Search Documents

By John Dasher

Extrapolation is a useful technique, but it can be overdone. Seldom is it justified to study over a range of 1 to 6 and extrapolate the results to 150,000. It is especially dangerous if the extrapolation is based on a false assumption. The authors assume settlers scale-up by residence time rather than by area, admit their result (a settler depth of 7 m) is "unreasonable" and suggest longer, wider, shallower settlers might be better. Various authors have noted for a copper-LIX system a total flow basis of 2 gpm per sq ft for sizing settlers. The results of this are compared with those in the paper in [Table 7]. The authors note that flooding of their settlers was never approached. Thus the smallest unit calculated is understandably twice too big. The largest however, is 5% of the required size. I note that the figures in [Table 6] for 1/min/cm2 are based on plan area rather than cross section as titled and are wrong by l0 4. A flow of 2050 1/min/cm2 is about Mach I. It is also 10 5/3 or 46.5 times that of the little one, although the abstract says the design was based on constant flow rate per unit cross section.

Jan 1, 1977

Insoluble slimes are present in nearly all sylvinite ore bodies and must be removed prior to potash flotation because they adsorb excessive amounts of potash flotation reagents and cause low potash recoveries and grades. The problems associated with insoluble slimes will become more pronounced as high grade-low insol potash ores are depleted and lower grade ores containing high insols are processed. The most common commercial practice for insoluble slimes removal is mechanical desliming (hydroclassification); however, most of these desliming circuits were designed to treat sylvinite ores containing less than 4 percent insoluble slimes. As Mr. Banks mentioned in his presentation, higher insoluble slimes concentrations (>4 pct) in the mill feed overtax the mechanical desliming circuit and result in excessive brine and potash losses. Increasing the capacity of the circuit would require redesigning of the entire potash circuit and additional costly equipment. Because of mineralization and liberation properties of the high insols sylvinite deposits, the expansion of the desliming circuit may not economically maintain high potash grades and recoveries. Selective flocculation-flotation is an excellent alternative for removing insoluble slimes from potash ores. Cominco's ore, containing 4.5 to 8 percent insoluble slimes, is particularly amenable to the slimes flotation process, probably because of the absence of expanding-type clays such as montmorillonite. The overall potash recovery of 86 percent and low slime flocculant and collector dosages of 0.03 to 0.04 pound reagent per ton of feed is good evidence of the success of the process. If appreciable montmorillonite were present, the metallurgy would not be as favorable and reagent consumptions would increase significantly.

Jan 1, 1979

By G. C. Waterman, W. E. Hawes

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.

Jan 1, 1983

By Maurice Grieves

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.

