Search Documents

By K. Lomberg

In this paper the process of sampling and assaying as it relates in particular to the platinum group elements (PGEs) is presented. A discussion of the geology of PGE deposits is included to provide an understanding of the mineralization that is considered necessary prior to sampling, as this has a direct bearing on the mineral resource estimate and also the selection of an appropriate mining cut. The discussion includes the selection of the sampling technique (drilling or face sampling), the size of the sample relating to the requirements of the laboratory, the potential mining cut, as well as a reference to sampling theory. The selection of an assay technique that is appropriate and will yield the optimal result based on sample turnaround, precision, accuracy, and cost is then considered. Examples are drawn from work undertaken on the Bushveld Complex (Merensky Reef, UG2 Chromitite Layer, Platreef) and Great Dyke (Main Sulphide Zone). A discussion of the appropriate QA/QC programme includes the chain of custody, CRM selection and the QA/QC process. Keywords sampling, assaying, QA/QC, platinum group elements.

Jan 1, 2014

By Thomas J. Fisher, John J. Sammarco

This report (System Safety 2.1) is the second in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics, and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other recognized standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system.

Jan 4, 2001

By Thomas J. Fisher, John J. Sammarco, Gary L. Mowrey, Edward F. Fries

This report (Safety File 3.0) is the fourth in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 5, 2002

By Thomas J. Fisher, Christopher C. Jobes, Edward F. Fries

This report (Software Safety 2.2) is the third in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended or use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and non networked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety .• 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meets the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the Safety File is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be don and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treaty of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 9, 2001

By Bernard Lallement

INTRODUCTION Geostatistics have been used for five years at the B. R. G. M. to compute the ore reserve estimation. At present this technic is also used at the beginning of the exploration project to determine the best way to prove the orebody. The best way is a compromise between the cost of the exploration and the precision of the estimation. It is clear that geostatistics cannot be used without any data, but very often an exploration project is decided on an orebody which has already been drilled. Old data can therefore be used. This was the case this year for two orebodies: an iron deposit and a lead deposit. The iron deposit was explored by drifts and has now to be proved. We used geostatistics to determine the best drilling pattern. The variograms computed with these old data showed that an anisotropy existed between the two directions of the orebody, which meant that the drill pattern had to be rectangular. The lead deposit was explored by drill holes and a short drift in part of the orebcdy. The problem was to choose between a regular pattern of drill holes or a long drift and some added drill holes. The case of this study will be exposed afterwards. On the other hand, if the orebody is completely unknown, the exploration project generally forecasts two exploration steps (the first step

