Search Documents

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 L. H. Hart

Because of a widely recognized association between breccia pipes of one form or another and many important copper deposits, conditions under which breccia pipes develop have been of great scientific interest for many years. Since these phenomena first attracted attention, many theories have been advanced to explain their origin. This is not unexpected, since it is likely that they have been formed by and under a wide range of conditions. Moreover, the entire subject is confused by the fact that the term breccia pipe is applied to a wide variety of occurrences. To discuss any part of the subject intelligently, therefore, it is necessary to start with definitions of the terms used. In their discussion of the Toquepala deposit, Richard and Courtright have carefully defined the terms they have used in their presentation of a very logical geo- logical history of Toquepala breccias. This is a real contribution, as there is no reference in the literature known to the writer where the history of a series of breccia pipe epochs, confined essentially within one channelway, may be read with the degree of certainty that appears to be possible at Toquepala.

Jan 6, 1958

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

By B. H. Bergstrom

In reading this article, it was difficult to follow through the example given as a starting point in the derivation of the theoretical equation which relates ball size to feed size. A discussion with F. C. Bond led to the following clarification: Bond postulates that "the breaking force exerted by a ball varies . . . as the cube of its diameter . . ." and that the force in pounds per square inch required to break a particle varies . . . as its diameter squared."

Jan 5, 1959

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

INTRODUCTION The first installation of large, commercial, high gradient-high field cannister and matrix magnetic separators for removal of impurities from kaolin was made in 1973 (1). Since then the technology and equipment have been widely adopted for clay processing with about 12 units in commercial use. These new separators have filled a need, caught the imagination of many and become a technology worth fighting for. A fight has occurred, and a resolution on royalties for kaolin processing, at least, has been achieved. LIMITATIONS TO APPLICATIONS OF MAGNETIC SEPARATORS Other than the use of these magnets on kaolin clay, no other application has yet achieved widespread adoption. Dr. Iannicelli blames inertia, and1 would agree that it is a factor. There are other reasons too, and if they are examined, they may isolate problems that R&D can significantly assist in solving. I'd like to break the problems into two areas. Machine limitations - the mineral properties are there but performance is insufficient or uneconomic. Separation limitations - the mineral properties aren’t there, but the magnetic separation would perform well if the properties were there (size is right; concentration is right, etc).

Jan 1, 1979

Contribution by W.D. Ortlepp? The authors are to be commended for publishing their interesting view of an aspect of deep-level mining technology that is becoming increasingly topical and vitally important. This is the second paper in the journal within four months to deal with the crucial needs of highly stressed tunnel construction, the other being the paper on the design and testing of rockburst support in the February 1994 issue. Both papers re-examine important innovative ideas that are more than a quarter of a century old, but that have not yet been implemented by the industry. It is to be hoped that they will now, taken together, serve as a new starting point for a definitive examination of what constitutes proper tunnel-support design. There can be no question that the need to develop a design approach that will solve the problems of tunnelling at depths of 4000 m or more has now become crucial. Contribution by A.M.J. Vervoort* Although the overall paper is very interesting and the future research (comparison between numerical simulations and underground measurements) will be very challenging, I would like to make some remarks regarding the set-up of the numerical model and the interpretation of the elastic results.

Jan 1, 1995

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 J. L. Weeks

Discussion by J.L. Weeks Discussion I wish to comment on Kissell and Sacks's paper "Inaccuracy of area sampling for measuring the dust exposure of mining machine operators in coal mines." It is well established in industrial hygiene that area sampling is not an accurate measure of personal exposure. To measure personal exposure, one must use a personal sampler. Kissell and Sacks, using data from coal mining, reached the same conclusion. This is the right answer but it is the wrong question. This issue arises because the machine-mounted respirable dust continuous monitor (MMRDCM) is being considered to monitor coal-miners' exposure to respirable dust. This device may be mounted on a continuous mining machine, and it would take a modified area sample. I refer to it as "modified" because a mining machine is not really a fixed location, as is the typical area sample. The concern with whether this machine would provide an accurate estimate of the machine-operator's exposure, however, overlooks important features of the MMRDCM. Specifically, it displays dust concentration as it occurs and at the place where it is needed, not 10 days later, as is the case with the current system. Used in this way, it allows for timely intervention to control exposure to dust and it leads to greater first-hand knowledge of specific conditions and mining practices that result in excess exposure. If one knows the dust level is excessive at the time the dust is being generated, it is possible to use known and effective methods of dust control to reduce exposure. By measuring again, one can determine whether control methods have worked. This is a generic procedure followed in any industrial process: measure, adjust and measure again. It leads to more effective and more efficient dust control and is preferred to taking a sample, waiting 10 days for the results and then trying to apply that information to a situation that no longer exists. The MMRDCM also records the dust level automatically, and it runs continuously, making it harder to tamper with. Dust monitoring in underground coal mines has been corrupted by some operators having submitted fraudulent samples (and being convicted on criminal charges because of it), weakening the credibility of the current system. The MMRDCM is, in part, a response to this corruption, and an effort to focus attention on dust levels and dust controls rather than on the perpetrators of fraud. Use of the MMRDCM is an evolutionary change from the current system. With the current system, one takes a personal sample of exposure of the "designated occupation" (DO, defined at 30 CFR 70.2 (f)), the occupation regularly exposed to the highest level of dust on a section. Typically, on sections using continuous mining machines, this is the mining-machine operator. The rationale behind DO sampling rests on some of the findings that Kissell and Sacks report. They reviewed several studies that showed that dust concentration varies with location on a mining section and that there is a concentration gradient with the highest concentration occurring closest to the face. The logic behind DO sampling strategy is that if the dust concentration at the place where it is highest is below the exposure limit, then concentration elsewhere on the section is also below the limit. In this way, one will have achieved the objective or keeping dust concentration below the exposure limit for all miners on the section by measuring the exposure of only one miner. The

