Search Documents

By Clifford B. Farris

Introduction Shale Mining Problems The mining problems an oil shale operator will face are largely determined by the process. Candidate oil recovery processes are surface (above ground processing of mined oil shale), modified in situ (underground with some shale removed), and true in situ (completely underground with no shale removed). The shale removed for modified in situ (MIS) is generally processed by surface techniques. The mining problems are different for each category. Fig. 1 depicts the diversity of western shale deposits. Mining for surface operations will employ underground mining techniques in common use but the scale will be larger. A typical oil shale operation is expected to require 75,000 to 250,000 st (68 000 to 226 800 tons) a stream day of crushed oil shale. This is above the upper limit of current mining operations. Major problems include: (1) lack of good engineering design properties for oil shale, especially when interbedded with saline minerals at depths below 1,000 ft (305 m); (2) presence of water, hydrogen sulfide, and methane in some areas; (3) necessity for mine disposal of as much retorted oil shale waste as possible; and (4) control of environmental impacts of mining. Portions of the oil shale deposits in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah and significant portions of the Devonian shales in the eastern U.S. are adapted to surface mining. No major technological problems are apparent outside overburden thicknesses up to 1,000 ft in the West. However, numerous political and environmental difficulties have arisen. One major oil shale developer cancelled a planned surface mining operation and currently is pursuing a modified in-situ plan. The eastern shales are closer to the surface than the western, but suffer from many of the same environmental and political problems. Modified in-situ operations face much more severe mining problems than surface efforts. Because the mined stope (called an in-situ "retort" by processors) acts as a retorting process vessel subject to gas flow, combustion, and temperatures between 1,500° and 2,000°F, mining is under highly restrictive limitations. This processing method involves removing between 20 and 40% of the shale deposit and then blasting the roof and walls into the mined space, where the oil is recovered by retorting. Major problems are: (1) swell factor severely limited; (2) need for consistent size distribution of blasted shale; (3) even filling of stope (in-situ retort) by blasted shale with consistent permeability throughout; (4) scaleup of blasting techniques, after optimization; (5) protection of retort pillars and roof during and after retorting; (6) prevention of groundwater percolation; (7)use of ANFO explosive in wet holes; (8) disposing of surface-retorted shale waste in stope; and (9) restoration of site. True in-situ operations are less well developed than surface or MIS processes. No actual mining is done, as the true in-situ processes generate permeability in the highly

Jan 9, 1980

By Anthony Edey, Leigh A. Readdy, Bruce A. Kennedy

Introduction Very little attention normally is given by the experts, or the public at large, to the fact that the majority of the oil that has been or will be discovered within the U.S. remains in the ground. The inherent limitations of oil production through surface wells, either by primary or secondary techniques, will result in a total of over 300 billion bbl of oil left in the ground after completing production by standard petroleum techniques in currently producing or producible fields. This reserve represents some two-thirds of the original quantity of oil discovered in place. Recent work by a number of groups has shown that there is strong economic justification for extracting this remaining oil by mining and processing techniques. Table 1, taken from 1977 API reports, demonstrates the oil left in place at the end of the con¬ventional petroleum production cycle in then-known fields within the U.S. Possible targets for oil mining operations include (1) oil remaining in place in fields and pools that have reached economic depletion by current petroleum production methods and that are not amenable to economic recovery by conventional petroleum industry techniques; (2) oil-or bitumen-saturated rocks not normally considered by the industry to constitute producible reservoirs, such as shales and diatomites; and (3) asphalt- and bitumen-impregnated rocks. Economically Depleted Fields A more detailed examination of the depleted fields shows that estimates of oil remaining in place after primary, secondary, and nondestructive tertiary recovery can vary widely. There is significant evidence, however, that more than half the estimated original oil in place (OOIP) remains in the reservoir after all petroleum extraction techniques have been applied. If one compares the sum of past oil production and estimated remaining producible reserves with the API estimate of total discovered OOIP as of 1975, it becomes apparent that for the U.S. as a whole, 67% of the OOIP will remain in place at the end of the