Jan 3, 1983

By R. W. Barbaro, R. V. Ramani, K. V. K. Prasad, P. T. Luckie

Discussion by A. Unal Barbaro et al. (1990) implemented a tedious study aimed at delineating the short-scale spatial variability of sulfur in a coal seam. It is not possible, however, to extend their conclusions to any other coal seam or use their in any other fashion, because the background geology was not presented. Nor were the conclusions accompanied by geological interpretations in the paper. In addition, an unfortunate printing error occurred where the total sulfur (determined by High Temperature Combustion) variogram in Fig.3 was duplicated in Fig. 2 instead of the seam height variogram. A more serious error, however, has been committed in the definition of the variable, seam height. What is defined as seam height by Barbaro et al. (1990) is, in essence, mining height, and is not a regionalized variable that should be studied by geostatistical methods directly. Despite the fact that the variable, seam height, is not defined in the paper explicitly, the following quotation discloses the fallacy: "All roof rock that exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft) from the floor was not taken because the longwall was operated to not mine more than 1.8 in (6 ft) unless the coal seam height exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft)." From this definition, the seam height, and therefore the sampling height, is equal to the actual coal thickness, if the coal thickness is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft). Otherwise, it is equal to the sum of the coal thickness plus the thickness of the roof rock that complements the thickness to 1.8 m (6 ft). In the latter case, the seam height is constant and equal to 1.8 m (6 ft). It is possible to conduct a variogram study on a pool of samples that are realizations of two different variables. But the conclusions derived would not belong to any one of the two variables uniquely and, therefore, do not possess any significance. Geostatistical analysis is irrelevant for the sum of multiple regionalized variables formed by arbitrary selections. In a two-seam setting, for example, the mining height, as defined by the thickness of one seam at one location and the thickness of both seams at another location (due to quality and/or minimum thickness considerations perhaps), should not be used in the calculation of one common variogram. The two seams should be modeled separately. They can then be combined according to the specific purposes of the study. On the other hand, if a constant is added to a regionalized variable (to incorporate dilution perhaps), the variogram of the new variable will not change. Barbaro et al. (1990), surprisingly, does not give any geological interpretation of their results despite the fact that most of them can be explained by the origins of sulfur in a coal seam. The presentation of the results of a geostatistical study with no reference to the geology of the deposit is uninformative. It may also be misleading for the potential users of geostatistics, It is not unusual to find nuggets of pyrite in coal seams. In such cases, pyritic sulfur will probably display a spatial structure for only a very small distance that will appear in the experimental variogram as no spatial correlation. This very well known phenomenon is called the pure nugget effect in geostatistics (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978) and perhaps can explain the lack of correlation found for pyritic sulfur content. The lack of correlation found for the total sulfur content may also be explained in the same way because the total sulfur content is dominated by the pyritic sulfur content in this case study. One should notice, however, that the situation may completely be reversed after cleaning the coal. Not all of the inorganic sulfur should be expected to be in the form of pyrite nuggets in a coal seam. It may also be disseminated in the coal seam and it is expected that it follows a certain spatial structure. However, an existing spatial structure may be masked by including a part of the roof rock, rich in sulfides, into the seam thickness in an arbitrary fashion because areas having a sandstone roof sometimes are known to show a higher sulfur content due to the downward percolation of solutions rich in iron sulfides (Clark, 1979). Plants use sulfur in their growth processes. Much of this sulfur is bound organically during peat accumulation and coal formation (Cecil et al., 1978.) This suggests a spatial structure of some sort for the organic sulfur. However, it is not possible to test this hypothesis because the results obtained by the authors for the organic sulfur content are not given in this paper. For this reason, the conclusion that simple average of the nearby samples would provide the best unbiased estimates is questionable for organic sulfur and is not based on any substantial supporting evidence. It is suspected that no spatial structure was detected and this was due to high sampling and laboratory analysis errors. Before concluding that sulfur variability in the seam at the location of study was random, a more detailed study for the disseminated non-pyritic sulfur should have been conducted, not for the sake of scientific curiosity only, but also due to its utmost importance with regard to coal cleaning and emission control. Pyritic sulfur can be cleaned to a considerable extent, whereas organic sulfur can not, making the emission control strategies highly dependent on the spatial distribution of the organic sulfur (Knudsen, 1981). In the light of these facts, one wonders why Barbaro et al. (1990) did not present the results of their study for the sulfate and organic sulfur content. References Barbaro, R.W.. et al., 1990, "Short-Scale Spatial Variability of Sulfur in a Coal Seam,' Mining Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 1267-1269. Cecil, C.B., et al., 1978, "Geology of Ccontaminants in coal," report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina, 123 pp. Clark, W.J.. 1979, "An interfluve model of the upper Freeport coal Bed in part of western Pennsylvania," unpublished MS thesis, University of South Carolina, 57 pp. Journel, A.G., and [Huijbregls], Ch. J., 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, London, 600 pp. Knudsen, H.P., 1981. "Development of a Conditional simulation model of a coal deposit," unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona, 109 pp.

Jan 1, 1992

We did install one 100% brick bottom in our #33 furnace which is basically the same design as Inland's furnace. We had previously embarked on a program of replacing all bottoms in our 300 ton furnaces every 2nd campaign which would be about every 2000 - 2300 heats. This had been necessitated by the effect of our rather high oxygen blowing rates and our desire to maintain a minimum bottom interval level. This meant that we were able to compare bottom performance of various types of materials on a realistic bas is. Since furnace availability is critical to our operation, we are organized to employ every piece of equipment and all the necessary man power to complete a rebuild in the shortest possible time. A 300 ton furnace requires 7.5 days to rebuild. If a new bottom is to be installed an additional 2.5 days is added - 24 hours for tear out and 36 hours for bricklaying - making a total of 10 days.

