Search Documents

By J. Roger Loebenstein

Demand for arsenic exceeded supply in 1980, and the major domestic and foreign producers allocated available supplies to customers. Major demand was about evenly divided between industrial chemicals and agricultural chemicals. Legislation and Government Programs.-In June 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air pollutant.2 Proposed regulations on arsenic emissions were to be announced on an industry-by-industry basis at a future date, and public comment on the listing and on specific regulations was to be heard.

Jan 1, 1981

By J. Roger Loebenstein

Demand for arsenic trioxide exceeded supply in 1978 and 1979, and the major domestic and foreign producers allocated available supplies to customers. Major demand has been from the cotton-growing and wood-preserving industries. Ample supplies of arsenic metal produced in the United States and Sweden were available in 1978 and 1979. Major demand for metal was from the automobile battery industry in Japan, Europe, and the United States. Legislation and Government Programs.-The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promulgated the final standard on the occupational exposure to inorganic arsenic, effective August 1, 1978.2 The need for the standard was a result of OSHA's conclusion that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen. The purpose of the standard was to minimize the incidence of lung cancer among workers exposed to inorganic arsenic. The maximum exposure to arsenic was lowered from the previous ceiling of 500 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 10 micrograms per cubic meter over an 8-hour time period. OSHA had originally recommended a ceiling limit of 4 micrograms per cubic meter in January 1975. Provisions of the new standard require exposed employees to wear respirators and undergo continuous medical monitoring. Other provisions establish regulated areas limited to authorized employees and require the construction of special lunch-room and worker hygiene facilities and the posting of signs and labels warning of the presence of arsenic. The new arsenic standard will have a significant economic impact on copper, zinc, gold, and lead smelters as well as consumers of arsenic trioxide. A number of copper companies have joined together to contest the standard in court. However, measures to comply with the standard have been initiated by ASARCO Incorporated at its Tacoma, Wash. plant.

Jan 1, 1980

By Arnold M. Lansche

DOMESTIC OUTPUT of white arsenic, As2O3, was derived entirely as a byproduct of smelting arsenic-containing copper ores by The Anaconda Company at Anaconda, Mont., and American Smelting and Refining Company at Tacoma, Wash. Arsenic metal was not produced. Consumption, and Uses.-Most of the white arsenic produced in 1964 was consumed in manufacturing lead and calcium arsenate insecticides. In the 12 year period since 1951 the production of lead arsenate insecticide has varied between 7,800 tons and 4,900 tons, indicating that lead arsenate has maintained its position in competition with organic insecticides.

Jan 1, 1965

PRODUCTION of cesium, cesium salts, and rubidium salts in the United States declined somewhat from 1961 levels; rubidium production was virtually unchanged. Imports of pollucite declined because consumption was supplied partially out of inventory. Domestic Production.-About 50 tons of pollucite was reported mined at the Tin Mountain mine in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., MSA Research Corp., Callery, Pa., and Penn Rare Metals, Inc., Revere, Pa., produced a total of 159 pounds of cesium. Rubidium production remained essentially the same as in 1961. Shipments of the two metals by these companies and by American Potash & Chemical Corp., Trona, Calif., totaled 279 pounds. Production of cesium and rubidium salts by American Potash & Chemical Corp., Penn Rare Metals, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Research, Inc., Denver, Colo., declined substantially during 1962.

Jan 1, 1963

CESIUM metal production increased sharply in 1963. Domestic Production.--Cesium metal was produced by The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., MSA. Research Corp., Callery, Pa., and by Penn Rare Metals, Inc., Revere, Pa. American Potash & Chemical Corp., Trona, Calif., produced some combined cesium and rubidium. This company, Penn Rare Metals, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Research, Inc., Denver, Colo., produced various cesium compounds. Complete production data on cesium and rubidium and their compounds were not available for publication. Consumption and Uses.-Substantially more pollucite was consumed to produce cesium metal and compounds in 1963 than in 1962 but the overall consumption of pollucite continued to be small.