Jan 1, 2003

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 H. I. Smith

CONTENTS [PAGE Problems of Mining and Processing Mineral Aggregates (TP 1649, by NATHAN C. ROCKWOOD, Min. Tech., Nov. 1943. Discussion by H. I. SMITH, IRVING WARNER and the author) t Mica in War (TP 1749, by RUSSELL G. WAYLAND, Min. Tech., July 1944. Discussion by H. S. SPENCE) 3 Three Roofing-granule Plants in Pennsylvania (TP 1787, by RICHARD M. FOOSE, Min. Tech., Jan. 1945. Discussion by H. I. SMITH)5 Methods of Prospecting and Mining Optical Calcite in Montana (TP 1896, by E. W. NEWMAN, Min. Tech., Nov. 1945. Discussion by W. C. STOLL and FRANK C. ARMSTRONG, and the Glass Sand and a Glass Industry in Puerto Rico (TP 1939, by HOWARD A. MEYERHOFF and J. EARL FRAZIER, Min. Tech., Nov. 1945. Discussion by A. M. SHORT, the author and PHILIP The "Bonanza" Mica Operation of Purdy Mica Mines, Limited, Mattawsn Township, Ontario (TP 2154, by HUGH S. SPENCE, Min. Tech., March 1947. Author's supplement and discussion by JOHN A. BAKER, E. J. LINTNER, and the author) 7 Process for Manufacture of Dead-burned Magnesite and Precipitated Calcium Carbonate from Dolomite (TP 2155, by ROBERT D. PIKE, Min. Tech., March 1947. Discussion by 0. C. RALSTON and the author) 9] Problems of Mining and Processing Mineral Aggregates H. I. SMITH*-Mr. Rockwood has presented a very interesting paper on problems of the mineral aggregate industry in meeting specification requirements, which apparently are ever decreasing in tolerance. May I call attention to a method of mineral separation that may be of value in separating the flat aggregate particles from the more angular ones and possibly the soft particles from the hard. The method is the old Pardee spiral coal separator, extensively used many years ago in the anthracite region for separating rock and bone from anthracite coal.1 The success of the process depends on the relative coefficient of friction of the aggregate particles to be separated rather than on their relative specific gravity. The flat and the soft particles normally will slide more slowly and stay on the inner spiral until they reach the delivery spout at the bottom whereas the round and the angular pieces will work to the outer edge and fall off into a spiral of larger diameter. The capacity of the separator is increased materially by having three inner spirals, with a separate feed for each, on which the particles travel more slowly, and one outer spiral from which the more rapidly traveling pieces slide to the bottom. IRVING WARNER*-I have long been convinced that much of the equipment and methods developed for mineral dressing might be advantageously employed in the mineral aggregates industry, and more particularly in the production of sand and gravel. The two industries are not well acquainted with each other or their problems. They have separate trade publications. The difficulty with the situation is that there are few large sand and gravel plants and few provided with technical services in their own organization or by retainer. This does not refer to engineering organizations but rather to improvement of plant technic in processing.

Jan 1, 1947

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

H. H. Bleakney (Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa, Canada)— The work of Dr. Machlin and his colleagues at Columbia University is so scholarly that one hesitates to take issue with them. Nevertheless the writer feels compelled to enter a demurrer to the mechanism of intercrystalline cracking proposed in this paper. The principal obstacle to its acceptance is found in its preoccupation with purely mechanical influences and its disregard for the chemical effect of impurities. The writer believes that the destruction of metallic cohesion by concentration of impurities at the grain boundaries is a necessary and sufficient condition for the development of intercrystalline cracking; and he believes that discussion of the numerous mechanical explanations proposed should wait until some valid objection to the chemical hypothesis has been advanced. It is nearly twenty years since Gillett" drew attention to the possibility that the chemical influence of precipitation might be the cause of intercrystalline cracking. As early as 1935, Greenwood'" remarked that grain-boundary precipitation of impurities in lead appeared to promote intercrystalline cracking. Again in 1939, Scott commented as follows on a paper by Thielemann and Parker:'" "There are at least two familiar phenomena that can influence grain-boundary cohesion: 1) intergranular oxidation; and 2) grain boundary precipitation. An important consideration in this work, therefore, is to determine which, if either, of these factors is responsible for the low values of cohesive strength observed." In 1952. the writer presented evidence," some original and some abstracted, which indicated that in copper, silver, aluminum, lead and iron, intergranular cohesion was a function of the purity of the metal. In 1954 Glen, discussing a paper by Ridley and Tapsell14 indicated his belief in a precipitation mechanism for the intercrystalline embrit-tlement of molybdenum steel and suggested that with an absolutely pure metal it would be almost impossible to obtain an intercrystalline crack. This suggestion has

Jan 1, 1959

C. G. Dunn (Generai! Electric Research Laboratory)— The author is to be commended on his attempt to calculate the residual strain energy from information on the dislocation density within the subgrains and a surface energy associated with the subgrains. However, much closer agreement between a calculated critical size of a nucleus and the observed size of grains that did not continue growing can be obtained if a reasonable correction is made in obtaining the energy of the surfaces of the subgrains. For example, since the sample is a single crystal with a cold-rolling reduction of 70 pct in thickness, one needs either an average disorientation for this or an average subgrain boundary energy rather than the 2.5 deg disorientation of a bent crystal, which was used by the author. From either the Laue photographs of the author or the pole density plot of Koh and Dunn 16 for a (113) [332] cold-rolled crystal the

Jan 1, 1961

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