Search Documents

By Y. C. Kim, F. Szidarovszky

G.M. Philip and D.F. Watson The article cited above reflects the difficulty that is often encountered in interpreting different aspects of kriging. Baafi et al. write : "Due to negative kriging weights, negative block grades may be obtained in some extreme situations, which makes no practical sense." Their solution to this particular problem is to constrain the kriged estimates to data values that have positive weights, i.e., reduce the subset size contributing to the estimation. As Journel (1986, p. 133) has already observed, "Negative weights are no evil." Indeed, they are an ineluctable result of the Lagrangian multipliers in the system of simultaneous equations. The fact that data distant from the estimation point may be given negative weights simply means that the influence of such distant values must be negated because their influence is contradictory to closer values (as illustrated by Baafi et al. in their Figs. 3 and 4). Of course negative kriging weights applied to distant grade values will not in themselves induce negative grade at some central interpolation point. Negative grade values, rather, seem to be a particular artifact of automatic methods of estimation involving accu¬mulations (Philip and Watson, 1985a, 1985b, 1987b). The elimination of negative weights, suggested by Baafi et al., is likely to exacerbate a quite different problem of kriging and piecewise spline interpolation discussed elsewhere (Philip and Watson, 1987a). In interpolating large data sets of scattered observations, changing local subsets or neighborhoods must be selected automatically. Because of the mathematical formulation of kriging and spline interpolation, discontinuities then occur between closely-spaced estimation points as the subset used in the estimation changes. If this subset is reduced in number and size, the discontinuities will be amplified and more common. ? References Journel, A.G., 1986, "Geostatistics: models and tools for Earth Sciences," Journal of Mathematical Geology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 119-139. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1985a, "Theoretical aspects of grade-tonnage calculations," International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 149-154. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1985b, "A deterministic approach to computing ore reserves. I, Grade Estimation," Earth Resources Foundation, Occas. Paper 2, The University of Sydney, 24 pp. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1987a, "Neighborhood discontinuities in bivariate interpolation of scattered observations," Mathematical Geology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 69-74. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1987b, "Estimating interactions of topological functions," Mathematical Geology, Vol. 18, (at press). Reply by Y. C. Kim Before replying to the comments by Philip and Watson, it is desirable to establish the original perspective of our paper, which was intended primarily for the practitioners of mining who possess a working knowledge of ordinary kriging. The paper tried to convey the following practical points: (1) there are circumstances in which one observes negative weights, (2) illustration of circumstances under which one can expect negative weights, (3) should one obtain a negative estimated grade, one can resort to elimination of negative weights using the technique outlined in the paper, and (4) one could normally select only the first layer of surrounding assays to estimate the block grade. Under such a perspective, most of the comments by Philip and Watson are irrelevant and misdirected. For example, the practitioners do not find it difficult to "interpret" the results of ordinary kriging, as evidenced by the fact that they have been using the results for nearly a decade. Nor are the practitioners concerned with discontinuities in estimated block grades due to changing neighborhood of assays during kriging. What matters to the practitioners is the fact that kriging does provide the best estimate among all the estimation tools available to them as of today. ?

