Search Documents

By T. N. Moore, E. M. De Souza

J. Dasher Regarding the March 1991 ME technical paper by De Souza and Moore: For more than a decade since my February 1981 article on how to use modern metric, which SME-AIME had decided to do, I have monthly pointed out metric errors to the editors. In part, I do this because there has been no action to allow editors to fix figures and tables or to allow them to require authors to do so. The latest resulting atrocity provokes this discussion of vibrating drill handle units being stated in decibels. Reply by T. Moore We have read the discussion of our paper by Mr. Dasher. Our reaction is one of surprise and incredulity. It would seem that Mr. Dasher takes exception to the use of the decibel scale to present vibration acceleration data, and the use of hertz as the unit for frequency. The basis for his objection to the decibel appears to be that it has no dimensions (which somehow invalidates its use), that it is "non-metric" and, finally, that it is parochial (of limited or narrow scope). His objection to the use of the term hertz is not stated, but we will assume that it stands condemned as "non-metric" and parochial. Obviously we disagree with Mr. Dasher's views and will now outline our reasons. Although the decibel scale originates from transmission line theory and telephone engineering, it is also at present widely used, not only in the fields of electronic engineering and acoustics, but also in the area of vibration. The original definition of the decibel (dB) was based on power ratios: dB = 10 log 10(W/W0) where Wo is a reference power. However, as the power measured across a given impedance is related to the square of the force acting upon this impedance, Z, a more commonly used definition is: [2 dB = 10 logF /Z) = 20 log F/F 10\ F0 2 /Z(0)] where F and F0 are the r.m.s. values of the forces. Now, if the measurements are related to one and the same impedance, the decibel notation in the form of 20log10(X/Xo) may be used as a convenient relative magnitude scale for a variety of quantities. Thus, X may, for instance, be an r.m.s. displacement, velocity or acceleration. It is only required that XD always be a reference quantity of the same type as X. That is, when X represents an acceleration, then X0 represents a reference acceleration. This is the formulation used in our paper. This was not an arbitrary choice on our behalf but reflects standard practice as specified in the International Standard ISO 5349-1986(E) Mechanical Vibration - Guidelines for the Measurement and the Assessment of Human Despite the metric prefix, the decibel is a parochial expression of (l) the logarithmic ratio of the loudness of a sound to what is normally audible or (2) the logarithmic ratio of two power signals in radio or electronics. A decibel is not a unit, much less an SI, unit and has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceleration of drill handles. Stating that m/s2 (acceleration) is decibels is without reason. Whoever reviewed this material should not have allowed publication of figures of dB and H.[ ] Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration. This was clearly stated in the "measurement protocol" section of our paper. This quantity is then referred to as the acceleration level and is expressed in dB. We may have inadvertently caused some confusion when we simply used the term acceleration to refer to acceleration level on our diagrams. At the time, we felt the use of dB or m/s2 would make the context clear to the reader. For any confusion this decision may have engendered, we apologize. Since the decibel expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it certainly has no dimensions. It is, however, common practice to treat "decibel" as a unit as, for example, in the sentence, "The acceleration level measured at the operator's hand was 160 dB." The expression of measured quantities in dimensionless form is not inherently unacceptable. In fact, in many areas of engineering it is standard practice (consider the use of Reynolds Number, Nusselt Number, etc.). The fact that the decibel is a dimensionless quantity makes the question of whether it is a SI unit nonsensical. However, it is valid to insist that the dimensional quantities used to obtain the decibel values be expressed in SI units. A careful reading of our paper will make it clear that the measured acceleration was, in fact, expressed in units of m/s2 as was the reference acceleration (l x 10-6 m/S2). These are the accepted derived SI units for acceleration. See, for example, the standard ASTM E380-89a Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (SI) (The Modernized Metric System). Concerning Mr. Dasher's implication that hertz (Hz) is an unacceptable unit of measure for frequency, we would again refer him to the standard ASTM E380-89a. Here, he will find (section 2.4.2) that hertz is an accepted "special name" for the derived SI units-1. This is in keeping with numerous other international standards including ISO 5349-1986(E) to which we referred in our paper. In conclusion, we agree with Mr. Dasher on the desirability of expressing measurements in modern SI units. But we would remind him that the standards that define the use of these units, and the accepted means of presenting measured data, are in a continual state of refinement. It is, therefore, incumbent upon him to keep abreast of these changes if he wishes to constructively critique the work of others.[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

