Search Documents

By Douglas A. Sloan

"Recently, a number of major mining companies seemed unable to find a president from within the industry, and were searching outside the industry. From this, one could conclude that managers within the industry are either not being prepared or are not preparing themselves for presidential responsibility. Opinions were sought from a number of senior executives, to attempt to define the skills a prospective president should acquire and what actions a company could take or that a prospective president could take to acquire these skills.This paper contains summaries of the opinions obtained, along with the author's comments. The paper also describes the actions some companies are taking and the actions that an aspiring president can take to prepare himself for corporate management.IntroductionA manager is promoted up the management ladder when the manager's superiors believe that he is capable of handling a more senior position. Normally, the manager acquires this credibility by outstanding performance in his current management post, whether it be in a junior management (supervisory) or in a vice-presidential capacity.In most instances, the skills required for promotion can be acquired in the current position or, at worst, the abilities exhibited in a candidate's current role will convince his superiors that the necessary expertise for the more senior position can be acquired on-the-job. This is particularly the case when the new skills are felt to be an extrapolation of the old skills.However, in the case of appointment to presidential rank, there appears to be a need for new expertise which often is not acquired in normal management progression or, at least, boards of directors of some mining companies seem to believe this to be the case. The objective of this paper is to attempt to define the new skills that should be acquired by a manager who aspires to be the president, and to describe what actions might be taken by him to acquire them."

Jan 1, 1982

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the fourth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. The table presents previous information plus about two dozen new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. Last year's tabulation appeared in two issues, to accommodate all of the information. This year the format has been changed slightly so the table can be printed in one issue. This year's table presents the commodities in the same sequence as last year. Sand and gravel information appears first, followed by: crushed stone for aggregate; other stone; industrial sand; other industrial minerals; energy minerals (coal, oil shale, uranium); and finally metals. As always, a caveat relates to factors that influence the reserve values. The data should serve only as a general reference. The table is not intended to present an absolute scale of reserve costs. Several factors influence the value of mineral commodities. These factors include: • location and transportation costs (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions for both the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; • quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing and beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; • and legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will influence reserve costs of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity; the location (either by state, US geographic area, or Canadian province); the cost (R for royalty and P for purchased cost); and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cuft), tons (/T) (2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.76m3 1 cu ft =0.28m3 1st = 0.9 t7 1 acre = 0.40 ha or m2 In several cases the royalty is a percentage of the finished products, sale price and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: J. Dunn, T. Eyde, K. Loda, L. Morgan, F. Nix, H. Sorenson, and L. Williams. Several people have said they would like this to be an annual tabulation. That can happen if new information comes to the writer. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write or call: H. L. Bourne, c/o Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo, Ltd., 38955 Hills Tech Dr., Farmington Hills, MI 48018, (313) 553-6300. Only with new information can this become an annual and current source of reserves costs.

Jan 8, 1986

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the fifth annual tabulation of mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data. There are also 60 new entries. In addition to royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. Two articles relative to the evaluation of minerals reserves appeared in December, 1986. R.H. Paschall (In the Aggregate, ME, p 1139) wrote a good article, although it lacked specific royalty data. However, this author takes exception to two ideas in Paschall's column. Paschall contends that the royalty rate does not affect the mineral appraisal. This present author could not disagree more. Paschall also claims the location of an industrial mineral deposit is the only serious or practical caveat in comparing royalties. Comments received here from readers helped make the list of caveats that are cited each year. The readers will decide which factors influence the mineral value for their commodities of interest. Paschall's point about the relationship of the parties who are negotiating a royalty agreement is important and very well taken. The other article, written by William Vernon (Pit and Quarry, December 1986), gives a step-by-step process on how to conduct a mineral appraisal. The article cites three reasons for an appraisal: transfer rights; collateral for a loan; and taxation. A fourth reason is to establish adequate compensation for reserves lost through condemnation. This author has appeared in several court cases where compensation for loss of mineral reserves through condemnation required a mineral appraisal. Royalty rate becomes an important factor in the appraisal process, although the Pit and Quarry article refers to that part of the valuation equation as "profitability." Both articles were well written and are recommended reading for those interested in mineral valuations. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation - especially significant for most industrial minerals; • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine; • quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give: • the location by state, US geographic area, or Canadian province ; • the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; • the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred; and • comments or footnotes for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/cu yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), short tons (/T), or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.76 M2 1cuft = 0.28m3 1 st = 0.9072 t 1 acre - 0.4047 ha or m2