Jan 2, 1987

By Nath S. Parate

Emphasis on publications related to coal mining subsidence and damages is appropriate at present in view of the energy crisis and increased coal production and public alertness. I have worked in Harrisburg with the state government Public Utilities Commission on energy-fuel matters and issues (Parate, 1978-80). I have participated in the communication on subsidence/ damage reviews and status with the Bureau of Mines Liasion Office (Kebblish, 1978-79). I have done research (Parate, 1965) and published papers (Parate, 1972; Parate, 1967) in Britain on coal mining subsidence and damages around Sheffield-Nottinghamshire coal fields. I have a few comments on the recent paper titled, "Pennsylvania Subsidence Control Guidelines," by C.J. Bise. 1) What is the basis of the empirical formula or guideline, LD _ (0.27 x D) ± 4.6, defining the support area? 2) The particular structure may not be damaged due to vertical uniform displacement caused by mining beneath unless the displacement is differential (King, 1964). 3) The author mentions the limited subsidence research in the US, and quite rightly so. But he fails to quote any work reference by continental investigators except the British or review work by the US. What are the reasons? 4) The author has not mentioned the importance and role of angle of draw for Pennsylvania, Kentucky, or Illinois coal fields. Is there any current research investigation on the relationship between subsidence research investigation, damage, and transference of strains to structures? There have been a number of newspaper reports on subsidence damage in Wilkesbarre and other areas in Pennsylvania. Is the author aware of such instances and traditional attitudes to such issues? Many times government agencies--due to lack of funds, technical expertise, and public policies--are unable or do not find it interesting to keep updates on these issues, as per the author's knowledge and experience with state governments. 5) What is the net effect and role of the D.E.R. Insurance Office on the monitoring, reducing, or controlling subsidence damage, particularly in Pennsylvania?

Jan 1, 1983

By Y. C. Kim, I. S. Roditis, P. K. Medhi

P. Mousset-Jones I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reference Kwa, B.L., and Mousset-Jones, P., 1986, "Indicator Kriging Applied to a Gold Deposit in Nevada," Proceedings, Symposium on Ore Reserve Estimation Methods, Models, and Reality, CIMM Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May, pp. 185194. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent comparative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging. Reference Lindsey, D.S., 1987, "A Comparative Study: Probability Kriging vs. Ordinary Kriging at the Golden Sunlight Mine," MS Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte, MT, May, 81 pp.

Jan 3, 1988

I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent com¬parative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging.

Jan 1, 1987

By Donald N. Rosenblatt

