Search Documents

By Z. M. Zavodni, M. K. McCarter

This paper identifies physical conditions responsible for past instability of the Main Hill area in Kennecott Copper Corporation's Bingham Canyon Mine, Bingham Canyon, Utah, and describes successful stabilization techniques employed in this slide zone. Geotechnical highlights of recent slides are presented, including monitoring, geological engineering data collection, hydrology, physical rock properties, and stability analyses. Local conditions responsible for slope movement in the Main Hill zone are: (1) high pore water pressure that causes a substantial decrease in real and effective material strengths; (2) continuous structural systems that allow sliding in the more competent rock zones; and (3) broad areas containing fractured, altered , and incompetent rock and soil- like materials. The failure mode is structurally controlled and involves a circular-type soil failure in the toe region initiated by excessive pore water pressure. A surface mapping method is presented which assigns rock mass quality on the basis of block size and rock substance strength. This site characterization technique has successfully predicted slide boundaries and failure modes; used in conjunction with laboratory determined shear strengths, it has provided basic input for calculating slope safety factors in the Main Hill slide zone.

Jan 1, 1977

By John M. Ackerman

INTRODUCTION In the spring of 1988 the Joint Venture of Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners, Limited Partnership, IMC Fertilizer Inc, and Homestake Mining Co. was awarded the sulphur lease for Main Pass Block 299, lease number OCS-G 9372. This was one of eleven leases awarded to the Joint Venturers. Following the initial discovery wells in December 1988, a program of delineation drilling confirmed proven sulphur reserves of 67 million long tons. Proven, recoverable oil and gas reserves are 39.4 million barrels and 7.2 billion cubic feet, respectively. Development of the sulphur mine was given approval as a fast-track project by the Joint Venturers in 1989. The oil and gas reserves were acquired from the original hydrocarbon lessee in 1990 and given fast- track status immediately. Fast-track for these projects meant design and engineering would not be complete before construction began JOINT VENTURE The Main Pass Joint Venture is one of thirteen joint ventures formed between Freeport and three other companies - IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Felmont Oil Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Homestake Mining Co., and Texasgulf Minerals and Metals Co. Felmont has subsequently changed its name to Homestake Sulphur Co. and Texasgulf assigned their interests in the three leases they participated in to their parent company. Texasgulf did not participate in the Main Pass 299 joint venture. Joint venture negotiations, anticipating a lease sale in mid-1988, began in December of 1987. This Joint Venture was the first of its kind; created to acquire offshore leases, explore, develop and mine sulphur. The Minerals Management Service announced a lease sale date of February 24, 1988 on the first business day of 1988. This greatly accelerated the joint venture negotiations. Of the thirteen leases the Joint Ventures bid on, eleven were awarded. Freeport holds its interest in all the leases through its ownership interest in Freeport-McMoRan Resource Partners, Limited Partnership, and Resource Partners is the operator on all of the leases. The Main Pass joint venture percentage ownership is: 58.33 Freeport-McMoRan Resource Partners 25.00 IMC Fertilizer, Inc. 16.67 Homestake Sulphur Co. 100.00 The Main Pass Joint Venture paid $3,401,757 for the Main Pass lease and will pay a royalty of 12.5 percent of production value to the MMS . LOCATION The Main Pass mine complex is located in the Gulf of Mexico, in U. S. federal waters, about 27 kilometers (17 miles) east of Venice, Louisiana or 140 kilometers south east of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is situated in about 63 meters (210 feet) of water. HISTORY The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the United States Department of the Interior administers the mineral properties of the United States located in federal waters. Periodically the MMS holds lease sales of blocks under its jurisdiction. Prior to the offshore discoveries of sulphur associated with salt domes leased for hydrocarbons, the MMS leased blocks with all minerals including hydrocarbons awarded to the successful bidder for the block. In 1963 MMS held the first lease sale of blocks specifically for sulphur. This sale was followed by a similar sale in