Jan 9, 1980

By Cyril W. Draffin

Introduction Americans have long been proud of their ability to recognize a need, define it, and then develop workable solutions. The U.S. underground coal conversion (UCC) program is a good example. In 1974, the need to utilize coal resources that could not be mined was recognized, and Congress gave the Bureau of Mines $1.7 million to gain a better understanding of the UCC technology and its potential applications. Since 1977 when the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) was formed, workable technologies have been tested, the market for underground coal conversion has been recognized, and extensive industrial interest has developed. Perspective The U.S. is blessed with extensive coal resources. Coal supplies about 19% of our national energy needs, yet recently promulgated environmental standards and increasing mining costs have limited direct coal use. UCC potentially can use coal that is economically or technically infeasible to mine because the coal is too thick, deep, dirty, high-ash, and wet; has an excessive angle of dip; or has unpredictable and poor over-burden characteristics that make mining unsafe. Coal can be gasified underground or perhaps liquefied below the earth's surface. Underground coal gasification (UCG) is the prime element of the underground coal conversion program. It enables coal to be converted to gas underground. UCC Coal Resource Recent data show a total U.S. coal resource base of about 6.4 trillion tons. Of this, 1.8 trillion tons might be accessed by UCC, including some minable coal. A commercial UCC process could quadruple roughly the 450 billion tons of U.S. coal reserves, which presently are recoverable by mining. The U.S. coal resources are divided into five sectors. The two most eastern sectors contain relatively thin, swelling bituminous coals that are difficult to gasify. Of the two, the bituminous coal in the Eastern Province is the most difficult because it is deeper than in the Interior Province and the terrain is more rugged. The sector along the Rocky Mountains contains huge amounts of thick low-rank coals that are the most promising for early development by UCC. The coal has good continuity and the terrain is suitable. Low-rank coals such as subbituminous and lignite are highly reactive and tend to shrink and disaggregate when heated. Most of the coal in the Pacific

Jan 9, 1980

By V. E. Suter

Anyone with geothermal experience can readily attest that geothermal operations are a natural extension of oil and gas operations. A geothermal company and an oil company need the same type of people to do the same kind of work. In the geothermal industry, geologists and geophysicists define prospects through surface geology, analysis of surface seeps, magnetics, gravity, and resistivity surveys - techniques similar to those used in the petroleum industry. In addition, shallow (250-ft) temperature gradient holes often are used in geothermal operations. Landmen take geothermal leases that are patterned after oil and gas leases. Exploratory drilling is done with the same drilling contractors and same drilling rigs, with minor modification. Drilling foremen and drilling engineers share the same objective of making the most hole, in the shortest time, at the least cost, with a proper completion. Petroleum engineers test the wells, design the completions, determine the reserves, make economic calculations, work with the tax assessor, and manage the reservoirs. Production engineers build roads, locations and pipelines, install gas/liquid separators and meters, and operate production and injection facilities. A contract to sell steam to a public utility is required. Various governmental regulations, permits, environmental concerns, and public affairs pose similar problems in both industries. Also required of both are top management people who are acquainted with geologic risk, prepared to accept million dollar dry holes, willing to bid competitively at lease sales, and able to invest large sums based on a technology not yet fully proven. Successful geothermal development requires in-depth financial ability similar to that required for petroleum development. A high capital investment is required early for leases, geological and geophysical work, and exploratory and confirmation drilling. After

Jan 9, 1980

By T. E. Walsh

I will address two important alternative energy resources, solar and geothermal, with emphasis on their potential application in electric power generation. As a result of this presentation, I hope to leave you with a realistic view of the principal technology options that are being developed or that are available. Solar Types of Collection In terrestrial solar applications, the biggest challenge is to find ways of collecting the sun’s relatively low intensity energy so it can be converted economically to useful thermal or electric energy. Fig. 1 shows that there are both natural and technological ways of collecting solar energy. In nature we find that solar energy aids in the production of biological growth, rainfall, and wind, all of which can, in one form or another, be put to use in the production of heat or electric power. The sun’s rays also are collected and stored naturally in the form of heat in the upper layers of the ocean which can be put to use in the production of electric energy by means of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) approaches. On the technological side, the sun’s rays can be intercepted by materials that directly absorb and convert its energy to low-grade heat, or by mirrors or lenses that focus the rays onto a material to produce high-temperature heat. The higher temperature systems can be used to drive efficient heat engines in the production of electricityy. The sun’s rays also can be collected on photosensitive materials, in either a direct or concentrated form to generate DC electricity directly. The systems I will discuss employ all of these means of collection and conversion, excluding biological and hydroelectric. The former is too exi

Jan 9, 1980

By Searl. Milton F.