Jan 7, 1987

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the seventh annual tabulation of royalty information. It is also the first year in which some data have been deleted to make room for new data. The concept of royalties evolved from a time when the government owned all of the land, including mines, to the situation where free miners won the right to claim minerals but paid a portion of their production to the royal treasury. Today, a mineral royalty is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights for the privilege of producing the mineral commodity. However, some people incorrectly believe that the selling price and the royalty are the same thing. The contract between the owner (lessor) and the mining company (lessee) is the mineral lease. Some clauses that are common to mineral leases include: identification of property, granting clause, reservations, definitions, royalty rate, taxes and title, indemnity, termination, inspection, assignability, successors, and reclamation. There often are variations in royalty rates for a given commodity that reflect differences in location, quality, market conditions or public versus private ownership. History In the time of ancient Rome, the government owned the mining properties by virtue of conquest. It would lease the mines to favored citizens who would pay rent to the State. Various conditions of sovereign ownership of both land and mineral rights continued in Europe until the Renaissance. As the laws evolved for land ownership by private citizens, the concept that minerals belonged to the State (King, Crown, sovereign) continued until about the 15th century. Free miners challenged the notion of sovereign ownership and won the right to discover and claim minerals. But a portion of their production had to be paid to the sovereign - a royalty. So, the original concept of a mineral royalty was a tax on production that was due to the Crown or Church. The term mineral royalty, as it is known today, is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights (formerly the royal owner) for the privilege of mining and producing the mineral commodity. The owner of the mineral rights, the lessor, and the mine operator, the lessee, enter into an agreement to mine the property. The agreement is the lease. While this concept is common, there are some who do not understand that the royalty is a portion of production paid to the owner as agreed on in the lease document. This author has seen reports where the selling price of a commodity has been quoted as the royalty. ("They get 70 cents a ton royalty at their pit and the guy down the road only has a 65 cent royalty.") These reports have been authored by people not familiar with the mining industry. Lease clauses In addition to the amount to be paid the lessor, there are several other items to be addressed in the lease agreement. The following list may not be all inclusive, but briefly describes most of the common clauses any good mining lease should contain. Identification: This opening clause names the owner (lessor) and the operator (lessee), the address of each, and gives the legal description of the property. Granting clause: This part of the lease gives the time period or duration of the agreement and information about renewal periods. It also has language about the exclusive right of the lessee to mine the property. Reservations: If the owner wants to exclude any portion of the property or set some specific conditions about the operation, there needs to be a clause that describes these reservations. Definitions: This section should address some of the technical terms that the lessor may find confusing - short tons versus cubic yards, dollars versus percentage of average selling price, any escalator indices such as consumer price index or producer price index, and material mined versus material sold. Royalty: This section spells out what the royalty rate will be, how often it will be paid, if there is an annual minimum, the pay dates, and how the records will be kept. This section also describes the conditions under which the lessee is exempt from the annual minimum - natural disasters, strikes, governmental actions, or other causes referred to as force majeure. Taxes and title: The lease needs to identify who is responsible for the property taxes, severance taxes (if applicable), and other taxes that relate to the mining activity - taxes on equipment, improvements, or stockpiles. This is a good place in the lease for the owner to certify his ownership of the property and its mineral rights and also certify that no other leases are in effect. The lessees may want language that allows them to pay mortgages or other debts on the property to keep their lease in effect. Indemnity: This portion of the lease identifies that the lessee assumes the risks for lessee's mining operation. Lessor should expect indemnification by the lessee through standard insur¬ance policies - workers compensation, liability and property damage. Termination: Both the lessor and lessee want language that will allow them to terminate the lease. This section of the lease describes the conditions under which one of the parties may terminate the lease (failure of the

