Search Documents

Allis Mineral Systems ARCO Coal Company Buckley Powder Co. CALCO, Inc. Coal Magazine Colowyo Coal Company Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company Crane & Hoist Sales Cummins Southwest, Inc. Energy West Mining Company Paul J. Epley FMC Corporation The Falkirk Mining Company Fleischli Oil Co., Inc. T. J. Gundlach Machine Company Halbach & Braun Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Hyatt Regency Beaver Creek Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Coal Association The North American Coal Corporation Northwestern Resources Company Peabody Coal Company Phillips Machine Service, Inc. Pincock, Allen & Holt, Inc. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Rust Tractor Company Salt River Project Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Schroeder Industries Shearson-Lehman Brothers Southern Pacific Transportation Stamler Corporation Trapper Mining Inc. Wagner Equipment Company Western Energy Company Wheeler Machinery Company

Jan 1, 1992

By Milton H. Ward

The percentage of exploration dollars flowing out of the industrialized countries continues at an all-time high, and this shift in risk money is justified (Samuels, 1990; Bosson, 1977). Clearly, the odds of discovery are greatly enhanced if exploration is pursued in an untrampled and geologically more prospective environment. Unfortunately, such major unexplored areas of the developed world are shrinking rapidly, not just because the lands have already been tested, but primarily because they have been withdrawn from exploration. Experience, however, has shown that foreign investment is not without risks. These include problems that result from working in isolated areas, a lack of infrastructure, untrained workers and an absence of a solid geological data base. While the likelihood of once-feared expropriation is now low, mining enterprises still must take precautions to gain the support of their constituencies, including a variety of governments (local, provincial and central), workers, environmentalists, cultural organizations and local landowners. Is foreign exploration worth the risk? In most cases, Yes! But maintaining tenure and long-term success in a less developed country is only likely with good planning and the use of appropriate safeguards. These include measures such as buying country-risk insurance, building multinational relationships, forming joint investments, developing a broad customer base and seeking local investors in the company (Cobbe, 1979). The primary theme of this lecture is: How a company handles its constituency is critical to long-term tenure in a foreign country. Ideally, a multinational mining company would be so effective in dealing with the local people and managing its relationship with the host government that it would become a preferred employer, preferred over its competitors and over local companies. Historical overview Our earliest ancestors lived in Africa three to four million years ago. The Paleolithic or Old Stone Age, about 500,000 years ago, marked the beginning of mining in its earliest form (Gregory, 1980; Wolf, 1984). Various types of rocks and stones were used for tools and weapons, with flint being the preferred resource for implements. Initially, these materials were collected as stones (eoliths) lying on the surface. Then they came from excavations of flint in limestone beds that were exposed in river banks or naturally occurring excavations. Later, more formal mining developed. No doubt tribes of the Old Stone Age experienced conflict over rights to eoliths, food and land. The question of who owns the land and has rights to its contents and what is fair value for extraction is still the subject of intense debate and, occasionally, open conflict. As time passed, the search for useful minerals required migration from one area to another. Later, voyages from Europe to the New World and travels to other remote regions were funded and supported by absentee investors, kings and such (Rogers, 1976). The primary objective of such funding was to obtain gold, silver, food stuffs and other commodities that could be collected from the new countries. This is still the objective of foreign investment.

Jan 1, 1994

Amercable, Inc. Andalex Resources, Inc. ARCO Coal Company Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc. Colowyo Coal Co. L.P. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company Crane & Hoist Sales Crested Butte Mountain Resort Cyprus Amax Coal Co. Energy West Mining Company The Falkirk Mining Company Fleischli Oil Co. Inc. Halbach & Braun Industries Hemscheidt Corporation GH Henley Industries Ingersoll-Rand Co. Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K & P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation L & H Welding & Machine Co. McLanahan Corporation National Coal Association The North American Coal Corporation Northwestern Resources Company Peabody Western Coal Company Phillips Machine Service Pincock Allen & Holt Ramsey Technology, Inc. Rust Tractor Company Salt River Project Schroeder Industries Stamler Corporation TerraMatrix TIC (The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc.) Trapper Mining Inc. Wagner Equipment Company Western Energy Company Wheeler Machinery Company