Jan 1, 1992

By John M. Ackerman

In the spring of 1988, Freeport-McMoRan Resource Partners Ltd. Partnership, IMC Fertilizer Inc. and Homestake Mining Co., as joint venturers, were awarded the sulphur lease for Main Pass Block 299, lease number OCS-G 91372. This was one of 11 leases awarded to the joint venturers. Following the initial discovery wells in December 1988, delineation drilling confirmed proven sulphur reserves of 68 Mt (67 million long tons). Proven, recoverable oil and gas reserves are 6.2 Mm3 (39.4 million bbl) and 1114 Mm3 (7.2 billion cu ft), respectively. Development of the sulphur mine was given approval as a fast-track project in 1989. The oil and gas reserves were acquired from the original hydrocarbon lessee in 1990 and were also given fast-track status. Fast-track for these projects meant design and engineering would not be complete before construction began. Joint venture The Main Pass Joint Venture is one of 13 joint ventures formed between Freeport and three other companies - IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Felmont Oil Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Homestake Mining Co., and Texasgulf Minerals and Metals Co. Felmont has since changed its name to Homestake Sulphur Co. Texasgulf assigned its interests to its parent company. Texasgulf did not participate in the Main Pass 299 joint venture. Joint venture negotiations, anticipating a lease sale in mid-1988, began in December of 1987. This joint venture, the first of its kind, was created to acquire offshore leases, explore, develop and mine sulphur. The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) announced a lease sale date of Feb. 24, 1988 on the first business day of 1988. This greatly accelerated the joint venture negotiations. Of the 13 leases the joint ventures bid on, 11 were awarded. Freeport holds its interest in all the leases through its ownership interest in Freeport-McMoRan Resource Partners, Ltd. Partnership. Resource Partners is the operator on all of the leases.

Jan 1, 1992

Underground instrumentation and observations at longwall panels have demonstrated that the growth of main roof causes an extremely high roof weighting on the shields. It can sometimes result in catastrophic effects on the support when the roof weighting intensity far exceeds the support capacity. In this paper, a comprehensive study was conducted on characteristics of main roof breakage and its effects on shields at different locations, based on the monitored shield data, theoretical analysis, and finite element analysis. With the help of theoretical analysis and numerical modeling, stress distribution and redistribution in the main roof were analyzed in detail to define main roof failure modes and understand the maximum roof weighting intensity imposed on the shields. From this study, it was found that the effects of main roof breakage on shields are chiefly related to the shield initial setting condition and the final failure mode of the main roof.

Jan 1, 1994

By Y. M. Jiang

From underground instrumentation data and from direct observation of longwall panels, it was demonstrated that growth of the main-roof overhang causes an extremely high roof weighting on the face supports. This can result in catastrophic effects on the supports when the roof-weighting intensity far exceeds the support capacity. In this paper, a comprehensive study was conducted on the characteristics of main-roof breakage and its effects on shields at different locations along the face. The study was based on monitored shield data, theoretical analysis and finite element analysis. With the help of theoretical analysis and numerical modeling, stress distribution and redistribution in the main roof were analyzed to define the main-roof failure modes and to understand the maximum roof-weighting intensity imposed on the shields. From this study, it was found that the effects of main-roof breakage on shields are chiefly related to the shield's initial-setting condition and to the final failure mode of the main roof.

Jan 1, 1996

By S. Hardcastle

Tele-remote operation of production equipment from surface will change the design criteria for underground mines. And for ventilation, with machine operators on surface, conventional planning to dilute and remove pollutants can become redundant. Natural Resources Canada with industrial partners are investigating what will be the new environmental design criteria. Additional complications include new mining equipment being designed without standard services and mines’ desire to eliminate conventional auxiliary ventilation. Findings to date show the cooling of equipment’s hydraulic systems to be the most demanding element, especially in dead-ends and when stationary. Consequently, revised ventilation based heat control strategies for equipment are being developed for the automated mine of the future.

