Search Documents

By S. Rideout

The United States Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is responsible for regulating active coal mining and reclaiming abandoned coal mines in the United States. In working with the State government agencies that implement these programs, OSM is building a new approach that moves away from traditional "command and control" regulation and towards an approach that focuses on providing long-term environmental and economic sustainability on lands disturbed by coal mining. This initiative called "Reclaim the Future!" looks to enhance opportunities for economic development, wildlife preservation and enhancement, reforestation, and other beneficial and productive uses of lands disturbed by coal mining. The initiative is also focused on ensuring that the landowners and the local public have significant involvement in determining how best to reclaim mine sites and what post-mining land uses are most appropriate for each individual abandoned mine reclamation project or active mine reclamation. Through the use of the best scientific input in an open, participatory process, OSM hopes to further sustainable development principles for coal mining within the framework of existing United States law.

Jan 1, 2007

By Cody Giroux, Homer Scurlock, Michel Wasag

Silica and Crystalline Quartz exposure continues to be a serious health threat to nearly 2 million workers in the United States, including more than 100,000 working in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work, mining and tunneling. The primary focus of this study is to identify the best methodology to reduce particulate-laden air and limit/eliminate exposure to respirable dust with silica/crystalline quartz during tunneling operations. This study focuses on two de-dusting systems employed on similar tunnel construction projects. The first project is the Coxwell Bypass Tunnel located in Toronto, Ontario Canada. The second project is the Westerly Storage Tunnel located in Cleveland, Ohio. The Toronto project is utilizing a wet de-dusting system. The Cleveland project is using a dry de-dusting system. The objective is to determine which system provides the best protection and suitability to capture, remove and ultimately reduce respirable concentrations of silica/ crystalline quartz to safety and healthy levels in underground tunneling activities.

Jun 13, 2021

By Giorgio De Tomi, Ricardo Tichauer

Mineral exploration is a critical step for success in mining. However, small-scale mining often ignores exploration best practices. This paper introduces the Tichauer-DeTomi Matrix, a tool for assessment of geological uncertainty in small-scale mining. This matrix, which measures the level of compliance of exploration programs in small deposits with industry best practices, has been applied to three small mining projects in Brazil: an artisanal gold mine in the Amazon, a small-scale manganese mining venture in the Northeast, and a small manganese deposit in the Southeast. The application of the matrix resulted in indexes that reflect the actual level of maturity of the mineral exploration program in each project. Therefore, the matrix has shown potential to be an effective tool for assessment of the geological uncertainty remaining in small-scale mineral projects, as well as to identify priority exploration activities for reduction of risks associated with the geological uncertainty. As a risk assessment tool, the TichauerDeTomi Matrix may be helpful in promoting investment and sustained development in and around small mines.

By E. Hsieh

Proximity detection in the open pit mine can be used effectively as an operator assist strategy which improves digging production through enforcement of best practices, although it is normally thought of first as a safety tool, and second as a step toward full automation when combined with object avoidance.

