Search Documents

By F. Freme

Coal production in the United States in 2008 reached a record level of 1.06 Gt (1,171.5 million st), according to preliminary data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (Table 1). This is an increase of 2.2 percent, or 22.5 Mt (24.8 million st) above the 2007 level and 7.9 Mt (8.7 million st) above the prior record level set in 2006. Although coal production was higher in 2008, U.S. total coal consumption decreased in all sectors for the year. Coal consumption in the electric power sector in 2008 was lower by 0.3 percent, while coking coal consumption decreased by 2.8 percent and the other industrial sector declined by 3.7 percent. The commercial and institutional sector, that had been called the ?residential and commercial? sector prior to 2008, declined by 0.6 percent in 2008. It is the smallest of all the coal-consuming sectors. (Note: All percent-age change calculations are done at the short-tons level.) U.S. coal exports were significantly higher in 2008, while coal imports decreased during the year. Total coal stocks increased in 2008, as some consumers added to their stockpiles. The coal synfuel industry, which grew throughout most of this decade, disappeared from the scene due to the expiration of the available federal tax credits at the end of 2007. The decline in coal consumption during the year was the consequence of slowing domestic economic growth, particularly in the latter half of the year, combined with the weather conditions in 2008, resulting in lower demand for electricity. Preliminary data show that total generation in the electric power sector (electric utilities and independent power producers, including useful thermal output) in the U.S. decreased in 2008. Coal-based generation also decreased, resulting in a 3.2-Mt (3.5-mil-lion st) drop in coal consumed in the electric power sec-tor. Coal use in the non-electricity sector decreased by 3.3 percent to a level of 72.6 Mt (80.1 million st). The international coal markets in 2008 were the driv-

Jan 1, 2009

By Z. T. Bieniawski

Geomechanics signifies the science and engineering of soil and rock materials and of rock masses. It is a field of professional practice and research that draws heavily on the elements of soil and rock mechanics. Geomechanics contributes to a number of disciplines: mining engineering, civil engineering, geological engineering, petroleum and natural gas engineering, and engineering geology (including the elements of geohydrology and geophysics). These disciplines are involved in the design and construction of such projects as mines, tunnels, foundations for structures, excavated rock slopes, dams, shafts, boreholes, oil reservoir wells, underground storage facilities for oil and gas, and hazardous waste repositories. Geomechanics allows us to improve both our environment and our quality of life. In the context of this Handbook, the scope of geomechanics is discussed mainly from the point of view of applications to mining engineering. However, the coverage of the subject mate¬rial is so comprehensive that it is relevant to other disciplines as well. Section 10 covers the field of geomechanics in a structured fashion, beginning with the fundamental principles and leading into practical applications in mining engineering. Throughout the treatment of the subject, knowledge of geologic conditions is assumed since this is discussed in other sections of the Handbook. An important feature of this section is a series of practical examples illustrating the various aspects of geomechanics. Since geomechanics is concerned with both soil and rock mechanics, Chapter 10.1 introduces the fundamentals of soil

Jan 1, 2008

Editor?s note: Each year, the June issue of Mining Engineering features an industrial minerals review. Several people put in a fair amount of time in developing the material for this issue, all the while doing their own jobs. Thank you to the industrial minerals annual review editor, to the Industrial Minerals and Aggregates Division technical committee chair and vice-chairs, and to the authors of the individual commodity profiles. Jim Norman, member SME, of Tetra Tech, is the industrial minerals annual review editor. Candace Trimble, member SME, of Oil-Dri Corporation of America, is chair of the Industrial Minerals and Aggregates Division?s Technical Committee.