By Wayne Anderson

Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 1, 1983

By S. C. Sun

This article by Spokes and Mitchell de- serves high commendation. For many years mineral dressers have been at a loss to explain the variation in magnetic susceptibility of the same mineral species obtained from different localities. In fact, they do not even have a list of accurately measured data on the specific magnetic susceptibility of weakly magnetic minerals to consult. Experience as a university teacher has firmly convinced me that the average student has more difficulty in acquiring a satisfactory knowledge of magnetism than of any other branch of mineral dressing. This is almost entirely because the subject has been treated far too much from a strict practical standpoint and far too little from a fundamental one. It is no exaggeration to state that almost all the published theoretical discussions are based on the experimental results of manufactured chemicals and alloys, but not of naturally occurring minerals. In an attempt to remedy this state of affairs, the author of this article not only set up a new magnetic balance in the Department of Mineral Preparation of The Pennsylvania State University, but also performed work of fundamental value, thus pointing the way to further research. This is evidenced by the fact that an investigation of the magnetic susceptibilities of manganese minerals was recently completed by S. G. Watt under the direction of David R. Mitchell, now acting dean of the College of Mineral Industries of the Pennsylvania State University. D. J. Cook is studying the magnetic susceptibility of titanium minerals under my supervision. It is hoped that our research program can be continued for several years and that similar investigations will be Initiated at other universities and research institutions.

Jan 4, 1958

I do not regard the criticism by Rankin of my work as valid or even meaningful. I strongly reject the assertion by Rankin that my results are invalid. As stated in my paper, the equation to solve (in e. m.u. ) is: [ ] where n2 =4 ps? . This may be rewritten as three scalar equations in Cartesian coordinates, one of which is [ ] The equation to be solved is the diffusion equation, and it is not appropriate to consider waves in this context. In the method a point-wise solution to the problem is approximated. As discussed in my paper the approach taken at discontinuities in conductivity is to choose the normal component of [E] at the discontinuity as the average of the normal components on either side of the discontinuity. This is similar to the well-known assumption made in obtaining Fourier series representations for piecewise continuous functions (Pipes, 1958; p. 51). In the geophysical problem this means that the discontinuity is approximated by a transition zone, which is a very good approximation for such cases. By using this approach, both the values of the function and its derivatives give a good estimate for those associated with the physical situation. It is not apparent and Rankin has not shown that "all the field components and the derivatives are grossly distorted in the region about the boundary" for geophysically realistic situations. He has given no evidence to support his assertation that the results are "invalid". Although Rankin declares that one cannot calculate the electric components from the magnetic, in his discussion he has not stated why this is so. After once calculating the magnetic components the electric components may be calculated, but one must insure that the initial solution is accurate enough to prevent significant round-off errors.

Jan 1, 1973

By A. K. Bhasin

A. K. Bhasin, (Development Engineer, Marcona Corp., San Francisco, Calif)-The author suggests the use of the term "consistency" for apparent viscosity and accordingly calls his viscometer a "consistometer." However, he goes on to refer to "consistency" as a combination of plastic viscosity, yield stress, and stability (p. 104, col. 2, line 6). Unfortunately, such conflicting terminology is encountered too often in rheological