Jan 1, 1972

By E. Arioglu

Discussion by E. Arioglu Y. Luo and S.S. Peng are to be congratulated for their outstanding paper providing new results from surface subsidence monitoring over longwall panels under different conditions. This writer found the authors' paper very interesting. In reference to this paper, the following contributions are offered: • In the paper, the maximum possible subsidence [(ASmax)] induced by chain pillar convergence has been related to a parameter (h/1- p) by linear regression. (Notations are expressed in this discussion's Fig. 1 (b).) It is a well-known fact that in a goaf the roof lowers onto broken material that gradually compacts. Then the physical behavior of goat may closely follow the compaction characteristics of broken materials. In light of this assumption, a mathematical means (Fig. 1(a)) of defining the expected compaction (i.e. surface subsidence) represents an exponential expression between [ASmax/m vs. h/1-p]. This is based on Luo and Peng's field observations from the Appalachian, Illinois and Alabama coal fields. (The coefficient of regression "r" under consideration was computed to be 0.883). • According to Wardell's (1969) findings for board and pillar mining, the maximum possible subsidence can be expressed in terms of maximum pillar loading (depth, ratio of extraction) and the height-to-width ratio of the pillars left. Using Luo and Peng's 1991 results, this writer discovered a regression equation between the above-mentioned factors. As displayed in Fig. 1(b), the functional expression approximates as closely as possible the observed subsidence data. It may be noted here that Wardell's approach (1969) can be successfully utilized for longwall panels having chain pillars. Reference Wardell, K., 1969, "Ground surface and control," Mining Congress Journal, January, pp. 1-7.

Jan 1, 1993

By A. M. Radigan, W. G. Prast

M.S. Azun The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also, I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitilize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondant government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 2, 1984

By J. C. Wynn

J.R. Hillebrand From the abstract, "A realistic ore deposition model to serve as a conceptual framework." Further, on page 246, "The first area of study was the Josephine peridotite, now identified as an ophiolite terrane, located in northern California and south-western Oregon (Fig. 3). Here, it was felt that we could test the models shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and, if successful, expand the model and test it in other chromite districts in the US and around the world." My comments refer only to chromite deposits in Europe and the Middle East. First, I question that may chromite deposits occur in the idealized ophiolite section shown in Fig. 1. Second, although some podiform deposits (referring to morphology) have been important (Guleman, Turkey, for example), the stratiform deposits are of greater importance in tonnage and frequently grade. Examples include Nada, Yugoslavia; Bulqiza, Albania; Xerolivado, Greece; Saranovsk, Russia; and Abdasht, Iran. Reply by J.C. Wynn Mr. Hillebrand raises two issues that deserve a serious response. One issue is basically subjective and the other is ultimately political. First, the question of where (and how many) podiform chromite deposits are found in the idealized ophiolite section of Dickey (1975). The Dickey model is still perhaps somewhat controversial (Panayoutou, 1980), but our experience in the Josephine ophiolite of northern California (Wynn, 1980; and Albers, 1983) shows that the model works well there. Virtually all the chromite is found in dunite lenses in the tectonite peridotite (harzburgite). Since there are few complete ophiolites exposed in the world, the model will probably never satisfy everyone. The degree of acceptance is a function of any individual's subjective experience. Second, it is well known that stratiform chromite contributes more than 95% of the chromite reserves presently known in the world, and it could be reasonably argued that there is no point in exploring for or exploiting podiform deposits further. The title of the paper, however, was in part 'strategic minerals geophysical research'; chromite is considered a strategic and critical mineral of the US and many other industrialized nations. Stratiform deposits in South Africa and Zimbabwe account for most of the chromite reserves in the world. Unfortunately, experience in modern times with substantial price fluctuations and even resource cartels dictates the wisdom of identifying and maintaining a national chromite reserve, irrespective of the cost. An improved exploration methodology is an essential element in this strategic objective. References Albers, J.P., 1983, "Geological and Geophysical Studies of Chromite Deposits in the Josephine peridotite, California and Oregon," US Geological Survey Bulletin 1546 A-D, 118 pp. Dickey, J.S. Jr., 1975, "A Hypothesis of Origin for Podiform Chromite Deposits," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 39, pp. 1061.1074. Panayiotou, 1980, Proceedings, International Ophiolite Symposium, Cyprus, 1979, 781 pp. Wynn, J.C., 1980, "Exploration Geophysical Methods and Strategies, and Their use to Locate and Assess Small Mineral Deposits," Chapter 12 of Meyer and Carmen, eds., The Future of Small Scale Mining, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 75-83.