I would like to commend the author on his description of Pinto Valley's plant, and its interesting innovations. The author's discussion of 18 ft in diameter by 21 ft long primary ball mills (the largest wet ball mills made to date) is of considerable importance to those who have been engaged in the field of studying ball mill liner wear as it relates to various grinding installations. While it is stated that the mills have operated on a fixed tonnage and therefore it has been difficult to determine the best liner pattern, calculations from the data in the paper indicates that for mills 1, 2, 5, and 6, the tonnage per hour varies from a low of 223 for mill No. 1, up to a high of 314, for mill No. 2, while mills 5 and 6 calculate 285 and 246, respectively. Analysis of the wear patterns for the single wave liners used in mill No. 1 as compared to the double wave liners in mill No. 2, suggests that the author's data may tell more than he suspects about liner wear to be expected and thus what should be a best pattern selection from what may appear to be only limited hours of operation. [Fig. A] is a reproduction of author's [Fig. 10], to which wear forecast patterns [F-1 and F-2] have been added. Forecasts are based on many previous studies of large diameter ball mill operations over many years of field service. Calculations from the first-wear pattern provide an initial wear rate of only 13 lb of liner per 100 sq ft of shell liner surface per day, or 0.031 lb per to: ground. However, the second wear pattern is ac-

Jan 1, 1978

R. B. BrinSmade, Ixmiquilpan, Hgo., Mexico (written discussion*).—While agreeing with Mr. Gibson that his net-profit tax is the fairest and best for mines, I believe that the tax he describes can be more accurately defined by another name. In accounting, net profits are usually considered to be the residual of the gross income after operating expenses and the annual charge for upkeep of plant have been deducted. Even the necessary interest on bonds or mortgages should not be subtracted in this calculation, for this interest represents merely that fixed portion of the net profits going as a return to that fraction of the total property value owned by the bondholders. Applying this method of calculation to the gross income of a mining property, we should onIy deduct operation expenses and upkeep of plant to get the net profits on its whole property value. So Mr. Gibson in deducting a further sum, to cover the interest and amortization of the capital expended in mine development and equipment, really arrives at something quite differen't from net profits; which can properly only be defined as the annual value of the mineral in the ground, or the royalty value in miners' parlance. From one viewpoint, Mr. Gibson's first principle, which assesses taxes, "proportionate to the benefits received by the person or property taxed," is identical with his third principle wbich assesses "with reference to the extent and value of the natural resources enjoyed." With one exception, everything of use around a mine represents a cash expenditure, or its equivalent in human labor, and state action has not added an iota to its value. The one exception is what makes the enterprise possible and it includes the mineral deposits and their associated surface; water and other landed rights. These natural resources are origin2!1y the gift of tile people acting through their agent, the state, and it is evident that a tax laid on whatever profits may arise from their enjoyment will be exactly "proportionate to the benefits received by the person or property taxed." Mr. Gibson is mistaken in his belief that the general property tax of the United States has the same incidence as his system of taxing profits, because the general property tax falls not only on land1 value—as does

