Search Documents

By Edmund J. Flynn

My subject Is Industrial Relations. Thus, I may appear as an intruder at this annual meeting of the Society of Mining Engineers. But I am no more an intruder here than is Industrial Relations in the day-to-day functioning of an engineer either in a staff or a line job. Engineers deal with people, as well as with blueprints, organizational charts, production data, etc. Where you have people, you have emotions, gripes, wants - real or imagined. Or you may just need some people or, at the other end of the pole, you may want to free yourself of people. But whether it is the wants or the needs, the pleasant or the unpleasant aspects of dealing with people, an Industrial Relations Department within an organization is there to help with these human relationships. This is the point for a definition of terns. Reference has just been made to "dealing with people? and to "human relations." This is, precisely the area in which Industrial Relations operates in the western Mining Divisions of Kennecott. In other organizations, what we refer to as Industrial Relations, may be called personnel relations, personnel administration, employee relations, or labor management relations. In our opinion the term Industrial Relations is best descriptive of the activity because it embraces the broad field of human behavior, reactions and satisfactions growing out of an individual?s entire employment relationship including his hiring, his lifetime on the job, and his termination. This is an individual?s industrial life. However, despite the use of the word "industrial", we are ever conscious that Industrial Relations is limited to human relations. Operational activities and decisions relating to the mining, milling, smelting and refining processes are for the line organization. The Industrial Relations interest in these line organizations activities and decisions relates only to the impact they nay have on employees - on people generally within the organization.

Jan 1, 1959

By Sean Dessureault

The ubiquity of big data, internet of things (IoT), and smart devices is radically changing society; our personal lives are being tracked, digitally motivated through gamification, where information has become an addiction at all income levels, genders, and generations. These forces should not be held at bay in mining; rather, we should embrace and take advantage of this phenomenon to improve safety and productivity. It is time to rethink long-held conventions behind Fleet Management Systems, such as permanently mounted hardware, connecting through cables and Bblack boxes^, equipment centric rather than operator-centric, wireless requirements, minimal to no feedback to the operator, and high costs. We should also reconsider how we are collecting much of our safety, training, and preoperational forms on paper that then, must be entered into computer systems for compliance, and rarely if ever used in analytics, rather than entering the data directly into a digital device. Collecting safety and location data directly digitally also unlocks the information contained in safety forms and audits enabling new data mining and analytical approaches. Managing then gaining value from this new, greatly expanded mountain of largely unstructured data, requires the use of modern tools and approaches, such as gamification and big data, as well as skill sets, not traditionally available in mines. Furthermore, tablets can now provide a better user experience as well as new sensors when compared with traditional fleet management systems (Mining Magazine 2019, 2016, 2015), at a fraction of the cost, employing the extremely esthetic and engaging visuals derived from the video game industry. Real case studies of these applications of both technology and approach, such as gamification, show that these tracking technologies can bring high visibility and large amounts of data to even the smallest operations and the challenge of making use of the data can be facilitated through the application of gamification. As with our personal smart devices, these technologies are poised to deliver huge improvements in operator feedback, tracking, and performance management, at a much lower cost per unit.

By J. P. Ramsey

This is a description of the efforts of a research project intended to demonstrate methods of alleviating pollution from coal mine refuse piles and slurry lagoons. These are mainly derelict barren sites. Some are burning and some are vulnerable to wind erosion which causes air pollution. Some occupy valuable land near metropolitan areas. They are an integral part of the landscape of the Appalachian and Midwestern Coal Fields. They are important in the light of growing civic awareness of the great general problem of waste disposal and environmental improvement. In the V-shaped valleys of the Pocahontas Region, they continue to be piled higher and higher. In flatter topography, they tend to form broad, flat ridges. Some contain more metal forms than others and some have a minimum of metal, but weather to a fine talc, which chokes streams with a fine particle suspension. Most are burning or have burned, but burning or weathering, most all are sources of pollution to the atmosphere and to adjacent waterways. This demonstration project is being carried out at an abandoned mine near the town of Du Quoin in southern Illinois. It is jointly sponsored by the Truax-Traer Division of Consolidation Coal Company and by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior. The site area is a refuse pile and slurry lagoon, each of fifty acres. It is hoped that basic data from this study will be generally applicable to other sites and will provide a basis for rational and efficient engineering design of future reclamation projects. Most refuse piles have extremely long term capabilities to produce highly potent acidogenic oxidation products typifying the more serious aspects of acid mine drainage contamination. Numerous sites remain where the abandoned mine no longer discharges acid waters, but its associated refuse pile continues to generate significant quantities of acid and other oxidation products even after many years.