Jan 1, 1994

By Jean-Michel Rendu

That you are giving the Daniel C. Jackling award to me is a great personal honor. But more significantly, it is a recognition that geostatistics has come of age. And since I am considered by many as belonging to an older generation of geostatisticians, I thought that it would be fitting that I reflect on where geostatistics came from and where it might be going. First, though, let me propose a definition of geostatistics. Etymologically, paraphrasing Webster's definitions of "geo" and "statistics," it is "a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation and presentation of masses of numerical data taken from the earth." This definition is most appropriate in the context of mining geostatistics. It includes both classical and spatial statistics. It emphasizes the earth aspect, or the analysis of geologic features. And it should remind the practitioner that geologic input is a critical part of all geostatistical applications. In the 1910s, statistical methods were already used to analyze geological data. However, the origin of geostatistics, as we know it today, is best set in the late 1940s, when H.S. Sichel recognized the lognormal distribution of sample values in the South African gold mines. In 1951, Daniel Krige observed that "it can be expected that the gold values in a whole mine will be subject to a larger relative variation than those in a portion of the mine." In other words, samples taken close to each other are more likely to have similar values than if taken farther apart. This observation is the foundation on which spatial statistics, which characterizes values defined in a multidimensional space, is built. However, the 1950s were marked by studies based on classical, as opposed to spatial, statistics. It was only in the 1960s that the need was recognized to model the similarity between sample values as a function of the distance between samples and that the semivariogram was defined. A theoretical framework was developed by Matheron that supplied an elegant mathematical explanation to the empirical observations made by Krige. Matheron coined the term "kriging" in recognition of Krige's pioneering work on the geostatistical evaluation of mineral deposits. As soon as this theoretical framework was developed, it was possible to bring geostatistics to the academic world. The "Centre de Geostatistiques" was founded in Fontainebleau. Numerous students were trained there, disciples eager not only to improve the theory and develop more sophisticated mathematical tools, but also to spread the new faith throughout the world. Expansion of geostatistics exploded in the 1970s, arguably the most fertile decade if it is judged by the frequency of theoretical breakthroughs, the number of original publica-

Jan 1, 1995

By Robert B. Parsons

"Finance Minister Paul Martin's second budget might be good for Canada's mining industry in the long run, but the budget raises a number of concerns for the industry in the near term. The budget papers suggest that the 25% resource allowance is not working as intended, and report that the Department of Finance will be reviewing this valuable allowance. The so-called ""large corporations tax"" rate will be increased. This annual tax, which is imposed on a corporation's capital even when the corporation is not in production, is particularly harmful to the mining sector.IntroductionThe Honourable Paul Martin, in his second federal budget, emphasized spending cuts and made only modest tax changes. However, two of these tax changes could have a serious impact on the Canadian mining industry: the proposed review of the 25% resource allowance; and, the increase in the large corporations tax rate.Personal Tax Measures Personal Tax Rates UnchangedThe government has been under political pressure not to increase personal tax rates. Mr. Martin's announcement that rates would not change will be popular."

Jan 1, 1995

By Klimpel. R. R.