Jan 1, 2001

By David Beck

In Australia, Safe Work legislation requires mines to have a documented ‘Safety Case’ explaining how a mine will safely manage all major hazards. A similar requirement is legislated or inferred by regulation in all jurisdictions. For small scale, instabilities leading to day-to-day seismic hazards, a ‘Stability Safety Case’ built around observational methods and measurement triggered responses can be effective because adverse situations are easily identified and the costs of lower control measures are not onerous. Also, if the influence of a volume of yield on the mine load system is small, the response of the system will be more predictable. However, for episodes of large scale mine instability, the hazard derives from the widespread, multi component influence of the event on the mine load system. As the system response depends on interactions between many parts, the resolution of predictions will be lower and situations can arise without local precedent. Further, as episodes of large scale instability change the stiffness and nature of the connectedness between parts of the mine load system, the behavior of the system before the event will be a poor empirical basis for forecasts of event related hazards. Most importantly, Triggered Action Response Plans (TARPs) and ‘traffic light’ warning systems cannot make design choices or identify new hazard phenomena. They are ‘lower’ control measures targeting explicit human-made instability hypotheses. As such, the Safety Cases related to management of hazard from potential large scale seismic events and mine instability cannot rely solely on TARPs. Mines that successfully manage meaningful dynamic instability always acknowledge the ultimate reliance on expert human intuition, knowledge and imagination to appreciate the range of possible hazard scenarios, to make stability hypotheses and propose solutions. Complex analysis, TARPs and measurements are critical steps in the human decision cycle, but only support the making and testing of ‘Stability Hypotheses’ made by expert engineers. Relying on expert skill and judgement as essential components of a Safety Case, however essential, introduces human vulnerabilities. Another challenge is that the expert decision making process is hard to document. Beck et al 2019 first described an organizational and procedural framework for maintenance of an ongoing large-scale ‘Stability Safety Case' where a degree of expert judgement and imagination is needed to manage a seismically active mine. The structured data appreciation process outlined sufficient measurements, analysis and appreciation to confirm the stability state of the mine and was applicable to all underground mines. After several years of implementation in various forms in stoping, caving and room and pillar mines, this update addresses lessons learned and describes some considerations for numerical forecasting to establish a base case, and some challenges for empirical hazard identification.

Apr 26, 2022

By David Kress

Mill crushing drive systems are essential to cement producers. With the increased emphasis on operating efficiency, it is vital that these systems be dependable and reliable. No one needs the costs or headaches associated with unscheduled downtime or inefficient machinery operation. A reliable drive system starts with the proper selection of the ring, or girth, gear and continues through proper maintenance. Ideally, selecting the right girth gear brings together the gear manufacturer, the system designer and the end user. The gear manufacturer must know the details of the application, the demands that will be placed on the gear and the nature of the equipment to be driven. Similarly, the user and the system designer must be familiar with the variables that affect gear drive performance and service. For example, an application that places a torque load on the drive in excess of its rated capacity will result in gear tooth distress and, in severe cases, breakage.

Jan 1, 2000

By John Carr

The tremendous growth in grinding mill size and horsepower during the '70s demanded advancements in gear cutting technology and equipment for the '80s. Computers are used as an aid in the design and selection of the mill drive system; sophisticated computer graphics are used to create manufacturing drawings; and a new generation of gear cutting machines are used to manufacture the gears. These new gear cutters can generate-cut gears over 40' (12.2 m) in diameter at an AGMA quality level exceeding the currenty acceptable standards. The precision of the resulting gear assures maximum tooth contact, which will result in longer gear set life.

Jan 1, 1981

By James R. Taylor

24.1-BASIC PRINCIPLES JAMES R. TAYLOR The basic principle involved in maintenance is protection of a company's investment through the care and upkeep of machinery and equipment, buildings and properties. Maintenance is justified through making available to the maximum extent possible the facilities, machines and services required by the operating and production departments in their function of insuring optimum return on investment. As the size, cost and complexity of the equipment used in modern mining and related industries increase, operating and production personnel become proportionately more dependent upon maintenance engineering for its contribution to the overall profit picture. A greater part of the total cost now is charged to maintenance and the maintenance group becomes a major company unit. Basic maintenance concepts have changed very little over the years, but the advances in methods and technique have brought about tremendous challenge and have in consequence assumed a greater influence and importance. The older "sledge- hammer" methods have given way to engineered and scientific systems, while the accelerating development of intricate equipment and machinery, and the instrumentation essential for control, demand an ever-increasing upgrading of maintenance personnel. Regardless of this growth in importance, cost and complexity of the maintenance function, it is important to remember that it is not an independent and self-sufficient unit, but is a necessary facet of the entire plant operation and is subject to the company's total production effort. As one part of a team, maintenance is successful only when functioning cooperatively wit11 the other departments it serves Close collaboration in all areas served by n maintenance group is essential if it is to function fully to protect the company's investment, whether the assets are in machinery, materials or people. 24.1.1-MAINTENANCE SCOPE Maintenance functions may be grouped into the two general classifications of primary and secondary. This grouping constitutes a basic division although, in practice, the scope of the maintenance activity varies in each mine or plant and is subject to differences in size and type of operations and company policy, plus the influence of precedent, which may be sectional or industry-wide. The primary functions supply the justification for the maintenance engineering department. while secondary functions are variable according to plant conditions and needs. The primary functions may be categorized as follows: 1. Maintenance of existing machinery and equipment. 2. Maintenance of existing buildings and grounds. 3. Inspection and lubrication of equipment and machinery. 4. Utilities generation and distribution. 5. Alterations to existing equipment and facilities. 6. Installation of new equipment and facilities. 7. Instrumentation.

