Search Documents

Industrial minerals enjoyed a fairly successful year in 1978, despite the sluggish economy, inflation, and environmental restrictions. A glance at US Bureau of Mines statistics shows that, in general, production of industrial minerals increased from + 1% (salt) to as much as 26% (sulfur, other than Frasch or recovered). A few industrial minerals showed a decline; fluorspar production, for example, registered a 23% decrease in 1978 from 1977 due to the closing of three domestic mines. Bromine, natural sodium sulfate, Frasch sulfur, and vermiculite also had production decreases of 2-6% in 1978.

Jan 5, 1979

Escalating energy costs and tough environmental standards were two major factors affecting the minerals processing area in 1978 For the most part, new startups and research and development initiatives were directed toward improving process dynamics, investigating alternative processing strategy, and lowering unit costs. In the flotation area, the trend to larger machines continued. Scientific investigation of the modeling and process control of flotation was apparent, as was the research and development of new flotation reagents.

Jan 5, 1979

For the seventh consecutive year, the value of nonfuel mineral raw ma¬terials produced in the US set a new record, reaching almost $20 billion-up 12.7% from the previous year, according to the US Bureau of Mines. The Bureau reported that this mineral production was the basis for about $200 billion worth of processed materials of mineral origin.

Jan 5, 1979

The value of raw nonfuel mineral materials production totaled an estimated $19.7 billion in 1978. The record 1978 value exceeded by 13 percent the 1977 value of $17.5 billion. This raw mineral output was the basis for approximately $200 billion worth of processed materials of mineral origin. Output of both metals and nonmetals increased about $1 billion each, above comparable figures for 1977. Of the 22 metals produced quantitative output of 11 increased and the value of 13 increased. Among the 48 nonmetallic commodities produced, the quantities for 35 increased, and the values for 40 increased.

Jan 1, 1979

By Robert B. Parsons

"The budget that was tabled by Finance Minister MacEachen on November 12, 1981 will result in a major tax reform of Canada's income and sales tax systems, the likes of which have not been witnessed by taxpayers since 1971. All segments of the economy will be affected one way or another by the far-reaching budget proposals; the mining industry did not escape untouched.Important changes will be introduced which will alter some of the fundamentals of structuring mineral resource ventures in Canada. This month, Tax Notes examines these changes, and also summarizes the other highlights of this key federal budget.IntroductionFinance Minister MacEachen's budget, with its lower personal tax rates, loophole plugging and tax shelter bashing, represents the biggest shakeup in our tax system since tax reform in 1971. In his budget, presented in the House of Commons on November 12, Mr. MacEachen proposed substantially lower tax rates for middle and upper income individuals, with the top federal and provincial tax rate dropping to about 50%, but in return he eliminated most of the opportunities for individuals, and corporations, to reduce or defer taxes through a wide variety of tax shelter and tax planning mechanisms.Although many of those budget proposals that dealt with the resource industries focused on the implementation of the September 1, 1981 agreement reached by the federal and Alberta governments concerning the National Energy Program (see Tax Notes in the December 1981 issue of the Bulletin), the budget also contained some proposed amendments that would have significant implications for investment in the mining industry.This month, Tax Notes examines these latter proposals, and also summarizes very briefly those budget proposals which are not unique to the resource sector."

Jan 1, 1982

Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co. Sundance Rt. Moorcroft, WY 82716 Charles R. Ahlbrecht Western States Surveying Inc. 7030 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 Dean Albon Monsanto Co. 800 No. Lindberg St. Louis, MO 631 67 Robert Anderson Mobil Oil Producing Inc. POB 17772 Denver, CO 8021 7 Stephen P. Antony Orbital Engineering 6789 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 David Ariotti Boyle Mining Engineering Service Rt. 1 Box 15M Helper. UT 84526 Douglas Auck Falkirk Mining Co. 103 McKinley Ave. Underwood, ND 58378 Roger Backrnan N. D. Crockett & Assoc. 3467 Sorenson Way Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Richard Bailey Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co. 602 Park Point Drive Golden, CO 80401 Earl W. Baker Baker & Co. 4965 Jackson St. Denver, CO 80216 Allen P. Barber San Juan Coal Co. 705 Ocio Farrnington, NM 87421 Edward Barker Process Equipment Builders POB 7506 Paducah, KY 42001 Larry Barton Carter Mining Co. 101 5 Teewinot Circle Gillette, WY 82716 Hugh Bastian American Carbide Corp. POB 2650 Ronald N. Batdorf Monsanto Co. Box 701 Saratoga, WY 82331 Georgetown, KY 40321 Doris A. Bauer Mobile Oil Corp. POB 17772 Denver, CO 80217 Jan Beam Blount International Ltd. 2570 So. Dayton Way #E-308 Denver, CO 80231 Mac Beaudry Falkirk Mining Co. 1029 Cannon Ln. Washburn, ND 58527 R. C. Beerbower Gates Engineering Co. Drawer A Beckley, WV 25801