Feb 23, 2014

By M. E. Rossi, J. A. Bassan, J. B. Novillo

Sampling and geological models are the basis of recoverable resources models. They are pillars of mineral resources and reserves estimation, and what geostatistical methods for grade estimation should rely upon. The resource model is best estimated if geostatistical methods make good use of sound geologic models. Data collection from the original drill holes, including field procedures and the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of those samples are pillar one of a resource model. The second pillar of the model is the good use of the logged geological information, resulting robust geological interpretations, and the corresponding three-dimensional models of those interpretations. These models are partly subjective and mostly conditioned by the quality of logging and the geologist’s experience. They are also conditioned by the quality of the three-dimensional models built, regardless of the modeling method employed, traditional or implicit. Grade estimation is more commonly done by applying some geostatistical method and using the two basic sources of information, data and geologic model. Multiple stages are involved in this process, and in all of them there are uncertainties and risks that have to be dealt with. Knowledge, understanding, interpretation, and management of the model’s fundamentals are critical, given that they directly affect its accuracy and predictive quality. The mitigation of related risks allows for the creation of opportunities, generating value and reducing the project’s uncertainty. This paper discusses some of the key variables, uncertainties, and risks involved in the resource modeling process, illustrating with specific examples; discusses possible risk mitigation alternatives, and proposes best practices to avoid or mitigate those uncertainties. Emphasis is placed on taking advantage of technological advances without ignoring fundamentals. INTRODUCTION In the area of mineral resource estimation, one alarming trend that these authors have observed in the past 20 years or so is that the care and diligence in checking the work as it progresses has generally diminished. This is, perhaps, an unintended consequence of the availability of new technologies and tools that attempt simplify and speed up the work involved. This has led to a more casual attitude towards checks and balances that have to be in place at any given stage of the process before proceeding to subsequent stages, as best practices dictate. To some extent, some of these aspects are covered in international standards for resource estimates reporting (JORC, 2012; CIM, 2010). But these are broad, and do not specifically recommend best practices to a level of detail that would have an impact on certain aspects of the process. There are numerous references in the geology and mining journals and conferences that discuss the consequences of poor recoverable resource models (Baker and Giacomo, 1998; Vaughan, 1997).

Jan 1, 2019

By Bauer, Steve, Colin Goodwin, Gerald, Randy Dempsey, Courtland

"The City of Ottawa’s Combined Sewage Storage Tunnel consists of two interconnected tunnels totaling 6.2 km with a diameter of 3m including access shafts and hydraulic structures which connect to the City’s most critical sewers. This tunnel will be built 15m to 30m below ground in the downtown core adjacent to, and crossing below, the Light Rail Tunnel, which introduces additional considerations in terms of sequencing and risk mitigation. The City embarked on a unique Procurement Process to address the risks involved with a large tunnel project and those associated with tunneling below downtown, underneath and adjacent to UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and connecting to live critical sewers. This paper describes the unique procurement approach employed and the contractual risk mitigation measures developed to provide the best value while minimizing risk. Specific features include Market Sounding, using a Fairness Commissioner, Contractor Prequalification and Risk Mitigation Measures in the Tender documents. INTRODUCTION This paper describes how the City of Ottawa (the City) and the project design team developed a strategic Procurement Process and Tender that incorporated industry best practices for technical and contractual risk management for the Combined Sewage Storage Tunnel (CSST) project. The process was unique in that, while it employed a systematic review of project risks, it also solicited input from industry, stakeholders and provincial and federal partners to develop the request for Tender for this traditional design-bid-build project. Key drivers for this approach were initiated from the City’s concerns for cost control, cost certainty and overall project risk mitigation. To address these concerns, the City implemented the risk review and mitigation process right from the project design team selection. It was critical that the project design team embraced this risk management philosophy and carried it through each phase of the project. This paper serves as an excellent resource for municipalities or other owners embarking on a similar tunnel project, on how to properly apply industry best practices and the benefits of using them."

Jan 1, 2016

By G. Johnston, P. K. Chatterjee, S. Holguin

M. Gershon The article is an excellent one, providing a basis for the conduct of the major tasks in underground mine planning and scheduling. I object to only one word. Since that word is featured in the title, it is a strong objection. The word used erroneously is optimization. There is no optimization performed in the article. By definition, an optimization is an approach that yields the best of all possible solutions. We can limit this definition to its narrowest sense, the optimization techniques of operations research such as linear programming, or broaden it to include less sophisticated search procedures that find the best mine plan or schedule. No such claim is made in the article. No optimization of any kind is performed. The major tool used is a simulation, which, in truth, is probably more appropriate for this problem than any optimization. But simulation does not optimize. It only allows for quick evaluation of many options, leading to the selection of the best plan "of those tried," not "of all possible plans." This article, of course, is not the first mining paper to make this error. It seems that the word optimization is used more to impress people than to refer to any act of optimizing. It is used in a way that implies "try to optimize"or "come close to optimize," but not to really do it. It is usually appropriate to quietly ignore this error. But when Dr. Chatterjee, who has done so much good work in true optimization projects and whose work I have come to admire, makes such an error, it is time to publicly dispute it. Having discussed this very point with him in the past, I am sure that he will agree. If he can support this position in his response, perhaps people will start to listen and we can reduce the number of false claims of optimization. This should be easy for him in this case since the approach he used, simulation, is the more appropriate one anyway.