Jan 1, 1973

By John W. Rushton

Maintenance and inventory are usually the last items considered in mine development. They need to be addressed properly and early. The micro-computer brings sophistication within the reach of even the smallest mines. Maintenance and inventory programs, if properly installed, will reduce costs 15 to 25% and allow management time to address the mining and metallurgical problems at start up. Shops and warehouses are rarely designed properly. Large engineering firms spend 5 to 20 times more than is necessary for first class facilities. There is an optimum design, size, and layout. Take the time necessary to assure you get the right people, programs, and facilities in that order. Maintenance, inventory, and inventory control must be addressed early if a small mine is to have a chance at optimizing costs during the first two years of operation. This is hard work and is usually put on the back burner until the mine is in some degree of trouble. Hiring an experienced maintenance superintendent is important but it is not the complete solution. Maintenance systems, design of facilities, and use of computers are not skills that maintenance people usually have. In addition, the work of ordering spare parts and working with erection people is a full time job and any maintenance people on site during construction are quickly recruited. The end result is that few mines start up with an adequate Maintenance or Inventory System in place. The months, and in some cases years, that the mine attempts to operate without a system are both painful and expensive. Designs of successful integrated maintenance and inventory programs are virtually 100% supported with some outside assistance. Our system is the approach that we are most familiar with and this paper will isolate how Rushton International would go about setting up systems and designing support facilities. Micro-computers are the only way for a small mine to go. ~ini-computers cost more originally and operating costs are many times higher than even the most sophisticated micro system. Micro- computer software is developed further and recent advances in hardware makes medium priced units equal to most mini's in RAW COMPUTER POWER. Mines in general, and especially small mines, have no need for main frame power. MAINTENANCE A good maintenance program has: 1. Equipment Master List a. Equipment Detail Reports 2. Work Order and Backlog Control Program 3. Component Control Program 4. Tire Program 5. Wear Materials Program 6. PM Control Program 7. Maintenance History Program 8. Performance Program We also track miscellaneous items such as MSHA training and inspections, timekeeping, etc. Rather than going through the program step-by-step, it makes more sense to go through a typical Maintenance Day and show how the programs are used. The first thing maintenance supervision needs to know is "how we are doing." We

Jan 1, 1987

By John S. Newton

Modern high capacity underground mining machinery is a complex of mechanical, electrical and hydraulic components which have greatly increased capability over similar components of mining machinery of ten and. even five years ago. Looking into the future I feel certain in stating that there will be changes equally great in the coming five and ten year periods. With this premise in mind, I should like to bring to your attention some of the things that do and will have a continued major impact on the industry, particularly as they relate to the maintenance and operation of these machines of increasing capability. In underground mining today, nearly every individual plays a key role. A machine operator's importance in his work is comparable with that of the pilot of an airplane, a railroad engineman, a bus driver, a skilled machinist, a bulldozer operator and many others whose assignment is one of doing, by himself, with his hands and his brains all that the specially designed machine has been created to do. These machine operators are supported by a staff of skilled engineers, maintenance personnel, supervision, etc., but objectives are realized only when the operator maintains his schedule. What is being done and what can be done to make it easier for the operator to maintain his schedule which, as with the airplane, is constantly being improved? This question can be answered best, perhaps, by dividing the subject into four general categories - (A) Power Supply. (B) Control and Protective Devices. (C) Hydraulic Component Design. (D) Mechanical Design.