Jan 1, 1982

[Mr. Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co PO8 3007 Gillette, WY 82716 Mr. Jay Abbott Union Supply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal Co 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112]

Jan 1, 1983

[Mr. Jay Abbott Union Sply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. AchZlger Midwest Rbr 6 Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal C 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112 Mr. Dell H. Adams Kenerco Corp 5480 Swanton Dr Lexington, KY 4051 Mr. Robert S. Affleck Anderson Mavor (USA) Ltd RD #1 Box 140-Lake R Bradford Woods, PA 15015]

Jan 1, 1984

By Robert B. Parsons

"The customary onslaught of government budgets this spring offers lots of interesting reading to the mining industry.While the favourable changes tend to get all the fanfare, there are some ""sleepers"" in the host of proposed changes which will be bitter pills for some mining people to swallow.IntroductionOn a scale of one to ten, the Canadian mining industry will probably give this year's federal and provincial budgets a score that is pretty close to five. Although some budgetary proposals are generally perceived to be favourable to the industry, there are other provisions (and lack of provisions) which are considered to be negative.This month, Tax Notes examines in a summary manner the principal features of the 1985 federal and provincial budgets which are of particular interest to this country's mineral industry."

Jan 1, 1985

At the Annual Meeting of the RMCMI Board of Directors held June 29, 1985, the following amendments to the corporation bylaws Article III were made: Section 2. Advisory Board. There shall be an Advisory Board of Directors which shall be com- posed of all former presidents of the corporation and of the unincorporated association, also known as The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, of which the corporation is the successor. The Advisory Board shall periodically review the philosophy and policies of the corporation and make recommendations concerning the same to the Board of Directors. The Advisory Board shall hold an annual meeting at the same place as and immediately pre- ceding the annual meeting of the members in each year and written notice stating the place, day, and hour of the meeting shall be given or mailed to each member of the Advisory Board at least thirty days prior to the date fixed for such annual meeting. The annual meeting of the Advisory Board shall be for the purpose of electing a chairman from among its members and the person so elected chairman shall also serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the corporation. The Advisory Board shall meet at such other times and conduct its affairs in such a manner as it shall determine from time to time by resolution. Section 4. Regular Meetings. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held immediately following the annual meeting of the members, at the site of the annual meeting of the members, the day and time to be fixed by the Board of Directors at its annual meeting immediately pre- ceding the annual meeting of the members in each year, without the necessity of any other or advance notice. Such regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be for the purpose of considering committee appointments, and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall also be held in the Fall of each year following the annual meeting of the members and written notice stating the place day and hour of the meeting shall be given or mailed each member of the Board of Directors at least thirty days prior to the date fixed for such regular meeting. Such Fall regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be for the purpose of receiving the treasurer's annual financial report of the previous fiscal year as reviewed and approved by the auditor, to take action on the budget, and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. Section 8. Standing Committees. The Board of Directors may create by resolution adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Directors, a Bylaws and Resolutions Committee, a Nominating Committee, a Finance Committee, and one or more other committees each of which shall consist of two or more directors and which shall have and may exercise such authority in the management of the corporation as shall be provided in such resolution or in these bylaws. Section 9. Ad Hoc committees. The Board of Directors from time to time may by resolution create a Membership Committee, a Scholarship Committee, an Education Committee, various convention committees, and one or more other committees each of which shall consist of members of the corporation and which shall have and may exercise such authority, other than in connection with the management of the corporation, as the Board of Directors may determine. MINUTES of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute 81 st Member Annual Business Meeting July 2, 1985 The 81st Annual Business Meeting of the mem¬bers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by the president, Charles W. Margolf at 1:35 p.m. Tuesday, July 2, 1985 in the Windom Peak Room of the Tamarron Resort near Durango, Colorado. Thirty members were present and a quorum was established. It was moved by Bill Balaz, seconded and car¬ried to dispense with the reading of the minutes as these were published on pages 67 thru 77 of the 1984 issue of the Proceedings. The chair called for reports of the various com¬mittees and these reports will be placed on file in the RMCMI Office. Bylaws and Resolutions. Chairman Loren V. Linville reported that the Board of Directors had adopted changes to Article III, Sections 2, 4, 8 and 9 calling for clarification of Ad Hoc and Standing Committees as well as setting forth a purpose for the Advisory Board meetings and stating a time for an annual meeting. He further reported that the Board had passed three resolutions: (One) Noting the passing of these members since the last conven¬tion - Einar M. Arentzen, Gerhardt A. Benne¬witz, Claude P. Heiner, Raymond A. Johnson, Vard H. Johnson, P. T. Schonstrom, Augusta F. Whiteside and Edward Wiemann; (Two) Of appreciation to the officers, chairmen and their commit-