Jan 1, 1977

By Michael G. Nelson, Amy Richins, Ashley Hodgson, W. Pratt Rogers

"Sociotechnical systems are everywhere in the modern industrial world. Sociotechnical systems describe how humans interact with technology throughout a variety of processes. These systems are prevalent in modern industrial settings, such as operating mines. Safety and health management systems (SHMSs) are complex sociotechnical structures designed with the aim of managing and reducing occupational risk. U.S. mining companies are voluntarily adopting SHMSs to supplement regulatory safety compliance efforts. Like all complex sociotechnical systems there are a wide variety of approaches and adoption philosophies around a SHMS. Many SHMSs suffer from high levels of redundancies, which manifest themselves in diverse ways: duplicate processes, forms, permits, and tracking mechanisms. These redundancies have severe impacts on the overall system and absorb critical culture and leadership “energy”. A recent study initiated by the University of Utah and sponsored by the Alpha Foundation is investigating the effectiveness of SHMSs across 15 different U.S. mining sites. A large amount of data has been captured to help characterize elements of SHMSs and correlate their impacts on safety outcomes. Many variables were assessed in the study. Those of importance to this paper are the variables describing the robustness of the sociotechnical aspects of the SHMS. Two such variables are the overall integration of the SHMS within the whole system and how data is managed. Data management in this context deals with the approach to capturing, analyzing, and acting on data within the system. As well, systems are integrated around controlled, data-sharing mechanisms. It has been found that wide variety of approaches has been taken to integrate the SHMS within the governing management philosophy at a given site. A series of case studies is presented that develop some specific best practices for proper data management and integration of SHMSs.Introduction and Project Background Managing occupational health and safety can be done in many different ways, and with many different approaches, but is often based on the host country’s regulatory and industrial culture. However, many companies have extended their effort beyond the regulatory requirements of their host nation and have implemented Safety and Health Management Systems. The goal of these efforts is to reduce and eliminate occupational risk. Many health and safety practitioners have a hard time justifying various elements of health and safety management. There is a lack of institutional knowledge that measures and assesses the effectiveness of these Safety and Health Management System (SHMS) elements. To better understand the effectiveness of SHMSs the Alpha Foundation has funded a research project with the University of Utah. The title of the project is “Characterization and Effectiveness of Safety and Health Management Systems in the U.S. Mining Industry.” The research team will assess the SHMSs of 15 United States mine sites. The outcome of the project will be a method to characterize the strength of the SHMS elements, assess a culture and leadership index, and finally establish correlations between elemental risk and safety outcomes. The study is currently in progress. However, many important outcomes have already been observed, particularly on the data management practices within an SHMS."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alyson Morley

The mining sector in Canada is facing significant challenges to develop a competent workforce, including increased technical and logistical operational demands, and the imperative to promote local content. There is an increasingly unpredictable labour pool which can be aging, or have skill shortages, or non-aligned skills. As globalisation continues, companies also require efficiencies during operation across various locations. AMEC has met these challenges in the global oil and gas sector by developing our Capability Development and Competence Assurance (CDCA) program. CDCA is applicable across all process industries, including mining. CDCA supports simultaneous consistency and flexibility by defining competence at task level, with corresponding best practice blended training programs, and evaluation criteria and processes. CDCA then defines role profiles mapped to local task definition. When combined with web-based technology, this granularity allows us to manage high volume workforces, while retaining individual learning plans and progression, aiding job satisfaction, and employee retention.

May 1, 2007

By L. S. Cates

THE war is now behind us. We in the mining industry feel a just pride in the part that our industry and our men and our products played in defeating the enemy on the fighting fronts around the world. In five years of mobilization and actual combat, our mines and oil wells produced over 3 billion tons of coal, a billion tons of petroleum, 500 million tons of iron ore, 21/4 million tons of lead, 31/2 million tons of zinc, 5 million tons of copper, 14 million tons of bauxite, 17 million tons of sulphur, 68 million tons of salt, and 3 million tons of potash. It was an unparalleled performance. But what of today? Why the present low production and high costs? Among the black clouds in the mining sky none are so black as that presented by the labor situation. We know it is the result of the legislation and the interpretation of that legislation in the past ten or fifteen years. Since the passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932, we have had nothing but a succession of laws, regulations, and decisions that have intensified the strength of the unions and made the operators of the mines and the sources of their financing prartirally impotent

Jan 1, 1946

By G Zhang, I Glacken

Multiple indicator kriging (MIK) has been used in the minerals industry for some decades. As one of the non-linear estimation methodologies, MIK has advantages related to resolving multiple or mixed populations, high variability data and strongly skewed distributions. Applying the MIK methodology requires a lot more effort when compared to other non-linear methodologies, for example localised uniform conditioning. This is due not only to the variogram modelling for multiple indicators, but the validation is also very important because the panel model is fundamental for follow-up work, including the generation of recoverable resources at the local or SMU scale. Apart from this, only a few reported case studies of MIK have documented post-processing of the estimated modelled distribution, representing the probability distribution at point scale at un-sampled locations. The MIK post processing should include the change of support from the point scale to the panel scale, and then the extraction of quantile values from the panel conditional cumulative distribution function (CCDF) for localisation of grades into the SMUs within each panel, based on a ranking estimate marking the SMUs from high to low. In this paper, we present a case study on a gold deposit with the MIK method with full-post processing implemented for recoverable resources. The MIK point estimate was carried out with an indirect lognormal change of support from point to panel scale, and localisation was done with a custom script. The localised uniform conditioning (LUC) method was also applied for comparison purposes. The comparison shows that MIK has advantages compared to LUC when comes to capturing the high-grades, especially when mixed or varying anisotropy is present within the mineralisation.