Jan 1, 1962

By J. B. Rasmussen

As part of a purchase of a fleet of Caterpillar 785 trucks, Round Mountain Gold Corp., Cashman Equipment Co. and Caterpillar Inc. entered into a four-year contract for the major maintenance of the fleet of trucks. This contract includes fixed costs and guaranteed availability. The results have been excellent, and the fleet of trucks performs well. History The Smoky Valley Common Operation is a unique mine. Through a mixture of diligence and foresight, it has become the largest open-pit, heap leaching gold mine in the world. This was no small feat considering the remote area surrounding the mine. Round Mountain is located in north-central Nye County, NV. To the east of the town and mine lies the Central Toquima mountain range. To the west is the Toiyabe mountain range. Between them is the Big Smoky Valley, a flat expanse of sagebrush, salt grass and fine dirt.

Jan 1, 1991

By Mark L. Munsell

In recent years, miners have tried many approaches to maintenance such as: - Highly sophisticated computerized programs. - large planning groups designed to preplan and schedule work. - Contract maintenance. - Break down maintenance. Each of these approaches has faced the added constraints: - High replacement cost of equipment necessitating longer useful equipment life - management?s increased scrutiny of all indirect costs such as maintenance. Faced with these factors, what system of maintenance control is right? After visiting many properties recently, it appears there is no right system. Maintenance programs need to be tailored to the people and production constraints that occur at an individual property.

Jan 1, 1976

By John Jonkman

Two major changes occured during the last 5 years in the applications of computers. First, the cost of computer equipment decreased drastically in an era of high inflation. Second, technological breakthroughs in hardware and software have been applied successfully so that the average person can successfully utilize the computer without having to be a computer expert himself. The mining industry has recognized that computing technology has evolved to a point where it can be applied successfully to assist in improving productivity. Since equipment downtime is one of the major reasons for lost production, the Kennecott Minerals Company has developed a comprehensive maintenance information system which now assists the maintenance department in minimizing equipment downtimes. This paper discusses the primary features and functions of this system, the state-of-the-art technology that has been applied, and the benefits that resulted from using this system. Programs to support mobile equipment maintenance scheduling, which currently are under development, are reviewed and a summary of future applications is given.

Jan 1, 1982

By Paul D. Tomlingson

Will Rogers unwittingly commented on the essence of evaluations when he said: "We don't know what they don't know!" In so doing, he explained why managers have an obligation to verify that their personnel really know what is expected of them. Rogers further stated that "What we know may not be so!" Here, he suggests that managers must establish the correctness of facts on which they make decisions concerning the future of their organizations. Yet, there are some managers who may not have considered this basic wisdom. These are perhaps the ones who shun a solid, fact-finding evaluation. Instead, they trust to guesswork as a basis for attempting improvement. Without realizing it, they may be making incorrect decisions harmful to the very organization they are trying to improve. Unfortunately, an attitude of avoiding evaluations often permeates whole organizations when their managers fail to appreciate their importance. Recently, the following was found prominently displayed in the office of a maintenance manager. Regrettably, the facts of a subsequent evaluation established how imprudent his attitude was:

Jan 1, 1991

By Paul D. Tomlingson

A new sense of urgency permeates the mining industry concerning maintenance. Mining's continuous process environment demands around-the-clock maintenance support. And profitability conscious mining operations require that production targets be met on time - and economically. These goals require nothing less than an effective maintenance program. In turn, the effectiveness of the maintenance program depends on quality information: easily procured, complete, timely, accurate, and properly used. Information picture is changing Some of the fully integrated, mainframe maintenance information pro¬grams of better days remain. Their upkeep and cost of operation, though, is becoming more difficult to justify. Some operations, faced with production cutbacks a few years ago, downscaled and found they liked it. Now, during an upswing, these operations question the need for the more elaborate, administrative-heavy programs they used to operate. Package programs are not taking their place. Too often, the packages are vague and generic. Some vendors claim that if their offerings work in a hospital complex, they must work in an underground mine. That is not so. Maintenance information in the mining industry is different. The situation has changed There are now smaller, self-contained maintenance groups whose information needs are different. These include an electrical crew in a smelter, an underground mobile equipment shop, or a remote service shop between several distant operating pits. These working environments have changed the character of the information needed as well as the methods for obtaining and using it. Operations-maintenance link In coming back from a downturn, operations people realize that their ability to meet production targets hinges on reliable equipment and avoidance of downtime. They have become familiar with the need to use maintenance services effectively. They also want quality maintenance information. When coupled with the sense of urgency about maintenance, a business-like working environment emerges that has significant new differences in both work control and information. Work control impact Work control has been streamlined to improve communications. Supporting information has been streamlined as well. • Verbal orders are the rule rather than the exception to quickly bring a multi-craft crew to the flotation section or a pit crew to a disabled haulage truck. • Written work requests and work order forms are seldom used, or even needed. Rather, electronic work control logs permit operations to request work, maintenance to acknowledge it, get ready, and do it - quickly, without delay. • Routine servicing is triggered by operating hour accumulation (mobile equipment) or tons of throughput (fixed equipment). Operations is now taking the initiative in delivering mobile equip¬ment to the "bad order line," or switching to a bypass conveyor. Operations wants immediate follow-up reports on equipment condition.