Jan 12, 1983

By J. R. Hillebrand

From the abstract, "A realistic ore deposition model to serve as a conceptual framework." Further, on page 246, "The first area of study was the Josephine peridotite, now identified as an ophiolite terrane, located in northern California and southwestern Oregon (Fig. 3). Here, it was felt that we could test the models shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and, if successful, expand the model and test it in other chromite districts in the US and around the world." My comments refer only to chromite deposits in Europe and the Middle East. First, I question that may chromite deposits occur in the idealized ophiolite section shown in [Fig. 1]. Second, although some podiform deposits (referring to morphology) have been important (Gulernan, Turkey, for example), the stratiform deposits are of greater importance in tonnage and frequently grade. Examples include Nada, Yugoslavia; Bulqiza, Albania; Xerolivado, Greece; Saranovsk, Russia; and Abdasht, Iran.

Jan 1, 1984

By Erich U. Petersen

Discussion by Erich U. Petersen Harbuck et al. (1990) present results of research on sulfuric acid leaching of a germanium-gallium ore and shed considerable insight on possible extraction methods for gallium and germanium. However, the presentation does not give sufficient details to evaluate the research, so some of the conclusions may not be as applicable as stated. The objective of this communication is to indicate that relevant and easily obtainable geological and technical information was omitted. Consequently, on this basis, alternative explanations for some of the data are possible. Discussed below are the omission of: • pertinent geological, mineralogical and geochemical literature; • details regarding the determination of germanium concentration in quartz by electron microprobe; and • details on the calculation of the amount of germanium locked in quartz. "These topics are important since the determination of the amount and locus of "unrecoverable, locked germanium" may have an important impact on the economics and methods of germanium extraction and the directions of future research. Harbuck et al. state that "A key to increasing germanium extraction is understanding the mineralogy of the ore." However, only two studies are cited that in some manner describe the mineralogy of the ores. In addition, both of these studies were very preliminary, of limited scope and examined very few

Jan 1, 1993

By D. F. Lascelles

D. F. Lascelles (School of Earth Sciences, MacQuarie University, North Ryde, N. S. W., Australia)- The paper contains many misconceptions commonly held by both geologists and soil scientists with regard to soil processes. The analogy between supergene copper enrichment and "nickel laterite" deposits is quite apt and the use of nomenclature from the former in describing supergene nickel deposits is justified. However, care must be exercised with regard to the notable differences in