Introduction The urgency of further development of our domestic energy resources becomes more apparent every day. The production capability of existing facilities, taken in the aggregate, declines perhaps 10% per year; imported energy is expensive if available at all; conservation helps reduce demand but eventually will reach a point of diminishing return; new energy sources are promising but past experience, as with nuclear power, teaches us lead times are long and success is not assured. To approach the energy future rationally, it is essential to have some idea of the size of the nation's remaining energy resources, their characteristics, and the degree of uncertainty involved in their estimates. Resources are, of course, only one end of a long chain leading to energy supply to the ultimate consumer. They are an essential element, however, and the only one not under society's control. Given that the resources and a national will to produce the energy exist, it is possible to convert the resources to supply in, generally, an environmentally reasonable manner. However, the process of developing supply takes time. Government must permit access to the resource, and remunerative prices and further evolution of technology are required. This paper does not deal with these essentials, but they must not be forgotten. This discussion is limited to coal, oil, natural gas and gas liquids, uranium, and oil shale. Other energy sources are discussed elsewhere in this issue. Crude Oil Conventional crude oil resources are of greatest concern today, given our dependence on imported oil and its rapidly rising price. Estimates of oil originally in place (OOIP) range from 619 billion bbl to 1,094 billion bbl, differing by almost a factor of two (Table 1). This is surprising because the U.S. is a mature petroleum province with over 120 billion bbl produced and over 400 billion bbl OOIP discovered. Differences in the estimates involve differences in the experience of the various estimators, the interpretation of present geologic information and historical statistics, the methodology, and probably the extent (i.e., water depths) for which offshore resources are included. The range shown for the estimate of a given estimator appears to be primarily due to geologic uncertainty. This uncertainty can be measured by taking the ratio of the low and of the high estimate to the expected estimate for that information source. The low estimates range from 0.85 to 0.87 of their respective values. The high estimates range from 1.18 to 1.27 of the expected values. In all cases the high estimate is further from the expected value than the low,

Jan 9, 1980

By Charles H. Tiernon

Separation of particles on a table deck* results from differences in specific gravity, plus a number of other interrelated phenomena: size of particles; shape of particles; stratification (consolidation trickling); and hindered settling. The effective use of these factors may be controlled and aided by the following table adjustments: differential action of the drive or head motion; speed of motion; length of stroke; side tilt; end elevation; size of deck area; shape of deck; character of deck surface; riffle design; amount and distribution of wash water; feed water-to-solids ratio; feed rate; and feed uniformity. The typical concentrating table used in the US coal industry is essentially a rhombohedral-shaped deck supported by a suitable subframe. It generally slopes in the direction of the short axis, tilts upward at the refuse end of the long axis, and is differentially reciprocated in the direction of the long axis. This head motion tends to move the particles longitudinally toward the end of the table. At right angles to this movement, wash water (distributed along the high side of the table) tends to move particles down the slope parallel to the short axis of the table. Hence, the natural path of a particle on a concentrating table is from the feed box corner to the diagonally opposite corner of the deck (Fig. 1). There is a natural tendency for heavier particles to sink to the deck of the table and for lighter particles to stay nearer the surface. As a consequence, the heavier particles are carried further along the longitudinal axis since, being on or near the surface of the deck, they are more affected by the table's reciprocating action. The lighter particles, being at or near the top of the moving bed, travel slower in a longitudinal direction and thus separate from the heavy particles. Wash water and the diluting water in the feed cause lighter gravity particles to move down the short axis of the table. The feed material then fans out from the feed box, where it enters onto the table with heavy gravity particles moving in one direction and lighter particles moving in another. By properly adjusting all of the previously mentioned factors, a clear-cut separation is possible between high- and low-gravity particles, or between refuse and coal. Riffles are of great importance to tabling. They create considerably more capacity than is possible with smooth decks, and they are responsible for better separation accuracy. Particles in their downward movement along the deck's slope are delayed behind the riffles. Hindered settling, consolidation trickling, and other phenomena occur as the particles tumble over the riffles and stratification ensues. The heavier particles settle to the deck of the table and are trapped behind the riffles, thus insuring their positive movement toward the end of the table. Since stratification and separation of particles are not complete as a result of any one riffle, a series of riffles are used. The cycle of stratification and hindered settling is repeated from riffle to riffle. The result is purer products as particles fan out and progress forward and downward over the table. The smallest, heaviest particles stratify downward to the surface of the deck more quickly and are carried out by table movement toward the refuse end at a faster rate than coarse, heavy particles. Light gravity, larger pieces ride on the top layer of particles and flow down the deck's slope as a result of the cross flow of wash water at right