Jan 1, 1964

By D. O. Kennedy

THIS CHAPTER on minor nonmetals covers greensand, meerschaum, mineral wool, and wollastonite. Mineral wool was by far the most valuable material among these minor nonmetals reported in the United States in 1956. GREENSAND Output of greensand (glauconite) declined in 1956. The Kaylorite Corp., Dunkirk, Md., and the Inversand Co., Sewell, N. J., were the only firms that reported production of this commodity. Output came from open pits in Calvert County, Md., and Gloucester County, N.J.

Jan 1, 1958

Native asphalt was produced in 1977 by six companies in four States. Leading States were Texas and Utah. Output declined 39% to 1,237,000 tons valued at $18,874,000. Bituminous limestone was produced by Whites Uvalde Mines and by Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. in Uvalde County, Tex.; by Southern Stone Co. in Colbert. Ala.; and by Barton County Rock Asphalt Co. in Barton County, Mo. Gilsonite was produced by American Gilsanite Co. in Uinta County. Utah, and by Ziegler Chemical and Mineral Corp. in Weber County. Utah. The asphalt was used for streets and roads, and for other purposes.

Jan 1, 1980

By Richard H. Singleton

Native asphalt was produced in 1978-79 by six companies in four States. Leading States were Texas and Utah. Output in-creased 37% in 1978 to 1.7 million tons and decreased 5% in 1979 to 1.6 million tons while value increased 39% in 1978 to $19.3 million and 33% in 1979 to $25.6 million. Bituminous limestone was produced by Whites Uvalde Mines and by Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. in Uvalde County, Tex.; by Southern Stone Co. in Colbert. Ala.; and by Barton County Rock Asphalt Co. in Barton County, Mo. The product was used mainly in street and road repair. Gilsonite was produced by American Gilsonite Co. in Uinta County, Utah, and by Ziegler Chemical and Mineral Corp. in Weber County, Utah. This material was used for purposes other than road repair.

Jan 1, 1980

By Richard H. Singleton

Native asphalt was produced in 1980 by six companies in four States. Leading States were Texas and Utah. Output decreased 22% in 1980 to 1.25 million tons while value decreased 2% to $25.0 million. Bituminous limestone was produced by Whites Uvalde Mines and by Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. in Uvalde County, Tex.; by Southern Stone Co. in Colbert, Ala.; and by Barton County Rock Asphalt Co. in Barton County, Mo. The product was used mainly in street and road repair. Gilsonite was produced by American Gilsonite Co. in Uinta County, Utah, and by Ziegler Chemical and Mineral Corp. in Weber County, Utah. This material was used for purposes other than road repair.

Jan 1, 1981

By Richard W. Lewis

Domestic production of greensand (glauconite) increased 15 percent in quantity and 13 percent in value compared with that of 1964. Since only two firms were in operation, statistics on production and sales for the year are not reported in order to avoid disclosure of individual company confidental data. The average annual production for the 5-year period 1961-65 was 4,306 tons valued at $200,200. The material was marketed for use as a soil conditioner and a water softener. An article of mineralogical interest was published concerning the New Zealand glauconites.2

Jan 1, 1966

By William F. Keyes

Greensand, which is widely distributed in the Eastern United States, was produced in 1975 only by Inversand Co., a subsidiary of Hungerford & Terry, Inc., near Clayton, N.J. Production and sales information are not available for publication. Raw greensand produced by the company was sold for agricultural use as a soil conditioner. Processed greensand was used by manufacturers as filter media in equipment for the removal of manganese, iron and other elements from water. The University of Delaware received a grant of $17,051 from the Bureau of Mines early in 1976 to continue its studies of the effectiveness of greensand in removing metallic contaminants from waste waters.

Jan 1, 1977

By Richard H. Singleton

Greensand, which is widely distributed in the Eastern United States, was produced in 1976 only by the Inversand Co., a subsidiary of Hungerford & Terry Inc., near Clayton, N. J. Production and sales information is withheld by the Bureau of Mines. Raw greensand produced by the company was sold for agricultural use as a soil conditioner. Processed greensand was sold for use as a filter medium for the removal of manganese, iron, sulfide, and other elements from water.

