Search Documents

By W. E. L. Minter

Discussion by R.W. Hutchinson Minter's excellent recent paper (1990) on the great paleoplacer gold deposits of the Witwatersrand and its subsequent discussion (Cheney, 1991) and reply (Minter, 1991) provide an informative, interesting and up-to-date review of the geology of these unique ores and some long enigmatic questions regarding their origin. Clearly summarized by Minter (1990) are the compelling sedimentologic and stratigraphic relationships indicating that the Central Rand Group conglomerates are ancient placers and documenting the fluvio-deltaic conditions of their transport and deposition. As Minter (1991) indicates, Cheney's discussion broadens Minter's 1990 coverage of the subject by considering higher and lower stratigraphic units and by adding detailed comments concerning recently published information about metamorphic and age relationships. Cheney's discussion and Minter's reply also readdress the old controversy of epigenetic hydrothermal vs. syndepositional placer origin for these deposits. This controversy has been resurrected by: • recent recognition of hydrothermally-altered granites (HAGS) in the older Archean basement rocks that lie unconformably beneath the Dominion Group rocks north and west of the Witwatersrand depository; • recognition of greenschist metamorphic assemblages in the Witwatersrand strata; and • the presence of interpreted epigenetic mineral assemblages and textures in some of the deposits. These relationships are briefly discussed by Cheney who suggests they may result from later, superimposed metamorphism and deformation and do not prove that the gold was introduced by epigenetic/metamorphogenic processes. In his paper, Minter (1990) cited the 1986 abstract of a subsequently published paper by Hutchinson and Viljoen (1988) who also considered many of these aspects and attempted to integrate them all in abroad genetic hypothesis. In addition, they emphasized the additional important problem of determining the source for the Witwatersrand gold. Although this issue was partially addressed by Reimer (1984), Mossman and Dyer (1985) and Reimer and Mossman (1990), the question has been generally under emphasized in earlier work and was, therefore, not stressed by Minter and Cheney. Reimer (1985) also emphasized the importance of weathering of the basin's Archean hinterland and its affects on Witwatersrand sedimentation. Since the epigenetic hydrothermal hypothesis was essentially discarded in favor of placerist origin, the gold source for these great deposits has generally been attributed to the weathering of lodes in greenstones or granites of the uplifted, older Archean hinterland to the north and west. However, Hutchinson & Viljoen (1988) present evidence that this explanation is inadequate, as well as data in support of an alternative explanation. They suggest that the gold and accompanying abundant, clearly detrital and auriferous pyrite in the conglomerate reefs were derived by erosional degradation of auriferous-pyritic exhalite previously deposited, by shallow marine discharge of hydrothermal fluids, along the fault-bound northwestern margins of the Witwatersrand depository. The auriferous-pyritic exhalites were generated by fluid-rock reactions in the subsurface, particularly in the highly-altered lavas of the Dominion Group but also in adjacent basement granitic rocks. The process envisaged is comparable to that observed in sea floor hydrothermal systems today, although, in this case, it occurred at the margin of a rapidly subsiding, shallow marine or continental basin. Important evidence for this explanation is the anomalous gold content of the ferruginous, shaley strata occurring throughout the Witwatersrand Supergroup and including the distinctive contorted bed that is an iron formation. These layers have been interpreted (Hutchinson and Viljoen, 1988 and 1990) to represent the more distal, finer-grained, mixed chemical/clastic sedimentary strata. Thus, they are the basinal equivalents of the proximal, auriferous-pyritic exhalites that were deposited along the basin's margin and subsequently reworked by sedimentary processes. This gold source explanation resolves many of the enigmatic questions regarding Witwatersrand geology and the reawakened controversy between proponents of hydrothermal and placerist genetic hypotheses. The theory invokes a hydrothermal origin for the gold in the basin-margin pyritic exhalites, thus explaining the visible hydrothermal characteristics (Figs. 1 and 2). It also provides compelling evidence for placer origin by encompassing all of the fluvio-deltaic processes of clastic sedimentary transport and deposition that are clearly summarized by Minter. These characteristics result from the degradational reworking of the pyritic exhalites along the depository's margins. Fluvial reworking, transport and deltaic redeposition of this detritus, along with additional detritus carried into the depository from the hinterland, then formed the conglomerate reefs. Other enigmatic aspects of Witwatersrand geology include: • the rarity of magnetite and ilmenite (the two most common heavy minerals in placer deposits) and the contrary abundance of leucoxene in the conglomerate reefs; • the presence of differing varieties of pyrite (authigenic, allogenic, compact and porous) all of which are auriferous; and • the presence of well-rounded pebbles, even cobbles, of pyrite that, in view of the brittleness of the mineral, could not have been transported great distances from a hinterland.