May 24, 2023

By John J. Sammarco

This report (Safety File Guidance 6.0) is the eighth in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [5.1System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 4, 2006

By John J. Sammarco

This report (System Safety Guidance 5.1) is the sixth in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various lifecycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [< 5.1 System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 8, 2005

By Best R. J, Poulos H. G

The method for design of primary roof support for the large todoidal cavern constructed to house the Sydney Opera House parking station is presented. The cavern was constructed with 5 m of rock cover beneath Sydney&apos;s Royal Botanic Gardens. Design of rock reinfonnent using a combination of fully grouted rock dowels and Macalloy bars was based on control of horizontal shear movement along bedding features in the roof. A combination of linear arch type analyses and non-linear jointed finite element analyses were used in the design study together with an analysis of the shear resistance offered by fully grouted bolts under shear deformation.

Jan 1, 1993

By Daniel Brutto

Environmental considerations are a key driver within the marine mining consenting process across different national and international legislative regimes and are critical in shaping the global public perception of the industry. As a result, it is vital that mining companies seeking to operate within marine environments establish a robust understanding of the sensitivities of the seabed environments in which they are active, the impacts of their activities and the ability of the environment to recover from these impacts. The significant risks of failing to do so include an inability to either obtain or maintain operating permits. The risks can be mitigated by the common application of existing seabed biological expertise in baseline assessment and monitoring. The key ingredients of a fit-for-purpose, cost-effective seabed ecological assessment include early consideration of ecological issues within the project life-cycle through undertaking detailed desk-top studies as-wellas the multiple-use of data that have been acquired as a consequence of prospecting processes, with such data including remote acoustic data, seabed imagery and sediment samples. These data can be used to inform the design of robust benthic baseline surveys which provide adequate information on the ecological character of the environment in question and habitats and species of conservation importance - decreasing project risk and increasing the likelihood of securing consent.

Sep 14, 2011

The Snap Lake Phase I project initiated a subsampling campaign on the material (kimberlite/metavolcanic/granite) mined and treated for diamonds. The campaign was aimed at determining the optimum subsampling program to subsample the feed to the bulk sample plant (BSP) for the duration of a sampling campaign. This paper describes the application of GyÆs formula for determining the subsample size and other good sampling practices to determine this subsampling campaign. Three main issues are discussed: the use of a hammer sampler to sample off a moving conveyor and the practical experiment to determine the optimum subsampling program; bias introduced by laboratory equipment including two sizes rotary splitters; and variability of the feed material to the BSP over time.

Jan 1, 2005

By John J. Sammarco, Edward F. Fries

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment 4.0) is the fifth in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meets the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 5, 2003

By Todd Minoski, Matthew McElhinney, Morgan Sears, Craig Compton

In an effort to advance the science underlying ground control engineering, researchers with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are frequently involved in field studies at collaborating mines. Often, these field studies involve visiting the mine site, instrumentation installation, and data acquisition. Each of these aspects involve potential risks to NIOSH employees. As an organization whose mission it is to promote the health and safety of mine workers, the health and safety of our workforce is paramount. This paper provides documentation of the best practices followed by NIOSH employees who are tasked with visiting and conducting work at underground and surface mines. This includes Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) approved training, mine site specific training, and hazards associated with all aspects of mining that could be encountered by the employee. Additionally, this paper details best practices associated specifically with instrumentation installation including the mitigation of hazards associated with the proper equipment handling, drilling, and the mine environment. The information showcased in this paper can be used as considerations for industry practitioners such as mine operators, consultants, and academic researchers engaged in the installation of instrumentation in the field. Furthermore, the best practices detailed in this paper can be used as a foundation for agreements made between mine operators and researchers to ensure safety procedures will be followed while on mine property. This will result in enhanced safety of both researchers involved in field studies as well as mine employees tasked with assisting and accompanying those researchers.