Jan 1, 1978

The occurrence of molybdenite in a small shaft in the western margin of the Wuuluman Granite in central western New South Wales is noted. Full petrographic and mineragraphic descriptions are given of a mineralized contact zone between the granite and a basic hornfels.Mineralogical data .indicate a similarity between this mineral occurrence and other occurrences in larger mines remote from the granite.

Jan 1, 1968

By Joseph R. Hatch

During the past ten years detailed elemental analyses of approximately 8,000 well-documented samples of coils in the United States (including Alaska) have been produced by the U.S. Geological Survey and the various State geological surveys. Examples of data listings include Swanson and others (1976) Gluskoter and others (1977) Hatch, Affolter, and Davis (1979), and Wedge and Hatch (1980). These analyses serve as a basis for evaluating elemental abundances in coals from the various coal province, regions, and fields. When combined with additional geological and geochemical data, some of these analyses give insight into when certain elements were introduced into coals, and which physical and geochemical parameters are most important in determining coal elemental composition.

Jan 1, 1982

By James C. Cobb

Middle Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) coals of certain areas of the Illinois and Forest City Basins contain epigenetic sphalerite and associated minerals in veins, clastic dikes, cleat, and other small-scale structural features. The presence of sphalerite in these coals records information about the geology of coals and coal basins, and represents a potential source for zinc as a byproduct of coal production. Origin of Sphalerite in Coal The origin of sphalerite in coal suggested by Cobb (1) involves sphalerite precipitation from zinc-bearing ?Na-Ca-Cl brines upon contact with sources of sulfur in the coal bed, e.g., pyrite, H2S, and organic sulfur. These brines were essentially at the temperature of the host coals as determined by fluid-inclusion thermometry and vitrinite-reflectance studies. The migration of these brines into coal beds may have been caused by compaction of sediments due to continued sediment loading of the coal basins. Zones of high permeability such as sandstones and the coals themselves presumably acted as conduits for the movement of the brines. The open spaces where sphalerite was deposited resulted from minor deformation associated with differential compaction and cleat formation enhanced by volume shrinkage during coalification.

Jan 1, 1982

By Jaril B. Lavrencic

The unique and irregulator distribution of working places in a mine always poses the two questions: - which and how much production equipment is to be used, - what production can be expected. Since the development of analytical methods would be impractical for such cases, a lot of computer programs has emerged in recent years trying to simulate the productiom process and thus find the best answer. The usege of a simulator has its dark side well felt by the author(s) of such a program: the credibility and the confidence of the customer. Using the simulator means to respect and to incorporate all the restrictions imposed by the narow underground space, methods of production, safety regulations etc., which can turn out to become a major programming effort. If the program is not properly structured, it will be used for a single special' case only, and never again. In this paper the structure and internal mechanism of the simulator is described for which the author believes that can easily be adapted to conditions of various underground and open pit mines. MINSIM tries to reach the following rather ambitious goals: 1) Estimation of the production before opening the mine, or a part of the mine. 2) Training the personnel to make decisions. 3) Making the daily time schedules for the entire fleet of the equipment units.

Jan 1, 1989

To perform comprehensive economic evaluations on both existing and proposed mineral operations. Approach A comprehensive computer model was developed which is capable of evaluating the economics of an entire mineral recovery operation, including exploration, acquisition, infrastructure, mining, milling, smelting, refining, transportation, taxation, and return of and on capital. How it Works The MINSIM (MINe SIMulator) economic evaluation concept was developed by the Bureau of Mines in 1967. The initial versions used a continuous discounted cash flow rate-of-return (DCFROR) to measure the effect of changes in expected revenues and costs. Subsequent enhancements to the program have expanded and strengthened MINSIM, especially the addition of an option which determines total production cost (i.e., the commodity selling price that a mineral recovery operation would require in order to obtain a target rate of return), an expanded capacity for evaluating by-products from a mineral property, and significantly broadened taxation determining capabilities. The MINSIM computer program uses essentially the same procedures and calculations that are performed in a manual economic evaluation, although the program accomplishes its tasks much more rapidly and accurately, An experienced mineral economist may require a week to evaluate a single mining operation with the same detail and consistency provided by MINSIM in a matter of seconds of computer time.

