Discussion - Shaft Sinking Today - A Boring Business Tomorrow – Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERS, Vol. 33, No. 12, Dec. 1981, pp. 1705-1710 – Grieves, Maurice

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.