Acknowledgments I am honored to be named as a recipient of the Antoine M. Gaudin Award, and I would like to briefly single out four groups who deserve a special thank-you relative to this award. The first group consists of Professor Kawatra, the many international support references that he gathered and the Gaudin Committee itself. I know such things don't come without considerable effort by many individuals, and I'm grateful for their support. The second group consists of the management of The Dow Chemical Company, the managements of various mining companies and, in recent years, the management of G. S. Technologies, all of whom supported me, financially and otherwise, in my grinding, flotation and other particle-processing work. Operations people are the most overworked and under recognized people in the world, whether they be in the mining or chemical industry. Obviously, without extensive industrial support, especially from operating personnel in the mining industry, almost nothing about the work contained in this lecture would have, or could have, happened. The third group consists of a number of coworkers who have played key roles in specifically implementing the new flotation-product portion of this lecture. Of these, Bob Hansen, Don Leonard, Basil Fee, Simon Isherwood, Fernando Cones and Marty Meulendyke deserve special recognition. They have not only been dedicated, but they have been great to work with. Also in this third group are many members of the international academic community, especially those at Penn State. Professor Leonard Austin must be singled out because he took me as a young mathematically oriented chemist and taught me to be an effective process-oriented engineer. Without this experience, I would not have had the over 30-year career as an engineer, which I have loved. In addition, Len planted the size-reduction-research virus in my blood, which I can't seem to get rid of. I also need to mention Professor Frank Aplan, whose obvious love of mineral processing and froth flotation helped to create my interest in flotation. Thus, for those of you who don't like my approach to flotation, it's all Frank's fault. The fourth, and certainly not the least, group to thank is my wife, Charlene, and our two sons, Richard and Steven. No one could have a more supportive family. In every sense of the word, my wife has been my partner from the beginningwe were married at the end of my freshman year in college. She has sacrificed much for me, and I will never really be able to express the depth of my gratitude for Charlene's encouragement, loyalty and support over the past 36 years. General comments on froth flotation The industrial process of froth flotation: Where is it going? I'm here to tell you loud and clear that froth flotation is alive, well, and growing. The inherent characteristics of high mineral throughput per unit of capital, low operating cost per unit of feed, high mineral specificity and high operating flexibility have guaranteed froth flotation an important past and a growing future. As with any evolving technology, there are always trends at the industrial level that are primarily driven by economics. The current trends include: •the movement towards larger and larger equipment, •more alternative equipment designs (e.g., the column cell),

Jan 1, 1996

[Mr. Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Mr. Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum Pl-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Mr. Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84518-1420 Mr. Thomas D. Aderman The North American Coal Corp 14758 Preston Rd #1100 Dallas, TX 75240-7891]

Jan 1, 1998

By Spencer R. Titley

"For his pioneering contributions to the understanding of the geology of porphyry copper systems" Recipient Of The 1997 D. C. Jackling Award SPENCER R. TITLEY Introduction The subject of this lecture, a late century perspective on porphyry copper geology, is one of current interest and importance as the search for these ores remains intense. It is presented in the belief that an appreciation of our present understanding of the subject requires it to be viewed historically, thus providing a basis for evaluating appropriate directions for continued study. At the outset, it is important to note that the technology of mining and extractive metallurgy has developed ore from these low grade orebodies, starting with D. C. Jackling, and has continued to create them as copper grade and price have diminished. But the continued search for them is a geological problem that responds to growing expectations of people and societies; exploration based upon ever increasing knowledge of the habits of the ores has been very successful. This is the story of evolution of geological thought and practice in porphyry ore search across an interval of time beginning with the bulk mining of "low grade" copper ores at Bingham and ending with late Century concepts. "How did we get here?" The lecture concerns the ideas of many different people. The ideas and events discussed reflect a bias on North American thought, where the great low grade orebodies were first recognized as such and where many of the basic geological ideas were developed. A very great number of geologists have contributed to this understanding. In no sense is it meant to minimize the contributions to the story that have evolved in the study and mining of ores of the Andes, whose development and expansion has been nearly synchronous with that in North America - nor to minimized comparable contributions made in the late century from studies of the newer discoveries of deposits in other regions, especially the southwestern Pacific regions. In expansion of this topic, I have found that many important concepts are marked by appropriate publication but some are not, or I have not been able to discover documentation. Many notions appear to have become conventional knowledge without publication, mostly being geological viewpoints developed synchronously from similar observation. Thus, apologies are extended in advance to those whose work I have might have missed and to those unknown to me whose unpublished ideas may have seeped into the pool of common knowledge without appropriate recognition. The analysis here addresses events of two time segments, an older one extending from the developments at Bingham in the early 1900s through the Second World War, ending about 1950: the second period extends from that time to the present. This separation is seen in Figure 1, which traces numbers of publications through the period as extracted from some 700 publications, again with a North American bias, from an annotated bibliography of porphyry copper geology in preparation. During the early period, exploration was "immature" in North America, that is, geologists looked for new districts and sites of the deposits. Outcrops were sought that carried the signatures of former mineralization and regional controls related to structural geology were closely studied. In the later period, North American exploration had "matured" into a study of districts, rather than a search for them. As the studies of these ores intensified during the younger period concommitant with increasing demands for the metal, they did so with a broadened understanding of some habits of occurrence, of hydrothermal alteration, mineral zoning, petrology, and geochemical and geophysical signatures. Outside of North America, search remained "immature" but closely related to the