Jan 1, 1969

By Giorgio Höfer-Öllinger, Peter Pointner, Manfred Stadlober

"SUMMARY Investigations from tunnel face are part of risk mitigation measures during the excavation works. With the tunnel equipment, percussion drillings of up to 30-40m can be achieved. Core drillings are state of art method for investigation exceeding 50m. At Koralm base tunnel, up to 270m deep percussion drillings were performed with drilling rigs and accompanied by an intensive investigation program. These investigations consisted of monitoring during the drilling, field tests (with packer, using the preventer, borehole imaging) and in laboratory. Percussion drillings are cheaper and save time of interruption of the excavation progress. INTRODUCTION As part of a proper risk management, horizontal advance drillings during excavation of underground works can be seen as state of art and meet wide acceptance. Core drillings, deep and shallow percussion drillings can be differed. The selection of the type of drilling, meanwhile, causes intensive discussions. On the one hand, only a core drilling allows a direct investigation of the rock mass expected during later excavation works. On the other hand core drillings are expensive in both cost and time – if there is no excavation progress during the investigation measures – in construction time. Percussion drillings can be performed as rapid investigation measure with the excavation equipment (“Jumbo”) allowing two dimensional image of the ground around the cross section. There is some limitation concerning a reasonable depth of approximately 30m and a borehole diameter of 76mm. The applications of preventer, packer or borehole imaging are hardly applicable. By use of a drilling rig depths of percussion drillings of several hundred meters can be achieved relative easily and there is less limitation of the borehole diameter. Installation of a preventer is possible, as well as packer tests and borehole measurements (imaging, gyroscope, borehole geophysics). The gap of information between core and percussion drilling cannot be closed completely, but it can be reduced substantially and sufficiently by combination of an intensive program of measurements and analysis accompanying the investigation works."

Jan 1, 2016

By L. Patts, J. Hummer

The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines has increased substantially during the last ten years in an effort to enhance mine safety and productivity. Pennsylvania and West Virginia are two of a number of states with regulations governing the use of such equipment. These states both developed and promulgated regulations before permitting diesel equipment in their underground coal mines because of concern for miners’ safety and health, especially with regard to the contamination of mine ventilation air with diesel exhaust emissions. The major components of diesel exhaust emissions are combustion gases and diesel particulate matter. The gaseous emissions consist of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides and unburned hydrocarbons. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) is comprised of solid carbon particles, liquid and solid hydrocarbons, sulfates and moisture. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) also promulgated regulations in an effort to control diesel emissions in underground coal mines. MSHA has adopted threshold limit values (TLVs) for all gaseous components of diesel exhaust, which were established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). MSHA (30 CFR Part 72 Subpart D) has established a tailpipe DPM emissions limit of 2.5 g/hr for diesel engines used in permissible equipment, heavy-duty non-permissible equipment, generators and compressors used in underground coal mines. A tailpipe DPM limit of 5.0 g/hr has been established for light-duty outby diesel-powered equipment. The rationale for the tailpipe emissions limit was that an ambient measurement of DPM in a coal mine was not feasible because there is no established sampling method able to distinguish between coal mine dust and DPM. The stringent tailpipe emissions limit mandates the use of exhaust aftertreatment devices for most diesel engines used in underground coal mines today. One method by which tailpipe DPM can be reduced to MSHA limits involves using an exhaust cooling device in conjunction with a high-temperature, disposable diesel particulate filter.

