correlate, high-grade zone values vary widely and many low-grade intercepts make no geologic sense. The subset sampling and cross sections presented in the first part of the paper show that the reverse circulation portion of the data set has some serious problems, as highlighted above, and should not have been dealt with statistically at all. Conclusion Each ore body is different, and each drilling method presents unique sampling problems. In this case, the diamond drill is the

Jan 1, 1994

M.S. Azun I have many objections to the content of the author's paper. Before discussing it, however, I would like to repeat the property of semivariogram function. Second order stationary properties of regionalized variables (ReV's) such as semivariogram function y(h) are perfectly known in geostatistics. Also, the kriging equations in the language of mathematical statistics using second order stationary properties are well understood. However, the way to use the sample (estimated) semivariogram function in any one of the kriging procedures is vague. The sample semivariogram function is given as follows: [ ] where N is the total number of samples, Xi is the sample value at the i - th location, Xi+h is the sample value at the i + h - th location, and h is the distance among the samples. An estimation variance of sample semivariogram function of first lag is smaller than that of higher order lag. The theoretical semivariogram function reaches the variance of samples asymptotically. But this is not easily observable because of the larger variation involved in the estimate of semivariogram function. In general, an estimation procedure is done for h = 0, 1, 2, up to the greatest integer less than N/2, even though sample semivariogram function can be computable through N-1. After estimating semivariogram function, the critical question of how to model sample semivariogram function arises. As seen in the above equation, sample semivariogram function is discrete and can be smoothed by the model being selected. Therefore, modeling of sample semivariogram function is the most important step in geostatistics. It not only smoothes a discrete function but also affects the results of the kriging procedure. When the only aim is to model the semivariogram function, which is the basic point of the author's paper, one can employ any fitting techniques, such as curve fitting, or any arbitrary functions, which are called submodels in the paper. The term "arbitrary function" is used rather than "submodel" because there is no basic understanding of developing them. The author suggests that the sum of those submodels can also be used for the modeling of sample semivariogram function. The combination of any arbitrary functions brings many problems instead of giving an insight of the domain structure considered. The author used two arbitrary functions and the nugget effect in response to sample semivariogram function (Fig. 10). For the same example, he stated that the parameters involved in the mixed arbitrary function model can be accepted when the discrepancy between sample semivariogram function and the model is small visually. For verifying the fitting behavior of any selected model, one should not be contented with the visual satisfactory. Some statistical measure such as goodness of fit has to be used. The author's practice is no more than an exercise in curve fitting without any fundamental understanding or conceptualization of the underlying physical mechanism. Furthermore, the selection of any model is not an easy task if the purpose is the search for the "best" response to the observed second order properties of ReV's. I suggest that the Markovian model (Azun, 1983), on the basis of a theoretical understanding of underlying mechanism, which gives more information about the occurrence of regionalized variables, is used to respond all properties of ReV's. There are a lot of problems for modeling of one-dimensional sample semivariogram function. Thus, it is not appropriate to go to higher order dimensional sample semivariogram function modeling. In the meantime, I would recommend that one can connect the values of standardized sample semivariogram function rather than simple values of semivariogram function in the two-dimensional estimation. The standardized values can be computed in dividing the semivariogram function value by the number of sample pairs involved in each lag regardless of the directions. In conclusion, geostatistics is an interdisciplinary area in mining that uses the principles of mathematical statistics. Thus, it should not violate any probabilistic and statistical rules. When Matheron was developing the theory of geostatistical study in the early years of geostatistics, many mining people had a reservation accepting the geostatistical tools. However, this does not mean that we, the geostatisticians, might try to convince those people using some "strange" tools or rules as some authors implied (Baafi and Kim, 1984). Instead, we have to develop and explain the geostatistical tools staying only in the framework of statistical concepts and properties. References Azun, M.S., 1983, "Stochastic Process Modeling of Spatially Distributed Geostatistical Data," Columbia University, Ph.D. Thesis. Baafi, E.Y., and Kim, Y.C., 1984, "Discussion - Comparison of Different Ore Reserve Estimation Methods Using Conditional Simulation," Mining Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 280. Reply by J.M. Rendu The interactive method proposed by Rendu allows practitioners to develop semivariogram models that take into account not only the numerical information obtained by sampling, but also highly significant additional information that often cannot be quantified. The geology of the deposit - including hypotheses concerning its genesis, sampling methods, assaying methods, and mathematical methods used to calculate the semivariograms - all have an influence on the numerical results obtained and on how these results should be interpreted. If all the information concerning the spatial distribution of values in a mineral deposit was contained in the sample values, it could be argued that statistical techniques alone would produce optimum models. However, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Methods that allow the user to take into account his experience and his geologic understanding of the deposit should not be rejected for the sake of theoretical statistical purity.

