Search Documents

By Paul Clayton

Case Study ? Site: BMA Saragi Coal Mine Queensland Australia ? Model: Marion 8050 ? YOM: Mid 1970s ? Boom: 97M ? Bucket: Original capacity of 100 Tonnes upgraded to 125 tonnes at time of filtration upgrade. ? Apps: Swing, Hoist & Drag Gearboxes ? Oil: Oil Castrol Alpha TT1200 Viscosity of 1208 cSt @ 40° C (104° F) 720ltr Oil Volume Trial and Installation Justifications ? To reduce gearbox overhauls. Typical schedule being 5 years. ? Bucket upgrade from 100 tonnes to 125 tonnes. Increased gearbox demand and stress. ? Increase of overhauls out to 10 years + ? Saving per Dragline estimated to be US$8-10M in downtime and maintenance if successful. ? In compliance with BHPBilliton Global Maintenance FLAC program ? Fuels, Lubricants, Air and Coolants ? Cost Justification ? Downtime: 4 days ? Lost production: $420,000 ? Cost of parts: $162,000 ? Labour and misc: $41,000 Gearbox failure cost $623,000

May 1, 2008

By Glenville A. Collins

IN 1932, Horace Onyett at Oroville, California, built a practical floating washing plant along the general lines as now known, using a 24 in. by 12 ft. trammel; it was fed with a ½ yard dragline bucket, rated then at 200 yards per day. Onyett dubbed his plant a 'Doodlebug' which name has clung to this type of operation ever since. In general, the 'Doodlebug' dredge is the outgrowth of the depression of 1929, wherein many dirt contractors had surplus idle equipment and a few of them ventured to use it for placer mining. Many such plants were impractical and poorly designed and adapted often to locations not suited to the purpose. However out of the general idea came refinements until today dragline dredging has a very definite place in the gold production of the world. Many of the early operators, being mainly contractors without mining experience or technical knowledge of gold saving, geology, or mechanical design, naturally went through stages of trial and error until a workable unit became standard practice. Credit should be given Bodenson Iron Works of San Francisco, who did a notable job of pioneering and building of floating washing plants; also, to Lord and Bishop, contractors of Sacramento, who were among the early operators, and to several others who built and rebuilt their plants until the weak spots were strengthened to take the beating required, and yet deliver a high degree of efficiency.

Jan 1, 1945

By Arthur V. Corry

GOLD was discovered in Alder Gulch, Virginia. City, Mont., on May 26, 1863. In a short time some 6000 people flocked to the new discovery, and on the banks of Alder Gulch six settlements sprang into existence, the principal one, Virginia City, alone surviving. This town today has a population of 800, and is the county seat of Madison County. It is estimated that between forty and fifty million dollars in gold was produced up to 1904. Virginia City is situated at the mouth of Alder Creek where that stream leaves the narrow canyon that cuts the steep foothills flanking Old Baldy Mountain, elevation 9572 ft., 12 mi. south. Virginia City itself is 5700 ft. above sea level.

Jan 1, 1936

By J. E. Lowe

The unique application of a large walking dragline in the mountains of southern West Virginia was developed and implemented by Hobet Mining, Inc. Hobet is an independent operating subsidiary of Ashland Coal and is headquartered at the No. 21 Mine in Boone County, West Virginia, near Danville. Hobet also operates the 07 Mine located in Logan County, West Virginia, near Holden. Both mines are similar in equipment and manpower used; both produce over 2,000,000 tons of clean coal annually. Each site encompasses large, contiguous properties with access to rail service. The larger of the two is the Boone County property; it totals nearly 40,000 acres and has ample reserves. In 1977, Hobet was in the process of constructing a preparation plant (Beth Station) at its 21 Mine site with a capacity for two million tons. One of the first orders of business was to design a mine plan that would provide production for the capacity of the plant. Coal production would come from a more than adequate reserve base using the most economical mining methods available. Hobet looked at different deep and surface mining methods to use in order to develop the property; ultimately, it was determined that the mountaintop removal method with the use of a large dragline was the most economical way to develop reserve. Prior to this time surface mining in mountainous Southern West Virginia was generally done by contour mining and/or augering techniques.