Jan 1, 2011

By T. Matthews

"One critical factor in mineral reserves reporting, as well as mine-reserves reconciliation, is the impact of dilution and ore loss in the mining process. This paper considers the implications of various factors on dilution and ore loss projections, by orebody geometry, mining method, and ore control systems. We also discuss the implications of resource estimation methodology on dilution for reserves. DEFINITIONS Dilution and ore loss are two critical concepts in mining, which address the differences encountered between modeled grade and tonnages and actual production. Dilution is volume increase and grade reduction caused by multiple factors, chief among which are mining of waste material along ore-waste contacts, mining of internal waste as ore, and misclassification of waste as ore in the ore control process. There are also geostatistical and estimation aspects sometimes lumped with dilution, including the volume-variance effect (the tendency for small volumes of material to include a less regular distribution of grade than large volumes of material). Ore loss is described as reductions of ore volumes in the mining process due to misclassification of ore as waste in the ore control process, exclusion of discontinuous mineralization from mining due to geometry or continuity, and mechanical losses in the mining process. Dilution is typically taken as an increase in tonnes of ore with no change in contained metal (and thus results in a reduction in grade.) (Some workers consider the likely grade of the diluting material as well, particularly in deposits with gradational grade boundaries—this will be addressed later in the text.) Ore loss is typically taken as a reduction in tonnes at average grade of the ore, and thus results in a reduction in both tonnes and contained metal. If model (resource) tonnes are Mt, grade is Mg, and contained metal is Mm, the resource with ore loss (L) and dilution (D) included (Rt, Rg, and Rm) will be:"

Jan 1, 2015

By Rebecca A. Miller, Terry M. Hertel

In-pit identification of neutral waste rock at the Zortman and Landusky minesites in Montana, by visual and chemical analy­ses, will assist in proper segregation and placement of rock so that soil and water resources can be protected. The use of too few or very general segregation criteria to identify neutral waste rock can result in ineffective waste rock segregation. Conversely, the use of overly restrictive criteria can result in the unnecessary loss of valuable reclamation material that would otherwise have to be mined elsewhere and hauled to the site. Recognition of nonre­active materials can be accomplished on a site specific basis with the use of visual observation and simple chemical analyses. The choice of chemical parameters used to analyze rock samples is constrained by the length of time needed to conduct the test. These analyses must require no more than 24 hours to complete so mining can proceed without delay. Limits set for the chosen parameters must be reasonable and defensible. To achieve these objectives over one thousand samples were collected at the Zortman and Landusky minesites and clas­sified by rock type, total sulfur content, paste pH, and net neu­tralizing potential (NNP). In addition, over 22 humidity cell kinetic tests were conducted to help corroborate static results for waste rock. Another 8 humidity cells were configured in series to test waste rock blending and waste rock/limestone capping alternatives as mitigation for acid rock drainage. Leachates were analyzed for pH, conductivity, alkalinity, acidity, sulfate, Al, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, Mg, and Cr in some cases. Petrographic analysis, as well as total sulfur content, paste pH, and static and kinetic test results identified three geochem­ically different waste rock groups: 1) Archean amphibolite gneiss and Paleozoic carbonates and shales, 2) Tertiary syenite porphyry, and 3) other less abundant Tertiary igneous and Archean metamorphic rocks.

Jan 1, 1996

By David Wright, Colin Burns

Successful leaching of gold depends on appropriate chemical conditions; contact between leach solution and the gold particles; separation of the leach solution from the solids and extraction of the valuable ion from the solution. Irrespective of the leaching method employed the chemical conditions required are similar as is the dependence of solu­tion/gold contact on liberation. The various leaching methods available vary in the means by which gold/solution contact and solid/liquid separation are achieved. The essential difference between heap or vat leaching techniques and those involving agitation of a slurry is dependence on percolation for effective gold/solution contact. The most significant factor preventing uniform percolation is the presence of fines or clays. The quantity and character of the fines fraction is ore type dependent and may result from crushing, degradation during stacking or leaching, or the natural size distribution of the ore. The problems associated with fines can be aggravated during stacking and preparation of the heap. Segregation during stacking can result in concentration of fine particles at the centre of heaps. Further concentration of fines may also occur during irrigation by the movement of the fine particles with the solution. The end result is that the areas in which fines are concentrated become areas of low permeability. The contact between leach solution and the ore in such areas is, at best, slowed down dramatically and, in some cases, prevented altogether. The consequences of this phenomena are slow leaching and a reduction in recovery. The conventional solution to this problem is well known. Agglomeration of ore prior to heap leaching is practised widely. The effect of agglomeration is to immobilise the fines by causing them to adhere either to each other or to larger ore particles. The net effect is that the ore behaves as if no fines were present. The use of agglomeration is limited only by its cost, the most significant components of which are the cost of binding agent, commonly cement, and the capital cost of the agglomerating equipment.