Jan 1, 1973

By Douglas R. Piteau

Douglas R. Piteau (Engineering Geologist, De Beers Corp., Kimberley, South Africa; Presently Consulting Specialist at Nchanga Mine Open Pit, Chingola, Zambia)-Mr. Lutton is to be commeneded on his analyses and presentation of such practical data which can be used for predicting a preliminary optimum slope angle in rock. It appears that he assumes all slopes analyzed to be straight. Although there are overriding factors which affect the general slope configuration, such as structural discontinuities, ground water, and other environmental factors such as weathering conditions, regional stress, etc.,8 the affects of plan geometry under certain conditions also can be of outstanding importance. In investigation of natural slopes, for example, the effects of plan geometry are not entirely appreciated and it is in this respect that discussion is given. Experience in southern Africa has shown that the overall geometry of surface openings in rock, particularly those with dimensions of the order of 1500 ft or less, i.e., where radii of curvature of the slopes are less than, say, 700± ft, must be considered in rational slope-stability analyses. That is, the slope angle is not only a function of slope height, strength of the mass, and geometry of structural discontinuities, but also is dependent upon the plan geometry of the local slopes and the plan shape of opening. Technically speaking, adequate analysis of the slope must be three-dimensional, the third dimension being that of overall plan configuration and the analysis must incorporate its subsequent effects. However, current theories of slope stability all deal with the slope as a two-dimensional problem, i.e., a slice of unit length of an infinitely long slope is considered for a condition of plane strain. In this the tacit assumption is made that the plan radii of the crest and toe of the slope are infinite and no attention is given to the plan geometry of the slope. Clearly this is not the condition encountered in practice, particularly in open pit mining where excavations, relatively speaking, can be small and where these radii of curvature accordingly can have important affects on the slope stability. This is illustrated by the analyses of Piteau and Jennings 9 of the natural slopes which had developed around pipes of four diamond mines in the semiarid Kimberley area of South Africa. Although these slopes consist of dolerite overlying shale, the values of the slope angles of all the pits were corrected for a height of slope of 320 ft assuming that no dolerite occurred. This brought the data onto a comparable basis. These data were analyzed statistically and a clear empirical relationship, as is shown [in Fig. 4], is seen to have formed between angle of slope and curvature of slope, i.e., the angles of slope are greatest where the radii of curvature are least. Also, it can be seen that the slope of each line is different, indicating that the plan shape of the open pits also are significant, the curve being steepest for the open pits which are more circular in shape in contrast to those which are more elongated. The effect of slope curvature on the average angle of slope for the two extreme radii of 200 ft and 1000 ft for all four open pits is 39.5° and 27.3°, respectively. Hence, the concave curvature effect represents an average increase in slope angle of 12.2° from the essentially straight slope. In quantitative terms in Mr. Lutton's Fig. 2, this represents displacing the curve for a 320-ft pit from the second curve from the bottom (i.e., shale in subtropical climate) to that of the third from the bottom (i.e., quartzite in temperate environment).

Jan 1, 1972

By A. W. Khair, S. S. Peng

Discussion by J. Parker Gentlemen; Rainy day in Upper Michigan, a good time to catch up on reading. Am doing that, and have a couple of questions concerning the K and P paper on roof problems and supports. I wonder if the authors can enlighten me. The compressive strength of the coal was reported as 4.4 MPa (633 psi) and compressive stresses measured in the coal seam were reported at around 27.6 and 48.2 MPa(4000 and 7000psi ). Can such a soft coal actually contain such a high level of stress? Can it be measured as if the material were elastic, or does the coal behave plastically? Can that stress level be confirmed with hydraulic load cells? And if the coal is so soft, and if it is plastic, why is the stress field not hydrostatic'? The intact roofrock appears to be unusually strong, with compressive strength reported at around 145 MPa (21,000 psi), and some failures were noted as soon as the rock was exposed. Were tests run to find out how that rock responded to the addition of moisture, from sprays or from humid air? Did moisture weaken the rock? Did it cause the rock to expand quickly, thus to induce internal compressive stress? How can the near-vertical cutters, as shown in the photographs, be attributed to primarily horizontal stresses? Did the cutters follow any particular pattern in the development panels, which might be related to a particular stress pattern? For example, did they always appear alongside the stiffest pillar? Or always along the northwest rib? Was there any evidence of the pillars and entries "rotating" under the influence of differential horizontal stresses? How much did the entries and pillars rotate as the longwall face approached and passed? After rooffalls, did the openings assume shapes which would indicate a preferred shape in that stressfield and geology? Did crosscuts always survive without damage, as shown in the sketch?