Jan 1, 1983

By M. Abdellatif

Keywords: Magnesium, pyrometallurgy, Mintek Extensive testwork on atmospheric thermal magnesium production has highlighted certain important fundamental and operational factors that have a major influence on magnesium extraction and its extraction rate, the condensation efficiency of magnesium, as well as on the quality of the condensed metal. The possible impact of these factors on the selection and preparation of raw materials, recipe choice, furnace electrical energy consumption, and on the refining requirements of the crude magnesium is discussed. Selected pilot plant operational and metallurgical data are also presented.

Jan 1, 2006

By J. W. Neale

Mintek and BacTech have joined forces to provide the metallurgical industry with bacterial-oxidation processes for the treatment of sulphide ores. The processes are aimed at both refractory gold-bearing and base-metal concentrates. Previously, BacTech had commercially implemented the refractory gold process at the Youanmi Gold Mine in Western Australia. More recently, the process has been incorporated in the Sulphide Treatment Plant at the Beaconsfield Gold Mine in Tasmania, Australia. In addition, Mintek and BacTech have recently signed an agreement with the Laizhou Gold Metallurgy Plant in China?s Shandong Province, which will see the third commercial realization of the technology for refractory gold. Development of the base-metal technology is the subject of several papers in the proceedings of this colloquium. The implementation of the refractory gold technology at Beaconsfield is discussed in detail. Some important aspects that are covered include: ?Test work, and the choice of bacterial culture ?Process design choices, and the advantages of the Mintek-BacTech process ?Inoculum build-up ?Plant commissioning ?Plant performance. Besides the Laizhou project, Mintek and BacTech are currently investigating several other commercial prospects for the technology. These include the use of the technology for a gold-copper deposit, where the production of both gold and copper is envisaged.

Jan 1, 2000

By Jurgens J. Louw, Vincent C. Smith, Gareth C. Smith, Agit Singh, Dave G. Hulbert

"During 2000 Mintek Developed the PlantStar plant wide control platform for the minerals processing industry. The flexibility of the PlantStar control platform has enabled Mintek to investigate and easily develop new control strategies for both milling and flotation. This includes a Solids Feed Controller, a Safety Limit Controller, Mill Power Optimiser and Flotation Optimiser, amongst others.Processes with long dead times, like a feed belt to a mill, are difficult to control. The solids feed controller was developed for minerals processing plants using a specialised time delay compensator. Using conventional time delay compensators that are purely model based, results in robustness problems due to model uncertainties. The Mintek Solid Feeds Controller makes use of a plant model, but compensates for model inaccuracies, giving more controller stability and a more robust delay compensation algorithm.Often there are more variables on a plant that need to be controlled (process variables) than there are variables to control them with (manipulated variables). Process constraints are often reached and violated. Safety control loops are necessary to prevent constraints being reached. The safety limit controller has been developed to switch smoothly between normal and safety control loops without bumping the process. The safety loop output is chosen in accordance with a predefined list of priorities and whether the respective constraint boundaries are exceeded.The Mill Power Optimiser helps to find the power peak on the mill power curve. It continuously perturb the solids feed rate to learn ‘where’ on the curve the mill ‘was’ and then to drive it continuously toward the middle, maximum power drawn. This insures maximum grind with maximum throughput. It also prevents power dips due to mill overloads by cutting the solids feed to a minimum if the power drop below a specified threshold. Once the power rises above the threshold the solids feed is increased again to an intermediate value from where it start the perturbations again to find the maximum. This makes the milling circuit easier to operate."

Jan 1, 2003