Jan 1, 1998

By Spencer R. Titley

The subject of this lecture, a late century perspective on porphyry copper geology, is one of current interest and importance as the search for these ores remains intense. It is presented in the belief that an appreciation of our present understanding of the subject requires it to be viewed historically, thus providing a basis for evaluating appropriate directions for con¬tinued study. At the outset, it is important to note that the technology of mining and extractive metallurgy has developed ore from these low grade orebodies, starting with D. C. Jackling, and has continued to create them as copper grade and price have diminished. But the continued search for them is a geological problem that responds to growing expectations of people and societies; exploration based upon ever increasing knowledge of the habits of the ores has been very successful. This is the story of evolution of geological thought and practice in porphyry ore search across an interval of time beginning with the bulk mining of "low grade copper ores at Bingham and ending with late Century concepts. "How did we get here?" The lecture concerns the ideas of many different people. The ideas and events discussed reflect a bias on North American thought, where the great low grade orebodies were first recognized as such and where many of the basic geological ideas were developed. A very great number of geologists have contributed to this understanding. In no sense is it meant to minimize the contributions to the story that have evolved in the study and mining of ores of the Andes, whose development and expansion has been nearly synchronous with that in North America - nor to minimized comparable contributions made in the late century from studies of the newer discoveries of deposits in other regions, especially the southwestern Pacific regions. In expansion of this topic, I have found that many important concepts are marked by appropriate publication but some are not, or I have not been able to discover documentation. Many notions appear to have become conventional knowledge without publication, mostly being geological viewpoints developed synchronously from similar observation. Thus, apologies are extended in advance to those whose work I have might have missed and to those unknown to me whose unpublished ideas may have seeped into the pool of common knowledge without appropriate recognition. . The analysis here addresses events of two time segments, an older one extending from the developments at Bingham in the early 1900s through the Second World War, ending about 1950; the second period extends from that time to the present. This separation is seen in Figure 1, which traces numbers of publications through the period as extracted from some 700 publications, again with a North American bias, from an annotated bibliography of porphyry copper geology in preparation. During the early period, exploration was "immature" in North America, that is, geologists looked for new districts and sites of the deposits. Outcrops were sought that carried the signatures of former mineralization and regional controls related to structural geology were closely studied. In the later period, North American exploration had "matured" into a study of districts, rather than a search for them. As the studies of these ores intensified during the younger period concommitant with increasing demands for the metal, they did so with a broadened understanding of some habits of occurrence, of hydrothermal alteration, mineral zoning, petrology, and geochemical and geophysical signatures. Outside of North America, search remained "immature" but closely related to the