Jan 1, 1992

By John Dasher

Extrapolation is a useful technique, but it can be overdone. Seldom is it justified to study over a range of 1 to 6 and extrapolate the results to 150,000. It is especially dangerous if the extrapolation is based on a false assumption. The authors assume settlers scale-up by residence time rather than by area, admit their result (a settler depth of 7 m) is "unreasonable" and suggest longer, wider, shallower settlers might be better. Various authors have noted for a copper-LIX system a total flow basis of 2 gpm per sq ft for sizing settlers. The results of this are compared with those in the paper in [Table 7]. The authors note that flooding of their settlers was never approached. Thus the smallest unit calculated is understandably twice too big. The largest however, is 5% of the required size. I note that the figures in [Table 6] for 1/min/cm2 are based on plan area rather than cross section as titled and are wrong by l0 4. A flow of 2050 1/min/cm2 is about Mach I. It is also 10 5/3 or 46.5 times that of the little one, although the abstract says the design was based on constant flow rate per unit cross section.

Jan 1, 1977

This excellent paper by Dr. Colombo parallels quite closely the bench and pilot work done by the Hanna Research Laboratory on the Mesabi oxidized taconites. Because of the vast reserves and future ore requirements the need to perfect the selective flocculation-flotation process becomes very necessary. The selective flocculation process is a very efficient method of desliming, leaving a fairly clean, upgraded product for flotation. However, one of the problems that we have encountered in this process was some very fine, -2 micron liberated goethite in the slimes that did not flocculate. The complete slime removal is not necessary. We remove slimes to the extent of about 5% of the iron units. However, on difficult treating ores we would remove more slimes. The reclaimed water from our pilot plant has a turbidity of about 1000-3000 ppm. We can obtain lower turbidity water but to do this would involve additional lime as a tailing flocculant and we would run the risk of flocculating the entire ground pulp in the selective flocculation process because of the increased Ca level in the water. We have about seven different geological ore types out of 17 recognizable ore types that are treatable. All of these ore types require different degrees of dispersion and grinding which is a problem. The use of acrylic acid polymers as a selective flocculant has been patented by the American Cyanamid Co. This will-have to be

Jan 1, 1979

This excellent, concise paper by Dr. Iwasaki on the principles of selective flocculation for iron ores discusses many of the principles and problems which have occurred in our bench and pilot plant test-work. The use of sodium tripolyphosphate in combination with sodium silicate as a dispersant is very effective. However, this may cause a problem with the environmental groups as phosphorous is a nutrient. We have also established that the lower the Ca level in the pulp solutions the greater the dispersion. We have found that ores from the same geological strata, having the same general mineralogy and iron content will sometimes have widely different degrees of dispersion. There was-no difference in the gross mineralogy but the solubility of the Ca and SO ions was much less in the ores most easily dispersed. Research efforts should be directed towards a more practical means which would more easily enable one to predict the amount of dispersant required for the various ores. With regard to water quality we have found that waters having higher contents of SO4 and C1 ions hinder dispersion. This could be a method of controlling too much dispersion by the addition of sulfate or chloride ions. This would require further investigation. We have had no trouble with agitation speeds of up to 925 rpm in conditioning starch with the dispersed pulp prior to selective flocculation. We have found about 0.3Lb/LT of starch to be sufficient for selective flocculation on our ores. The increasing of the starch to 1.25Lb/LT has had no effect on the metallurgy of the selective floccula-

Jan 1, 1979

My question relates to tundish nozzle plugging on aluminum-killed heats. North Star has avoided this problem by silicon deoxidation. What has been Inland's experience with this problem on open-pour and submerged nozzle pouring?

Jan 1, 1972

The evaluation of suppliers of BOP linings included only magnesitic and periclase compositions. Ford utilizes some dolomitic compositions. Do you care to comment on this subject?