Jan 1, 1989

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the ninth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for more than 30 new entries. Several articles and publications crossed the author's desk this past year that relate to mineral valuation and mineral royalty. Tom Loucks presented a paper, "The Valuation of Hard Rock Mineral Property," at the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation in Santa Fe, NM in July, 1990. His paper gives an indepth explanation of the definitions and concepts related to mineral valuation. It includes descriptions of numerous legal cases that have dealt with mineral valuation and proper reference is given for each case. Loucks works for the Denver Mining Finance Co. Gold royalties generally range from 5% to 7%, net smelter return. However, Severn Brown sent information that shows a much wider variation. Echo Bay Mines reported in its 1989 annual report royalties that range from 1.5 % to 30% for gold from various gold properties. Brown also sent a copy of an article that appeared in the Dec. 27, 1982, issue of Fortune magazine. This issue carried an article by Walter Guzzardi, Jr. "The Huge Find in Roy Ash's Backyard." The article gives the history of Newmont's leasing in Nevada on property that became the Carlin, Bootstrap and Blue Star Mines. The article states that the initial royalty was 10% that escalated to more than 16%. Another property, the site of Gold Quarry, provides an 18% royalty to the same own¬ers. The article makes interesting reading for those interested in mining history.

Jan 1, 1991

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the eighth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for nearly 30 new entries. Several articles and publications have appeared recently that relate to mineral royalty or mineral valuation. R. B. Parsons wrote "Mining agreements, royalties and profits" (CIM Bulletin, November 1988). He distinguished between net smelter return (NSR) and net profit interest (NPI). Parsons used examples to show the difference between these royalty payment methods. Mining Engineering (January 1990) carried an article by H. V. S. Tingley entitled "Using business due diligence to help evaluate mineral deposits." The article identifies some factors that must be examined during mergers or acquisitions in the mining industry. Since each mining operation is unique, each has risks and opportunities that need recognition and evaluation. The author suggests that a team is necessary for a proper evaluation because no one person has expertise in all of the factors that must be examined. Also in January's Mining Engineering was "Limestone mining: Reserves and valuation," by B. C. Lewis and R. P. Moran. They presented two case studies of valuation of limestone reserves. One was a 109-hm2 (270-acre) parcel in West Virginia and the other a 121-hm2 (300-acre) tract in Alabama. The authors discussed risk, discount rates, and royalty methods as financial parameters in valuation of limestone reserves. Two papers were presented at the SME meeting in Las Vegas, NV in 1989 that bear mention. J.G. Russell's talk was entitled "Valuation of industrial

Jan 1, 1990

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the 10th annual tabulation of US mineral royalties published in MINING ENGINEERING. The first year, 1982, the author solicited information about royalties and the cost of reserves. That column contained only a few royalties - not enough to tabulate. Since then, the response has been sporadic but the entries have grown to more than 300. Some have been deleted. Some of the older information has been deleted to make room for new entries. All indications suggest that the readers enjoy and use the information. But more information is needed. Russian practice In 1989, this column gave a brief history of mineral leasing and royalty payments as the concept applies to mining in the United States. This year's narrative deals with information about the mineral ownership in Russia. That country is in political and economic turmoil, including administrative systems and methods. And many laws are likely to change. What follows describes the Russian system of mineral ownership as of early 1992, according to Kirill Kavun. He begins "All the subsurface space of the Russian Federation with minerals contained belongs exclusively to the state. This forms the Common State Mineral Fund. Land parcels may be state, municipal, public or private property. They may be let to be owned and used by individuals, juridical persons, national/territorial or administrative/ territorial formations." This seems to apply to surface rights, as known in the US.