Jan 8, 1988

By M. Gershon

The article is an excellent one, providing a basis for the conduct of the major tasks in underground mine planning and scheduling. I object to only one word. Since that word is featured in the title, it is a strong objection. The word used erroneously is optimization. There is no optimization performed in the article. By definition, an optimization is an approach that yields the best of all possible solutions. We can limit this definition to its narrowest sense, the optimization techniques of operations research such as linear programming, or broaden it to include less sophisticated search procedures that find the best mine plan or schedule. No such claim is made in the article. No optimization of any kind is performed. The major tool used is a simulation, which, in truth, is probably more appropriate for this problem than any optimization. But simulation does not optimize. It only allows for quick evaluation of many options, leading to the selection of the best plan "of those tried," not "of all possible plans." This article, of course, is not the first mining paper to make this error. It seems that the word optimization is used more to impress people than to refer to any act of optimizing. It is used in a way that implies "try to optimize" or "come close to optimize," but not to really do it. It is usually appropriate to quietly ignore this error. But when Dr. Chatterjee, who has done so much good work in true optimization projects and whose work I have come to admire, makes such an error, it is time to publicly dispute it. Having discussed this very point with him in the past, I am sure that he will agree. If he can support this position in his response, perhaps people will start to listen and we can reduce the number of false claims of optimization. This should be easy for him in this case since the approach he used, simulation, is the more appropriate one anyway.

Jan 1, 1987

By John E. Tilton

Mining is one of the oldest human activities. It goes back at least to the Bronze Age and possibly even the Stone Age. The Romans mined copper in Spain and tin in England some 2,000 years ago. The writings of Agricola in the 16th century show that mining was important in the Middle Ages. Today, more mineral commodities are mined in greater tonnages than ever before. This long and fascinating history closely tied with the economic development of the human race is one of the charms of the mining industry. It also, unfortunately, gives rise to some widespread misconceptions. Old industries are generally considered stodgy with mature and stagnant technologies. Costs tend not to decline as in newer industries, and may even increase with real wages. Costs are particularly expected to rise in the case of mining as the best mineral deposits are depleted. Thus, mining is often thought of as a sunset industry, destined to decline over time as the resource base is depleted. These perceptions have several important implications. They argue against economic policies that rely too heavily on mining and mineral processing to foster growth and development. The best and the brightest young people, along with society's other valuable resources, should be encouraged to enter newer industries. There the technological opportunities and the prospects for growth are more promising. These perceptions also suggest that the ability to compete in the mining industry depends largely on the quality of a company's or country's mineral deposits. Mining will take place first in countries with the lowest-cost deposits. Once these are exhausted, mining will shift to countries with the next best deposits. From time to time, new discoveries may also produce a shift in the location of mining, [ ] and may even for a time keep the costs and prices of mineral products from rising. Over the longer term, however, rising costs and prices are inevitable, as the world is forced to exploit poorer mineral deposits.

Jan 1, 1997

By W. O. Kerr

As in other industries, companies engaged in mining and extraction use and develop intellectual property (?IP?) in the form of new technologies or production processes. The development of IP assets in mining may occur as a byproduct of ongoing operations, or result from investment in dedicated R&D efforts. New technology may lower costs, increase quality of output, and/or increase operational efficiency or safety. Key business questions with respect to any new technology are how best to use IP assets, how to protect them and how to derive value from them. IP assets can provide a competitive advantage to a developing firm that uses the technology to improve its operating results. The developing firm can preclude others from using the technology if it believes that is the best way to exploit the technology?s value. Or, it can be shared with others taking care to ensure rights are maintained, thereby generating royalty income or strategic value through cross licensing or other business relationships. Either way, in order to fully realize the maximum economic benefit, innovators must protect the IP assets and control their dissemination.