Jan 1, 1972

By G. C. Waterman, W. E. Hawes

Mr. Grieves' paper on "Shaft Sinking Today --A Boring Business Tomorrow" in the Dec. 1981 issue of MINING ENGINEERING is an excellent description of recent improvements in speed and costs of shaft sinking. However, shaft boring techniques are not a recent development. In 1935-36, the Idaho Maryland Co. (gold), Grass Valley, CA, bored the vertical 1.5-m-diam Idaho No. 2 ventilation and supply shaft to a depth of 346 m. The equipment was designed and perfected by Branner Newsome and was, I believe, described in "Transactions." Pickands Mather later bored a 1.8-m-diam shaft to a depth of about 305 m using Newsome's design. The Idaho No. 2 shaft cut through hard gabbro, diabase dikes, soft serpentine, very incompetent ankeritized serpentine and a strong fault zone. The completed shaft did not require timber support; the fault zone was cemented. Equipment consisted of a rotating 1.5-m or 3-m core barrel with a slotted bottom which cut a 76-mm kerf. The cutting agent was chilled steel shot introduced into the slot as needed. The driving mechanism and core barrel were lowered into the shaft, the former secured to the wall and the inshaft "engineer" operated the motors which controlled core barrel rpm and advance. After an advance of 1.5-3 m the equipment was lifted out of the shaft, a half(?) stick of powder cut off the drilled core, and it was hoisted to the surface with a cable attached to an eye bolt at the tope of the core. A "shift" consisted of three men: hoistman, equipment operator (down the shaft), and a surface laborer. Advance was variable as equipment and techniques were perfected. Near the end of the job advance was, as I remember, 1.5-3 m per shift. Costs were, as I recall, about $115/m. Up to 4 m cores were lifted out in one piece and swung to the dump by a stiff leg derrick. The Newsome equipment was relatively inexpensive to build and operate and his method should be (more than?) competetive with the methods described by Grieves.

Jan 1, 1983

By Maurice Grieves

GC. Waterman Mr. Grieves' paper on "Shaft Sinking Today--A Boring Business Tomorrow" in the Dec. 1981 issue of MINING ENGINEERING is an excellent description of recent improvements in speed and costs of shaft sinking. However, shaft boring techniques are not a recent development. In 1935-36, the Idaho Maryland Co. (gold), Grass Valley, CA, bored the vertical 1.5-m-diam Idaho No. 2 ventilation and supply shaft to a depth of 346 m. The equipment was designed and perfected by Branner Newsome and was, I believe, described in "Transactions." Pickands Mather later bored a 1.8-m-diam shaft to a depth of about 305 m using Newsome's design. The Idaho No. 2 shaft cut through hard gabbro, diabase dikes, soft serpentine, very incompetent ankeritized serpentine and a strong fault zone. The completed shaft did not require timber support; the fault zone was cemented. Equipment consisted of a rotating 1.5-m or 3-m core barrel with a slotted bottom which cut a 76-mm kerf. The cutting agent was chilled steel shot introduced into the slot as needed. The driving mechanism and core barrel were lowered into the shaft, the former secured to the wall and the inshaft "engineer" operated the motors which controlled core barrel rpm and advance. After an advance of 1.5-3 m the equipment was lifted out of the shaft, a half(?) stick of powder cut off the drilled core, and it was hoisted to the surface with a cable attached to an eye bolt at the tope of the core. A "shift" consisted of three men: hoistman, equipment operator (down the shaft), and a surface laborer. Advance was variable as equipment and techniques were perfected. Near the end of the job advance was, as I remember, 1.5-3 m per shift. Costs were, as I recall, about $115/m. Up to 4 m cores were lifted out in one piece and swung to the dump by a stiff leg derrick. The Newsome equipment was relatively inexpensive to build and operate and his method should be (more than?) competetive with the methods described by Grieves. W.E. Hawes The author, in mentioning the South African developments of the cactus grab, ignores the parallel development of the Cryderman mucker in this hemisphere. Perhaps a slightly longer history of blind hold drilling would have been in order. Blind shaft boring got a major boost at the Nevada Test Site, as part of the nuclear weapons development, when it was essential to be able to quickly assess depth for weapons testing. One of the early civilian attempts to utilize this technology occurred when Kerr McGee drilled the shaft at the Section 19 Mine at Ambrosia Lake, NM. This twin masted drill rig belonged to a subsidiary of Kerr McGee, not Shaft Drillers. This was a difficult hole, due to bentonitic shales that decomposed. Later advances in drilling fluids eliminated this problem. The Conoco project referred to is not entirely correct, and needs minor amplification: The depth of the development (not pilot) shaft drilled was 684 m, at a diameter of 3.05 m, with a 2.16 m ID hydratatic casing being installed to a depth of 669 m. Conoco Inc., not Challenger, executed the drilling, however Conoco did use Challenger Drilling Company's Rig 14-S. Rig 14-S is unique in that it is specifically designed for shaft drilling, rather than being an oil field rig used for this service. All work was planned and directed by Conoco personnel. Deviation of the aforementioned shaft from vertical was 31 cm. Two smaller shafts (pilot shafts) were drilled with the same rig. These smaller ones were drilled 1.8 m in diameter, to depth of 665 m and cased with .91-m-diam casing, to depth of 650 m to be used as pilot holes for 5.5 m diameter shafts. The total elapsed time for all drilling, casing, cementing, and rig moves was 50 weeks. The constraints mentioned of vertical accuracy, torque, wall collapse, rig set up time, lining time etc., pumping out, etc., may not be as serious as the author implies. First, vertical accuracy: The record achieved by Conoco indicates that with reasonable care, good accuracy can be obtained, primarily by having a fair amount of weight in tension, rather than on the drill bit. Second, the amount of torque that can be applied to the drill stem has been greatly increased by the introduction of larger diameter drill stems, such as the new Hughes rig uses. Third, risk of collapse of shaft walls is minimal with the proper mud program. Basically, the walls are supported by the weight of the mud and it is not removed until some type of casing is installed and grouted in. Here in the real challenge of blind drilling shafts to devise a more economical method of lining bored shafts than using steel casing. The remaining issues were minor at Conoco, provided adequate planning and scheduling takes place. An excellent paper, "Shaft Drilling--Crownpoint Project" by Hassell H. Hunter, presented at the Fifth Uranium Symposium in Albuquerque in Sept. 1981 contains details of this project. A combination of blind boring, with enlargement by either mechanical means (boring machine, or tunneling type shield) or slabbing down, with muck removal through a larger bored shaft would seem to be the future trend in shaft development. The economics, especially for wet conditions, favor this concept over conventional sinking, as has been demonstrated at Kerr McGee --Churchrock, UNC--Churchrock and Conoco at Crownpoint.