Jan 1, 1995

By Donald C. Rotherham

The Endako, British Columbia, deposit was initially discovered in 1927 by two local men, Charles H. Foote and Alf Lagdon, who were at that time on a hunting expedition. Four mineral claims were located to cover an area of quartz-molybdenite float that was centered on two small ridges. They subsequently uncovered a 0.5-m (1.6-ft) wide vein on which an inclined shaft was sunk to a depth of 8.3 m (27.2 ft) in 1934. Additionally, a short adit was driven to intersect another vein. Numerous trenches and small pits were also dug. Small test shipments of vein material from this early work were sent to G.S. Eldridge and Co. in Vancouver for metallurgical testing. A concentrate assaying 89.2% MoS, was produced with a recovery reported as 93.3%. The concentrate was essentially free of copper, arsenic, and phosphate. The property was examined by many geologists and engineers during 1934 to 1952, but the only work done was undertaken by the owners in order to maintain their claims in good standing. In 1952, Kennco Explorations (Canada) Ltd. carried out a limited program of bulldozer trenching, sampling, and geological mapping before relin- quishing their option. In 1956, American Standard Mines Ltd. acquired an option on the property, but no assessment work was apparently recorded and the property was allowed to lapse. The key claims were restaked in 1959 by C. Riley and H.T. James of Vancouver. The property was optioned from the new owners by Andrew Robertson in July 1961, and a small amount of trenching was conducted. Robertson, on behalf of his own company, R & P Metals Corp., reoptioned the property in January 1962. The initial results of this work were favorable and justified further exploration. The additional finances required to continue the program resulted in the formation of Endako Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) on June 21, 1962. Field work by R & P Metals and the first Endako Mines exploration was directed by Bob Couts.

Jan 1, 1991

By Frank F. Aplan

Introduction Gravity concentration may be defined as that process where particles of mixed sizes, shapes, and specific gravities are separated from each other by the force of gravity or by centrifugal force. The nature of the process is such that size and shape classification are an inherent part of the process in addition to separation on the basis of specific gravity from whence the process got its name. Mother nature has long practiced this form of mineral concentration by concentrating such heavy and relatively indestructible minerals as gold, platinum, cassiterite, ilmenite, zircon, and diamonds in placer or beach sand deposits. Once freed of their host granitic or other rock through natural weathering processes, these minerals are then subjected to stream or wave action producing a natural classification and concentration of the heavy minerals. Gravity concentration dates back to antiquity and was certainly the first ore concentration process used when selective mining and hand sorting would no longer suffice to produce the quality of concentrate desired. Forerunners of the present day sluice box and panning techniques were undoubtedly used by the ancient Egyptians on the upper Nile to separate gold from stream gravel. By the second century BC the extraction of gold from veins in quartz was well detailed by Agatharchides, but there is evidence that gold was brought into Egypt from the south as early as the XI1 Dynasty (~1900 BC).1 Most assuredly gravity concentration devices were used during the later Bronze Age to separate the heavier tin and copper minerals from their lighter gangue minerals. The Athenians used an elementary form of Rowing film concentration at their lead-silver mines at Laurium,2 and elementary jigging using wicker baskets was also probably developed at this time. Agricola's famous treatise De Re Metallica3 demonstrates that by the 16th century gravity concentration technology was well advanced and a large number of devices had been developed. Chinese