Jan 1, 1997

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 154 ACZ 149 AmerCable,Inc 144 Andalex Resources, Inc 118 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 101 Canyon Fuel Company 145 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 95 Continental Conveyor 148 Cove Shoes 136-137 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 121 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 134 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 115 Dakota Coal Company DriltechInc 135 Empire Machinery Company 94 Energy West Mining Company 122 Fluor Daniel 100 GH Hensley Industries 126. 127 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 123 Holme, Roberts & Owen 98 Honnen Equipment Company 150 Ingersoll-Rand Company 141 Jennmar Corporation 142 Joy Mining Machinery - A Harnischfeger Industries Company 104 K & P Sales Engineers, Inc 114 Kennecott Energy Company 155 Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation 96 LeTourneau,Inc 160 Long-Airdox Company 112 Magnum Metals, Inc 133 McLanahan Corporation 129 Mine Technik America 124 Mineral Tech 151 Morrison Knudsen Corporation 97 The North American Coal Corporation 130 Northwestern Resources Company 125 P&H MinePro Services 157 Peabody Western Coal Co 131 Phillips Machine Service, Inc Pincock Allen & Holt 120 Powder River Coal Company 107 Pyro-Chem 156 RamseyTechnology, Inc 119 Rust Tractor Company 90 Salt River Project 91 Savage Industries Inc 89 Schroeder Industries 147 Sheraton Steamboat Resort and Conference Center 111 Skelly & Loy 138 Snowmass Village at Aspen 146 Stamler Corporation (An Oldenburg Group Company) 117 Tamarron Hilton Resort 140 TerraMatrix Inc 139 TIC (The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc.) 99 Trapper Mining Inc 106 Wagner Equipment Company 116 Weir International Mining Consultants 113 Westech 152 Wheeler Machinery Company 128]

Jan 1, 1997

The sixth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1997 Institute convention at Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Gary Cook, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1997 the largest number of teams participated in the program. There were nine: BHP Minerals - La Plata Mine, BHP Minerals - Navajo Coal Co., BHP Minerals - San Juan Coal Co., Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., General Chemical Co., The Sabine Mining Co., Solvay Minerals and Western Energy Co. Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the 80 participants were Jack Knight of Milton, Florida; Wilson Begay, Chris Saxon, and Gaylon Yazzie all of Western States Security; Mary Bailey, Bailey Associates; Tom Bass, California Department of Corrections; and Art Saenz, BDC. Seven members made up each team plus one or more trainers and represented the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Ten different scenarios were presented during the two day evaluation. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. Mine Rescue families and friends participated as victims providing realistic scenarios to simulate the stress of an actual rescue incident. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving at the various scenes in and around the Sheraton resort. [ ] These teams are providers of prompt rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1997 program are: Argo Industrial, Antelope Construction, Fisher Safety Supply, Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc; Intermountain Electronics, Inc.; King Energy Services, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, LS.; TerraMatrix and Triune Inc. On Saturday evening, June 28, a reception was held for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for this social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue participants and registered families attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q. This was followed by an adult western melodrama. [ ] Glass awards with the RMCMI logo and a Mine Rescue figure were presented at the Tuesday Mine Rescue buffet breakfast to all nine teams, each of which had achieved proficiency at level 3. Captains of the teams pictured below are (from left standing): Ron Neff, BHP-San Juan; Ted Laughline, Bridger, Terry Davis, Coteau; Jim Knutson, General Chemical (from left kneeling): Dan Allerdings, Rosebud; Ron Miller, BHP-Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP-La Plata and Ray Blaisdell, Solvay. Gary Cook is to be commended for his solo last minute supervision of the Mine Rescue program, due to Becki Beam's unavoidable absence. The teams look forward to the 1998 convention at Snowmass Village Resort, Colorado Thursday and Friday, June 25 and 26.

