Search Documents

By Charles L. Kimbell

In broadest overview, UN global industrial production indicators released and shown in table 2 suggest that the extractive sector of the world's mineral industry in aggregate registered a very slight upturn in 1991 relative to its 1990 performance. It also shows a continued rebound in the industry from the recessionary period of the mid-to late-1980's. These same indicators as calculated in late 1991, however, reflected a very minor downturn in extractive mineral industry operations between 1989 and 1990. This latter downturn represented a notable revision from the data reported in the immediate previous edition of this chapter, which suggested a tiny upturn. The apparent slight 1991 upturn in extractive sector industrial output generally was not mirrored in the performance of the processing sectors of the global mineral industry. Although the aggregate index for the chemicals, petroleum, coal, and rubber products manufacturers (see table 3) showed a notable gain in 1991, similar indices for nonmetallic mineral products and for base metals registered declines between 1990 and 1991. Examination of regional performance indices shows that the difficulties experienced in 1990 in maintaining output levels within the countries that formerly constituted the CMEA were reinforced by trends toward reduced gains in output levels, if not actual reductions in output, in several other areas. Generally speaking, the traditional developed market economy countries recorded downswings in overall industrial activity in 1991, particularly after midyear, whereas developing market economy countries logged gains. The developed market economy country downturns, however, were not nearly as significant as were the downturns recorded for the former centrally planned economy states - those that before 1992 were either constituent Republics within the U.S.S.R. or the latter's CMEA partners.

Jan 1, 1993

By H. Douglas Dahl

Thank you, Don Gentry, for your generous introduction. It is not adequate simply to say that I appreciate very much the vote of the Award Committee putting forth my name as the winner of the 1992 Daniel C. Jackling Award. To look at the list of previous Jackling Award winners is a humbling experience. The Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration has been blessed with some exceptional members over the years, and I feel privileged indeed to be included among the Jackling Award winners. During the years of my education at Penn State, my field of specialization was mining engineering, with particular emphasis in my master's and Ph.D. work on rock mechanics. But my career has not been quite so tightly focused as that. I have been involved with coal mining in all its variety - its technical aspects, both theory and practice; and its business side, dealing with management and labor, accountants and lawyers, politicians and environmentalists. And I have also been involved with related fields - construction; exploration; barges, railroads, ships and docks; supply houses; the coke business; you name it. Coming from that practical background, I believe it is most appropriate that I talk with you today about some practical matters. But I will not advise you today how to mine coal or protect roof in a hard-rock mine. You fellows know how to do that. The practical matters that I have in mind relate to policy - national policy. I will acknowledge immediately that national policy is often much less than practical, but bear with me as we explore the subject together. I am reminded of a supervisor I had early in my career. He very strongly advised me, back in 1961, to "get involved in the political process," for without objectivity injected into our national policy making, we will become a second-rate economic power. I have selected as the subject of my remarks today, "Coal and the de facto National Energy Policy." There is an energy policy relating to coal, a de facto one, and it's the one we see as a result of regulation, attitudes and culture from our nation's capital. This de facto policy is the one we in the coal business live with every business day. My thesis is very simple - Coal is, in fact, a vital part of our national energy policy and will remain so, as a practical matter, no matter what politicians may do to us, or not do to us. Coal will prevail - that will be the happy ending to my story in which, of course, we are the good guys in the black hard hats. But first, I must flesh out the plot with some other characters and with some threatening activities. There are five main characters in my story: in order of appearance - Perpetual Politics, Rampant Regulation, Selective Science, Electrification and Confident Coal. The time: the present. Perpetual Politics is always a threat to coal. When you cross the Capital Beltway into Washington, D.C., check your wallet and your gold fillings, because you're not likely to run into any friends. On Feb. 20, 1991, just over one year ago, President Bush presented to Congress his National Energy Strategy. It's a thick document of more than 260 pages, with discussions on securing our future energy supplies, increasing energy effi-

Jan 1, 1993

By A. Rios

ENAMl's Paipote Smelter commenced operations in 1951. At present, it processes 230,000 tonnes/year of green feed in a conventional smelter, which comprises one reverberatory furnace, two Hoboken, one Peirce-Smith converters and one rotary anode furnace. The feed is composed of 83% copper concentrate and 17% metallic copper precipitates, which results in a feed average grade of 32% of copper content. The final products are 75,000 tonnes/year of copper anodes and 48,000 tonnes/year of sulphuric acid. At present, the plant is undergoing a modernization to expand the smelter capacity to 300,000 tonnes/year of green feed and increase the sulphuric acid production to 100,000 tonnes/year. This will be achieved with the installation of an El Teniente Converter and an expansion in the acid plant. The work began in November 1991 and is scheduled to be in operaton by March 1993. The paper provides an overview of the modernization plans and results achieved to-date.