Jan 1, 1985

By Mark J. Zdunczyk

Short Mountain Silica mines the Clinch Formation, an orthoquartzite, for silica sand. The operation is located near Mooresburg, TN, about 80 km (50 miles) northeast of Knoxville. Short Mountain is a local geographic name given to an area of resistant sandstone (Fig. 1). The area is part of the Clinch Mountain system that extends from eastern Tennessee to southwestern Virginia. The thick sandstone unit is more technically called a quartz arenite (orthoquartzite) that forms most of the mountain. In 1980, a Knoxville resident brought the Clinch Formation - Short Mountain in particular - to the attention of the large silica-sand producers as a potential silica-sand mine. Working with a local contractor who owned several hundred acres on Short Mountain, the Knoxville resident contacted interested companies. Many silica companies reviewed the property including Ottawa Silica Co., Pennsylvania Glass Sand Co. (both now US Silica Co.),Unimin Corp.,The Morie Co. and others. AFG Industries was the main market for the glass sand product from this potential mine. It had two plants, both within trucking distance from the site. All the silica sand producing companies, however, declined to develop the site. A few years later, Unimin Corp. decided to drill and evaluate the deposit. From that evaluation, Unimin leased the property but later dropped it. The relatively limited market for the Short Mountain product as well as Unimin’s recent acquisition of Carolina Silica were reportedly instrumental in the company’s decision to let go of the lease. Several other companies-unrelated to the silica sand industry - looked at the site but no one was interested in developing it. In 1986, J.D. Nicewonder, owner of coal mines in Virginia and Kentucky, was approached to investigate the site. Nicewonder began to develop the site with the intent to produce glass sand to supply AFG Industries. In May 1988, the first shipment of sand was trucked to AFG Industries.

Jan 1, 1992

By Betty L. Gibbs

A short course, held during the SME Annual Meeting in Phoenix, AZ in February, focused on software for surface and underground mine modeling. The objectives of the short course were to review techniques for surface and underground mine planning. Mine planning software vendors were invited to demonstrate how their software runs, given a standard data set. Six vendors of mining-specific software participated in the workshop. They were Exploration Computer Services (MINEX 3D), GEMCOM Services, Inc. (PC-MINE), KJRA Systems (VULCAN), Mine Development Associates (SURPAC), Micromine and MINEsoft (TECHBASE). Data set A data set was created to challenge the capabilities of each vendor's software. The criteria used for the data set selection were: • a minimum of 300 drill holes; • the data must include topography, drill hole survey, assay and formation contacts; • the deposit was multimetallic; and • there was the potential to be mined by surface and underground methods. The data set used was an actual, complex copper ore body with a small amount of gold. The ore body was close enough to the surface to be mined by surface techniques. Part of it, though, was also amenable to underground mining. To further complicate the problem, a river ran across the area of the ore body. This presented mine planners with the problem of either moving the river or mining around or below it. The ore body had not been mined, so no data was available for the tons and grade actually produced. Data for the mine planning problem was distributed to each vendor about two months before the short course. They had the opportunity to load the data into their systems, build an ore body model and perform preliminary work. During the first day of the workshop, the vendors received problems concerning the ore body. They went to work on their machines, attempting to show short course participants how their software could help solve the problem.

Jan 1, 1992

By Joseph F. Shirley

Introduction Inorganic depressants are chemicals added to the froth flotation process to maintain or produce hydrophylic surfaces on one or more minerals so they will remain in the pulp rather than attach to the air bubbles. Whether a depressant will be effective in depressing a given mineral depends on how it is used and the environment in which it is used. Some depressants must be added and conditioned into the pulp before the collector is added. Other depressants can be added in the presence of previously added collectors and effectively depress the desired minerals. Often the concentration of depressant relative to the collector concentration is critical to making an economic separation. It should be noted that some depressants will only work when specific collectors have been used. Some reagents such as sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide essentially act as depressants by altering the previously added collectors so that they are no longer effective. Some depressants such as sodium ferrocyanide are only effective in a very limited pH range and an essentially collector free environment. Major Depressants CaO Milk of Lime is by far the most used depressant both in tonnage and dollar value. Although it is most commonly listed as a pH modifier, it is also an important depressant for pyrite in copper and copper molybdenite flotation plants. Although a simple pH adjustment will often depress pyrite, there are times when grinding with fresh milk of lime is required to obtain optimum depression. Lime is also a molybdenite and gold depressant. NaSH Sodium hydrosulfide is by far the most commonly used reagent to depress copper and iron sulfide minerals in by-product molybdenite flotation plants. NaSH also depresses gold, silver sulfides and silver chloride. ZnSO4 Zinc sulfate is commonly used to depress sphalerite in lead-zinc and copper-lead- zinc flotation plants. It has also been used to effectively depress talc in by-product molybdenite circuits at a pH of 6.5.