Jan 1, 1993

By J. Hansen

"ABSTRACTThe paper addresses the application of automated monitoring, control, and navigation to improve dragline performance. SummaryImproving dragline performance in the Canadian coal mines is critical to the continued success of the industry. Draglines represent a large capital investment and coal prices are low by historic standards. This paper argues that the introduction of monitoring, control, and navigation on draglines offers an opportunity to significantly reduce a dragline’s operating cost per cubic metre moved. To place the importance of this in perspective, a North Dakota mine calculates that every 1% increase in dragline productivity means a savings to the mine of US$340,000 per year. MonitorsAutomated dragline monitoring is a well established technology with commercial products available since the early 1980s. The three main reasons for placing monitors on draglines are (Walker, 1993):1. productivity increases: reduce variations between different operators’ performance across different shifts;2. quality increases: increase the percentage of ore and waste loads that go to the correct destination; and3. special projects (engineering projects): justify installing static field exciters and regulator upgrades; implement power management; aid operator training; study high performance buckets, rigging changes, and various excavation sequences.Mines as diverse as Kennecott’s Cordero- Rojo Complex in the United States and Natal Coal Corp.’s Optimum Mine in South Africa report dragline productivity increases of 10% to 20% in the region attributed to the implementation of dragline monitoring."

Jan 1, 2000

In any strip coal mining operation the aosL important single operating unit is the dragline. Because the capital and operating costs of a dragline are high, it is desirable to operate these machines at their maximum efficiency. Thiess Bros. Pty. Limited operate a Bucyrus-Erie 1350 Walking dragline at their Callide coal mine. The operating conditions at the Callide Mine are different from those of other coal mines situated in Central Queens ,nd. The topography is rugged, the coal seam is thick, and the overburden is hard and inter- HH,inded. Several different operating techniques for a large dragline working under these con- ditinns arc discrossmd it tt

Jan 1, 1978

By Lumley G. I, Hayes H

Non-intrusive methods for the reliable determination of dragline bucket and rigging performance have been achieved using physical modelling. Modelling offers a logical first step towards developing mathematical simulation models. The process of physical modelling has been applied successfully to predict dragline bucket performance and capacity as well as to demonstrate the effect of varying dump rope length on performance. ACIRL's Surface Miming Group has used physical modelling to carry out dragline bucket sizing for a new high productivity bucket and compared performance with Throng Coal's existing dragline bucket. The predicted bucket performance has since been confirmed in the field using dragline monitoring techniques.

Jan 1, 1992

By R. Adsero

"A high altitude review of the state of the mining industry provided by a study of multifactor productivity shows a continuation of lower output year on year for the capital and labor inputs applied. The story is sadly similar for both U.S. mining and the Australian mining sector. In fact, according to PwC analysts, the world’s mining equipment productivity has declined 20 percent during the past seven years (Lumley, 2014). Although the reasons for the continuing decline in mining productivity are varied, the need for improvement is clear.The world’s mining industry fleet of more than 400 large draglines moves billions of tons of overburden and ore (phosphate, limestone, etc.) annually. This discussion will review a few of the tools available for improved productivity in dragline operations.Benchmarking equipment performance exposes the possibilitiesIn the September 2013 Mining Engineering cover story Graham Lumley and R. Adsero suggested that analyzing best practice equipment performance from an industrywide database for specific equipment performance improvement goals would be beneficial (Adsero, 2013). Benchmarking equipment performance by normalizing differences and then comparing specific measures of performance will provide a road map to improvement for those following the leaders. For those already performing at best practice levels, a benchmark confirms and bolsters what has already been achieved. As described in the SME February 2014 paper by this author, best practice is the average of the top 10 percent in annual output. Filling performance gaps identified by a comparison to best practice by investigating the details of the why and taking action to change, makes all the difference. This is true for all major mining equipment. Given the large gap between average performance and best practice performance most mining operations can benefit. Best practice performance provides a view of what is possible to the 90 percent majority of mining operations that are performing below the top 10 percent.For dragline mining operations, identifying specific characteristics and practices of leading dragline performance will provide a reference for comparison."