Jan 1, 1997

By James A. Finch

The Gaudin lecture is devoted to fundamentals. Given my involvement with column flotation over the last 20 years, this is my topic. I have tried to identify spinoff basic research and provide a personal list of favorites. Two are selected for discussion here. They are single bubble rise and bubble surface area flux. The rationale for such work, as well as some of the findings, are reviewed. Support for fundamental work seems as volatile as the economy (and the link is probably not coincidental). I hope some utility to the minerals industry is evident in the text. Column flotation in its current form originated in the early 1960s. The method was invented by Boutin, patented by Boutin and Tremblay and pursued doggedly by Wheeler. Their aim was to overcome the problem of mechanical entrainment of fine particles in the water carried by the bubbles, which they were convinced contributed to lowering flotation concentrate grades (Wheeler, 1988; Finch and Dobby, 1990). The solution was a combination of columnar geometry, the addition of wash water into a deep froth and the maintenance of an excess of water to the tailings, as compared to the feed (a so-called positive bias). Success at Les Mines Gaspe, Quebec, on cleaning Mo in the early 1980s signaled the start of industrial acceptance, making the column one of the flotation machines of choice today. Over the next 20 years, column applications mushroomed to cover virtually all mineral commodities, as well as nonmineral applications such as soil decontamination, deoiling of water and deinking of recycled paper. In the wake, research groups are continuing to probe the fundamentals, conferences and workshops have been transferring the technology and specialist companies have emerged to service the demand. Innovations were triggered as problems arose (for instance, in gas injection systems) and novel flotation cells, much in vogue in the 1990s, had the door opened. Mechanical cell manufacturers have not been idle - there is nothing like competition to provoke a fresh look at an established business. Flotation-cell technology has probably not seen so much activity since the patent rush in the early days of flotation, which occurred around the turn of the century. For an industry often considered reluctant to risk innovation, this is not a bad record. A good idea will find a place, but patience (not always an innovators strong suit) and careful preparation are required. Two books (Finch and Dobby, 1990; Rubenstein, 1996), three symposia (Sastry, 1988; Agar and Huls, 1991; Gomez and Finch, 1996), and a series of reviews (Dobby and Finch, 1991; Finch and Dobby, 1991; Finch, 1995; Finch et al., 1995) document the period. Like many good ideas, column flotation has been overexposed, and there have been disappointments. In a recent example, columns performing scavenging duty were replaced by mechanical cells (Chong et al., 1998). The further applications stray from the original - to

Jan 1, 1999

By Donald W. Gentry

Introduction The mining industry is perhaps best characterized by the numerous and abnormally high risks associated with the business of mining and by its most basic assets - ore deposits, people and technology. At the most fundamental level, it is the quality and effective utilization of these basic assets that determine a mining company's ability to compete efficiently in the international market place. The gold industry has received much attention in recent years and especially in recent months, for good reason. This commodity serves as an excellent platform for the subsequent discussion of these three basic assets and their role in mining's future. Facets of the gold industry The fate of this noble metal in recent times illustrates some of the various risks associated with the mining industry and the importance of high-quality assets, whether they be ore deposits, people or technologies. The following comments pertaining to the gold industry help place proper focus on subsequent discussions. All monetary amounts given are in US dollars. Throughout 1997, falling gold prices broke record after record: first hitting three-year lows, then a 12-year low in July and finally an 18-year low at year's end. From Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 1997, the price of gold fell by more than $2.57/g ($80/oz), or some 22%. The decline in gold-mining profitability and stock prices was even more dramatic. At the beginning of 1997, the 20 largest gold producers in North America had a market capitalization of approximately $44.5 billion. At year's end, this market cap had fallen to $26.2 billion, a reduction of 41%. The total market cap of all the world's gold companies fell from $71 billion to $46 billion, a 35% drop (Serwer, 1998). Analyses suggest that, at a spot gold price of $9.65/g ($300/oz), only one, or possibly two, North American gold-producing companies can make money when break-even or "total costs of production" are considered. While strong hedge positions mitigate this situation in the short term, clearly, this is an industry in desperate straits. For example, write-downs for North American producers in 1997 were approximately $2.5 billion. Speculative short positions in 1997 were near historical record highs and generally exceeded long positions by factors of 9:1 or 10:1. Much of this is driven by some US commercial banks, hedge fund managers and commodity speculators who can significantly move gold prices sharply over short periods of time by selling gold they do not own in the expectation they can buy it back at a lower price before they have to deliver. These signifcant short positions are likely to continue as long as central banks are willing to sell or loan gold to financial institutions that in turn make the gold available to speculators who hope to capitalize on price fluctuations. The Far East accounts for approximately 26% of the annual demand for gold. Including India, the region accounts for 43% of total demand. More than 85% of the physical demand for gold is for investment jewelry in Asia and the Middle East. This demand is extraordinarily price sensitive. The fairly recent turmoil in Asian markets and economies, combined with currency devaluations throughout the region, have made gold more expensive (30% to 50% in local currencies) for those peoples most likely to treat gold as a safe investment haven. Higher interest rates also have reduced the amount of money they have to spend on consumer goods such as jewelry. All of these recent Asian events are deflationary in nature. Deflation, if coincident with rising unemployment, could result in significant dishoarding of gold. There is one key fact to remember when analyzing