Jan 1, 1974

By A. F. Agnew

Discussion by A.E Agnew Strachan's paper summarizes a wealth of data on water-storage dam "incidents" published by USCOLD and ASCE in 1988, together with a review of tailings-dam incidents published by USCOLD in 1994. The data is summarized by text and 11 histograms. The histograms present a useful compilation of these data, although the patterns within the histogram blocks did not survive the Mining Engineering printing process - so their usefulness is impaired. Unfortunately, the text discussion is too cursory and does not highlight the significant relationships among the various causes of the incidents. Four paragraphs of text and Fig. 1 were devoted to water-storage dams, but the discussion is too sketchy, and Fig. 1 is unclear. Important statistics that could be uncovered are: •the total number of dam incidents tabulated were 500+, •earth embankments constituted 73% of those in operation and •incidents related to earth embankments were 75%, of which dam failures accounted for 24%, major repairs accounted for 42% and accidents accounted for 34%. Strachan concluded that "the majority of the dam failures are associated with overtopping (p. 49), and that the majority of incidents are associated with spillway and other facility structures" - although this is difficult to discern from Fig. 1. Confusion regarding Strachan's use of the terms "dam failures" and "incidents" is compounded by his use of "failures" and "accidents" in one paragraph of his Introduction section followed by his use of "incidents" in the next paragraph. Getting to the meat of Strachan's important paper, the tailings-dam incident survey (USCOLD, 1994), the connection between Figs 2 through 11 seems obscure. First, in the four paragraphs of introductory material, one learns that "incidents consisted of failures, accidents, seepage and other incidents of performance that did not meet design criteria" (p. 50). One does learn the helpful caveat that "structures not related to mill tailings were not included in the review" - so that the Buffalo Creek (West Virginia in 1972) and Aberfan (Wales in 1966) coal-mine failures, together with the ongoing metal-mine remediation work at Summitville (Colorado) do not muddy the waters of his paper. The all-too-brief discussion of the data shown in Figs. 3 through 11 (185 dams in USCOLD plus 26 dams in UNEP) reveals the following: •Figure 3: 57% of the incidents (failures and accidents) occurred with dams less than 20-m (66-ft) in height. •Figure 4: 63% of the incidents were due to failures alone (subset of Fig. 3). •Figure 5: Active dams had 82% of the accidents and 93% of the failures. •Figure 6: Types of dams (upstream, water-retention, downstream, centerline and "unknown") separated according to incidents. •Figure 7: Breaks out the incidents in Fig. 6 by failures, accidents and ground water. •Figure 8: Breaks out incidents by type (overtopping, slope stability, earthquake, foundation, seepage, structural, erosion, mine subsidence and "unknown"). •Figure 9: Separates Fig. 8 data into active and inactive dams. •Figure 10: Separates Fig. 9 data into failures and accidents. •Figure 11: Same as Fig. 8, but broken out by tailings-dam type (Fig. 6). Figures 6 and 7 show that most of the failures are associated with upstream or "unknown" types. Figure 9 shows that the leading causes of incidents for active dams