Jan 1, 1993

By Nath S. Parate

Emphasis on publications related to coal mining subsidence and damages is appropriate at present in view of the energy crisis and increased coal production and public alertness. I have worked in Harrisburg with the state government Public Utilities Commission on energy-fuel matters and issues (Parate, 1978-80). I have participated in the communication on subsidence/ damage reviews and status with the Bureau of Mines Liasion Office (Kebblish, 1978-79). I have done research (Parate, 1965) and published papers (Parate, 1972; Parate, 1967) in Britain on coal mining subsidence and damages around Sheffield-Nottinghamshire coal fields. I have a few comments on the recent paper titled, "Pennsylvania Subsidence Control Guidelines," by C.J. Bise. 1) What is the basis of the empirical formula or guideline, LD _ (0.27 x D) ± 4.6, defining the support area? 2) The particular structure may not be damaged due to vertical uniform displacement caused by mining beneath unless the displacement is differential (King, 1964). 3) The author mentions the limited subsidence research in the US, and quite rightly so. But he fails to quote any work reference by continental investigators except the British or review work by the US. What are the reasons? 4) The author has not mentioned the importance and role of angle of draw for Pennsylvania, Kentucky, or Illinois coal fields. Is there any current research investigation on the relationship between subsidence research investigation, damage, and transference of strains to structures? There have been a number of newspaper reports on subsidence damage in Wilkesbarre and other areas in Pennsylvania. Is the author aware of such instances and traditional attitudes to such issues? Many times government agencies--due to lack of funds, technical expertise, and public policies--are unable or do not find it interesting to keep updates on these issues, as per the author's knowledge and experience with state governments. 5) What is the net effect and role of the D.E.R. Insurance Office on the monitoring, reducing, or controlling subsidence damage, particularly in Pennsylvania?

Jan 1, 1983

By Y. C. Kim, I. S. Roditis, P. K. Medhi

P. Mousset-Jones I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reference Kwa, B.L., and Mousset-Jones, P., 1986, "Indicator Kriging Applied to a Gold Deposit in Nevada," Proceedings, Symposium on Ore Reserve Estimation Methods, Models, and Reality, CIMM Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May, pp. 185194. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent comparative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging. Reference Lindsey, D.S., 1987, "A Comparative Study: Probability Kriging vs. Ordinary Kriging at the Golden Sunlight Mine," MS Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte, MT, May, 81 pp.

Jan 3, 1988

I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent com¬parative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging.

Jan 1, 1987

By C. F. de Mendonca, T. Kater, R. P. de Souza

The authors are to be commended for finding a material for pellets binding that we were unable to uncover during the investigations that led to US Patent No. 3,748,116, “Method for producing metallic iron powder from iron ore concentrate, ” July 24, 1973, by G.G. Reed, Jr., J.M. Karpinski, and S.V. Fox. This patent concerns a method of processing “super’ ‘-concentrates prepared from magnetite or “blue dust” into molding-grade metallic iron powder for use as a bulk commodity, in contrast to current methods which produce small batches that are custom-blended with additives and/or alloye to customer specifications. The one thing we had not found at that time was an organic binder (mineral-matter-free ) that would allow induration to produce hardened pellets that would survive SL/RN Direct Reduction. Peridur appears to provide this missing link needed for large scale (200 t/a, or 220,460 stpy) single line plant capacity consistent with a low market price to ensure greatly broadened use of metallic iron powder. I hope that industry will adopt this combination so that metallic iron powder usage can fulfill its potential