Nov 1, 2016

By M. L. Bricker

The Jim Bridger Mine is operated by Bridger Coal Company and is located in Sweetwater County, 35 miles (56 km) northeast of Rock Springs, Wyoming (USA). The general location of the mine site is shown on Figure 1. Bridger Coal is a joint venture of NERCO Coal Corp, the operator, and Idaho Energy Resources Company. The permit boundary encompasses in excess of 20,000 acres (81 km2) and is nestled against the western side of the Continental Divide. Production started on July 3, 1974, and the mine has produced approximately 90 million tons (82 million t) while moving approximately 450 million cubic yards (344 million m3) of virgin earth. Annual production averages 5 to 7 million tons (4.5 to 6.4 million t) of run-of-mine coal. Coal is consumed on site by the Jim Bridger Power Plant, a 2,000-megawatt generating station, and the electricity is transmitted to the Pacific Northwest power grid (Oregon, Idaho, Northern California, etc.).

Jan 1, 1991

By Mark L. Bricker

The Jim Bridger Coal Mine, operated by Bridger Coal Co., is located in Sweetwater County, WY about 56 km (35 miles) northeast of Rock Springs. Bridger Coal is a joint ven¬ture between Nerco Coal Corp, the operator, and Idaho Energy Resources Co. The permit boundary encompasses more than 81 km'- (20,000 acres) on the western side of the Continental Divide. Since the mine began opera¬tions in 1974, it has produced about 82 Mt (90 million st) of coal while moving about 344 hm3 (450 million cu yd) of virgin earth. Annual production averages 4.5 Mt to 6.4 Mt (5 million to 7 million st) of run-of-mine coal. Coal is consumed on-site by the Jim Bridger Power Plant, a 2000-MW generating station. Electricity is transmitted to the Pacific Northwest power grid that includes Oregon, Idaho and northern California. Geology The mine is located on the northeast flank of the Rock Springs uplift. This is a broad, asymmetrical anticlinal feature about 97 km (60 miles) long and 56 km (35 miles) wide with a north-trending axis. This uplift separates the Green River Basin to the west and the Great Divide and Washakie Basins to the east. Precambrian rocks on the apex of the uplift are estimated to be 5200 m (17,000 ft) above the Precambrian rocks in the Green River and Washakie Basins. Normal faults with generally less than 30-m (100-ft) vertical displacement cut through the uplift. The dip of strata on the flanks is generally between 3° and 15°.

Jan 1, 1991

By Mike Onsager

Jan 1, 2006

By Fry P. R

Dragline operations have played a major and successful role in coal mining around the world for more than 30 years. Because of this long history, many of the operating draglines are reaching an age where maintenance and downtime costs are prohibitive, and decisions need to be made to either replace or refurbish them.In the current economic climate, refurbishment is a popular choice and this usually involves major structural repairs above and below the roller circle, together with replacement of the roller circle components. Often, the dragline tub is also replaced by a completely new one.

Jan 1, 1992

horizontal-type classifier prior to charging into a blastfurnace.

Apr 1, 1995

By J. R. Dillon

Today more than ever, there is an increased demand for higher plant production capacities and efficiencies to offset the increasing costs for labor and materials. Plants involved in processing large volumes of bulk materials are particularly interested in more efficient material handling systems to (1) reduce labor and maintenance costs, (2) improve blending of non-uniform raw material feed to processing facilities, (3) improve blending of finished bulk materials from storage. DragScraper systems are being used effectively for handling a variety of bulk materials in both indoor and outdoor storage. Materials being handled include ores, chemicals, coke, clay, and stone, to name a few. Handling capacities these machines can provide vary from a few tons to over 1500 tons per hour. The basic components of a DragScraper machine consist of a bottomless Crescent scraper, a two or three-drum DragScraper hoist assembly including gas, diesel, or electric power unit, operating cables, guide blocks, and either fixed or mobile head and tail structures. They are presently available in sizes through 15 cubic yards, for operating spans up to 1000 feet.