Jan 8, 1980

By Joseph Alexis

Humphreys Engineering Co. has been associated with mining and milling since the turn of the century, but its greatest contribution to the industry was development of the Humphreys spiral concentrator in 1943. Few devices in the history of mineral beneficiation have been so uncomplicated. The spiral concentrator has no moving parts and requires no power except that needed to deliver slurry to the feed box, a requirement common to all concentrating devices. Although Humphreys Engineering Co. produces several models of spiral concentrators, the one -commonly used for coal cleaning is Model 24C-6 which has a flatter pitch than most other models. The spiral concentrator consists of a spiral conduit with a modified semicircular cross section. A slurry containing 20-35% solids by weight is fed to the feed box at the top of the spiral and flows downward. The heavier refuse particles concentrate along the inner side of the slurry stream and the lighter coal moves to the outside. The coal spiral has six complete turns-each turn consists of three 120°-sections and each section has a refuse port at the lowest point of the channel. The Humphreys spiral concentrator separates minerals in accordance with their physical properties (primarily specific gravity and particle shape). Aside from pumping slurry to the distributor, no energy is required to produce clean coal since the separating action is controlled by gravity. As slurry flows down the spiral channel, each particle is subjected to a centrifugal force, tangential to the channel. This force piles slurry on the outer rim of the spiral until the flowing stream reaches an equilibrium between outward centrifugal force and downward gravitational force. Once established, the stream position is relatively constant. In any flowing stream, differential velocities are present within that stream (the slowest fluid levels nearest the channel surface and the fastest layers at the center). As the channel curves, the lower slurry levels, retarded by friction, have much less centrifugal force and tend to move sideways toward the inner radius of the channel. As the bottom layers move inward along the bottom of the channel, the upper layers must move outward to maintain equilibrium. This cross sectional rotation separates the minerals and moves those of highest specific gravity toward the inner radius where they drop through refuse ports (see figure on following page). The simplicity of the spiral concentrator is apparent in operation. After tonnage, slurry volume, and percent solids of the feed have been determined-generally with laboratory testing-the operator's main concern is simple adjustment of the splitters located in the refuse ports. These splitters control the amount of refuse collected and, generally, once properly set they need little attention unless grade conditions drastically change or trash builds up and hinders laminar flow. Spiral concentrators are not overly sensitive to changes in pulp densities, variances in grade, or parti¬cle size and shapes. All these conditions may fluctuate over fairly wide ranges without adversely affecting recovery and product grade. In certain applications, desliming may improve recovery.