Jan 9, 1985

By G. G. Reed

G.G. Reed, Jr. The authors are to be commended for finding a material for pellets binding that we were unable to uncover during the investigations that led to US Patent No. 3,748,116, "Method for producing metallic iron powder from iron ore concentrate," July 24, 1973, by G.G. Reed, Jr., J.M. Karpinski, and S.V. Fox. This patent concerns a method of processing "super"-concentrates prepared from magnetite or "blue dust" into molding-grade metallic iron powder for use as a bulk commodity, in contrast to current methods which produce small batches that are custom-blended with additives and/or alloys to customer specifications. The one thing we had not found at that time was an organic binder (mineral-matter-free) that would allow induration to produce hardened pellets that would survive SL/RN Direct Reduction. Peridur appears to provide this missing link needed for large scale (200 t/a, or 220,460 stpy) single line plant capacity consistent with a low market price to ensure greatly broadened use of metallic iron powder. I hope that industry will adopt this combination so that metallic iron powder usage can fulfill its potential. ?

Jan 1, 1986

By A. K. Bhasin

A. K. Bhasin, (Development Engineer, Marcona Corp., San Francisco, Calif)-The author suggests the use of the term "consistency" for apparent viscosity and accordingly calls his viscometer a "consistometer." However, he goes on to refer to "consistency" as a combination of plastic viscosity, yield stress, and stability (p. 104, col. 2, line 6). Unfortunately, such conflicting terminology is encountered too often in rheological

Jan 1, 1973

By Douglas R. Piteau

Douglas R. Piteau (Engineering Geologist, De Beers Corp., Kimberley, South Africa; Presently Consulting Specialist at Nchanga Mine Open Pit, Chingola, Zambia)-Mr. Lutton is to be commeneded on his analyses and presentation of such practical data which can be used for predicting a preliminary optimum slope angle in rock. It appears that he assumes all slopes analyzed to be straight. Although there are overriding factors which affect the general slope configuration, such as structural discontinuities, ground water, and other environmental factors such as weathering conditions, regional stress, etc.,8 the affects of plan geometry under certain conditions also can be of outstanding importance. In investigation of natural slopes, for example, the effects of plan geometry are not entirely appreciated and it is in this respect that discussion is given. Experience in southern Africa has shown that the overall geometry of surface openings in rock, particularly those with dimensions of the order of 1500 ft or less, i.e., where radii of curvature of the slopes are less than, say, 700± ft, must be considered in rational slope-stability analyses. That is, the slope angle is not only a function of slope height, strength of the mass, and geometry of structural discontinuities, but also is dependent upon the plan geometry of the local slopes and the plan shape of opening. Technically speaking, adequate analysis of the slope must be three-dimensional, the third dimension being that of overall plan configuration and the analysis must incorporate its subsequent effects. However, current theories of slope stability all deal with the slope as a two-dimensional problem, i.e., a slice of unit length of an infinitely long slope is considered for a condition of plane strain. In this the tacit assumption is made that the plan radii of the crest and toe of the slope are infinite and no attention is given to the plan geometry of the slope. Clearly this is not the condition encountered in practice, particularly in open pit mining where excavations, relatively speaking, can be small and where these radii of curvature accordingly can have important affects on the slope stability. This is illustrated by the analyses of Piteau and Jennings 9 of the natural slopes which had developed around pipes of four diamond mines in the semiarid Kimberley area of South Africa. Although these slopes consist of dolerite overlying shale, the values of the slope angles of all the pits were corrected for a height of slope of 320 ft assuming that no dolerite occurred. This brought the data onto a comparable basis. These data were analyzed statistically and a clear empirical relationship, as is shown [in Fig. 4], is seen to have formed between angle of slope and curvature of slope, i.e., the angles of slope are greatest where the radii of curvature are least. Also, it can be seen that the slope of each line is different, indicating that the plan shape of the open pits also are significant, the curve being steepest for the open pits which are more circular in shape in contrast to those which are more elongated. The effect of slope curvature on the average angle of slope for the two extreme radii of 200 ft and 1000 ft for all four open pits is 39.5° and 27.3°, respectively. Hence, the concave curvature effect represents an average increase in slope angle of 12.2° from the essentially straight slope. In quantitative terms in Mr. Lutton's Fig. 2, this represents displacing the curve for a 320-ft pit from the second curve from the bottom (i.e., shale in subtropical climate) to that of the third from the bottom (i.e., quartzite in temperate environment).