Jan 1, 1969

By John K. Berry

The handling and disposal of mine water is a much larger problem than is apparent at first glance. Many more tons of water are removed from underground coal mines in the United States each year than tons of coal. In the old anthracite region of Pennsylvania the average was around 36 tons of water for each ton of coal produced, while bituminous mines average about 5 or 6 tons. Water encountered in the mines may come from several different sources. In mines with light cover and without a firm solid roof, rain may seep directly into the workings. This is also true of deeper mines where pillar falls have broken the roof to the surface. The top under creek beds is generally faulty and broken and water comes through the roof at this point. Deeper mines are frequently overlain by water-bearing strata and pillar breaks and faulty top can admit water, while places running to the dip often accumulate water which comes up through the bottom. In all cases, except where passing under a year-round stream, the amount of water made is usually pretty closely connected with the weather-more water during the rainy season, less in the dry, although the deeper a mine is, the longer it is before changes in rainfall are felt. Another source of water, not connected with seasonal changes, is old water, accumulated over a period of time in abandoned workings of the mine, or from flooded adjacent mines. Here the water filters through the coal, the parting, or comes up through cracks in the bottom. Similarly, core holes, drilled to prospect the property, can be a source of unexpected water and modern safety requirements for dust-allaying water at the working faces can turn a pleasant working area into a soggy mess over the weekend if the system is not properly maintained and operated. Why water must be disposed is obvious. If allowed to accumulate, sooner or later the mine will fill up, or at least it will become "roofed" in low places, blocking ventilation and traffic. But it must also be controlled long before it reaches this stage. Water standing in the working faces is unpleasant for the men who have to work there and also cuts down on the amount of work they can do, as they must watch where they step all the time. It is especially unpleasant in low coal.

Jan 1, 1973

By Don B. Shupe, John K. Berry

The handling and disposal of mine water is a much larger problem than is apparent at first glance. Many more tons of water are removed from underground coal mines in the United States each year than tons of coal. In the old anthracite region of Pennsylvania the average was around 32.7 t (36 st) of water for each ton of coal produced, while bituminous mines average about 4.5 or 5.4 t (5 or 6 st). Water encountered in the mines may come from several different sources. In mines with light cover and without a firm solid roof, rain may seep directly into the workings. This is also true of deeper mines where pillar falls have broken the roof to the surface. The top under creek beds is generally faulty and broken and water comes through the roof at this point. Deeper mines are frequently overlain by water-bearing strata and pillar breaks and faulty top can admit water, while places running to the dip often accumulate water which comes up through the bottom. In all cases, except where passing under a year-round stream, the amount of water made is usually pretty closely connected with the weather-more water during the rainy season, less in the dry, although the deeper a nine is, the longer it is before changes in rainfall are felt. Another source of water, not connected with seasonal changes, is old water, accumulated over a period of time in abandoned workings of the mine, or from flooded adjacent mines. Here the water filters through the coal, the parting, or comes up through cracks in the bottom. Similarly, core holes, drilled to prospect the property, can be a source of unexpected water and modern safety requirements for dust-allaying water at the working faces can turn a pleasant working area into a soggy mess over the weekend if the system is not properly maintained and operated. Why water must be disposed of is obvious. If allowed to accumulate, sooner or later the mine will fill up, or at least it will become "roofed" in low places, blocking ventilation and traffic. It must be controlled long before it reaches this stage. Water standing in the working faces is

Jan 1, 1981

By Don B. Shupe, John K. Berry

The handling and disposal of mine water is a much larger problem than is apparent at first glance. Many more tons of water are removed from underground coal mines in the United States each year than tons of coal. In the old anthracite region of Pennsylvania the average was around 32.7 t (36 st) of water for each ton of coal produced, while bituminous mines average about 4.5 or 5.4 t (5 or 6 st). Water encountered in the mines may come from several different sources. In mines with light cover and without a firm solid roof, rain may seep directly into the workings. This is also true of deeper mines where pillar falls have broken the roof to the surface. The top under creek beds is generally faulty and broken and water comes through the roof at this point. Deeper mines are frequently overlain by water-bearing strata and pillar breaks and faulty top can admit water, while places running to the dip often accumulate water which comes up through the bottom. In all cases, except where passing under a year-round stream, the amount of water made is usually pretty closely connected with the weather-more water during the rainy season, less in the dry, although the deeper a mine is, the longer it is before changes in rainfall are felt. Another source of water, not connected with seasonal changes, is old water, accumulated over a period of time in abandoned workings of the mine, or from flooded adjacent mines. Here the water filters through the coal, the parting, or comes up through cracks in the bottom. Similarly, core holes, drilled to prospect the property, can be a source of unexpected water and modern safety requirements for dust-allaying water at the working faces can turn a pleasant working area into a soggy mess over the weekend if the system is not properly maintained and operated. Why water must be disposed of is obvious. If allowed to accumulate, sooner or later the mine will fill up, or at least it will become "roofed" in low places, blocking ventilation and traffic. It must be controlled long before it reaches this stage. Water standing in the working faces is