Jan 1, 2012

By J. J. K. Daemen

Mining Engineering education is in trouble, if not in crisis. The most visible signs are the decrease in the number of programs that offer the degree, and the continued difficulties in attracting students to the discipline. Unless these trends are reversed, the future of the profession is uncertain, at best. Remedies have been proposed, and some are drastic. They range from consolidating mining engineering education into one or two national schools, to cooperative regional programs, to distance education programs, and to proposals to limit mining engineering to a graduate degree or specialization only. These alternatives deserve serious attention and merit discussion. I hope that one alternative that will remain on the table is the classical and traditional “School of Mines”. A reasonable number of such schools are needed to provide the educational diversity and the critical mass to maintain accreditation and professional registration for their graduates. Most importantly, such an approach is most likely to assure the continued existence of mining engineering as a profession. It also provides the best educational framework to teach mining engineers. However, such Schools are vulnerable, highly susceptible to university budget pressures, and probably can survive only with strong external support.

Jan 1, 2004

By J. M. Keane

Critical to successful dump and heap leaching for copper is an adequate testing program for evaluation of the applicable parameters. This paper deals with testing methods to establish best conditions for dump and heap leaching of copper so that commercial operations can proceed on a rational basis. Discussion is also offered of ore occurrences suitable for dump and heap leaching.

Jan 1, 1985

By Rudolf Fahn

Bentonites are best suited for the preparation of acid activated clays with efficient adsorption properties. They are weathering products of acid volcanic ashes and their natural deposits are world-wide spread. The main constituent of bentonite is the aluminium hydrosilicate nontmorillonite with a high ability to swell. Süd-Chemie owns bentonite deposits in Germany and subsidiaries in Italy, Mexico and Arizona.

Jan 1, 1979

By K. Koizumf, A. A. Cram, K. Whitchurch

The Expert Scheduling is a new, exciting method for scheduling underground and open-cut coal mines. A key feature of the Expert Scheduler is the adoption of an expert or artificial intelligence system. The expert system makes decisions regarding the schedule, such as which area should be mined. With existing scheduling systems these choices are made by the scheduling engineer. Developing one area may be better than another if it offers better quality or lower costs. Information the engineer considers in these decisions could be; • coal tonnage and quality targets, • equipment utilisation, • mining cost, • and other practical constraints. In expert scheduling a number of experts are appointed to make these decisions. A number of mining strategies are examined for each period. Information for each strategy is evaluated by "experts" and the "best" solution adopted. The method is based on the Blackboard Techniques. With this technique information is presented to "knowledge sources” or "experts" by the Blackboard Controller for their "opinions". These "opinions" are examined by the Blackboard Controller to select the best strategy. Engineers can readily add experts to the system, and modify the weighting of experts to suit mining conditions. Using an Expert Scheduler means that many schedule op- tions can be analysed quickly with full repeatability.

Jan 1, 1996

By Valerie (Wollet) Rebar

Successful execution of fast-track projects is an arduous task at best. Effective and organized management, a comprehensive technical design with an independent check-and-balance system, and optimal schedule components all play major roles in project success, regardless of the required timeline. However, a fast-track schedule intensifies the significance of each of these elements due to the heightened time constraints.