Feb 1, 2024

By H. C. Liang

Reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) are widely regarded as being best available technologies (BATs) for removing contaminants of concern from water. In recent years, NF or RO treatment has increasingly gained more acceptance in the mining industry for treating mine water to remove a wide assortment of contaminants, either for meeting discharge standards or for internal re-use in mining processes. Consequently, the number of NF or RO membrane mine water treatment facilities has steadily increased. Although NF or RO membrane filtration can be a powerful tool in mine water treatment, especially when multiple contaminant removal is required, it also has many potential disadvantages. Besides the generally higher capital and operational costs for the high pressure membrane processes, organic constituents in mine water may foul the membranes, while inorganic compounds such as gypsum, calcite, or silica are liable to scale the expensive membranes if proper pre-treatment processes are not implemented. Additionally, because these membrane treatment processes generate a substantial reject or brine waste stream in addition to the clean treated water or permeate stream, brine management also needs to be considered carefully when deciding upon the viability of an NF or RO mine water treatment process. Because of these issues, it is important to conduct detailed analyses of the trade-off between selecting NF or RO vs. using chemical treatment processes when designing a mine water treatment facility.

Jan 1, 2012

By John J. Sammarco, Janet S. Flynt

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance 7.0) is the last in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and after-market suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [< 5.1 System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 4, 2006

By P. J. Petit

Changing mining conditions, legislative issues, rising costs, and the constrained supply of skills and electricity in South Africa, have been some of the criteria forcing mine operators and engineers to review the traditional use of compressed air to power underground hand-held drilling operations in narrow-stope, hard-rock mines. In answering the question, &apos;What is the best way to power this mine?&apos;, they have resorted to trade-off studies with results of limited usefulness, because they are site-specific, and use only a few comparative parameters, based on a small data set. This paper aims to provide definitive, objective and quantitative decision-making approaches to evaluate alternative energy delivery systems for stoping in narrow-reef hard rock mines, based on primary and relevant criteria. These include quantifiable criteria such as capital expenditure, operating costs, resulting financial returns, energy and water usage, production performance, life-of-mine, etc. Other important criteria with qualitative aspects are integrated. These are safety, health and environmental concerns, legislative requirements, business risk, technology change, etc. The paper begins with a review of decision making processes available, and proposes the use of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method as a multiple-criteria decision making tool and the decision tree-based on milestone-driven uncertainties, to validate the selection of the energy delivery system. The results of a multiple-criteria questionnaire completed by a variety of industry experts and professionals, such as production and operation managers, consultants, suppliers and techno-financial analysts, are discussed. The evaluation indicates the potential for hydropower to be the best solution for narrow reef hard rock mines, based on current information, mine design layout and production.

Jan 1, 2012

By D. R. Kalasky, J. M. Mutmansky, B. Kolonja

This paper considers simulation of truck dispatching systems using maximum expected production of the truck-shovel system as the measure of performance. Two analysis methods are utilized: multiple comparisons with the best (MCB) and the combination of MCB with the variance reduction technique known as common random numbers (CRN). These two techniques are compared via simulation experiments. Results show that the combined procedure of MCB with CRN is the superior tool to use to reduce the total number of replications needed to ensure the specified probability of correct selection from a number of systems. In this case study, MCB with CRN reduced the variance by 29% and the number of required replications by 48%. Also, the MCB with CRN procedure narrowed the confidence interval by 18%.

Jan 1, 1995