Jan 1, 1920

By T. N. Moore, E. M. De Souza

J. Dasher Regarding the March 1991 ME technical paper by De Souza and Moore: For more than a decade since my February 1981 article on how to use modern metric, which SME-AIME had decided to do, I have monthly pointed out metric errors to the editors. In part, I do this because there has been no action to allow editors to fix figures and tables or to allow them to require authors to do so. The latest resulting atrocity provokes this discussion of vibrating drill handle units being stated in decibels. Reply by T. Moore We have read the discussion of our paper by Mr. Dasher. Our reaction is one of surprise and incredulity. It would seem that Mr. Dasher takes exception to the use of the decibel scale to present vibration acceleration data, and the use of hertz as the unit for frequency. The basis for his objection to the decibel appears to be that it has no dimensions (which somehow invalidates its use), that it is "non-metric" and, finally, that it is parochial (of limited or narrow scope). His objection to the use of the term hertz is not stated, but we will assume that it stands condemned as "non-metric" and parochial. Obviously we disagree with Mr. Dasher's views and will now outline our reasons. Although the decibel scale originates from transmission line theory and telephone engineering, it is also at present widely used, not only in the fields of electronic engineering and acoustics, but also in the area of vibration. The original definition of the decibel (dB) was based on power ratios: dB = 10 log 10(W/W0) where Wo is a reference power. However, as the power measured across a given impedance is related to the square of the force acting upon this impedance, Z, a more commonly used definition is: [2 dB = 10 logF /Z) = 20 log F/F 10\ F0 2 /Z(0)] where F and F0 are the r.m.s. values of the forces. Now, if the measurements are related to one and the same impedance, the decibel notation in the form of 20log10(X/Xo) may be used as a convenient relative magnitude scale for a variety of quantities. Thus, X may, for instance, be an r.m.s. displacement, velocity or acceleration. It is only required that XD always be a reference quantity of the same type as X. That is, when X represents an acceleration, then X0 represents a reference acceleration. This is the formulation used in our paper. This was not an arbitrary choice on our behalf but reflects standard practice as specified in the International Standard ISO 5349-1986(E) Mechanical Vibration - Guidelines for the Measurement and the Assessment of Human Despite the metric prefix, the decibel is a parochial expression of (l) the logarithmic ratio of the loudness of a sound to what is normally audible or (2) the logarithmic ratio of two power signals in radio or electronics. A decibel is not a unit, much less an SI, unit and has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceleration of drill handles. Stating that m/s2 (acceleration) is decibels is without reason. Whoever reviewed this material should not have allowed publication of figures of dB and H.[ ] Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration. This was clearly stated in the "measurement protocol" section of our paper. This quantity is then referred to as the acceleration level and is expressed in dB. We may have inadvertently caused some confusion when we simply used the term acceleration to refer to acceleration level on our diagrams. At the time, we felt the use of dB or m/s2 would make the context clear to the reader. For any confusion this decision may have engendered, we apologize. Since the decibel expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it certainly has no dimensions. It is, however, common practice to treat "decibel" as a unit as, for example, in the sentence, "The acceleration level measured at the operator's hand was 160 dB." The expression of measured quantities in dimensionless form is not inherently unacceptable. In fact, in many areas of engineering it is standard practice (consider the use of Reynolds Number, Nusselt Number, etc.). The fact that the decibel is a dimensionless quantity makes the question of whether it is a SI unit nonsensical. However, it is valid to insist that the dimensional quantities used to obtain the decibel values be expressed in SI units. A careful reading of our paper will make it clear that the measured acceleration was, in fact, expressed in units of m/s2 as was the reference acceleration (l x 10-6 m/S2). These are the accepted derived SI units for acceleration. See, for example, the standard ASTM E380-89a Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (SI) (The Modernized Metric System). Concerning Mr. Dasher's implication that hertz (Hz) is an unacceptable unit of measure for frequency, we would again refer him to the standard ASTM E380-89a. Here, he will find (section 2.4.2) that hertz is an accepted "special name" for the derived SI units-1. This is in keeping with numerous other international standards including ISO 5349-1986(E) to which we referred in our paper. In conclusion, we agree with Mr. Dasher on the desirability of expressing measurements in modern SI units. But we would remind him that the standards that define the use of these units, and the accepted means of presenting measured data, are in a continual state of refinement. It is, therefore, incumbent upon him to keep abreast of these changes if he wishes to constructively critique the work of others.[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