Jan 11, 1985

By M. S. Azun

M.S. Azun I have many objections to the content of the author's paper. Before discussing it, however, I would like to repeat the property of semivariogram function. Second order stationary properties of regionalized variables (ReV's) such as semivariogram function ?(h) are perfectly known in geostatistics. Also, the kriging equations in the language of mathematical statistics using second order stationary properties are well understood. However, the way to use the sample (estimated) semivariogram function in any one of the kriging procedures is vague. The sample semivariogram function is given as follows: [1 N-hy*(h) = 2(N h) i21 {Xi-Xi+h}Z, h=0, 1, N-1] where N is the total number of samples, Xi is the sample value at the i - th location, X i+h is the sample value at the i +h - th location, and h is the distance among the samples. An estimation variance of sample semivariogram function of first lag is smaller than that of higher order lag. The theoretical semivariogram function reaches the variance of samples asymptotically. But this is not easily observable because of the larger variation involved in the estimate of semivariogram function. In general, an estimation procedure is done for h = 0, 1, 2,…., up to the greatest integer less than N/2, even though sample semivariogram function can be computable through N-1. After estimating semivariogram function, the critical question of how to model sample semivariogram function arises. As seen in the above equation, sample semivariogram function is discrete and can be smoothed by the model being selected. Therefore, modeling of sample semivariogram function is the most important step in geostatistics. It not only smoothes a discrete function but also affects the results of the kriging procedure. When the only aim is to model the semivariogram function, which is the basic point of the author's paper, one can employ any fitting techniques, such as curve fitting, or any ar¬bitrary functions, which are called submodels in the paper. The term "arbitrary function" is used rather than "submodel" because there is no basic understanding of developing them. The author suggests that the sum of those submodels can also be used for the modeling of sample semivariogram function. The combination of any arbitrary functions brings many problems instead of giving an insight of the domain structure considered. The author used two arbitrary functions and the nugget effect in response to sample semivariogram function (Fig. 10). For the same example, he stated that the parameters involved in the mixed arbitrary function model can be accepted when the discrepancy between sample semivariogram function and the model is small visually. For verifying the fitting behavior of any selected model, one should not be contented with the visual satisfactory. Some statistical measure such as goodness of fit has to be used. The author's practice is no more than an exercise in curve fitting without any fundamental understanding or conceptualization of the underlying physical mechanism. Furthermore, the selection of any model is not an easy task if the purpose is the search for the "best" response to the observed second order properties of ReV's. I suggest that the Markovian model (Azun, 1983), on the basis of a theoretical understanding of underlying mechanism, which gives more information about the occurrence of regionalized variables, is used to respond all properties of ReV's. There are a lot of problems for modeling of onedimensional sample semivariogram function. Thus, it is not appropriate to go to higher order dimensional sample semivariogram function modeling. In the meantime, I would recommend that one can connect the values of standardized sample semivariogram function rather than simple values of semivariogram function in the two-dimensional estimation. The standardized values can be computed in dividing the semivariogram function value by the number of sample pairs involved in each lag regardless of the directions. In conclusion, geostatistics is an interdisciplinary area in mining that uses the principles of mathematical statistics. Thus, it should not violate any probabilistic and statistical rules. When Matheron was developing the theory of geostatistical study in the early years of geostatistics, many mining people had a reservation accepting the geostatistical tools. However, this does not mean that we, the geostatisticians, might try to convince those people using some "strange" tools or rules as some authors implied (Baafi and Kim, 1984). Instead, we have to develop and explain the geostatistical tools staying only in the framework of statistical concepts and properties. ? References Azun, M.S., 1983, "Stochastic Process Modeling of Spatially Distributed Geostatistical Data," Columbia University, Ph.D. Thesis. Baafi, E.Y., and Kim, Y.C., 1984, "Discussion - Comparison of Different Ore Reserve Estimation Methods Using Conditional Simulation," Mining Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 280. Reply by J.M. Rendu The interactive method proposed by Rendu allows practitioners to develop semivariogram models that take into account not only the numerical information obtained by sampling, but also highly significant additional information that often cannot be quantified. The geology of the deposit - including hypotheses concerning its genesis, sampling methods, assaying methods, and mathematical methods used to calculate the semivariograms - all have an influence on the numerical results obtained and on how these results should be interpreted. If all the information concerning the spatial distribution of values in a mineral deposit was contained in the sample values, it could be argued that statistical techniques alone would produce optimum models. However, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Methods that allow the user to take into account his experience and his geologic understanding of the deposit should not be rejected for the sake of theoretical statistical purity. ?