Jan 1, 2012

By Willard C. Lacy

A mining operation begins with prospecting and exploration-stages with long periods of investment and high risk of failure. However, success in exploration ultimately determines survival of the mining industry. Prospecting and exploration may discover evidence of a mineral occurrence and outline its size and character, but ore deposits that support mining are "made" through the collective efforts of project geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, metallurgists, engineers, chemists, lawyers, and even politicians (Joralemon, 1975). Some deposits may go through multiple cycles of rejection and recommendation, discovery and development, decline and abandonment, rediscovery and development, etc., as economic, technological, or political conditions change or geologic understanding is improved. Peters (1987, p. 233) graphically illustrates the normal life cycle of a mine and the position of exploration in the cycle (Fig. 4.0.1). During the past fifty years, mineral exploration has evolved from comparing evidence of mineralization of prospects with that of known deposits to a more quantitative science employing many facets of geochemistry, geophysics, multispectral sensing from space, computer data storage, analysis, modeling, and most importantly, a better understanding of ore genesis. This modem approach to exploration began in the late 1940s and continues to develop. Exploration efforts peaked in the 1960s with emphasis upon the search for porphyry copper deposits, Mississippi Valley lead-zinc deposits, and volcanogenic massive sulfide copper-lead-zinc deposits. It peaked again in the middle and late 1980s with emphasis upon micron-size disseminated gold and epithermal and stratiform precious metal deposits.

Jan 1, 2008

By James W. Stewart, A. C. Colvine

Introduction Precambrian shield terrains the world over are experiencing an unprecedented level of concerted exploration for lode gold deposits. Reasons for this include: • The increase in the price of gold (following 40 years at $1.13/g or $35 per oz) has transformed targets that were once unattractive into viable exploration propositions. • The relatively suppressed market for other metals produced from shields (base metals, nickel, iron, and uranium) has further focused exploration attention on gold. • The preeminence of gold production from rocks of early Precambrian age, as shown in Fig. 1. • The relatively high grade of gold in these mines (averaging about 10 Wt or 0.29 oz per st) permits profitable extraction even under depressed gold prices. A number of these mines have been in continuous operation for more than 50 years. • The recent discovery of the major Hemlo deposit, in well exposed rocks adjacent to the Trans Canada Highway, has had a world-wide impact. This demonstrates that a major new deposit can be found even in an accessible, well exposed area of a shield; gold mineralization is susceptible to rational exploration; and new target types for gold exploration exist. This paper reviews exploration activity for gold in shield terrains worldwide (Fig. 2), excluding Early Proterozoic paleoplacers of the Witwatersrand type. Emphasis is on the Archean, which is traditionally the most productive part of the Precambrian shields. There is also an emphasis on the Canadian shield (Fig. 3) because of its vast areal extent and exceptionally broad range of mineralization styles. Geological Approach A basic problem exists in gold exploration when compared to exploration for base metal massive sulfides that predominated during the 1960s and 1970s. Gold concentrations cannot usually be detected by airborne geophysical instruments. The majority of massive sulfide deposits were detected using airborne electromagnetic detectors and magnetometers. A full 75% of Canadian gold discoveries can be credited to surface prospecting. The percentage is even higher in other countries. This observation allows for great optimism for two reasons: • Large areas of shield terrain are obscured by either surficial deposits (glacial tills, clays, and desert sands) or deep surface weathering. This makes them inaccessible to prospectors. Logic dictates that such obscured areas should have the same potential for gold concentration as has exposed bedrock. • The Hemlo style of mineralization, a roughly tabular ore body where gold is associated with disseminated sulfides, is different from the traditional prospecting target. The gold is hosted by discrete quartz veins. While it is true that limited discoveries were made at Hemlo more than 30 years ago, and this style of mineralization is present elsewhere, recent

Jan 12, 1984

By Gregg Davidson, Lonnie Jacobs, Brett Zernich, Alan Howard, Robert Pintabona

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SME nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither SME nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any statement or views presented here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of SME. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.

Dec 1, 2014

By William A. Hustrulid

The subject of surface mine development is large. This section covers the fundamental concepts involved in both the open pit mining of thick or steeply dipping deposits as well as the strip mining of thin, shallow, and relatively flat-lying seams or beds. Design involves the marrying of geometries, ore and waste characteristics, equipment, and economics so that the desired result is achieved. Generally, there are many possible combinations from which to choose. For example, extraction over a short time period requires one strategy while quite another is applied for longer times. Variations in supply and demand require some flexibility of operation. Customer requirements impose certain constraints regarding the set of possible designs. Over recent years, planning and operating considerations for surface mining imposed by environmental requirements have increased markedly. There have, at the same time, been enormous advances made in the design aids available to the mine planner. Computer simulation of the various options, whether it be for mine design or equipment selection, provides detailed information for decision making in real time. A significant challenge to the engineer/planner is how to best use the aids avail-able. Because of the widespread use of commercially available and in-house computer software by industry, this section does not deal with the details of planning (for basic coverage of mine development, see Section 7). Rather, some of the basic concepts are stressed. The principles involved in equipment sizing and selection are discussed. A highly important but sometimes over-looked aspect of planning, haul road design, is also covered. For surface mining operations of the future, in-pit crushing and conveying will become even more important. Some of the considerations for application evaluation are included. The section concludes with some future concepts for surface mining.