Jan 3, 1983

By R. W. Barbaro, R. V. Ramani, K. V. K. Prasad, P. T. Luckie

Discussion by A. Unal Barbaro et al. (1990) implemented a tedious study aimed at delineating the short-scale spatial variability of sulfur in a coal seam. It is not possible, however, to extend their conclusions to any other coal seam or use their in any other fashion, because the background geology was not presented. Nor were the conclusions accompanied by geological interpretations in the paper. In addition, an unfortunate printing error occurred where the total sulfur (determined by High Temperature Combustion) variogram in Fig.3 was duplicated in Fig. 2 instead of the seam height variogram. A more serious error, however, has been committed in the definition of the variable, seam height. What is defined as seam height by Barbaro et al. (1990) is, in essence, mining height, and is not a regionalized variable that should be studied by geostatistical methods directly. Despite the fact that the variable, seam height, is not defined in the paper explicitly, the following quotation discloses the fallacy: "All roof rock that exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft) from the floor was not taken because the longwall was operated to not mine more than 1.8 in (6 ft) unless the coal seam height exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft)." From this definition, the seam height, and therefore the sampling height, is equal to the actual coal thickness, if the coal thickness is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft). Otherwise, it is equal to the sum of the coal thickness plus the thickness of the roof rock that complements the thickness to 1.8 m (6 ft). In the latter case, the seam height is constant and equal to 1.8 m (6 ft). It is possible to conduct a variogram study on a pool of samples that are realizations of two different variables. But the conclusions derived would not belong to any one of the two variables uniquely and, therefore, do not possess any significance. Geostatistical analysis is irrelevant for the sum of multiple regionalized variables formed by arbitrary selections. In a two-seam setting, for example, the mining height, as defined by the thickness of one seam at one location and the thickness of both seams at another location (due to quality and/or minimum thickness considerations perhaps), should not be used in the calculation of one common variogram. The two seams should be modeled separately. They can then be combined according to the specific purposes of the study. On the other hand, if a constant is added to a regionalized variable (to incorporate dilution perhaps), the variogram of the new variable will not change. Barbaro et al. (1990), surprisingly, does not give any geological interpretation of their results despite the fact that most of them can be explained by the origins of sulfur in a coal seam. The presentation of the results of a geostatistical study with no reference to the geology of the deposit is uninformative. It may also be misleading for the potential users of geostatistics, It is not unusual to find nuggets of pyrite in coal seams. In such cases, pyritic sulfur will probably display a spatial structure for only a very small distance that will appear in the experimental variogram as no spatial correlation. This very well known phenomenon is called the pure nugget effect in geostatistics (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978) and perhaps can explain the lack of correlation found for pyritic sulfur content. The lack of correlation found for the total sulfur content may also be explained in the same way because the total sulfur content is dominated by the pyritic sulfur content in this case study. One should notice, however, that the situation may completely be reversed after cleaning the coal. Not all of the inorganic sulfur should be expected to be in the form of pyrite nuggets in a coal seam. It may also be disseminated in the coal seam and it is expected that it follows a certain spatial structure. However, an existing spatial structure may be masked by including a part of the roof rock, rich in sulfides, into the seam thickness in an arbitrary fashion because areas having a sandstone roof sometimes are known to show a higher sulfur content due to the downward percolation of solutions rich in iron sulfides (Clark, 1979). Plants use sulfur in their growth processes. Much of this sulfur is bound organically during peat accumulation and coal formation (Cecil et al., 1978.) This suggests a spatial structure of some sort for the organic sulfur. However, it is not possible to test this hypothesis because the results obtained by the authors for the organic sulfur content are not given in this paper. For this reason, the conclusion that simple average of the nearby samples would provide the best unbiased estimates is questionable for organic sulfur and is not