Jan 1, 1999

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 138 AmerCable 130 Andalex Resources, Inc 82 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 83 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 86 Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co 87 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 12 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 88 Dakota Coal Company 89 Empire Machinery Company 90 Energy West Mining Company 91 GH Hensley Industries 92, 93 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 96 Ingersoll-Rand Company 131]

Jan 1, 1998

[Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Randy Acre Joy Mining Machinery 2569 Silver Oak Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum P1-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84528-1420 Kent Adamson Solvay Minerals POB 1167 Green River, WY 82935]

Jan 1, 1999

By Patrick M. James

Many in mining believe that the industry is slipping behind in public image, in public mineral education and, particularly, in mining's basic right to do business. It is critical to turn things around - to change the rules of the game soon - before mining loses any chance of recovery. In the industry's experience, there is a technique of project development and operation that can help gain ground on public opinion. Only recently has this technique had a name, and that is sustainable development. What is sustainable development? Sustainable development is broadly accepted and supported by the international business community. And significant thought and work has been devoted to the subject. Research into the topic was initially confusing because the definitions of sustainable development are written in terms the writer, and his or her constituency understands. To some, it refers to environmental protection. To others, it is about social responsibility. And to the developer, it is about economic benefit. Slowly a theme emerged from the research that seemed to be part of all the definitions. That theme has three parts. First, the development, whatever or wherever it is, must contribute economic value to the developer and the stakeholders of the development. Stakeholders in this context include employees, neighbors, residents of the surrounding area, citizens of the country, suppliers and all others affected by the development. Next, sustainable development must contribute environmental value. This means that at a very minimum it must be neutral and not cause irreparable damage. And last, and what is new for miners and most other businessmen, it must contribute real social value to the stakeholders. How to use the concept? With that three-part theme as a working definition, the mining industry must find ways to use that “the challenge is for an individual company to translate what sustainable development means for them. There is no one model..." Donald W. Gentry is president and chief executive officer of Polymet Mining and former professor emeritus of mining engineering at Colorado School of Mines. He added: "While simple to state, the concept is anything but simple to implement. Present trends indicate ... one wins the sustainable development argument by staking out the high ground early..." In other words, start using sustainable development principles at the beginning of the project. New ways of doing business The mining industry's challenge is to implement sus¬tainable development universally around the world. Paternalism as a way of doing business is dead and a new model of doing business is emerging. All types of businesses are learning to deal with the stakeholders of new developments. Mining cannot be an exception to these trends. To understand how the international mining business came to sustainable development, it is useful to look back a few years. For many North American mining engineers, there were few opportunities for foreign assignments from the 1960s to the 1980s. American companies had been asked to leave many of the Latin American countries. Africa was going through a continent-wide upheaval. The Soviet Union and China had Eastern Eu-