Jan 1, 2008

By Harry D. Lewis

Gilsonite is a lustrous black material that can be easily crushed into a chocolate-colored powder. It is a solid but relatively soft, lightweight hydrocarbon that visually resembles the volcanic glass obsidian. It was once thought to be a type of coal, but because it is thermoplastic it melts rather than bums. Gilsonite is found in commercial quantities only in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah and western Colorado, where it forms vertical, nearly parallel veins of varying depth, width, and length. Gilsonite from different veins has different properties, most notably variations in softening point and solubility. These differences result in its use in a variety of industrial applications. Gilsonite's earliest commercial uses were in varnishes, buggy paints, and beer vat linings. Eventually it came to be used in more than 160 products ranging from inks to explosives. It is exported from the United States to most industrialized countries throughout the world. Today, due to competition from synthetics and other hydrocarbon products, its use has narrowed to several specific industries. Although sold mostly as a commodity, current research is focused on applications for gilsonite as a value added product. Historical Overview The discovery of gold in California and the dawn of the mining era in Nevada, Colorado, and Utah around 1850 brought a wave of prospectors to the western United States. One of those pioneers, Samuel H. Gilson, is generally credited with a major role in the discovery of gilsonite. The material now known as gilsonite was discovered several times from the late 1860s through the mid-1880s. It was William P. Blake who, after receiving samples of the material, wrote a paper in 1885 describing "a new variety of asphaltum from the Uinta Mountains." He termed the material uintaite. Although Sam Gilson was not the first to discover the mineral, he was an-inventor who used gilsonite in products that he patented. It was his conviction that the substance was of great value, which caused some to refer to it as gilsonite. The term Gilsonite became the registered trademark of the American Gilsonite Co., and it continues to be in use today. When the first company was formed to mine this substance in 1886 it was named the Gilsonite Manufacturing Co. This firm acquired many gilsonite mining claims and marketed a varnish made from the material. It was the unusual properties of gilsonite varnish that attracted the attention of Adolphus Busch of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co. In 1889 Anheuser-Busch bought out Gilson's interests and formed the Gilson Asphaltum Co. Busch had been importing asphalt from Sicily for use in lining beer barrels and saw gilsonite as being more readily available and cheaper. Although gilsonite did not work well in this application, Busch did acquire a large number of mining claims in the Uinta Basin. In 1903 the parent firm of Gilson Asphaltum financed the building of an 85-km railroad from near Grand Junction, CO, to Dragon, UT, to haul gilsonite ore to market. Underground mining was initially centered near Dragon and then later at Bonanza, UT, as different veins were mined. The railway was abandoned in 1937 in favor of truck transportation. In 1938 Gilson Asphaltum changed its name to Barber Asphalt Co., the predecessor of Barber Oil Corp. In 1946 Barber Oil teamed with Standard Oil of California to form a partnership, American Gilsonite Co., which today has its operational headquarters at Bonanza, UT. Barber Oil investigated many new uses for gilsonite, including the making of petroleum derivatives such as gasoline. This work led to the construction of a 116-km pipeline to carry slurried gilsonite to a refinery in Colorado for the production of gasoline, fuel oil, and coke. Pipeline operations began in 1957 but stopped when the economics of competing with petroleum became unfavorable, and the refinery was sold in 1973. In 1981 Standard Oil (later Chevron) became the sole owner of American Gilsonite and remained so until 1991, when it sold its interest to Stratford Enterprises Co. of Tulsa, OK. The companies have since been merged and now operate under the name American Gilsonite Co. with headquarters in Salt Lake City, UT. American Gilsonite continues to be the world's largest miner and supplier of the mineral. The American Asphalt Association was formed in 1902 by former stockholders in Gilson Asphaltum. This company mined various gilsonite claims until it was dissolved in 1953 and its properties were sold to American Gilsonite and Gordon S. Ziegler and Associates. The Utah Gilsonite Co. was established in 1920 and mined several claims until 1952, when its holdings were sold to Gordon Ziegler. Several other gilsonite mining ventures have been pursued in Utah, although they were significantly smaller in scale than those described above. There are currently three companies which mine gilsonite resin in Utah. They are American Gilsonite Co., Ziegler Chemical & Mineral Corp., and Lexco.