Jan 1, 1992

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the 12th year for this column and the 11th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. This year adds 20 to 30 new entries. There are, however, some deficiencies that the readership hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. There are several states where no royalty information was available for either commodity. Readers can help share information about these missing states, so next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sent helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The summer 1992 issue of PDAC Digest recommended"... the most useful technical paper ever published for economic geologists...." "Net smelter return models and their use in the exploration, evaluation and exploitation of polymetallic deposits" was written by R. Goldie and P. Tredger (Geoscience Canada, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 159-171). Last year's column described leasing practices in Russia. Some new information has been gathered since then. Kirill Kavun is the managing director of the International Geoeconomic Center in Moscow. He sent two publications from 1992-"Regulation on the procedure of licensing the use of the subsurface," and "Law of the Russian federation on the subsurface." Both are supplements to the magazine Mineral Re¬sources of Russia, Economics and Management.

Jan 1, 1993

By H. Lyn Bourne

This marks the 15th consecutive year for this column. During 1995, readers were asked to supply royalty data for construction raw materials especially for states where none is available. The response was discouraging and royalty data are still missing for several states for either sand and gravel or crushed stone. Several readers have said that this article has merit but more new information is needed to justify its continuation. Several articles and pieces of news relative to mineral royalties appeared in the trade journals. R. Lee Aston (E&MJ, November, 1995, p. 16N) described South Australian royalties as amended by the government in1994. The royalty rate (a percentage) was lowered but the assessed value for minerals was raised and the current rate amounts to 20 cents//t (18 cents/st).

Jan 1, 1996

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 14th consecutive year for this column and the 13th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. Some holes still exist in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. Construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone - are the most common mineral commodity. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, royalty information for these commodities has been difficult to acquire from some states. Readers can help. Share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Dennis Bryan sent a copy of a report, "Regional Appraisal of Mineral Materials: Carson City District, BLM." The report was authored by real-estate appraisers. It contains more than 50 references to leases of various construction materials in Nevada and nearby states. It gives a thumbnail sketch of each lease and is a good reference. However, the authors erroneously imply that the royalty rate and the in-place value are the same. Several of this year's new entries come from the report. However, the royalties for landscaping materials vary from state to state and by rock type. Some boulders used for landscaping in Nevada have a royalty reported at $1.10/t ($1/st). At the other extreme is lava from Idaho. Used for the same purpose, it has a royalty range of $11 to $18.70/t ($10 to $17/st). Chuanming Tian of Beijing, China has shared some information about the changing mineral royalty policies in China. China first implemented an oil and gas royalty in 1984. In 1992, the government expanded that to include iron ore. In 1994, the royalty policy was extended to all mineral commodities. At the same time, the royalty rate for iron ore increased tenfold.

Jan 1, 1995

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 13th year for this column and the 12th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. There still exist some holes in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, there are states from which the author has no information about royalties for either of these commodities. The reader can help - share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sends helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The PDAC Digest contained an article that distinguished between ‘net smelter return royalty' and ‘net profits royalty’ (Haase). The article also lists clauses and details that Brown suggests should be included in a net profits royalty contract.