Jan 1, 1989

By John S. Timmons, Eivind B. Jensen

The Henderson mine is an underground panel-caving molybdenum mine located in the mountains of central Colorado. All development and primary production operations are performed using diesel-powered, rubber-tired mobile equipment. The growth in manpower and equipment was rapid in the five years following the July 1976 start-up, reaching about 250 machines and 2000 people to produce 9 Mt/a (10 million stpy) of ore. However, due to dramatic improvements in productivity, production is currently at a rate of 8.1 Mt/a (9 million stpy) with about 570 people and a much smaller equipment fleet. The mine's high degree of mechanization and accompanying maintenance costs have focused increased attention on the maintenance function as a cost center with potential for improvement. To realize some of that potential, several approaches to equipment maintenance have been adopted. None of these stand alone effectively, though, and their success relies on their working together in the overall program. The approaches that characterize the equipment mainte¬nance philosophy at Henderson are described here. Preventive maintenance The value of preventive maintenance as an alternative to breakdown or emergency repair is widely accepted in industry. When production began in 1976, few people at Henderson had experience maintaining diesel-powered, rubber-tired equipment. Other company operations such as its previous Urad operation and the Climax molybdenum mine near Leadville, CO used rail and Blusher technology. A maintenance consultant was hired to establish a formal preventive mainte¬nance program. The initial program contained four different preventive maintenance services, "A," "B," "C," and "D." Each was keyed to a different operating interval. • "A" service was the most frequent. It was a quick, general inspection and greasing of all fittings. •"B" service added a more detailed inspection. • "C" service included changing all filters and most fluids, such as engine oil. • "D" service was originally designed as a comprehensive inspection and testing of major component systems over a period of 24 hours during which the equipment was removed from operation. It was believed that most problems uncovered by the inspection could be reported and scheduled for repair at some later date, with only critical repairs being done during the service. In addition to these scheduled preventive maintenance services, a schedlle of minor and major rebuilds at intervals of 2500 to 5000 hours was established.

Jan 1, 1989

By Paul D. Tomlingson

Modern production equipment has been designed with greater productive capacity and higher reliability to meet the rigorous operating demands of the mining industry. These improvements have also made the equipment more complex and challenging to maintain. Whether these equipment enhancements contribute to more effective mining operations depends on the overall quality of maintenance. Maintenance is not a stand-alone activity. Although its quality depends primarily on maintenance, cooperation and support from other departments, coupled with the skillful guidance of mining managers, greatly influence maintenance success. Therefore, maintenance risk management must look beyond maintenance itself. Successful maintenance risk management begins with an assessment of the maintenance-related interactions of all mining departments within the mine’s stated operating strategy.

Jan 1, 2005

By Paul D. Tomlingson

An effective maintenance program ensures the adequate availability of production equipment. In turn, this availability enables production to maximize utilization and successfully meet production targets. An overall production strategy is necessary to draw all departments toward this common effort. Only then will production targets be met. From the maintenance view this means that production must comply with PM and repair schedules. Purchasing must supply parts and materials on time. Mine engineering must not overwhelm maintenance with non-vital construction. Accounting must provide correct, timely cost information - - etc. This strategy - - its content, effectiveness and enforcement is the responsibility of the mine manager . . . his alone. This paper describes a successful approach to maintenance within this strategy.

Jan 1, 1979