Jan 1, 1972

By A. W. Khair, S. S. Peng

Discussion by J. Parker Gentlemen; Rainy day in Upper Michigan, a good time to catch up on reading. Am doing that, and have a couple of questions concerning the K and P paper on roof problems and supports. I wonder if the authors can enlighten me. The compressive strength of the coal was reported as 4.4 MPa (633 psi) and compressive stresses measured in the coal seam were reported at around 27.6 and 48.2 MPa(4000 and 7000psi ). Can such a soft coal actually contain such a high level of stress? Can it be measured as if the material were elastic, or does the coal behave plastically? Can that stress level be confirmed with hydraulic load cells? And if the coal is so soft, and if it is plastic, why is the stress field not hydrostatic'? The intact roofrock appears to be unusually strong, with compressive strength reported at around 145 MPa (21,000 psi), and some failures were noted as soon as the rock was exposed. Were tests run to find out how that rock responded to the addition of moisture, from sprays or from humid air? Did moisture weaken the rock? Did it cause the rock to expand quickly, thus to induce internal compressive stress? How can the near-vertical cutters, as shown in the photographs, be attributed to primarily horizontal stresses? Did the cutters follow any particular pattern in the development panels, which might be related to a particular stress pattern? For example, did they always appear alongside the stiffest pillar? Or always along the northwest rib? Was there any evidence of the pillars and entries "rotating" under the influence of differential horizontal stresses? How much did the entries and pillars rotate as the longwall face approached and passed? After rooffalls, did the openings assume shapes which would indicate a preferred shape in that stressfield and geology? Did crosscuts always survive without damage, as shown in the sketch?

Jan 1, 1992

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 Stephen Semeniuk

Discussion by Stephen Semeniuk Discussion As a valuator and SME member, I view Ross D. Lawrence's position as based on unproven and faulty assumptions made with regard to the pragmatic evidence presented in his paper. Moreover, his call for the inclusion of all mineral resources in discounted cash flow valuations is redundant, if not irrelevant, as there are procedures that already take all classes of mineralization into consideration for valuation purposes. In my experience as a valuator, I find that Canadian securities regulators are more than accommodating in allowing any valuations of mineral properties to be based on cash flow calculations. In other business areas, the same regulators usually reject discounted cash flow valuations of projects or businesses with no operating history. Instead, the regulators prefer valuations to be based on other transactions tested in the marketplace. Valuations based on actual market transactions are less subjective than discounted cash flow calculations and/or the capitalization of arbitrary, untested or undemonstrated earnings projections. In the mining and minerals sector, such projections may be made by persons not qualified to make such projections. In support of this statement, I direct readers to the article "Valuation of mineral properties which do not contain exploitable reserves" by Lionel C. Kilburn, which appeared in the August 1990 issue of the CIM Bulletin. To quote from the article: "Value of a mineral property depends basically upon metal prices, recoverable grades, mining and metallurgical practices, commodity supply and demand, and political-economic conditions, all of which vary with time. Five fields of expertise influence the value of a mineral property: •geological engineering, •commodity markets, •financial markets, •stock markets and •mineral property markets. The skills of geologists and engineers properly apply to the first field of expertise. Knowledge and consideration of the other four fields is important, but such advice is more properly sought from marketing experts, economists and stockbrokers." Securities regulators have created no hardship for valuators by excluding unsubstantiated resources in discounted cash flow valuations. In the field of engineering, best design practices apply. A margin of safety is built into the design criteria for any new equipment or structure that will exceed normally expected load levels and stresses, even though such considerations imply higher front end costs. In accounting, the comparable operating principle is conservatism. It explains why, for balancesheet presentation purposes, inventory is stated at cost or market, whichever is the lowest value. Similarly, when the engineering or geoscience-based valuator plays in the field of finance, the rules of accounting and applied economics apply. Regulators in their skepticism of income-based valuations are in tune with similar views already expressed in mining literature. To quote H. Van Tingley, in Mining Magazine, July 1996: "... the DCF method has inherent dangers when applied to undeveloped resources. Firstly, it presents an often-undeserved aura of accuracy. A DCF value is no more accurate than the least accurate of the assumptions incorporated into the calculation - and assumptions