Jan 1, 1994

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the sixth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data plus more than 100 new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. An article in the December 1984 Kentucky Coal Journal could have far reaching applications. It explains that a banking firm examined the "reserve risk" as one of six factors for analysis when financing a coal project. The firm concluded that coal reserves in Kentucky are worth an average of $0.29/t ($0.26 per st) in-place. The banking firm based this in-place value on its examination of more than 50 leases. In-place value is especially important when trying to establish a mineral value for a given deposit. Ernie Lehman wrote to this author after last year's column appeared and he quoted the lease rates for lead and zinc on federal land. He states, from first hand information, that the leases are based on a percentage of net smelter return as follows: 4% for the first five years, 4.5% for the next five years, and 5% thereafter. The figures used in last year's column ($ per st) came from dividing reported royalty income by reported production. The information reported last year merely translates the results of the net smelter return (as written in the lease) to royalty income per ton to the US Government for the various years. Statistics from the Minerals Management Service of the Federal Government show that oil and gas account for 40% and 53%, respectively, of the Federal royalty income. Coal accounts for about 4% and all other minerals, the remaining 3%. Oil and gas leases are mostly at 12.5%. Most of the coal leases are at 12.5% for surface mining operations and 8% for underground mining. Many of the other commodities are leased at 5%, which has been true for decades. Relative to Federal leases, this year's table shows some percentages and some costs per ton. This was done to give information about the leases and also to show income produced by various commodities. Note that some commodities have a variation in $/ton even though the royalty percent is the same. These variations result from a combination of factors that influence the value of a mineral commodity. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; *quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give the location - either by state, US geographic area or Canadian province; the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), tons (/T, 2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.7646 m3 1 cu ft = 0.2832 m3 1st=0.9078t 1 acre = 0.4047 hm or m2 In several cases, the royalty is a percentage of the sales price of the finished product and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: G. Anderson, B. Brown, R. Ganis, K. Hauser, E. Lehman, and S. Sims. Their help is appreciated as are the contributions by those who asked to remain anonymous. This column requires additional information each year. That data must come from people in the minerals industry who have royalty information. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write the author at the address given in the author's box or call 313-462-0005.

Jan 7, 1988

By H. W. Glen

In the hope of finding out what the readers of the SAIMM Journal want of our Journal, we sent out a questionnaire with the October 1979 issue. The 2500 copies of the questionnaire sent out elicited 228 responses, which represents a return of 8,8 per cent. The number of responses received from overseas was 24, i.e., approximately 10 per cent of the total. The following is an analysis of the responses received.

Jan 1, 1980

New Zealand's obligations under Kyoto protocol New Zealand's economic and emissions profile Use of energy and electricity generation in New Zealand World energy supply Coal's rule in the world today Coal and New Zealand Future energy needs in New Zealand Clean coal technologies

Jan 1, 2002

By Eugene J. Schreiber, F. Newton Parks

Booz-Allen & Hamilton management consultants has recently completed a comprehensive study of Brazil's minerals and metals sectors for 40 leading international and Brazilian companies. The 220-page study describes the activities and Investments under way in 25 key commodities and assesses the current state of Brazil's economy, the impact on domestic minerals and metals industries, and government minerals policies.

Jan 12, 1977

By Harry M. Conger

It is a pleasure for me to keynote this first Western Regional Minerals and Coal Conference here in the Black Hills of South Dakota. It is pleasing for two main reasons. First, Homestake Mining Company has been associated with the Black Hills since 1875 when gold was discovered following Custer's trek through the Hills during 1874. Second, the future mineral development of the Black Hills will depend, to a great extent, on minerals and metals covered in this conference. The metals and minerals that are featured in this conference have unique similarities--and important differences--and therefore, will be of great interest to all who are involved in our industry in this area of the country. Precious metals have always been, and likely will always be, subject to political influence; they are only partially affected by the demands of our industrial economy. Energy minerals, while more directly affected by industrial stimulus, are also politically sensitive. In this regard, the need for a minerals policy affecting the energy sphere has been made very clear to us in the last five years. More importantly, the lack of a national policy and purpose relating to our total future energy needs has severely affected the overall economy and security of this country. Very briefly today, I would like to outline for you my thoughts on the future of these most important minerals. I will start by a discussion of precious metals, primarily my favorite precious metal, gold. A brief history of gold will be helpful in setting a perspective for forecasting its future although it is difficult to give a brief description of a metal that has been prized by man for over 6,000 years. Until recently, as you know, gold was held by the Federal government as a metal to be owned by the government only and