Jan 1, 1985

By D. G. Krige

In the world mining scene, precious metals (particularly gold) have recently monopolized the attention in exploration as well as new production activities. As the major world producer of gold, South Africa plays and will continue to play a very significant role in this commodity. This role will, of course, have its consequential effects on the world's gold supply and, hence, also on the international price of gold. It is essential, therefore, and in the interests of all gold producers that the likely future pattern of gold production in South Africa be estimated such that some measure of production uncertainties can be predicted. For this purpose, some elementary geostatistical models will be used, and the main factors affecting the situation will be analyzed in broad outline only under the following headings: South Africa's basic gold ore potential in the three categories of: (1) ore remaining in existing mines; (2) extensions to existing mines via unexplored areas and/or reef horizons of lower grade; and (3) new mines, potentially deep or ultradeep. Cutoff grades - operating, marginal, and flotation, for the foregoing three ore categories, respectively. The availability of production, financial, and other resources required. Cutoff grades will, of course, depend on cost levels (operating and capital), future inflation and cost escalation trends in South Africa (SA), and/or gold price trends (in US$ and via the exchange rate in SA Rand terms). The differentials in inflation and escalation trends with those in overseas countries, mainly the USA, will, in general, set the scene for future exchange rate levels of the Rand. To predict the effect of various cutoff grades on future gold production from South Africa, it is essential to use geostatistical models. The applicability of such models is tested against past records of price, cost, and grade trends and then applied to the estimated ore potentials. These models were referred to briefly in a paper at a recent seminar on gold (Krige, 1986) but are discussed in detail herein. This lecture was intended originally to cover only technical aspects, but, in view of South Africa's position internationally and the possible effect of sanctions, internal unrest, and strikes on gold production, a brief reference to the third factor above (availability of production, financial, and other resources) seems appropriate.

Jan 1, 1988

[ACC, Inc. Bucyrus-Erie Company CINCO (Coal Industry Consultants, Inc.) Coal Magazine Colowyo Coal Company Coors Ceramic Company Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Power. Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coral Company Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company Energy Fuels Corporation FMC Corp.- MHE Division Ford. Bacon & Davis Inc. T.J. Gundlach Machine Company Hemscheidt American Corp. GH Hensley Industries Honnen Equipment Company Jennmar Corporation Soy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corp. McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company Peabody coal Company Pitrsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Pyramid Parts, Div. American Alloy Ramsey Technology. Inc. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Scandura. Inc. Tamarron Resort TIC (The Industrial Company) Tribol Utah Power & Light Western Energy Company]

Jan 1, 1988

By C. Allen Born

There is a saying, the greater the gratitude, the shorter the speech. That puts me in a quandary, because while I am grateful for the honor you do me today, I also want to talk about a subject very important to all of us. A few months ago, when I was asked to submit a title for my talk, I chose "Quality where it counts." I did so because perhaps the most important thing we at Amax did in our restructuring was to commit to quality in all our businesses - quality people, assets, and operations. Together, they create quality performance, which produces quality growth and increased shareholder value - our prime corporate mission. We are dedicated to quality. At Amax, quality means everything. Today, I want to discuss quality in another context - the need for it in American education and what we have to do to achieve it. If we ignore this need, we will all suffer the consequences. And they will be upon us far sooner than the next century, barely a decade away. I think almost everyone in this room works for an organization that had to restructure in the 1980s. Mining companies that did not, just didn't make it. Well, we did. As an industry, we are seeing improved profits, positive cash flow, and a more competitive position in the world marketplace. But all the restructuring we have done, all the hard work, and all the pain that was part of it, will be in vain if, down the road, we do not have the educated people we need as workers. We need them to design, manufacture, and market the products that use the basic materials produced by the mining industry. Simply put, we are at a crisis point in education today. That is no new revelation. Nearly six years ago, the National Committee on Excellence in Education published its report, "A Nation At Risk." Since then, things have not gotten better. The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, US News & World Report, and Fortune have all recently published stories about the sorry state of education in the United States. The subject has become the topic of TV talk shows as well as national commissions, and for good reason. The pool of young people entering the US labor force is dwindling. In the next decade, 10 million fewer will enter the job market compared to the 1970s. But fewer of them will be qualified to do the jobs available to them. Here's why: • 20% of today's high school students drop out before they are 18 and another 20% graduate functionally illiterate; 40% of today's fourth graders think the world is flat; • 20% of today's sixth graders cannot locate the United States on a world map; • one of every three ninth graders cannot figure the change for a two-item meal - and I'm talking about a Big Mac and fries. These are not just problems of minority kids in big city ghettos. Fully 40% of all young working Americans cannot add up their lunch bill. Three out of every five college freshmen need some kind of remedial work. These statistics are frightening. Particularly so because, while the work force is becoming less qualified and our public education system is getting worse, our products and technologies are becoming more complex. We are approaching a time when we will have machines that recognize handwriting but people who cannot write. We will have technology to take voice commands, but people who do not know what they are talking about. The accelerating pace of technology is changing the nature of the job market. The fastest growing jobs now, and in the years ahead, are in professional, technical, and sales positions requiring the highest education and skill levels. Most of these jobs will require the use of a computer. Yet, 95% of today's graduating high school students have never laid a finger on a computer keyboard. While our education system is failing the students it is supposed to serve, other countries are doing far better. In a