Jan 1, 2003

By J. D. Miller, R. J. Smith

Earl C. Herkenhoff Publication of the article "The Flotation Behavior of Digested Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands" by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller has confirmed and again spotlighted a most significant and important development in the field of tar sand and heavy oil mining. This is the ability to recover 95 % of the bitumen in dry tar sands by a hot water process. The initial investigation by Miller and Sepulveda in early 1978, "Separation of Bitumen from Dry Tar Sands," was the first blockbuter. It is disappointing that there has been so little scientific and industry ackowledgement that the authors laid to rest the long entrenched belief that the sand grains had to be "water wetted" for a hot water process to be applicable. Dr. Miller and his researchers at the University of Utah used slightly different mineral dressing terminology in describing their process but it is essentially the old, established technique of high solids attrition scrubbing at elevated temperatures with a conditioner or modifier, followed by dilution and froth flotation. Similar techniques were described in detail for other nonmetallic minerals in the mid-1940s by Stuart Falconer of American Cyanamid Co. The authors used a 15-minute "scrub" period (or in their terminology "digester step") at 73% solids and 95°C (203°F) in a 0.3 m solution of sodium carbonate -about 4 kg/t (8 lb per st) of tar sand. Flotation was at 10% solids. Obviously, the scrub is an expensive step with respect to energy input but the high recovery of bitumen appears to justify it. Two basic questions then arise: • What are the effects of shorter scrubbing time, lower temperature, and less sodium carbonate? • Would a two-stage approach be advantageous? That is, could you get the major proportion of the bitumen with a mild scrub and apply the high power and temperature only to the refractory portion? These variables should be evaluated. Apparently, all results were only for rougher flotation. What would the grade and recovery of bitumen be if multiple cleaner flotation steps were employed? We must concede that a 60-62% grade of bitumen leaves considerable room for upgrading. Finally, it should be noted by all executives who approve funds for heavy oil recovery schemes, most of which are variations of in-situ methods, that mining can yield a 95% recovery of bitumen. That is correct, 95%. Imagine what that does to the total barrels recovered from a heavy oil resource compared with the scrawny 30-35% maximum recovery we are getting now. The conclusion-let's mine heavy oil and tar sands. Reply by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller We, too, share Mr. Herkenhoff s enthusiasm for the mining of tar sands-heavy oil and continue the development of related processing technology. Specifically, it will be noted that by appropriate control of bitumen viscosity in the feed (probably the most important variable for successful separation) the recovery can be accomplished at low digestion temperature and low addition of alkali. A 91 t/d (100 stpd) pilot plant based on our technology is now being operated by Enercor in Salt Lake City (Hatfield, Oblad, and Miller, 1982). In these same pilot facilities, rougher concentrates containing more than 80% bitumen on a dry basis are being produced from Asphalt Ridge Feed. However, the processing of certain other tar sands results in incomplete digestion of bitumen/sand aggregates as discussed elsewhere (Miller and Misra, 1982). Such undigested aggregates are shown in Fig. 1. In this regard, it is intended that a recycle stream will be installed in the pilot plant to provide for redigestion of middling products. Further details regarding surface chemistry aspects of this tar sand technology have recently been published (Misra, Aguilar, and Miller, 1981). References Hatfield, K.E., Oblad, A.G., and Miller, J.D., 1982, "Pilot Plant Recovery of Bitumen from Oil Wet Tar Sands," Processing, Second International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Caracas, Venezuela, Feb. 7-17. Hatfield, K.E., Oblad, A.G., and Miller, J.D., 1982, "Pilot Plant Processing of Oil-Wet Tar Sands," Symposium, Rocky Mountain Fuel Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 18-19. Miller, J.D. and Misra, M. 1982, "Hot Water Process Development for Utah Tar Sands," Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, April, pp. 27-49. Misra, M., Aguilar, R., and Miller, J.D., 1981, "Surface Chemistry Features in the Hot Water Processing of Utah Tar Sand, Proceedings, "Symposium of Separation Science and Technology for Energy Applications," Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 5-8.

Jan 11, 1982

By Earl C. Herkenhoff

Publication of the article "The Flotation Behavior of Digested Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands" by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller has confirmed and again spotlighted a most significant and important development in the field of tar sand and heavy oil mining. This is the ability to recover 95% of the bitumen in dry tar sands by a hot water process. The initial investigation by Miller and Sepulveda in early 1978. "Separation of Bitumen from Dry Tar Sands," was the first blockbuster. It is disappointing that there has been so little scientific and industry ackowledgement that the authors laid to rest the long entrenched belief that the sand grains had to be "water wetted" for a hot water process to be applicable. Dr. Miller and his researchers at the University of Utah used slightly different mineral dressing terminology in describing their process but it is essentially the old, established technique of high &lids attrition scrubbing at elevated temperatures with a conditioner or modifier, followed by dilution and froth flotation. Similar techniques were described in detail for other nonmetallic minerals in the mid-1940s by Stuart Falconer of American Cyanamid Co. The authors used a 15-minute "scrub" period (or in their terminology "digester step") at 73% solids and 95OC (203°F) in a 0.3 m solution of sodium carbonate-about 4 kg/t (8 lb per st) of tar sand. Flotation was at 10% solids. Obviously, the scrub is an expensive step with respect to energy input but the high recovery of bitumen appears to justify it. Two basic questions then arise: What are the effects of shorter scrubbing time, lower temperature, and less sodium carbonate? Would a two-stage approach be advantageous? That is, could you get the major proportion of the bitumen with a mild scrub and apply the high power and temperature only to the refractory portion? These variables should be evaluated. Apparently, all results were only for rougher flotation. What would the grade and recovery of bitumen be if multiple cleaner flotation steps were employed? We must concede that a 60.62% grade of bitumen leaves considerable room for upgrading. Finally, it should be noted by all executives who approve funds for heavy oil recovery schemes, most of which are variations of in-situ methods, that mining can yield a 95% recovery of bitumen. That is correct, 95%. Imagine what that does to the total barrels recovered from a heavy oil resource compared with the scrawny 30-35% maximum recovery we are getting now. The conclusion-let's mine heavy oil and tar sands.