Jan 1, 1994

By Shemek Oginski, MARK C. JOHNSON

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SME nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither SME nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any statement or views presented here are those of individual authors and are not necessarily those of the SME. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.

Dec 1, 2015

By Bruce Bryant

Silver ore was discovered at Aspen in 1879, but the district did not reach full production until 1888 after lawsuits were settled and railroads furnished less expensive transportation to the outside world. The boom years were 1888-92; production declined thereafter. From the middle 1920's until 1950, the Midnight mine in the Richmond Hill district furnished most of the output in the Aspen quadrangle. Since 1950, little mining has been done at Aspen. The metals produced were silver, lead and zinc. Native silver dissolved from the sulfide ores was redeposited by waters circulating as deep as 300 m below the land surface, resulting in great secondary enrichment of many of the deposits. Over 100 million ounces of silver were produced in the Aspen quadrangle. Low-grade lead-zinc deposits remain between the old workings locally, and data available suggest that primary ore below levels mined is also of low grade. The ore occurs in the Mississippian Leadville Limestone and the lower part of the Pennsylvanian Belden Formation in sites that were made favorable for deposition by a number of stratigraphic and structural factors.

Jan 1, 1982

By Donald A. Ranta

Every mineral project or mine is based on a geologic entity-an ore (mineral) deposit. A well-defined mineral deposit and its associated geologic characteristics are the only aspects of a project that cannot be altered. Mine plans can be modified to exploit the deposit using alternative approaches and yielding similar results. A variety of processing methods also are often available producing generally comparable results. Major modifications can be made to other aspects of the project without substantially changing project economics. However, all engineering and metallurgical aspects of a mine must be accommodated to the spe¬cific location and geologic characteristics of the deposit. Geologic data and interpretations form the foundation for both mine evaluation and mine production by providing esti¬mates of reserves and essential information for mine planning and process design or control. Proper geologic work requires a keen awareness of and an ability to anticipate the technical requirements of geotechnical engineers, hydrologists, mining engineers, metallurgists, and other specialists. Geologists are inte-

Jan 1, 2008

By Matthew Preedy, Brett Campbell, Jim Rush, Alan Howard, Derek Penrice

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SME nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither SME nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any statement or views presented here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of SME. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.