Jan 1, 1986

By R. D. Longyear

[Some Problems Involved in the Interpretation of Diamond-drill-hole Sampling and Surve ing (paper by J. J. Collins, Mining Tech., Jan. 1946). ............... I Geologic Interpretation of Magnetic Exploration on the Mesabi Range, Minnesota (paper by R. H. B. Jones, Mining Tech., July 1946) ................... 2] DISCUSSION R. D. LONGYEAR.*-Mr. Collins is to be commended very highly for the brief summary he has made of the currently used methods of taking diamond-drill sludge samples and the principles involved in evaluating the results. This paper should stimulate further discussion and research on this vitally important problem. It is particularly imperative that geologists and engineers know when assay results on sludge recovery can be accepted quantitatively and when they must be considered only qualitatively. In most cases where the sludge recovery is less than 95 per cent or more than 125 per cent, it is safest to consider the assays as of qualitative value only. Certain cases, however, are known where a relatively small proportion of the sludge sampling will give a reasonably accurate measure of the value of the total sample. One such case is ore in which the valuable mineral is of approximately the same specific gravity as the waste mineral, such as chalcopyrite in a massive pyrite body. The essential point is to determine the degree of accuracy of sludge sampling in any given drilling project and to weigh the results accordingly. It should be emphasized, however, that sludge sampling can be made reliable in many localities where careless practice produces unreliable results. In many instances, it is desirable to empty the core barrel in the core shack instead of at the drill, so that the engineer can examine the core as it first comes from the core barrel. It should be pointed out, however, that the drill * E. J. Longyear Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota. runner should be permitted to study the core to guide his future drilling. It is hoped that with the return of more normal conditions after the war geologists, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers will be able to carry on more research along the lines of improved core-barrel design and drilling technique with the objective of increasing core recovery so as to eliminate as far as possible the necessity of relying upon sludge samples. H. M. ROBERTS.*-Whoever in the future will have to do with the search for ore bodies and their exploration will have frequent occasion to refer to the clear and comprehensive summary on diamond-drilling methods by John Collins. His review of the experience of the last 40 years in this technique is invaluable. As Dr. L. D. Ricketts wrote in 1932, "The principles on which an art is founded are usually few and necessarily basic in nature, but he who wishes to achieve the power to select his aides and give success to important undertakings that may be intrusted to him in the future must ordinarily undergo years of drudgery in order to gain the experience that will enable him to distinguish such fundamentals through the haze of reinforcing detail that clothes and tends to disguise them."[t] Ricketts went on to say that since the beginning of the century there has been much

Jan 1, 1946

By H. W. Graham

[ ] Even though we have a small audience, I am sure there are some here who are interested in sponge iron. It is a large subject, with a lot of economic interest, and one that will continue to grow in importance as the years go by and as the conditions that urge action in that direction increase. The authors have chosen to deal in this paper with one particular narrow phase of a long program of work by the Bureau of Mines. Before asking for any general discussion, I would myself like to ask Mr. Buehl if he would tell us just a little bit about the mechanism of discharge and the form in which the material was discharged; that is, when dolomite is added, what happens to the dolomite? R. C. Buehl (author's reply)-You are interested in the equipment that was used? H. W. GRAHAM-No, just the product. R. C. Buehl-The product was in granular form, of a shape very similar to that of the ore used. Using minus 10-mesh ore, the product is essentially minus 10-mesh, mixed with the coal and dolomite. It is then passed through a belt type of magnetic separator, which picks up the magnetic iron and allows the dolomite and coal to fall off. If the coal is sufficiently valuable, it can be separated from the dolomite and, provided the coal has a sufficiently low ash content, it can be reused. For instance, if a low-ash reducing agent like petroleum coke is used, it can be reused until all the carbon is consumed. H. W. Graham-That clears the point for me. I was not quite sure whether the experi-

Jan 1, 1947