Jan 8, 1980

By Ernest A. Draeger, James W. Collins

Water only cyclones, sometimes referred to as hydrocyclones, are one of the newest types of coal processing equipment. These devices have achieved wide acceptance as fine coal cleaners in the past decade. Many metallurgical coal plants employ water only cyclones to process 0.5 mm x 0 size coal. Some of these plants have as many as 40 to 50 305-mm-diam units with each unit receiving as much as 9 t/h of raw feed. The growth in the utilization of hydrocyclones is due partly to the energy shortage, partly to the general increase in over-all coal preparation, and also because of a need for a simplified fine coal (0.5 mm x 0 size) gravimetric separator. Large diameter water only cyclones are also available and in use to process feed sizes up to 32 mm in size. However, the size normally employed for cleaning 0.5 mm x 0 coal are 356 mm or 305-mm-diam for single-stage circuits. In two-stage circuits, the secondary units are normally the same diameter as the primary units or smaller, such as 203-mm-diam. By using the small diameter cyclones and treating a closely sized feed, 0.5 mm x 0 only, it has been found that the probable error or imperfection of the water only cyclones is comparable to that obtained on the same size fraction treated in a large 610-mm-diam heavy media cyclone washing 38 mm x 0. The water only cyclone can approach the efficiency of a heavy media cyclone when cleaning fine solids because it creates its own dense media by accumulating high specific gravity particles in the wide angle conical section of the cyclone. A cut-away cross sectional view of a water only cyclone is shown in Fig. 1. It is also true that when treating a wide range of sizes (38 mm x 0) in heavy media cyclones, the smaller size particles (0.5 mm x 0) separate in proportion to the split of the media through the cyclone rather than by particle density.

Jan 8, 1980

Compared to alternative ways of dealing with coal fines, oil agglomeration has always been a commercial bridesmaid and never yet a bride. Yet interest is high in the process, as shown by a number of pilot plants in operation that are funded by industry as well as government. In the past in the US, alternative ways to handle coal finer than 100 to 200 mesh included flotation, or no treatment except dewatering, or discarding the fines as waste. There are now a number of factors that tilt the economics more toward fine coal recovery. Today, the cost of mining a ton of underground coal runs from $22-30, and discarding even 10% as unrecovered fine coal is a real economic loss. A number of attempts (notably by EPRI) have been made to quantify the effect of coal cleaning on utility boiler operations. Transportation and ash handling costs, frequency of unscheduled outages, fouling and slagging problems, and boiler tube erosion are all lowered by cleaning coal. The advantage of coal cleaning on these parameters has been shown, but the dollar amount varies with many assumptions and is difficult to pin down. The message to a utility, however, has not been lost and the trend toward cleaner steam coal is accelerating. This may lead to fewer installations that only wash the coarse coal, and add back the unwashed fine coal until a maximum contractual ash limit is reached. And, as the proportion of coal fines continues to increase by continuous and longwall mining, it may become impossible to clean the coal sufficiently without cleaning the fines. Flotation and oil agglomeration are the only processes that presently deal directly with cleaning the very finest coal fractions. Flotation has proven its effectiveness in cleaning blackwater and in separating fine coal from mineral matter. It has the achievable potential for far greater pyrite rejection than is now obtained in commercial preparation plants. While flotation will continue to be the predominant method for fine coal cleaning, there are conditions and opportunities where oil agglomeration can be a

Jan 8, 1980

By Edward Skolnik

The concept of using fluid dense media to separate heavy ore constituents from the lighter gangue dates back to 1858, when it was patented by Sir Henry Bessemer. Its use in coal did not begin until after 1917, however, when Chance invented a process (which bears his name) in which lighter coal floats in a suspension of fine sand in water while heavier refuse sinks. Conklin used fine magnetite in suspension as a medium for floating anthracite in 1922, DuPont designed a plant employing organic liquids in 1936, and Belknap used a solution of calcium chloride (which Bessemer had suggested, among other media) in 1937. Separation of magnetic media by magnetic separators from the suspensions in which they were carried was introduced in a Butler Brothers ore concentrator pilot plant in 1937. The media first used were crushed steel and various grades of ferrosilicon. Since 1940, when American Cyanamid used magnetic separators to recover and clean magnetite in a coal washing circuit, virtually all heavy medium circuits have been of that type. As long as static baths are employed, as they are in the processes above, coal smaller than 9.5 mm or 6.4 mm cannot be cleaned economically in heavy medium. The settling velocities of the fine material are very low, and consequently the time required to separate the lighter coal from the heavier refuse becomes excessive. In addition, stray currents in the vessel and the upward velocities induced to keep media solids in suspension affect the finer solids to the degree that physical size becomes a more important factor than specific gravity.