Jan 1, 1983

I want to explore whether it is valid or even useful to talk about sustainable corporations. After 20 years of focus on sustainable development, the concept of a sustainable corporation is not particularly helpful and it may in fact be profoundly misleading. Why? û because it obscures the need for corporations to be recognised as part of a sustainable society, rather than achieving some kind of corporate nirvana divorced from the social, political and environmental reality. It is more helpful to ask whether corporations are ready to recognise that they are one player among many within society û with the demands this would place on them in terms of transparency, accountability and social responsibility. The achievement of sustainable development has become the new corporate orthodoxy of many large corporations. It has become a clichT to argue that corporations must become æsustainableÆ. The achievement of æsustainabilityÆ is encouraged, as the ultimate step in some form of corporate evolution. We are failing to recognise that sustainability a process û not an end in itself. An enormous array of instruments is being developed to measure when sustainability is or is not being achieved. For example, corporate reporting has burgeoned into an art form, which describes æsustainabilityÆ in a variety of ways. There is no external standard applied to such reporting. These descriptions are quite partial and often place the best possible gloss on the companyÆs activities. I have become increasingly uneasy about this rhetoric and this paper has allowed me the luxury of sorting out my unease. I will discuss, largely in the Australian context, the current debate and literature and describe the way some global mining corporations are dealing with these questions, and finally, offer some suggestions which might be helpful at the operational level.

Jan 1, 2002

By R. R. Stone

"This paper will examine the role of debt and equity in project financing and will illustrate the impact on the return to the project sponsor of each type. Conventional debt sources will be examined, as will product purchaser advances, foreign export-import bank loans and lease financing. The paper will review guarantees, charges against the project, dividend restrictions and other commitments. It will also discuss various features of sales contracts and the degree to which they can assist in securing financing. IntroductionThe cost of bringing new mining projects on stream is escalating significantly more rapidly than general rates of inflation. Reasons for this include the higher costs of safeguarding the environment and ensuring the health and safety of workers. The need to develop properties in more remote areas is also a significant factor. These higher costs have not been matched by increases in metal prices, making the task of financing these projects ever more difficult. At the same time, the imagination of borrowers and lenders seems boundless, and innovative schemes for financing projects are constantly being unveiled.It is probably safe to say that no two projects have ever been financed in precisely the same way and the number of financing options for any project is limited only by the imagination of the sponsors themselves. The objectives of the project sponsor represent the most important factor in determining the scope of possible financial arrangements. For example, the sponsor may wish to maximize over-all company leverage by isolating each of its projects in separate companies. In so doing, it hopes to facilitate more ventures than would otherwise be the case. These objectives point toward true project financing. Additional objectives may be to develop a number of its properties by joint venture and to reduce the amount of debt on the sponsor's balance sheet. Those sponsors whose objectives include minimizing over-all financing costs will wish to increase the number of financial options and, as a result, will not be so concerned with effecting true project financing. This approach may also provide ""greater certainty that tax benefits are utilized quickly."

Jan 1, 1980

By A. C. Rubel

WHAT does management expect of W and from an engineer? First and foremost, it expects that he should become, and therefore should fit himself in every way to be, a part of management so that he may assume as much and as many of the responsibilities of management as his ability and the opportunities of the job permit. Let me make clear at the start that the profession of pure, technical engineering offers but limited opportunities at the top levels because of the inherent organization of engineering work. The line of succession to top jobs may be likened to a cone with a broad base and an extremely sharp point. Consider any oil company, large or small, or any operating function of that company, and you will find few top engineering jobs in the organization. This is true by the nature of the work handled. There will be a few district engineers depending on the spread of operations, a chief petroleum and production engineer, perhaps a few research engineers, possibly some technical executive assistants, and that is usually all. The road to these jobs is a long one and the competition is tough. The larger the organization the greater the opportunity, but always the ratio of engineers to top engineering jobs is only a small one.

Jan 1, 1947

By Edmund J. Pryor

DURING the war years restrictions on travel, pressure of work, and the irregular arrival of technical literature from abroad combined to severely isolate Great Britain in a period of intense war expansion of the art and practice of mineral dressing. Many British technicians were fully occupied with the day-to-day problems of improvising substitutes as regular sources of supply failed. and with mastering the strange demands and working conditions of wartime. After a long day spent between ones laboratory and production work, the rest of the waking hours were often filled with fire watching or home guard patrol activities, substituting for a night-shift manager, or "resting" in a dugout while the bombs came down. There was no time for serious study of such technical literature as survived the Atlantic crossing.

Jan 1, 1947