Jan 1, 1986

By Dan Plazak

Discussion by Dan Plazak The authors are to be congratulated for presenting a simple and practical tool for quick estimates of ground water flow rates. At the risk of detracting from the simplicity of the method, I would like to suggest a slight refinement to the equation as presented. As the authors noted, the Jacob-Lohman equation (1952) assumes confined-aquifer conditions. To use confined-aquifer equations in water-table aquifers, Jacob (1963) presented a correction to convert water-table aquifer drawdowns [Ahw] to equivalent confined aquifer drawdowns [Ah,: 2] [Ah Ah = Ah - w(1) Cw 2H where: Ah, = Drawdown in confined aquifer: Ahw = Drawdown in water-table aquifer and H = Original saturated thickness of aquifer] Substituting the above in equation ( I) of Hanna. Azrag and Atkinson [4nT Ah - 2H ) Qj2.25 T t(2) 1 nr2 S W] Since the above expression predicts lower pump rates, it causes the Jacob-Lohman equation to agree more closely with appropriate analytical and numerical models. Figure 1, adapted from Fig. 5 of Hanna. Azrag and Atkinson, illustrates the closer agreement of the modified equation to their numerical model, as reflected in Qm/QJL ratios closer to unity. The agreement improves particularly as drawdown [Ah] becomes large in relation to aquifer thickness H. An additional advantage of the modified equation is that Hanna, Azrag and Atkinson's correction factor C is much more stable as pit depth increases. Assuming, as did Hanna, Azrag and Atkinson, that their numerical model is an accurate predictor, it is clear that the modification incorporated in equation (2) improves the accuracy of preliminary estimates of ground water flow to a pit.[ ] References Jacob, C.E and Lohman. S. W.. 1952, "Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer." Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Vol, 33, No. 4. pp. 559-569. Jacob. C. E.. 1963, `Determining the permeability of water-table aquifers,' USGS Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, pp. 245-271

Jan 1, 1995

By C. Tsamantaki

Water-bentonite suspensions exhibit a yield stress which is defined as the minimum applied stress for flow. Considerable debate exists about the yield stress being a material property, hence different measuring methods should give similar answers, but several investigators have demonstrated that it is an engineering reality. Yield stress is normally estimated indirectly from the rheogram obtained with a viscometer following an extrapolation to zero shear rate (the dynamic yield stress), but the technique may be prone to errors because of slip flow. Direct measurements, not prone to such errors, rely on an independent assessment of the yield stress, normally carried out with the vane method (the static yield stress). In this paper results are presented and compared regarding the yield stress of 14 different water-bentonite suspensions measured using both the direct and the indirect methods. In order to obtain a wide range of yield stress values, two different types and two concentrations of bentonite at various pH were tested. Rheological data were obtained using a rotational speed viscometer and a yield stress vane measuring device. Measured vane yield stress values ranged from 5 Pa to 83 Pa. Rheological data collected with the rotating viscometer were fitted using various conventional techniques (interpolation, linear and non-linear regression analysis) as well as using a golden section yield stress search methodology based on Herschel-Bulkley model, developed in house. The vane instrument measures directly the yield stress of the suspensions and requires no further data handling. A comparison of the measured values of the yield stress with the direct and the indirect method is then made for the water-bentonite samples. Not very large differences are observed among different techniques and the variations are discussed. Similar data from literature are also analyzed and the comparison shows that differences on the various estimation methods are much larger than the differences observed in this study.