Jan 1, 1981

By John K. (Original by) Berry

The handling and disposal of mine water is a much larger problem than is apparent at first glance. Many more tons of water are removed from underground coal mines in the United States each year than tons of coal. In the old anthracite region of Pennsylvania the average was around 32.7 t (36 st) of water for each ton of coal produced, while bituminous mines average about 4.5 or 5.4 t (5 or 6 st). Water encountered in the mines may come from several different sources. In mines with light cover and without a firm solid roof, rain may seep directly into the workings. This is also true of deeper mines where pillar falls have broken the roof to the surface. The top under creek beds is generally faulty and broken and water comes through the roof at this point. Deeper mines are frequently overlain by water-bearing strata and pillar breaks and faulty top can admit water, while places running to the dip often accumulate water which comes up through the bottom. In all cases, except where passing under a year-round stream, the amount of water made is usually pretty closely connected with the weather-more water during the rainy season, less in the dry, although the deeper a mine is, the longer it is before changes in rainfall are felt. Another source of water, not connected with seasonal changes, is old water, accumulated over a period of time in abandoned workings of the mine, or from flooded adjacent mines. Here the water filters through the coal, the parting, or comes up through cracks in the bottom. Similarly, core holes, drilled to prospect the property, can be a source of unexpected water and modern safety requirements for dust-allaying water at the working faces can turn a pleasant working area into a soggy mess over the weekend if the system is not properly maintained and operated. Why water must be disposed of is obvious. If allowed to accumulate, sooner or later the mine will fill up, or at least it will become "roofed" in low places, blocking ventilation and traffic. It must be controlled long before it reaches this stage. Water standing in the working faces is unpleasant for the men who have to work there and also cuts down on the amount of work they can do, as they must watch where they step all the time. It is especially unpleasant in low coal.

Jan 1, 1981

By D. W. Gillmore, C. C. Wright

DEWATERING is a major problem in the preparation and utilization of fine-sized coals now being recovered in increasing amounts from colliery effluents, refuse banks, and silt ponds. Of the various methods which have been proposed for dewatering fine coal, gravity drainage is probably the oldest and most widely used, and yet little information on this subject has been published. Consequently a laboratory investigation of gravity drainage phenomena was undertaken not only to provide basic data for predicting the drainage behavior of fine coals in cars, bunkers, basins, and silos, but also to obtain some understanding of the moisture retention properties of fine coal. Because of practical interest in the problem, a reproducible laboratory technique, which simulated plant conditions as closely as possible, was developed for the evaluation of drainage variables. The apparatus selected consisted of vertically-mounted lucite columns, nominally 4 to 8 ft in length and 2, 3 or 6 in. in diam; the bottom of the column was provided with a rubber stopper through which was inserted a ½ -in. diam drainage tube; a wad of glass wool was placed on the upper part of this outlet tube to retain the coal and a plug was temporarily located at the lower end to prevent drainage during charging of the column, see Fig. 1. The most satisfactory testing procedure is as follows: 1-The fine coal, which has been thoroughly

Jan 1, 1952

By W. R. Crane

DRAINAGE in these mines has been discussed in papers, on mining practice,1 but the fact that water, varying from 0.16 to 3.46 and averaging 1.43 times the amount of ore mined, has to be pumped from the mines daily, indicates the importance of the problem and the advisability of making a thorough investigation of the source of mine water, its mode of entry into the mines, its effect upon mining conditions; and consideration of means of improving the conditions. While conditions are not serious, yet there is danger that they may become worse if present mining practice is continued, owing to the presence of formations, known to carry large quantities of water, that overlie the ore bed worked. Much detailed information has been collected regarding: rainfall, and run-off in streams draining the district; the effect of different kinds of formations, porous and non-porous; the inclination of the surface; the condition of the surface above the mines, i. e., whether or not disturbed by ground movement; the occurrence of the ore and character of associated formations, particularly with respect to presence of jointing or slip planes, faults, etc.; failure of top rock in the old stopes; and the conditions under which water effects entrance into the mines, i. e., whether as a natural or forced flow. The study furnished fundamental data on the source of waters now entering the mines and that which may later enter due to collapse of top formations in. abandoned workings. The presence of jointing, or slip planes, has a pronounced influence upon the whole drainage problem. These present lines of least resistance to the water and, by weakening the top formations, cause fracturing of the overlying rock, allowing both surface and deep-seated waters to enter the mines.

Jan 1, 1927