Jan 1, 1993

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

The second annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Performance Evaluation was held in conjunction with the 1993 RMCMI Convention at Beaver Creek. [ ] Six teams participated in this year's evaluation; BHP Minerals, Navajo Mine, Fruitland. NM; BHP Minerals - LaPlata Mine. LaPlata, NM; BHP Minerals - San Juan Mine. Waterflow. NM; The Coteau Properties Company - Freedom Mine, Beulah. ND; Cordero Mining Company, Gillette, WY; and The Falkirk Mining Company - Falkirk Mine. Underwood, ND. The Western Energy Company of Colstrip, MT was represented through observers and evaluators. [ ] Realistic industrial related scenarios, closely simulating the stress of actual rescue incidents, were provided by members of the Eagle Valley Ambulance Service. Five different scenarios were presented to each team on the first day of the evaluation and three on the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the scenario site. The scenarios were going on simultaneously and each team was unaware of the circumstances until they entered the scene. Interested onlookers were afforded the opportunity of viewing the actual simulated rescue operations as they occurred. The teams received valuable pointers and direction from the ream of evaluators following each scenario. They were are also given the opportunity to observe the other teams in action and to meet with the members of all the teams to share information and ideas during team meetings per the predetermined schedule. The primary goal is to recognize current rescue skills, knowledge, and abilities of participating teams. In doing this, each team was provided with individual evaluations and a path for improvement as needed. Each team was recognized for their efforts at an awards breakfast on the final day of the evaluation. New innovations in rescue equipment were introduced and demonstrated for interested teams following the awards program. The importance of progressive training such as what we are witnessing at evaluations during the RMCMI conventions cannot be stressed strongly enough. These teams are the providers of immediate rescue and medical care for victims of accidents at their respective properties. Every mining operation has the potential for very serious accidents due to immense size of equipment and mining logistics. These rescue teams must be prepared to act with the most immediate, professional and knowledgeable actions to save lives and prevent further injuries. Safety is a primary concern of every mining operation and the mine site rescue team is an integral part of that safety effort. The evaluation program is very appreciative for the financial support of the following businesses to enable this program to continue: Safety Master, Acme Welding, North American Coal, Triune. Cummins, OK Tire. Modern Industrial, The Industrial Company, Mine Safety Appliances (MSA), Biomarine, Personal Safety Enterprises, Inc., and Blattner Construction, Thank you again for your much needed assistance. Plan to be a part of next year's Mine Rescue Evaluation Program as a participant or an observer. You will be amazed at the skill levels of the Rescue Teams. See you next year! Linda G. Ash The falkirk Mining Company [ ]

Jan 1, 1993

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

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

[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

[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

The seventh Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1998 Institute convention at the Silvertree Hotel, in Snowmass Village, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Elliott Tsosie, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1998 a record number of 10 teams participated in the program. The teams were from the four western states of Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming and were comprised of about eight members each. Teams participating were BHP-La Plata Mine, BHP-Navajo Mine, BHP-San Juan Mine, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming; General Chemical, Green River, Wyoming; Jacobs Ranch Mine, Gillette, Wyoming; Powder River Coal Company-North Antelope/Rochelle, Gillette, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Hallsville, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River Wyoming, and Western Energy-Colstrip, Montana. The professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for over 90 participants and many observers. The evaluators were: Art Saenz and Tom Bass of Western Environmental Associates, Keith Mitchell and Jim Jennings of Emergency Services Detail; Mary Bailey of Mary Bailey Associates; and John Peleaux of Innovative Access. Teams are not given advance warning of what the problem will entail. They are provided the necessary details when they arrive at the scenario location and work to resolve the problem in an effective and efficient manner. [ ] Seven participants made up each team with an . eighth member as an alternate. Team trainers and other mine personnel traveled with the team from scenario to scenario providing support and encouragement. The teams were presented with four scenarios each day, involving High Angle Rescue, Low Angle Rescue/Medical, Hazmat, and Confined Space. All of the victims, except for one, were provided through the cooperative efforts of the Snowmass Fire Department, who also assisted with providing several evaluators. Snowmass Fire Department is to be commended for providing over 20 victims/evaluators each day to facilitate the evaluations. Training sessions were held Friday afternoon and Saturday evening to help the teams prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was held Friday evening for teams to trade hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers, etc. All mine rescue participants and spouses and registered families attended the Bar-B-Q on Sunday evening followed by an adult dance. [ ] Front row: Ray Blaisdell, Solvay; Gary Rasmussen, General Chemical; Spencer Thompson, Sabine; Jack Ervin, Western Energy. Back Row: Ken Kellywood, BHP Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP LaPlata; Elton Stanton, Jacobs Ranch; Travis Roy, Powder River Coal; Ron Neff, BHP San Juan; Steve Whaley, Bridger. Sponsors who contributed to the 1998 program financially were: Blue Mountain Energy, (Deserado Mine); Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, L.S.; and Western Environmental Associates. Glass trophy cups, with an etching of a Mine Rescue figure and the RMCMI Logo on cherry wood bases, were presented to the 10 team captains at the Monday Mine Rescue Awards Breakfast. Eight of the ten teams had a proficiency level of 3 and 2 teams achieved a proficiency level of 2.

Jan 1, 1998

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