based on any substantial supporting evidence. It is suspected that no spatial structure was detected and this was due to high sampling and laboratory analysis errors. Before concluding that sulfur variability in the seam at the location of study was random, a more detailed study for the disseminated non-pyritic sulfur should have been conducted, not for the sake of scientific curiosity only, but also due to its utmost importance with regard to coal cleaning and emission control. Pyritic sulfur can be cleaned to a considerable extent, whereas organic sulfur can not, making the emission control strategies highly dependent on the spatial distribution of the organic sulfur (Knudsen, 1981). In the light of these facts, one wonders why Barbaro et al. (1990) did not present the results of their study for the sulfate and organic sulfur content. References Barbaro, R.W.. et al., 1990, "Short-Scale Spatial Variability of Sulfur in a Coal Seam,' Mining Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 1267-1269. Cecil, C.B., et al., 1978, "Geology of Ccontaminants in coal," report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina, 123 pp. Clark, W.J.. 1979, "An interfluve model of the upper Freeport coal Bed in part of western Pennsylvania," unpublished MS thesis, University of South Carolina, 57 pp. Journel, A.G., and [Huijbregls], Ch. J., 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, London, 600 pp. Knudsen, H.P., 1981. "Development of a Conditional simulation model of a coal deposit," unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona, 109 pp.

Jan 1, 1992

By Stephen Semeniuk

Discussion by Stephen Semeniuk Discussion As a valuator and SME member, I view Ross D. Lawrence's position as based on unproven and faulty assumptions made with regard to the pragmatic evidence presented in his paper. Moreover, his call for the inclusion of all mineral resources in discounted cash flow valuations is redundant, if not irrelevant, as there are procedures that already take all classes of mineralization into consideration for valuation purposes. In my experience as a valuator, I find that Canadian securities regulators are more than accommodating in allowing any valuations of mineral properties to be based on cash flow calculations. In other business areas, the same regulators usually reject discounted cash flow valuations of projects or businesses with no operating history. Instead, the regulators prefer valuations to be based on other transactions tested in the marketplace. Valuations based on actual market transactions are less subjective than discounted cash flow calculations and/or the capitalization of arbitrary, untested or undemonstrated earnings projections. In the mining and minerals sector, such projections may be made by persons not qualified to make such projections. In support of this statement, I direct readers to the article "Valuation of mineral properties which do not contain exploitable reserves" by Lionel C. Kilburn, which appeared in the August 1990 issue of the CIM Bulletin. To quote from the article: "Value of a mineral property depends basically upon metal prices, recoverable grades, mining and metallurgical practices, commodity supply and demand, and political-economic conditions, all of which vary with time. Five fields of expertise influence the value of a mineral property: •geological engineering, •commodity markets, •financial markets, •stock markets and •mineral property markets. The skills of geologists and engineers properly apply to the first field of expertise. Knowledge and consideration of the other four fields is important, but such advice is more properly sought from marketing experts, economists and stockbrokers." Securities regulators have created no hardship for valuators by excluding unsubstantiated resources in discounted cash flow valuations. In the field of engineering, best design practices apply. A margin of safety is built into the design criteria for any new equipment or structure that will exceed normally expected load levels and stresses, even though such considerations imply higher front end costs. In accounting, the comparable operating principle is conservatism. It explains why, for balancesheet presentation purposes, inventory is stated at cost or market, whichever is the lowest value. Similarly, when the engineering or geoscience-based valuator plays in the field of finance, the rules of accounting and applied economics apply. Regulators in their skepticism of income-based valuations are in tune with similar views already expressed in mining literature. To quote H. Van Tingley, in Mining Magazine, July 1996: "... the DCF method has inherent dangers when applied to undeveloped resources. Firstly, it presents an often-undeserved aura of accuracy. A DCF value is no more accurate than the least accurate of the assumptions incorporated into the calculation - and assumptions