Jan 8, 1980

By Ellis Brien, O&apos

The fine coal fraction of a coal stream is that fraction which contains particles essentially in the -28 mesh size range. This fraction will normally first appear, in a coal preparation process, as a result of classification to segregate raw coal into various size components for beneficiation. More specifically, it could appear in desliming screen underfiow, classifying cyclone overflow, and in other process circuit components. It's recognized that the top size of this fraction has been determined more by secondary reasons, such as desliming screen area for the heavy medium cyclone circuit, the dewatering equipment for the fine clean coal, or even the stability of the refuse thickener circuit. Benefits, both economic and environmental, gained by beneficiating the fine coal fraction of a raw coal stream are increasing in number, until today, fine coal beneficiation is a necessity in most coal operations requiring any degree of preparation. This is due to some of the following reasons: • In the past it was frequently more economical to discard -28 mesh raw coal sizes than to recover the coal values from them. Today, mining costs have escalated to the point where all coal values leaving the mine should report to the finished product if possible. • Today's mining methods are producing run-of-mine coals containing higher percentages of -28 mesh sizes. This heavily weighs the economic balance in favor of beneficiating this fraction. As much as 25% of the run-of-mine coal from some mines is in the fine coal fraction. Beneficiation is recommended so that clean coal contained in the fraction can be recovered to reduce the loss of coal values. • Existing and pending environmental regulations mandate that solid fuels now consumed in power station boilers contain almost no pyritic sulfur. This form of sulfur appears in raw coal in the fine coal fraction, but can be removed by coal beneficiation. Environmental considerations dictate that every year, more of the fine coal produced for steam generating purposes in the US be beneficiated. To deliberately discard any portion of the fine coal can only add to this cost, not only in the sense that fewer tons will be recovered but, more importantly, additional tonnage will be diverted to the most capital- and labor-intensive section of the entire preparation plant-the fine refuse dewatering section. It is apparent to preparation engineers that dewatering and ultimate disposal of the fine refuse derived from this beneficiation step is certainly the most difficult technical problem presented in the entire plant design. Therefore, any beneficiation procedure which increases the fine coal recovery, or in any manner decreases the tonnage of fine refuse to be dewatered, is going to be cost effective. Since the -28 mesh fraction contains both coal and refuse particles in their finest particle sizes and thus presents the greatest degree of liberation, one would immediately infer that the highest degree of beneficiation would be achieved. This is not the case-the opposite is more likely true. Conventional coal cleaning devices based on specific gravity (such as

Jan 8, 1980

The Colorado Joint Review Process (JRP), a bold step to expedite energy and mineral projects, is off and running. Blazing the trail is Amax Inc., which serve as guinea pig in JRP's development and is now test-flying the process at its Mt. Emmons molybdenum property in Gunnison County, CO. Although JRP is still in its infancy, the new permitting review process has drawn enthusiastic applause from across the resource spectrum: William K. Reilly, president of the Conservation Foundation, said JRP is "one of the most interesting projects I've seen" and called on environmentalists to monitor its progress "because it appears worthwhile." Stan Dempsey, vice president of Amax Inc., noted that of all the locales in which Amax operates, Colorado is "the only place where the complicated mine permitting scheme appears to work"-an achievement he attributes to JRP. Lynda Lee Brothers, the federal Energy Department's assistant deputy secretary of environment, reported that an extensive DOE search has not turned up "another single mechanism in all of government and private industry as good as JRP as a model for the proposed federal Energy Mobilization Board."