Jan 1, 2008

By H. A. von Schonfeldt, H. Douglas Dahl

INTRODUCTION During the past decade, significant pro¬gress has been made in applying rock mechanics principles to mine design problems by a great number of researchers. Some of these new techniques have found their way into the engineering and planning offices of the operating mine. In spite of these advances, however, the application of rock mechanics in the day-to-day mine planning and design of our domestic coal mines is rela¬tively rare. There are a number of reasons responsi¬ble for this relatively slow progress, not the least of which is the question of how to measure the success or cost effectiveness of a sizable rock mechanics effort in an opera¬ting mine. Firstly, the properties of geologic materials generally vary over a wide range and it is, therefore, difficult to assess whether an improvement in the mining conditions is due to a design change or due to a change in the geologic conditions. A second reason for the slow acceptance of rock mechanics in engineering thinking is the fact that some of the concepts are quite difficult and that physical evidence of their validity to mine design is still rare. Thirdly, com¬munication between research, engineering and applications oriented people appears to function only intermittently. In our view, however, the most important impediment lies in the "state-of-the-art." Exactly how much can rock mechanics help the mine operator? The best that rock mechanics can do at present is determine whether one approach is better than another when weighed against some design objective (stress, strain, deformation). We cannot determine the abso¬lute best ground control design -- only what is better. If ground control is lost, the statement that "it's the best one we looked at" means very little to the harried operator. While the "state-of-the art" has advanced a great deal, it has certainly not been reduced to an engineering matter in that design hand¬books are available -- they are not. The success of a rock mechanics program, there¬fore, can be determined only over a long period of time of continuous effort.

Jan 1, 1977

By S. Dixon

The Phelps Dodge - PD/PERI Heap2D Model is a phenomenological stockpile leaching model that has been used to investigate the best operating practices for leaching chalcocite. The model was used to investigate the interrelationships of raffinate application rate, aeration rate, raffinate iron grade, acid cures, lift height, crush size, bulk density, air injection spacing and raffinate drip emitter spacing.

Jan 1, 2006

By S. Borner Schweizer

An overview over SAM’s approach to assess corporate sustainability performance illustrates how sustainability challenges are linked to trends, assessment criteria and finally company performance. This process is exemplified with some general and industry specific criteria. Lastly, results of the Dow Jones Sustainability Assessment 2004 show a considerable gap between leading and average companies. Best practice examples demonstrate how lagging companies could improve their sustainability performance.

Jan 1, 2005

By K. A. Heasley

The objective of this paper is to back analyze the August 6th, 2007, collapse at the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, in order to better understand the geometric and geomechanical factors that contributed to that collapse. In this work, the LaModel boundary-element program, along with the best available information, is used for the back analysis. To initiate the analysis, a six-step base model of the mining in the Main West area was developed. This base model included a step for each of the critical stages in the mining of this area. Next, calibrated values for the critical input parameters, rock mass stiffness, gob stiffness and coal strength, were developed and optimized based on the best available information. Finally, the model was used to simulate the final mining scenario. As a result of this back analysis, a number of conclusions can be made concerning the mine design and the August 6th collapse: 1) overall, the area was primed for a massive pillar collapse because of the large area of equal-size pillars, 2) the abutment stress from the active retreat sections and the adjacent longwall panels were significant contributors to the collapse and 3) from the modeling alone, it is not clear exactly what triggered the August collapse, although the active mining is a reasonable assumption.

Jan 1, 2010

By Keith A. Heasley

The objective of this paper is to back-analyze the August 6th ,2007 collapse at the Crandall Canyon Mine in order to better understand the geometric and geo- mechanical factors which contributed to that collapse. In this work, the LaModel boundary-element program along with the best available information is used for the back- analysis. To initiate the analysis, a six step base model of the mining in he Main West area was developed. This base model included a step for each of the critical stages in the mining of this area. Next, calibrated values for the critical input parameters: rock mass stiffness, gob stiffness and coal strength, were developed and optimized based on the best available information. Finally, the model was used to simulate the final mining scenario. As a result of this back analysis , a number of conclusions can be made concerning the mine design and the August 6th collapse: 1) Overall, the area was primed for a massive pillar collapse because of the large area of equal size pillars, 2) The abutment stress from the active retreat sections and the adjacent longwall panels were significant contributors to the collapse, 3) From the modeling alone, it is not clear exactly what triggered the August collapse, although the active mining is a reasonable assumption.

Jan 1, 2012