By E. L. Fidler, T. E. Finch

Wayne Anderson Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 11, 1982

By Wayne Anderson

Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 1, 1983

My question relates to tundish nozzle plugging on aluminum-killed heats. North Star has avoided this problem by silicon deoxidation. What has been Inland's experience with this problem on open-pour and submerged nozzle pouring?

Jan 1, 1972

By R. W. Barbaro, R. V. Ramani, K. V. K. Prasad, P. T. Luckie

Discussion by A. Unal Barbaro et al. (1990) implemented a tedious study aimed at delineating the short-scale spatial variability of sulfur in a coal seam. It is not possible, however, to extend their conclusions to any other coal seam or use their in any other fashion, because the background geology was not presented. Nor were the conclusions accompanied by geological interpretations in the paper. In addition, an unfortunate printing error occurred where the total sulfur (determined by High Temperature Combustion) variogram in Fig.3 was duplicated in Fig. 2 instead of the seam height variogram. A more serious error, however, has been committed in the definition of the variable, seam height. What is defined as seam height by Barbaro et al. (1990) is, in essence, mining height, and is not a regionalized variable that should be studied by geostatistical methods directly. Despite the fact that the variable, seam height, is not defined in the paper explicitly, the following quotation discloses the fallacy: "All roof rock that exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft) from the floor was not taken because the longwall was operated to not mine more than 1.8 in (6 ft) unless the coal seam height exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft)." From this definition, the seam height, and therefore the sampling height, is equal to the actual coal thickness, if the coal thickness is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft). Otherwise, it is equal to the sum of the coal thickness plus the thickness of the roof rock that complements the thickness to 1.8 m (6 ft). In the latter case, the seam height is constant and equal to 1.8 m (6 ft). It is possible to conduct a variogram study on a pool of samples that are realizations of two different variables. But the conclusions derived would not belong to any one of the two variables uniquely and, therefore, do not possess any significance. Geostatistical analysis is irrelevant for the sum of multiple regionalized variables formed by arbitrary selections. In a two-seam setting, for example, the mining height, as defined by the thickness of one seam at one location and the thickness of both seams at another location (due to quality and/or minimum thickness considerations perhaps), should not be used in the calculation of one common variogram. The two seams should be modeled separately. They can then be combined according to the specific purposes of the study. On the other hand, if a constant is added to a regionalized variable (to incorporate dilution perhaps), the variogram of the new variable will not change. Barbaro et al. (1990), surprisingly, does not give any geological interpretation of their results despite the fact that most of them can be explained by the origins of sulfur in a coal seam. The presentation of the results of a geostatistical study with no reference to the geology of the deposit is uninformative. It may also be misleading for the potential users of geostatistics, It is not unusual to find nuggets of pyrite in coal seams. In such cases, pyritic sulfur will probably display a spatial structure for only a very small distance that will appear in the experimental variogram as no spatial correlation. This very well known phenomenon is called the pure nugget effect in geostatistics (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978) and perhaps can explain the lack of correlation found for pyritic sulfur content. The lack of correlation found for the total sulfur content may also be explained in the same way because the total sulfur content is dominated by the pyritic sulfur content in this case study. One should notice, however, that the situation may completely be reversed after cleaning the coal. Not all of the inorganic sulfur should be expected to be in the form of pyrite nuggets in a coal seam. It may also be disseminated in the coal seam and it is expected that it follows a certain spatial structure. However, an existing spatial structure may be masked by including a part of the roof rock, rich in sulfides, into the seam thickness in an arbitrary fashion because areas having a sandstone roof sometimes are known to show a higher sulfur content due to the downward percolation of solutions rich in iron sulfides (Clark, 1979). Plants use sulfur in their growth processes. Much of this sulfur is bound organically during peat accumulation and coal formation (Cecil et al., 1978.) This suggests a spatial structure of some sort for the organic sulfur. However, it is not possible to test this hypothesis because the results obtained by the authors for the organic sulfur content are not given in this paper. For this reason, the conclusion that simple average of the nearby samples would provide the best unbiased estimates is questionable for organic sulfur and is not based on any substantial supporting evidence. It is suspected that no spatial structure was detected and this was due to high sampling and laboratory analysis errors. Before concluding that sulfur variability in the seam at the location of study was random, a more detailed study for the disseminated non-pyritic sulfur should have been conducted, not for the sake of scientific curiosity only, but also due to its utmost importance with regard to coal cleaning and emission control. Pyritic sulfur can be cleaned to a considerable extent, whereas organic sulfur can not, making the emission control strategies highly dependent on the spatial distribution of the organic sulfur (Knudsen, 1981). In the light of these facts, one wonders why Barbaro et al. (1990) did not present the results of their study for the sulfate and organic sulfur content. References Barbaro, R.W.. et al., 1990, "Short-Scale Spatial Variability of Sulfur in a Coal Seam,' Mining Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 1267-1269. Cecil, C.B., et al., 1978, "Geology of Ccontaminants in coal," report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina, 123 pp. Clark, W.J.. 1979, "An interfluve model of the upper Freeport coal Bed in part of western Pennsylvania," unpublished MS thesis, University of South Carolina, 57 pp. Journel, A.G., and [Huijbregls], Ch. J., 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, London, 600 pp. Knudsen, H.P., 1981. "Development of a Conditional simulation model of a coal deposit," unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona, 109 pp.