Jan 7, 1980

Man’s search beneath the earth for minerals has always required light, and the devices used to provide illumination have been both innovative and unusual —from stone vessels holding fat and a wick of grass or fiber to a shower of sparks produced by a thin steel disc. While the date when lamps were first used in mines is unknown, Greek and Roman records from 3000 BC definitely mention their use in underground mines. Early Remans most likely used a lamp similar to the one depicted at right. Over the ages, various types of devicives and methods of illumination have been tried and used. One interesting scheme for underground light was to reflect sunlight down the shaft and along drifts using mirrors or other reflective materials. Bunches of resinous wood were also used for underground lighting in many parts of England. In the mid-18th century, the speding mill was developed in England. It worked by rapidly turning a thin steel disc against a flint, causing a shower of sparks to appear. The light produced was uncertain, highly variable, and unsafe in gaseous environments. In Europe, an open pan-type hanging oil lamp was developed and used in some operations in the 1700s. This type of lamp had one opening for a wick and a second opening for refilling the oil reservoir. The lamps were embellished with goad luck charms – a good luck rooster was used in many parts of Europe while a frog and “gluck-auf” were used in Germany. These lamps were introduced in Mexican mines, and a few have found their way into the southwest US. By 1850, a small wick lamp known as the lard-oil lamp, which resembled a tea pot, was invented in Scotland. These lamps were fueled with grease from a packing house –lard, bacon grease, or tallow. Whale oil was also used. Many improvements were made on these lamps, such as the use of windshields and the attachment of miners’ candle-holdm to support the lamp. While these lamps were handy and inexpensive to operate, they were dangerous because their large flame could ignite support timbers or other flammable materials. Miners from the United Kingdom brought this type of lamp into the US. Domestic producers of oil wick lamps were primarily located in Hazleton, PA; What Cheer, IA; Pittsburgh, PA; and Frostburg, IN. The first patent for an oil wick lamp was granted to W. Seybold of McKeesport, PA. Incidentally, these lamps were advertised in a 1903 Sears-Roebuck catalog for 10 cents apiece. Oil wick

Jan 7, 1980

Rising energy costs are a growing concern among mine operators. At sur’ace operations, the size of a dragline, production requirements, pit geometry and layout, and operator skill are all factors in potential energy savings. The following tips are offered as a practical means to conserve energy demand, and can be applied to diesel fuel draglines as well.

Jan 7, 1980

By Charles S. Phillips

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. (KACC) had been discharging spent bauxite-generally referred to as red mud-into the Mississippi River for almost 20 years when, in 1972, it agreed to store the waste solids on land. KACC decided to utilize a DREW system (decantation, drainage, and evaporation of water) where the spent bauxite is deposited in a large drying bed, surrounded by a 9-m-high levee. At the bottom of the bed, corrugated, perforated plastic pipe is encased in filter sand. The company built one DREW bed at Gramercy, LA, in 1973 and a second at Baton Rouge in 1974 using draglines, tractors, and rubber-tired scrapers. When a third bed was needed in 1977, the estimated construction cost using draglines was judged too high and KACC personnel began searching for a better, less expensive method for constructing the levee. A bucket-wheel excavator and conveyor system was selected and has proved to be less costly than more traditional earth-moving systems.

Jan 7, 1980

The American Mining Congress International Coal Show, this year’s largest gathering of coal industry leaders, convened May 5-8 in Chicago. Against a 73 000-m2 backdrop of the coal industry’s most productive equipment,* some 23 000 people heard government and industry executives give guardedly optimistic reports of coal’s near future gains. Although a rocky road lies ahead, operators and suppliers still continue their search to improve efficiency. Among the ideas discussed at the show were better underground communications systems, continuous on-line coal analysis, and recovery of hard-to-float coal.

Jan 7, 1980

By Earl Sackett

In its 110-year history as a mining camp, the Boleo copper district of Baja California has weathered significant changes in its operation, ownership, and profitability, despite an inhospitable environment and unique ore body. For some 65 years, under the operation of Compagnie Boleo, the area ranked as the second largest copper producing district in Mexico, with over 560 km of underground workings. As its ore grade-and profitability-declined, operations continued sporadically and with varying degrees of success. Today, operations at Boleo are maintained -despite the economics -while work is underway to devise a viable metallurgical process. Lab tests on a hydrometallurgical method look encouraging and, though this may end the district's days as a mining camp, the feasibility of the process may result in an 18-kt/d full-scale operation.