Jan 1, 2006

By Tom H. W. Loomis

The department of the Interior is a federation or holding company of several fiercely independent bureaus which have either jurisdiction or expertise - or both - in a wide range of environmental fields. Each bureau is an advocate for its own concerns and an enforcer of its own mandates. This can be confusing to the company operating in the field. I will try to explain our concerns, help you see where we are "coming from," and give you some insight as to how we can help you. Other speakers have stressed the environmental concerns and site selection factors for uranium wastes so I will focus on the concerns of the Department of the Interior and some of the assistance we can give you in this area People are more aware and more concerned about environmental factors now than they used to be. Thus the past decade has brought about an evolution in both siting and design of uranium mill tailings ponds. Site selection criteria used to be simple - find a tract of land as near to the ore supply as possible with enough space and suitable topography for the expected volume of wastes. Site selections in the past have left a legacy of problems to be corrected - radioactive wastes on stream banks and in floodplains, mill wastes in and near established communities, and unprotected wastes subject to constant erosion. This is no longer acceptable environmentally or socially to a newly aware and concerned public. (Series of 30-35 slides showing uranium mine and mill wastes in Western United States. These illustrate environmental problems, reclamation and environmentally acceptable sites. The first group of slides are aerial shots taken in Wyoming and shows a surface mine and mill area. In the various views the pit, overburden piles, mill, and tailings pond can be seen. The next series were taken in Wyoming and New Mexico. These show various views

Jan 1, 1980

Throughout the 1970s, the US Bureau of Mines rode an ebb tide in Washington political circles. In rapid fire succession, the agency lost its mine health and safety enforcement responsibility (1973), a large portion of its energy research responsibility (1975), and then its fuel statistics functions plus a sizable portion of its coal R&D (1977). By 1978, johnny-come-latelies in the Energy, Labor, and Interior Departments had siphoned away from the Bureau some $125 million in program responsibilities as well as 900 of its employees. The bruising decade came to a close with a Department of Natural Resources proposal that, in its original form, would have scattered the Bureau’s responsibilities to the winds. There is no doubt in my wind,” said Lindsay Norman, acting director of the Bureau of Mines (see box), “that were the Bureau to continue down the path it was on, the next step was closing the doors and going out of business.” The doors are still open, but erosion of responsibilities had a devastating effect on the resources available to fulfill the Bureau’s mission. Devastating,too, in terms of internal morale, considering the Bureau had six directors in a 10-year span. “When the troops are in the trenches and are being shot at,” Norman said, “they need a leader—hopefully, a permanent one— that can get them advancing. This is something the Bureau did not consistently have in the 1970s.” In September 1978, Roger Markle climbed aboard as director of the Bureau to rejuvenate the 70-year-old agency. He resigned only six months later* but the program Markle set in motion is being carried through by Lindsay Norman. Since Norman’s appointment as acting director, he has spent considerable time on the road explaining his agency’s redefined goals. At one such stop in Duluth, Norman and his two deputy directors, Charles Kenahan and Mike Kaas, answered the following questions.

Jan 6, 1980

By Robert L. Akright

The Sumich (Victorine) gold mine is located in the Toiyabe Mountain Range on the east side of Victorine Canyon, a north-trending branch off Kingston Canyon in the northwest quarter of Section 27 and southwest quarter of Section 22, T16N, R43E, in the southern end of Lander County, Nevada (Fig. 1). HISTORY Discovered in 1862, the Victorine reached a peak of development between 1872 and 1887. The "Victorine" and "Morning Star" lode mining claims, located on the outcrop of a prominent auriferous quartz vein, were patented in 1869 and 1891, respectively. 1, respectively. Gold ore was mined underground in adits driven, on the level, directly into the side of the mountain. Ore brought to the surface was trammed about 457 m (1500 ft) south on a track constructed along the contour to ore bins. From this transfer point, the ore was moved by aerial tram to the bottom of the canyon then hauled by horse-drawn wagon to the mill located about 3.2 km (2 miles) east down Kingston Canyon. Exact details of the milling process used on the Victorine are lacking, but old reports mention water-driven stamp mills, amalgamation, chlorination, and cyanidation. Gold and silver mill products are reported to have been sent to England for final refining. High-grade gold values of 103 g/t (3 oz per ton) remaining in mine walls and on outcrops, attest to the lack of success in treating the Victorine ore in the early mills. The Victorine mine may have been worked sporadically after 1887 with little success. In 1934, control of the property was acquired by William P. Moloney, an attorney from Marion, OH, who also control- 1 led an interest in the successful Goldacres mine in Lander County, NV. This property was studied, sampled, and metallurgical tests were done in 1934, but no development resulted from this work.