Jan 1, 1990

[ACZ, Inc. Boliden-Allis CINCO (Coal Industry Consultants, Inc.) Coal Colowyo Coal Company Commercial Testing & Engineering Co. Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Power, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Energy Fuels Corporation Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc. T.J. Gundlach Machine Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corp. GH Hensley Industries Honnen Equipment Company Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation Neil F. Lampson, Inc. McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company NERCO Coal Corporation North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Ramsey Technology, Inc. Roberts & Schaefer Company Rocky Mountain Machinery Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Scandura, Inc. Sheraton Steamboat Southern Pacific Utah Power & Light Company Western Energy Company]

Jan 1, 1989

By Charles L. Kimbell

In overview, the world's mineral industry in 1989 registered gains over its 1988 performance, but these gains were by no means as pronounced as had been those of 1988. The traditional statistical measures of mineral industry performance, namely production, trade, and consumption levels, reflected significant growth in most industry sectors from crude material extraction through the gamut of down- stream processing. Growth in market economy countries generally exceeded growth in the centrally planned economy countries as a result of a variety of causes that will be covered subsequently, but even among the centrally planned countries there were some upturns. In contrast to these measures of the soundness of the industry, the situation for nonfuel mineral and metal prices was less satisfactory than in 1988, and low crude oil prices continued as a problem for the all-important petroleum sector, despite some gains during the year. The oil price situation mitigated against price increases for competitive fuels. Although this was unfavorable for fuel producers, it remained advantageous to consumers, including nonfuel mineral producers, processors, and transporters. Thus it cannot be viewed as a negative factor for the whole of the global mineral industry. Global crude mineral output value was estimated at nearly $1,420 billion in current dollars, an increase of 9% over the 1988 level, and an increase in current dollar terms for the seventh consecutive year. Measured in terms of constant dollars, however, adjusting for inflation, the increase was only 4.7% compared with the 1988 level. Despite the prolonged growth trend, the 1989 crude mineral output value level was still 3.2% below the record high set in 1980, which was $1,467 billion in terms of 1989 dollars.

Jan 1, 1992

By Howard L. Hartman

To concede that I am the most surprised - not to mention the least likely - recipient of the Daniel C. Jackling Award is a true confession I must share with you. Quite honestly, I've asked myself, "Why me?" The Jackling Award has a well-deserved reputation of being a practitioner's, a doer's, a CEO's award - not kudos for a retired school teacher! While at least five of the previous recipients have taught in universities, to my knowledge I am the first to earn the award for "alleged" academic accomplishments. It is humbling enough to keep me livable for a long time. If you glance over the roster of Jackling Award lecture topics, you will spot another anomaly: The lectures last year and this deal with the subject of education - the only two in the 37-year history of the award. The two complement one another rather well, too, C. Allen Bom of Amax addressing critical needs of public education, while I am going to look at the post-high-school years. But I want to focus on more than engineering education. The training role of industry - the principal consumer of our product-also warrants examination. As I hope to establish, there is something unique about mining engineering - education and practice - that is both strength and weakness. We need to recognize that, if we are to cope with the weaknesses in order to capitalize on the strengths. We look at five premises that relate to the uniqueness of the mining engineer and his or her preparation for a professional career.