Jan 1, 2003

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 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 Stephen Semeniuk

Working with junior mining companies as a valuer, my experience with regulators is that simplicity works and the sales comparison method is the way to go. What I like about Mr. Ellis?s approach (as in his Table 7) is the integration of commodity prices with the timing of acquisitions and the implication of price changes in gold on the adjustment of individual project valuations. However, the sample gold-related appraisals in Ellis?s paper are pre-2008 transactions and readers should be made aware of the current market for such projects. Before moving on, to be noted is that the effective date of the Las Brisas appraisal (Ellis?s sample Appraisal 3) is Feb. 10, 2006; given that the subject value of Transaction 9, Choco 10 in Ellis?s Table 6 was listed as $353 million for a 95% interest in the con-cession, I am uncomfortable accepting that the acquisition was suddenly worth the adjusted value of $1,205 million (as given in Ellis?s Table 7). In some cases, illiquidity discounts can apply, and commodity-wise, in the one-month period between the acquisition in January 2006 and the adjustment to the Las Brisas conditions as of February 10, 2006, the indicated gold price change was only 41 cents/g ($12.60/oz); i.e., from $17.50/g to $17.91/g ($544.40/oz to $557/oz).

Jan 1, 2012

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

S.L. Barua and Y.C. Kim M. Armstrong's paper is very interesting and can be regarded as a pioneering work of applying geostatistics on washed coal. The density levels used in her study are uniformly spaced, which facilitated curve fitting through a proper experimental design. Most of the existing coal washing plants in the US, however, gather washability data at non-uniform intervals which, in turn, affects the goodness of curve fitting. We would like to emphasize the importance of having a proper experimental design, if a similar geostatistical application is to be conducted on washed coal. We, at the University of Arizona, tried the variogram on recovery (Kim, Barua, and Baafi, 1982, SME preprint 82-143) which showed a similar pattern as Fig. 4 of Armstrong's paper. In both cases, the first experimental variogram value is invariably and inexplicably higher than the second variogram value. Although Armstrong ignores the first point because of "small number of sample points," we did not do so because there were 17 sample pairs. As a consequence, we concluded that the obtained experimental variogram was unsatisfactory and that further research is warranted. In other words, this disagreement in variogram interpretation between M. Armstrong and the University of Arizona begs the question whether the experimental variogram of Fig. 4 truly reflects the spatial correlation in washed coal, assuming there is such a correlation. Finally, we wish that Armstrong could have done a similar study on clean sulfur, which is a vital interest to the coal mines in the US. Her implied remark on sulfur in the concluding section of the paper may turn out to be incorrect because our experimental variograms on clean sulfur at different density levels were even less satisfactory than those on recovery.

Jan 1, 1985