Jan 7, 1980

Disposal of solid and liquid wastes from mining and milling operations has become a focus of attention in recent years. Consequently, the geotechnical engineer is more frequently associated with design of disposal facilities. Jack Wulff, a representative of one consulting firm with experience in this field, talks with ME about the geotechnical engineer's contribution. Mr. Wulff, mine and mill waste disposal today is receiving more attention-and many more dollars-than in the past. Regulatory agencies have promulgated demanding requirements concerning mill waste (especially uranium mill waste) and specialist consultants are frequently being called in to design disposal systems. What can the experienced geotechnical engineer add to the development of waste disposal facilities? It's true that geotechnical engineers have recently become more visible in the minerals sector, but we've been around mining for a long time-as foundation engineers for mills and mine support buildings, and for geotechnical aspects of open pits, pipelines, railroads, roads, and so forth. We've also designed water supply dams, which could be considered recursors of tailings dams and other forms of disposal systems. Let me show by example what geotechnical engineering can contribute to waste disposal facility design. I recently was asked to look at several small wastewater impoundments which had failed. The design of the earth embankments appeared, at first glance, to be rather conservative. They were only about 3.4 m high, the slopes were 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), with about 24 m of bottom contact with the earth foundation. But there had been three episodes of dike failure in a few months, all upon initial filling. The problem was the nature of some material in the foundation that was also used as structural fill-a dispersive clay that readily deflocculated and eroded on contact with water, especially with seeping or flowing water. The design did not include the defensive measures required to use such materials confidently in water retention structures. Apparently, the designer did not recognize the potential problem posed by the unusual soil characteristics. That's the sort of engineering information fundamental to geotechnical engineering, but not necessarily a part of the civil, structural, or mining engineer's professional training or experience. This difference in expertise is not simply a matter of factual knowledge-it also affects the design process. The structural engineer can design a structure to fit the client's functional needs and can specify the materials (grade of steel, PVC, concrete, etc.) to meet the demands of the design. The geotechnical engineer's design process is somewhat different, since we work with natural materials, not man-made materials produced according to specification. We first have to establish what kinds of materials are available (usually directly from the chosen site, since importation of materials becomes expensive). Then we determine the engineering properties and characteristics and, finally, design the structure to fulfill the client's requirements within parameters dictated by available materials. In brief, the geotechnical engineer works with naturally-evolved, not man-made, materials and uses design techniques developed to accommodate that fact. Because no two sites are exactly alike in configuration, structural (geologic) characteristics, or available materials, there will be unique design and judgmental questions to be resolved on virtually every project. You said that water retention dams could be considered the precursors of tailings dams-you probably had a specific technical relationship in mind. There's a very strong carryover of methodology from earth dam design, where the technology developed and where it has become very refined. In designing a tailings impoundment or similar facility, essentially the same procedures of field sampling are involved (with a geotechnical engineer or an engineering geologist directing the program since representative

Jan 7, 1980

Throughout the 1970s, the US Bureau of Mines rode an ebb tide in Washington political circles. In rapid fire succession, the agency lost its mine health and safety enforcement responsibility (1973), a large portion of its energy research responsibility (1975), and then its fuel statistics functions plus a sizable portion of its coal R&D (1977). By 1978, johnny-come-latelies in the Energy, Labor, and Interior Departments had siphoned away from the Bureau some $125 million in program responsibilities as well as 900 of its employees. The bruising decade came to a close with a Department of Natural Resources proposal that, in its original form, would have scattered the Bureau’s responsibilities to the winds. There is no doubt in my wind,” said Lindsay Norman, acting director of the Bureau of Mines (see box), “that were the Bureau to continue down the path it was on, the next step was closing the doors and going out of business.” The doors are still open, but erosion of responsibilities had a devastating effect on the resources available to fulfill the Bureau’s mission. Devastating,too, in terms of internal morale, considering the Bureau had six directors in a 10-year span. “When the troops are in the trenches and are being shot at,” Norman said, “they need a leader—hopefully, a permanent one— that can get them advancing. This is something the Bureau did not consistently have in the 1970s.” In September 1978, Roger Markle climbed aboard as director of the Bureau to rejuvenate the 70-year-old agency. He resigned only six months later* but the program Markle set in motion is being carried through by Lindsay Norman. Since Norman’s appointment as acting director, he has spent considerable time on the road explaining his agency’s redefined goals. At one such stop in Duluth, Norman and his two deputy directors, Charles Kenahan and Mike Kaas, answered the following questions.

Jan 6, 1980