Jan 1, 1992

It was a pleasure listening to this paper. Gary Works' problems were a lot more extensive than the trunnion bearing problems encountered at the Weirton Steel Division. In our two-vessel shop bearing failures are critical in that with a bearing failure on an operating vessel and the second vessel under rebuild, we are down until the vessel rebuild is completed or the bearing is repaired. The first bearing problem at Weirton occurred after we had been operating three years. The failure occurred during the 8th heat following "bum-in" of the vessel. Immediate steps were taken to change the damaged float bearing without an extensive search for the reason the bearing failed. Once the campaign was run out the bearings were inspected and found to be damaged. Field checks revealed that the bearing pedestals were not properly located and as a result the freedom of the float bearing was restricted. The trunnion pin end to end dimension had decreased due to distortion and deflection in the trunnion ring. These dimensions were within tolerances. The damage to our bearing was similar to that in the exhibits from U.S. Steel-Gary Works. Steps taken to correct what was found in the field checks were as follows: 1. The pedestals were relocated to center the bearings. 2. 4" diameter pins were installed to locate the housing in the pedestals. 3. The bearing pedestals were opened up to allow the bearing housing to move slightly in the pedestal. 4. Lubrication fittings for greasing between the bearing housing and the pedestal were installed.

Jan 1, 1972

By A. M. Radigan, W. G. Prast

M.S. Azun The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also, I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitilize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondant government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 2, 1984

By M. S. Azun

The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also. I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitalize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondent government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 1, 1985

By J. D. Miller, R. J. Smith

Earl C. Herkenhoff Publication of the article "The Flotation Behavior of Digested Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands" by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller has confirmed and again spotlighted a most significant and important development in the field of tar sand and heavy oil mining. This is the ability to recover 95 % of the bitumen in dry tar sands by a hot water process. The initial investigation by Miller and Sepulveda in early 1978, "Separation of Bitumen from Dry Tar Sands," was the first blockbuter. It is disappointing that there has been so little scientific and industry ackowledgement that the authors laid to rest the long entrenched belief that the sand grains had to be "water wetted" for a hot water process to be applicable. Dr. Miller and his researchers at the University of Utah used slightly different mineral dressing terminology in describing their process but it is essentially the old, established technique of high solids attrition scrubbing at elevated temperatures with a conditioner or modifier, followed by dilution and froth flotation. Similar techniques were described in detail for other nonmetallic minerals in the mid-1940s by Stuart Falconer of American Cyanamid Co. The authors used a 15-minute "scrub" period (or in their terminology "digester step") at 73% solids and 95°C (203°F) in a 0.3 m solution of sodium carbonate -about 4 kg/t (8 lb per st) of tar sand. Flotation was at 10% solids. Obviously, the scrub is an expensive step with respect to energy input but the high recovery of bitumen appears to justify it. Two basic questions then arise: • What are the effects of shorter scrubbing time, lower temperature, and less sodium carbonate? • Would a two-stage approach be advantageous? That is, could you get the major proportion of the bitumen with a mild scrub and apply the high power and temperature only to the refractory portion? These variables should be evaluated. Apparently, all results were only for rougher flotation. What would the grade and recovery of bitumen be if multiple cleaner flotation steps were employed? We must concede that a 60-62% grade of bitumen leaves considerable room for upgrading. Finally, it should be noted by all executives who approve funds for heavy oil recovery schemes, most of which are variations of in-situ methods, that mining can yield a 95% recovery of bitumen. That is correct, 95%. Imagine what that does to the total barrels recovered from a heavy oil resource compared with the scrawny 30-35% maximum recovery we are getting now. The conclusion-let's mine heavy oil and tar sands. Reply by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller We, too, share Mr. Herkenhoff s enthusiasm for the mining of tar sands-heavy oil and continue the development of related processing technology. Specifically, it will be noted that by appropriate control of bitumen viscosity in the feed (probably the most important variable for successful separation) the recovery can be accomplished at low digestion temperature and low addition of alkali. A 91 t/d (100 stpd) pilot plant based on our technology is now being operated by Enercor in Salt Lake City (Hatfield, Oblad, and Miller, 1982). In these same pilot facilities, rougher concentrates containing more than 80% bitumen on a dry basis are being produced from Asphalt Ridge Feed. However, the processing of certain other tar sands results in incomplete digestion of bitumen/sand aggregates as discussed elsewhere (Miller and Misra, 1982). Such undigested aggregates are shown in Fig. 1. In this regard, it is intended that a recycle stream will be installed in the pilot plant to provide for redigestion of middling products. Further details regarding surface chemistry aspects of this tar sand technology have recently been published (Misra, Aguilar, and Miller, 1981). References Hatfield, K.E., Oblad, A.G., and Miller, J.D., 1982, "Pilot Plant Recovery of Bitumen from Oil Wet Tar Sands," Processing, Second International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Caracas, Venezuela, Feb. 7-17. Hatfield, K.E., Oblad, A.G., and Miller, J.D., 1982, "Pilot Plant Processing of Oil-Wet Tar Sands," Symposium, Rocky Mountain Fuel Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 18-19. Miller, J.D. and Misra, M. 1982, "Hot Water Process Development for Utah Tar Sands," Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, April, pp. 27-49. Misra, M., Aguilar, R., and Miller, J.D., 1981, "Surface Chemistry Features in the Hot Water Processing of Utah Tar Sand, Proceedings, "Symposium of Separation Science and Technology for Energy Applications," Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 5-8.

