Discussion - Shaft Sinking Today– A Boring Business Tomorrow - Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERINS, Vol 33, No, 12 Dec. 1981, PP. 1705-1710

GC. Waterman Mr. Grieves' paper on "Shaft Sinking Today--A Boring Business Tomorrow" in the Dec. 1981 issue of MINING ENGINEERING is an excellent description of recent improvements in speed and costs of shaft sinking. However, shaft boring techniques are not a recent development. In 1935-36, the Idaho Maryland Co. (gold), Grass Valley, CA, bored the vertical 1.5-m-diam Idaho No. 2 ventilation and supply shaft to a depth of 346 m. The equipment was designed and perfected by Branner Newsome and was, I believe, described in "Transactions." Pickands Mather later bored a 1.8-m-diam shaft to a depth of about 305 m using Newsome's design. The Idaho No. 2 shaft cut through hard gabbro, diabase dikes, soft serpentine, very incompetent ankeritized serpentine and a strong fault zone. The completed shaft did not require timber support; the fault zone was cemented. Equipment consisted of a rotating 1.5-m or 3-m core barrel with a slotted bottom which cut a 76-mm kerf. The cutting agent was chilled steel shot introduced into the slot as needed. The driving mechanism and core barrel were lowered into the shaft, the former secured to the wall and the inshaft "engineer" operated the motors which controlled core barrel rpm and advance. After an advance of 1.5-3 m the equipment was lifted out of the shaft, a half(?) stick of powder cut off the drilled core, and it was hoisted to the surface with a cable attached to an eye bolt at the tope of the core. A "shift" consisted of three men: hoistman, equipment operator (down the shaft), and a surface laborer. Advance was variable as equipment and techniques were perfected. Near the end of the job advance was, as I remember, 1.5-3 m per shift. Costs were, as I recall, about $115/m. Up to 4 m cores were lifted out in one piece and swung to the dump by a stiff leg derrick. The Newsome equipment was relatively inexpensive to build and operate and his method should be (more than?) competetive with the methods described by Grieves. W.E. Hawes The author, in mentioning the South African developments of the cactus grab, ignores the parallel development of the Cryderman mucker in this hemisphere. Perhaps a slightly longer history of blind hold drilling would have been in order. Blind shaft boring got a major boost at the Nevada Test Site, as part of the nuclear weapons development, when it was essential to be able to quickly assess depth for weapons testing. One of the early civilian attempts to utilize this technology occurred when Kerr McGee drilled the shaft at the Section 19 Mine at Ambrosia Lake, NM. This twin masted drill rig belonged to a subsidiary of Kerr McGee, not Shaft Drillers. This was a difficult hole, due to bentonitic shales that decomposed. Later advances in drilling fluids eliminated this problem. The Conoco project referred to is not entirely correct, and needs minor amplification: The depth of the development (not pilot) shaft drilled was 684 m, at a diameter of 3.05 m, with a 2.16 m ID hydratatic casing being installed to a depth of 669 m. Conoco Inc., not Challenger, executed the drilling, however Conoco did use Challenger Drilling Company's Rig 14-S. Rig 14-S is unique in that it is specifically designed for shaft drilling, rather than being an oil field rig used for this service. All work was planned and directed by Conoco personnel. Deviation of the aforementioned shaft from vertical was 31 cm. Two smaller shafts (pilot shafts) were drilled with the same rig. These smaller ones were drilled 1.8 m in diameter, to depth of 665 m and cased with .91-m-diam casing, to depth of 650 m to be used as pilot holes for 5.5 m diameter shafts. The total elapsed time for all drilling, casing, cementing, and rig moves was 50 weeks. The constraints mentioned of vertical accuracy, torque, wall collapse, rig set up time, lining time etc., pumping out, etc., may not be as serious as the author implies. First, vertical accuracy: The record achieved by Conoco indicates that with reasonable care, good accuracy can be obtained, primarily by having a fair amount of weight in tension, rather than on the drill bit. Second, the amount of torque that can be applied to the drill stem has been greatly increased by the introduction of larger diameter drill stems, such as the new Hughes rig uses. Third, risk of collapse of shaft walls is minimal with the proper mud program. Basically, the walls are supported by the weight of the mud and it is not removed until some type of casing is installed and grouted in. Here in the real challenge of blind drilling shafts to devise a more economical method of lining bored shafts than using steel casing. The remaining issues were minor at Conoco, provided adequate planning and scheduling takes place. An excellent paper, "Shaft Drilling--Crownpoint Project" by Hassell H. Hunter, presented at the Fifth Uranium Symposium in Albuquerque in Sept. 1981 contains details of this project. A combination of blind boring, with enlargement by either mechanical means (boring machine, or tunneling type shield) or slabbing down, with muck removal through a larger bored shaft would seem to be the future trend in shaft development. The economics, especially for wet conditions, favor this concept over conventional sinking, as has been demonstrated at Kerr McGee --Churchrock, UNC--Churchrock and Conoco at Crownpoint.