Dec 1, 2018

By Will Jansen

When Enron rocked the United States with its Titanic-sized financial accounting scandal, miners and metallurgists were probably too busy on the mine sites in remote locations to wonder about its ripple effect. But then Enron sank, Arthur Andersen tanked and the list of scandals, costing billions of dollars, continued to ripple. Followed by the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley), the recent credit crunch and weak economy, the currents from Enron?s collapse eventually washed right into the mine and the mill. These events placed intense scrutiny on metals production accounting processes as traditional semi-qualitative metal accounting practices provided insufficient credibility and transparency. ?There is growing intolerance of organizations that are unsure about the location of thousands of tonnes of ore, which will typically lose 10 to 15% of their notional value on the way to the concentrator,? Rob Morrison wrote in the opening chapter to An Introduction to Metal Accounting and Balancing. ?If the measurement and forecasts also contain qualitative (fudge) factors, a very real suspicion might emerge about just how much metal might disappear (by theft or misplacement) before detection becomes likely.? Metallurgical accounting, put simply, is the tracking and reporting of the quantity and quality (tonnage and grade, usually) of materials entering or leaving each stage from source to product for a specified accounting period. Lacking an accounting standard, metals accounting in precious metal operations has been performed in an ad-hoc, informal manner, leading to numerous errors and unidentified potentially significant inefficiencies and financial losses. As a result, mining companies are beginning to examine the quality of their metals accounting systems since they form the basis of mining company?s financial accounts and reports. As part of an effort to create that accounting standard in the mineral industry, University of Queensland?s Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre published the textbook An Introduction to Metal Accounting and Balancing in 2009. While development of a textbook and standard are significant steps forward, the challenge in the precious metals industry is in the application of some of these suggested practices. Though improving process transparency and precious metals accounting reporting accuracy is a key driver for change from the financial side, perhaps even more important is the potential benefit to operational performance that comes with better measurement, accounting and reconciliation systems. Loss of precious metals, processing of waste and inefficient mining and processing systems are all problems that are faced in an operation on a daily basis that can help be resolved through improvements in metal accounting and reconciliation. The financial consequences of such operational inefficiencies and bad decisions based on poor information are arguably greater than consequences of fraudulent accounting. Large discrepancies between mine and mill measurement systems that measure the quantity and quality of valuable material currently exist. Some of these are expected because of statistical variation, but inherent random measurement variation is sometimes an insufficient explanation. Though the mill can usually make much better production estimates through their measurement systems (that is, less variation), this knowledge rarely benefits the mine. 3 Moreover, even if the mine does a reasonably good job of estimating expected production at the grade control level (in situ), issues such as blast movement, poor mining practice and inefficient ore/waste classification make for a disconnect between the in situ estimates of the mine and the estimates from the concentrator. This inhibits effective evaluation of the reserve and grade control models using concentrator estimates. Linking the two ends, mining and concentration, is a neglected area sorely in need of an overhaul. Hence the need for improved mine to mill reconciliation ? the area of comparing, balancing and adjusting production estimates between mine and mill for consistency in reporting.

Jan 1, 2009

By COLIN A. LAWRENCE, Anthony Del Vescovo

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SME nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither SME nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any statement or views presented here are those of individual authors and are not necessarily those of the SME. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.

Dec 1, 2017

By SME SME

NORTH AMERICAN TUNNELING 2024 PROCEEDINGS

Jun 23, 2024

By Samer Sadek, Brian Hagan

We are thrilled to welcome you to the 2025 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), which will be held in Dallas, TX. This year’s conference will showcase the continued trend of strong industry interest, as there will be a record setting 115 papers being presented over the course of three days. The set of papers compiled in this book captures the latest and greatest information on a broad array of topics within our fascinating tunneling industry. We hope that the compilation of selected papers in this book will provide a comprehensive recap of the conference while also providing a source of future reference for contractors, engineers, and anyone in general who is a student of our beloved and unique industry. Since its inception in 1972, RETC has been the preeminent tunneling forum to promote ideas, tell stories, share lessons learned, and promote new technologies. RETC prides itself on its focus towards highlighting real-world experiences and practical ideas, with the intent to help the entire industry learn from one another and grow. The need for us all to stay sharp and remain on the cutting edge of technology has never been stronger – the technology and ideas that have been applied in aerospace are now attempting to mix with tunneling, and the advancement of AI continues to permeate all industries. However, no amount of technology or AI can fully replace the human element, and in our tunneling industry, the human element is key and is what sets us apart. In tunneling, every project is different, because the ground is always different. We can only take what the ground will give us, and we must rely on our past experiences to get through present day challenges. Most importantly, we must rely on each other. This is the heart of what RETC is all about. For those of you attending this conference, we encourage you to attend as many sessions as possible and engage with your colleagues to discuss during the breaks in between sessions. This sharing of ideas is what keeps us connected and helps to expand our industry. Please also try to engage with the scholarship students and the newcomers who will be in attendance, as it is the new ideas and fresh energy from the next generation that will continue to make our industry thrive into the future. The program chairs thank and greatly appreciate the efforts made by our session chairs, co-chairs, authors, the members of the RETC Executive Committee, and most importantly the SME staff towards making this RETC possible.

Oct 1, 2025

By Bill Mariucci, Gary Almeraris

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SME nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither SME nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any statement or views presented here are those of individual authors and are not necessarily those of the SME. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.

Dec 1, 2009