Jan 11, 1982

By Earl C. Herkenhoff

Publication of the article "The Flotation Behavior of Digested Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands" by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller has confirmed and again spotlighted a most significant and important development in the field of tar sand and heavy oil mining. This is the ability to recover 95% of the bitumen in dry tar sands by a hot water process. The initial investigation by Miller and Sepulveda in early 1978. "Separation of Bitumen from Dry Tar Sands," was the first blockbuster. It is disappointing that there has been so little scientific and industry ackowledgement that the authors laid to rest the long entrenched belief that the sand grains had to be "water wetted" for a hot water process to be applicable. Dr. Miller and his researchers at the University of Utah used slightly different mineral dressing terminology in describing their process but it is essentially the old, established technique of high &lids attrition scrubbing at elevated temperatures with a conditioner or modifier, followed by dilution and froth flotation. Similar techniques were described in detail for other nonmetallic minerals in the mid-1940s by Stuart Falconer of American Cyanamid Co. The authors used a 15-minute "scrub" period (or in their terminology "digester step") at 73% solids and 95OC (203°F) in a 0.3 m solution of sodium carbonate-about 4 kg/t (8 lb per st) of tar sand. Flotation was at 10% solids. Obviously, the scrub is an expensive step with respect to energy input but the high recovery of bitumen appears to justify it. Two basic questions then arise: What are the effects of shorter scrubbing time, lower temperature, and less sodium carbonate? Would a two-stage approach be advantageous? That is, could you get the major proportion of the bitumen with a mild scrub and apply the high power and temperature only to the refractory portion? These variables should be evaluated. Apparently, all results were only for rougher flotation. What would the grade and recovery of bitumen be if multiple cleaner flotation steps were employed? We must concede that a 60.62% grade of bitumen leaves considerable room for upgrading. Finally, it should be noted by all executives who approve funds for heavy oil recovery schemes, most of which are variations of in-situ methods, that mining can yield a 95% recovery of bitumen. That is correct, 95%. Imagine what that does to the total barrels recovered from a heavy oil resource compared with the scrawny 30-35% maximum recovery we are getting now. The conclusion-let's mine heavy oil and tar sands.

Jan 1, 1983

By Stephen Semeniuk

Working with junior mining companies as a valuer, my experience with regulators is that simplicity works and the sales comparison method is the way to go. What I like about Mr. Ellis?s approach (as in his Table 7) is the integration of commodity prices with the timing of acquisitions and the implication of price changes in gold on the adjustment of individual project valuations. However, the sample gold-related appraisals in Ellis?s paper are pre-2008 transactions and readers should be made aware of the current market for such projects. Before moving on, to be noted is that the effective date of the Las Brisas appraisal (Ellis?s sample Appraisal 3) is Feb. 10, 2006; given that the subject value of Transaction 9, Choco 10 in Ellis?s Table 6 was listed as $353 million for a 95% interest in the con-cession, I am uncomfortable accepting that the acquisition was suddenly worth the adjusted value of $1,205 million (as given in Ellis?s Table 7). In some cases, illiquidity discounts can apply, and commodity-wise, in the one-month period between the acquisition in January 2006 and the adjustment to the Las Brisas conditions as of February 10, 2006, the indicated gold price change was only 41 cents/g ($12.60/oz); i.e., from $17.50/g to $17.91/g ($544.40/oz to $557/oz).

Jan 1, 2012

Jan 1, 1985

By A. D. Hughes

C. W. MERRILL*-Mr. Hughes' paper not only is very well presented but is most timely in that it covers a subject of vital interest to the United States. Tin is one of the strategic metals which has not been found here in appreciable quantities. The total United States tin output since the first recorded production over 100 years ago would not supply current consumption for a fortnight. On the consumption side, tin is extremely important in national defense because of its use in tin plate which, in the form of tin cans, makes it possible to feed properly the armies that the United States recruits from its civilian population in emergencies. Moreover, the internal combustion engines so important in powering tanks, planes, and other war machines, require large quantities of tin alloys for bearings and for soldering. These considerations, along with the fact that Malaya, historically, has been the leading source of tin to the United States, make the kind of information that Mr. Hughes has presented so ably, a matter of vital interest.

Jan 1, 1949

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925