Jan 1, 1983

Dr. Oldshue has provided a useful summary of a voluminous subject and my task will be to select and direct attention to those areas of mixing theory and practice which are germane to mineral processing in general, and to fine particle treatment in particular. Pulp mixing in impeller actuated reactors occurs in mineral processing in several different applications: (1) emulsification of reagents; (2) mixing pulp with 'reagents as in conditioning for subsequent operations (such as flotation, flocculation or agglomeration) ; (3) high intensity agitation, as in (a) disintegrating and dispersing aggregates, and (b) aggregating particles as in shear flocculation or in selective agglomeration; (4) hydrometallurgy; (5) hydrometallurgy with gas phase (e.g., Arbiter process); . (6) flotation in sub-aeration machines. Attention is invited to 3 above in which two opposite effects can be induced by proper choice of chemical treatment and hydrodynamic conditions. Successful processes for treating mineral fines require excellent aggregate dispersion in order to fully accomplish the liberation stage. Some processes depend further upon selective aggregation following dispersion. The term “dispersion” is often used in different senses which for present purposes will be clarified at the bottom of the next page.

Jan 1, 1979

By John M. Sharp

John M. Sharp, Jr. (Assistant Professor of Geology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.)-Geothermal gradient and surface temperature data anomalies are potentially useful tools in mineral exploration, These data, however, may reflect a number of geologic and hydrologic processes as well as the thermophysical properties of the geologic materials. The author presents a relatively simple model which may be of value in mineral exploration. The lack of consideration of other processes, however, limits its usefulness. For instance, because of erosion or sediment deposition over geologic time the land surface must be considered a moving boundary in such a model. Evaluation of this effect coupled with annual surface temperature and thermal conductivity variations can result in temperature profiles such as shown in [Figs. 4 to 7]. These effects and others, such as ground-water movement," must be considered and filtered from the data before proper interpretation is possible. Another assumption which should have been discussed is, why were the observed mean surface temperatures not used for extrapolation of the gradients in [Figs. 4, 6, and 7?] Conductive heat transport responds to the actual boundary (land surface) temperature, not to theoretical temperatures in the absence of perturbations. Benfield presents a theoretical model for calculating perturbations in the geothermal gradient for erosion and sedimentation. The temperature (T) at any time (t) and any depth below the surface (x) is given by [ ] where T is the mean surface temperature, G, the geothermal gradient, v, the rate of erosion (or sedimentation),[ ], the long-term rate of change of T0, and k is the thermal diffusivity of the rock. Using the author's values and a rate of erosion of 1.54 cm per yr for a period of 10,000 yr, a thermal profile as shown in [Fig. 10] will be generated. A thermal diffusivity of 0.0164 sq cm per sec was used, corresponding to a thermal conductivity of 0.0082 cal per cm per sec per C. In [Fig. 11], a sediment deposition rate of 3.0 cm per yr for a period of 1000 yr was used to generate the subsurface temperature profile. A surface temperature of 24.3°C was used, as specified in [Fig. 9, 7], was set equal to zero for both cases. Superposition on the generated profiles in [Figs. 10 and 11] of the annual surface temperature variation perturbation (which may be calculated in a number of ways) will yield profiles similar to those in [Figs. 4 and 7]. Similar profiles can also be produced by regional ground-water flow. Models like the author's can be of value in mineral exploration. Other processes, however, which affect surface temperatures and gradients must first be considered, calculated, and filtered from the data if anything but the crudest qualitative interpretation is to be made. Robert C. Edmiston (Author's reply)-Professor Sharp has raised three objections to my interpretation of the subsurface temperature data I collected at Silver Bell. These are: 1) No correction was made for erosion or sedimentation,