Jan 1, 2003

By E. Arioglu

Discussion by E. Arioglu Y. Luo and S.S. Peng are to be congratulated for their outstanding paper providing new results from surface subsidence monitoring over longwall panels under different conditions. This writer found the authors' paper very interesting. In reference to this paper, the following contributions are offered: • In the paper, the maximum possible subsidence [(ASmax)] induced by chain pillar convergence has been related to a parameter (h/1- p) by linear regression. (Notations are expressed in this discussion's Fig. 1 (b).) It is a well-known fact that in a goaf the roof lowers onto broken material that gradually compacts. Then the physical behavior of goat may closely follow the compaction characteristics of broken materials. In light of this assumption, a mathematical means (Fig. 1(a)) of defining the expected compaction (i.e. surface subsidence) represents an exponential expression between [ASmax/m vs. h/1-p]. This is based on Luo and Peng's field observations from the Appalachian, Illinois and Alabama coal fields. (The coefficient of regression "r" under consideration was computed to be 0.883). • According to Wardell's (1969) findings for board and pillar mining, the maximum possible subsidence can be expressed in terms of maximum pillar loading (depth, ratio of extraction) and the height-to-width ratio of the pillars left. Using Luo and Peng's 1991 results, this writer discovered a regression equation between the above-mentioned factors. As displayed in Fig. 1(b), the functional expression approximates as closely as possible the observed subsidence data. It may be noted here that Wardell's approach (1969) can be successfully utilized for longwall panels having chain pillars. Reference Wardell, K., 1969, "Ground surface and control," Mining Congress Journal, January, pp. 1-7.

Jan 1, 1993

It was a pleasure listening to this paper. Gary Works' problems were a lot more extensive than the trunnion bearing problems encountered at the Weirton Steel Division. In our two-vessel shop bearing failures are critical in that with a bearing failure on an operating vessel and the second vessel under rebuild, we are down until the vessel rebuild is completed or the bearing is repaired. The first bearing problem at Weirton occurred after we had been operating three years. The failure occurred during the 8th heat following "bum-in" of the vessel. Immediate steps were taken to change the damaged float bearing without an extensive search for the reason the bearing failed. Once the campaign was run out the bearings were inspected and found to be damaged. Field checks revealed that the bearing pedestals were not properly located and as a result the freedom of the float bearing was restricted. The trunnion pin end to end dimension had decreased due to distortion and deflection in the trunnion ring. These dimensions were within tolerances. The damage to our bearing was similar to that in the exhibits from U.S. Steel-Gary Works. Steps taken to correct what was found in the field checks were as follows: 1. The pedestals were relocated to center the bearings. 2. 4" diameter pins were installed to locate the housing in the pedestals. 3. The bearing pedestals were opened up to allow the bearing housing to move slightly in the pedestal. 4. Lubrication fittings for greasing between the bearing housing and the pedestal were installed.

Jan 1, 1972

By A. M. Radigan, W. G. Prast

M.S. Azun The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also, I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitilize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondant government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 2, 1984

By M. S. Azun

The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also. I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitalize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondent government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 1, 1985