Jan 1, 1990

Compared to alternative ways of dealing with coal fines, oil agglomeration has always been a commercial bridesmaid and never yet a bride. Yet interest is high in the process, as shown by a number of pilot plants in operation that are funded by industry as well as government. In the past in the US, alternative ways to handle coal finer than 100 to 200 mesh included flotation, or no treatment except dewatering, or discarding the fines as waste. There are now a number of factors that tilt the economics more toward fine coal recovery. Today, the cost of mining a ton of underground coal runs from $22-30, and discarding even 10% as unrecovered fine coal is a real economic loss. A number of attempts (notably by EPRI) have been made to quantify the effect of coal cleaning on utility boiler operations. Transportation and ash handling costs, frequency of unscheduled outages, fouling and slagging problems, and boiler tube erosion are all lowered by cleaning coal. The advantage of coal cleaning on these parameters has been shown, but the dollar amount varies with many assumptions and is difficult to pin down. The message to a utility, however, has not been lost and the trend toward cleaner steam coal is accelerating. This may lead to fewer installations that only wash the coarse coal, and add back the unwashed fine coal until a maximum contractual ash limit is reached. And, as the proportion of coal fines continues to increase by continuous and longwall mining, it may become impossible to clean the coal sufficiently without cleaning the fines. Flotation and oil agglomeration are the only processes that presently deal directly with cleaning the very finest coal fractions. Flotation has proven its effectiveness in cleaning blackwater and in separating fine coal from mineral matter. It has the achievable potential for far greater pyrite rejection than is now obtained in commercial preparation plants. While flotation will continue to be the predominant method for fine coal cleaning, there are conditions and opportunities where oil agglomeration can be a

Jan 8, 1980

By Louis C. Just, Grahan A. Mathieson

Low cost, greater operating flexibility, and relatively simple operation are just three of the reasons for using minicomputers in the mining industry. No less than a dozen US manufacturers have sold the new generation of minicomputers to mining operations in the US and the world. Many manufacturers produce several models of minicomputers, each with excellent calculating capabilities. Prices for these "mini-giants" range from about $10,000 for a basic system to over $300,000 for a very powerful, sophisticated system with numerous peripheral devices. While the acceptance of minicomputers by the mining sector has lagged behind their penetration into other businesses, mines with minicomputer capability-especially remote mine sites-have found applications in practically all areas of operations including standard payroll processing, mineral deposit modeling and planning, surveying/mapping, production reporting, and daily production scheduling. In fact, the only limit to the further application of minicomputers in mining is the user's imagination. There are some obstacles to the accelerated use of minicomputers in the mining sector: the limited amount of software available, limited information on site-specific uses, and limited interest in the mining market by manufacturers. The latter is especially significant in light of the fact that many manufacturers queried in a recent telephone survey did not compile statistics on locations of their units in mining. The general consensus is that mining sales represent less than 1% of the total market. Many manufacturers do believe that market dynamics will increase their future research and development for the mining industry. The minicomputer was introduced in 1968, when Digital Equipment Corp. of Maynard, MA, developed a small computing device-the PDP-8 minicomputer. It is important to note that since then, it has become increasingly difficult to precisely define a minicomputer (see box, page 1582). The mini has evolved to surpass the capabilities of many of the large computers (mainframes) of 1968, and some models rival the mainframes of today.

Jan 11, 1981