Jan 1, 1977

By S. G. Malghan

W.H. Moyer In reference to the section “Excess pyrite, ” the author discusses difficulties in separating chalcopyrite from pyrite. A technique does exist, and has been used commercially, for the flotation, separation, and recovery, if desired, of both chalcopyrite and pyrite. The method was described in Mining Engineering, March 1966, “An Improved Flotation Method for Cornwall Sulfides. ” While it was not used on a porphyry copper ore, it was used on a chalcopyrite - pyrite-containing ore and might well have application. Both sulfides, chalcopyrite and pyrite, were floated simultaneously using xanthate as a collector and MIBC frother to produce a cleaned sulfide product. This concentrate was then thickened and conditioned at high solids with aeration and lime to a pH above 12.0 for a period of 1.5 to 2 hr. A supplemental suppressant, such as cyanide, could be used if necessary to sharpen the subsequent separation; however, it was not required at Cornwall. The conditioned sulfides were floated with two stages of cleaning to produce a highgrade chalcopyrite froth product and a pyrite sink product barren in copper. The separation at Cornwall gave a 28.6q. Cu grade chalcopyrite product and a pyrite analyzing 0.0670 Cu. A desliming step on the raw ore initially used at Cornwall for a period of time was later discontinued. Advantages to be found in using a strong sulfide collector, such as a xanthate, is the rapid flotation it induces and, generally, an ability to float at a coarser grind. A following regrind circuit could be used to give maximum liberation and produce a clean sulfide concentration. The “differential” separation is concerned primarily with grade and with assuring a barren pyrite for maximum recovery.

Jan 11, 1986

By R. L. Sandefur

Professor Kim's excellent review article1 on ultimate pit planning contains a statement of the apparently widely held but incorrect belief that "kriging provides information on the confidence limits around the estimate which no other extension technique is capable of supplying." If a geostatistical approach is valid, there are several good reasons for using kriging but uniquely provided confidence limits is not among them. If kriging is possible, then confidence limits can be calculated for any other linear estimate. Kriging is the procedure which finds the weighing coefficients which minimize the estimation variance [ ] is the variance of blocks like the one being estimated. wi is the covariance of the estimated block and the i-th sample. oij is the covariance of the i-th sample and the j-th sample. Ai is the weighing coefficient for the i-th sample. N is the number of samples. The formula for estimation variance can also be used to calculate confidence limits on blocks estimated by any linear combination of sample grades including: 1) Polygons a. Hole nearest block centroid is assigned weight 1. All other holes are assigned weight 0. b. Polygonal area weighing. The samples are assigned weights directly proportional to their polygonal areas of influence within the block. The weights sum to 1. 2) Inverse distance weighing. The samples are assigned weights directly proportional to the reciprocal of their distance to some power from the block centriod. The weights sum to 1. Often only holes nearer than a certain distance and/or the nearest hole in each octant is considered. If there is an antisotropy to the ore body, an elliptical transformation often gives more accurate results. The most popular inverse distance weighing function is inverse squared distances (IDS). 3) Simple average. All samples within a certain distance are assigned the same weights which sum to 1. As an example of the applicability of the above formula to any linear estimate an internal verification on copper grade of 665 blast holes on the 1040 bench at Utah's Island Copper mine is presented. Internal verification is simple and applicable to non-linear estimates as well. Any sample (drill hole, bulk, trench, or chip) is dropped out, the value of the dropped sample estimated and compared with the actual value. If this is done for all samples, a measure of confidence limits is obtained. Internal verification is used in Cominco's MEPS system4 and in the BLUEPACK system.5 Comparison of block values against estimates697 is not dissimilar to internal verification. Results of the internal verification are presented below:

Jan 1, 1980

The paper by Professors Sun and Mitchell illustrates the value of ultrasonics as a tool for the mineral engineer. In particular, it opens up a number of possibilities to those interested in the field of comminution. The provision of desliming technique, which is thorough as well as rapid, is a distinct contribution, but the data of the paper suggest applications beyond desliming, in that the same treatments may be useful for size determination purposes. Fig. 1 shows that a marked dependence exists between particle size and the height to which it can be elevated by ultrasonic vibrations. While the curves are only extended down to a size of about 100 p, the fact that they appear to be increasing in slope in this range suggests that the separation may be even more marked here. This, we feel, is very strong evidence that a method for fine sizing could be developed to use ultra- sonic waves as the separating force.

Jan 1, 1957