Jan 1, 2000

The eighth annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1999 Institute convention at the Crested Butte Marriott Resort, Colorado. [ ] Elliott Tsosie, Mary Rowell, Janna Aune, Guy Horton, Art Saenz and Bill Balaz were pleased with the 1999 Mine Rescue Program, The Mine Rescue committee is but one of 17 volunteer committees; this one co-chaired by Bill Balaz, Elliott Tsosie and Janna Aune. There were three evaluators, Art Saenz, Western Environmental; Mary Rowell, ProCare and Guy Horton, Horton Rope Rescue. Nine teams participated and brought 89 participants, 26 spouses, nine children and five teens. The teams were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, NM; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, WY; The Coteau Properties Co., Beulah, ND; Northwestern Resources, Jewett, TX; Powder River Coal Co., Gillette, WY; Solvay Minerals, Green River, WY and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, MT. To observe were members from Centralia Mining Co., Centralia, WA. [ ] Evaluators: Mary Rowell, Guy Horton &Art Saenz The three professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for the Mine Rescue participants on the grounds of the resort property. Some attending convention were alarmed to see stretchers with "victims" and phoned the hotel switchboard to report the catastrophe. Team members had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios might be and derails were provided only as they arrived at the scenario location, with one exception. Seven to ten or more articipants make up each team. Some teams also ring an alternate and team trainer. For identification purposes, the "victims" wore white shirts emblazoned both front and back with a red VICTIM designation. There was a staged demonstration by three response teams who had not previously worked together. This was enacted on the convention floor following a Technical Session meeting attended by about 200 members. Three response teams from BHP's Navajo and San Juan Mines together with Coteau Properties' Freedom Mine provided a demonstration of their response skills. For never having worked together before, they presented a very professional enactment. This is described at length in the Welcome Session copy. Training sessions were held Saturday and Sunday to enable the teams to prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was Saturday evening for teams to swap hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers etc. Each participant received a royal blue golf shirt and ivory cap with royal blue bill. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning Awards breakfast when teams were presented with jade acrylic plaques. [ ] Teams participating in the Mine Rescue Evaluation received trophies on Tuesday morning. The captains above represent BHP-La Plata, BHP-Navajo, BHP¬San Juan, Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., Powder River Coal Co., Solvay Minerals, and Western Energy Co. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1999 Mine Rescue program were Balaz & Associates, CMC, Civil Constructors, Colstrip Electric, Farmington Fire Equipment & Safety, Fisher Safety, Flanders Ellctric Motor Service, Magnum Metals, Richard Palmtag, Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, Sedona Consulting and Western Water Consultants. [ ] Evaluator Art Saenz likes to have the upper hand and will take whatever steps necessary to get it.

Jan 1, 1999

Jan 1, 1999

[Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Randy L. Acre Joy Mining Machinery 2569 Silver Oak Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum Pl-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84528-1420 Thomas D. Aderman The North American Coal Corp 14785 Preston Rd #1100 Dallas, TX 75240-7891]

Jan 1, 2000

By G. Swan, E. Nordlund, P. Zhang

"SynopsisThe most widely used support design damage criterion for rockburst-prone mines is based upon kinetic energy, which is proportional to the square of the ejection velocity and is commonly expressed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). Field monitoring and back-analyses have shown that ejection velocities of the order of 10 m/s and higher can result from seismic events of moderate magnitude. Such velocities are much higher than those predicted using PPV obtained from scaling laws. It has also been found that the peak ground motion (i.e. PPV) on the surface of an excavation is preferentially amplified (by four- to tenfold) compared to the motion in solid rock at a similar distance from the source. However, the wave propagation and interaction processes involved within the fractured rock in generating high ground motion are very complex and are not well understood at this time.In this paper, velocity amplification was investigated by modelling the dynamic interaction between fractured rock and a free surface using a 2D discontinuum-based numerical program, UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code). A 1D model with a fractured zone was used to represent the fractured rock. Velocity amplification, quantified by PPV, predicted at the free end of the model was 2.0–3.6 times higher than the input velocity. It was found that the wave frequency, fracture stiffness, fracture spacing, and thickness of fractured zone are the main factors that affect the velocity amplification. The results have proved that the interaction of the seismic wave and multiple fractures near the free surface strongly influences the ground motion.IntroductionSince mining-induced seismicity is almost inevitable in deep mines, ground support is generally employed to mitigate the risk of seismically-induced damage. The most widely used support design criterion for seismicallyprone mines is one that seeks to maximize the absorption of the kinetic energy (plus potential energy if a gravity component is considered) of key rock blocks. Based on this criterion, design methods for rock support were first proposed by Wagner (1984) in South Africa and later improved, among others, by Roberts and Brummer (1988) and Kaiser et al. (1996)."

Jan 1, 2015