Jan 1, 1991

[ACZ, Inc. BHP-Utah International, Inc. CINCO (Coal Industry Consultants, Inc.) Coal Colowyo Coal Company Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Energy Fuels Corporation Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc. T.J. Gundlach Machine Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation GH Henley Industries Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation Keystone Resort Neil F. Lampson, Inc. McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company NERCO Coal Corporation North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Ramsey Technology, Inc. Roberts & Schaefer Company Rocky Mountain Machinery Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Scandura, Inc. Southern Pacific Lines Utah Power & Light Company Western Energy Company]

Jan 1, 1990

By Charles L. Kimbell

In broadest overview, a substantial part of the world's mineral industry in 1990 registered small gains over its 1989 performance, but traditional statistical measures of mineral industry performance, namely global production, trade, and consumption levels, failed to mirror these gains. This was because of the sharp downturns in the mineral industry activity in the U.S.S.R. and the former centrally planned economy nations of eastern Europe. These downturns in this one geographic area had influences on almost all traditional statistical series, in some cases simply significantly reducing growth, in other cases providing for a global downturn, in almost all cases despite considerably brighter outlooks based on activities in other world areas. To be sure, the U.S.S.R. and eastern Europe were not the only places on the planet suffering problems of one type or another in 1990 that impacted on minerals industry activity, but with the acquisition of information presently available, it seemed almost assured that the difficulties of these economies in transition will be the most difficult of problems to resolve in the long run. It certainly appeared that the legacy of the half century or more of economic central planning will be a decade or more of very difficult adjustments, and a number of these will greatly affect not only the minerals industry of these transition countries, but also the rest of the globe's mineral industry as well.

Jan 1, 1993

By James J. Scott

I am indeed honored to be the 1991 recipient of the Daniel C. Jackling Award. To be voted this honor by my peers in the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration and AIME means more to me than I can truly express. Daniel Jackling's position and prominence in the mining industry first came to my attention in the fall of 1949 when I transferred from Wisconsin Institute of Technology, then a three-year school, to the Missouri School of Mines to complete my last year for a bachelor's degree in mining engineering. I played basketball in the Jackling gym and ran track on the Jackling field. I didn't know a lot about Jackling then, except he was an honored graduate of the school and, obviously, supported the school financially. Over the years, Jackling's name kept coming up. He was a man with a reputation for being a doer, a mining leader who was always a step ahead, a mining engineer who knew how to motivate men in the working place, to organize mining systems, to finance and organize corporations. to open up new, low-grade ore bodies for exploitation. If Jackling were alive today, I would expect he would bean excellent candidate to apply practical rock mechanics to his projects. Looking over the list of Jackling Award recipients, I have known many, have met many personally and had a few who were dear friends that affected my own professional life. Ab Shoemaker, '58, and I consulted at the White Pine Copper Co. on mining problems in the 1960s. We arranged for our visits to the mine to coincide so that we could collaborate on our ideas. I would rent an auto and drive for Ab. He said he was the only mining engineer in the country that had a PhD for a chauffeur. James Boyd, '67, was my mentor as regards the White Pine Rock Mechanics Program that we organized in 1963. Only through Boyd's forsight. leadership, dedication and willingness to spend money on research and development did the Practical Rock Mechnics Program at White Pine succeed. He never wavered in his support to that program or to me personally. Tom Howard, '75, was my predecessor in 1970 as Director of Mining Research for the US Bureau of Mines. When I joined the Bureau in August 1970, he had the research centers up and running. Any successes I may have had with the Bureau of Mines were due in great part to Tom's leadership and organization throughout the 1960s. Gene Cameron, '68, was my teacher at the University of Wisconsin and I remember him fondly. He was the one professor who lectured in a manner that made me welcome going to his classes each day, a truly remarkable educator. If you have come today to listen to me talk about instrumentation, rock properties, stress-strain relationships, rock mechanics theory, etc., you will be disappointed. Large volumes of data have been collected by well qualified theoreticians to define stress-strain conditions in mines. Unfortunately, very little of this data has been used by industry due to the lack of initiative and understanding by the researchers to the true problems of implementation in the industry. I hope my remarks will assist future investigators to work through the maze of operational problems so they will experience the satisfaction of seeing their research used. I fully realize that the Jackling Award is given by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration and is primarily offered for accomplishments in hardrock mining. I have found it impossible to separate hardrock and coal mining when I talk about "Applied Rock Mechanics." There is too much overlap and the same mechanics principles are applied to both. For example, coal mine designs have been applied to salt, trona and potash. Also, the original layout and design of White Pine Copper Mine was based on coal mine designs. Any developments to apply rock mechanics ideas must

Jan 1, 1992

1991 New Zealand Branch Annual Conference û Appendix

Jan 1, 1991