Search Documents

Jan 1, 1968

By S. S. PRENZ

Discussion held at the sessions of the Canal Zone meeting, November, 1910. [SECRETARY'S NOTE.-As a result of this discussion, an expression of opinion covering all points of unanimous agreement was adopted and signed by members of the Institute party as individuals. This statement, which was printed in the Bulletin of December, 1910, is reprinted below, as an introduction to ,the detailed report of the discussion. It should be clearly understood that it does not constitute an official declaration by the Institute, the rules of which forbid any such action. At the New Haven meeting of February, 1909, a free discussion of the plan of the canal took place, in which the critics of the present scheme had full opportunity to state their views. That discussion was continued at considerable length in the newspapers ; but the Institute was never committed to either side. In this latter instance, the situation is precisely similar. Certain members and guests of the Institute, having had the advantage of later developments and of personal inspection, have expressed the conclusions at which they have arrived on their own responsibility ; and these conclusions are published by the Institute, subject to further discussion, like any other part of its proceedings. The general statement referred to contained a promise that the full discussion, of which it was a result, would be subsequently printed ; and this promise is fulfilled, so far as practicable, in the subjoined report, concerning which I beg to offer the following explanations: 1. It is made up of the remarks of the members of our party, as subsequently written out and mailed to the Secretary. 2. In editing these contributions, I have condensed the material considerably by cutting out much repetition of opinions and phrases ; and in such excision, I, frankly confess, the authors whose communications were delayed, have been the sufferers. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of repetition left, as there must be, when so many persons had talked so much, and come to agreement upon so many points. 3. It has been found impossible to preserve in this report the actual order of the free and informal oral discussion represented. Consequently the several contributions have been arranged in alphabetical order under the names of their authors. References to "preceding speakers," etc., must therefore be construed as referring to other speakers, preceding or following.-R. W. R.] S. S. PRINZ AUGUST WILHELM, AT SEA, November 14, 1910. We, the undersigned, members and guests of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, after a visit to the Isthmus of Panama, and inspection of the work of the United States Isthmian Canal Commission, and after full discussion of our individual impressions, find ourselves in unanimous agreement as to the following conclusions:

Jan 1, 1911

By R. W. Baldwin

On page 309, column 1, the second equation should read: Ma-M1 = dlog_Pa M2-M1 d log P2

Jan 1, 1961

By H. A. Pearse

NORMALLY, the Britannia ore mixture contains chalcopyrite and pyrite as the chief sulfide minerals, together with minor amounts of gold and silver and a low zinc content. Reduction is accomplished by jaw crushers underground, followed at the concentrating plant by Symons cone crushers, rolls, and ball mills. The standard flotation practice, evolved during several years of experimentation, provided for bulk flotation of the two sulfides, after primary grinding to only approximately 35 mesh, followed by regrinding of the bulk concentrate, with subsequent separation of the chalcopyrite and pyrite to make a marketable concentrate of each mineral. This so-called standard milling practice has previously been described in detail in U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6619. A modification will he discussed here. In the face of a constantly increasing world surplus of copper and a steadily falling price during 1930 and 1931, it was obviously undesirable to continue unprofitable production of large quantities of this metal. On the other hand, company officials were

Jan 1, 1934

By J. J. Fritts, J. L. Patrick, T. L. Wright, C. O. Ensign, W. S. White, J. W. Trammell, J. C. Wright, D. J. Hathaway, R. J. Leone

The copper deposit at White Pine, Michigan, from which a little more than 5 per cent of United States primary copper currently is produced, is a large stratiform orebody, 4 to 25 feet thick and several miles across. The present ore column, containing about 1.2 per cent copper as chalcocite and native copper, is confined to the basal beds of the Nonesuch Shale. This upper Keweenawan (Upper Precambrian) formation is a distinctive gray siltstone unit, about 600 feet thick, overlying and overlain by thick red-bed sequences. All these rocks contain abundant volcanic debris, but the latest known igneous activity within 50 miles antedated the Nonesuch Shale. The rocks are unmetamorphosed and only moderately deformed, mainly by tilting and faults. Pyrite, presumably syngenetic, is the only prominent sulfide throughout most of the Nonesuch Shale. The basal beds of the formation, however, contain disseminated copper minerals instead of pyrite and constitute the cupriferous zone. On a regional scale, the top of the cupriferous zone cuts across bedding, and ranges from an inch or so above the base of the formation in some areas to more than 50 feet in others. However, within the cupriferous zone the distribution of copper shows remarkable stratigraphic control. Certain beds are copper-rich compared to the beds that lie between them and the differences persist throughout the White Pine region. Several darkgray thinly laminated beds in the lower 10 to 25 feet of the Nonesuch Shale are rich enough and sufficiently close enough together to constitute a mineable thickness where they lie within the cupriferous zone. Pyrite is the characteristic sulfide of the Nonesuch Shale as a whole. The principal sulfide mineral of the cupriferous zone at the base of the formation is chalcocite. The succession of minerals outward and upward from the center of the cupriferous zone is native copper-chalcocite-bornite-chalcopyrite- pyrite. The bornite and chalcopyrite are confined to a narrow fringe at the margin of the cupriferous zone. This pattern of mineral zones is believed to represent reaction between syngenetic pyrite and introduced copper. The main copper mineralization is independent of structure and apparently antedates deformation. Details of the geometry of the cupriferous zone indicate the possibility that copper was introduced from the underlying sandstone prior to lithification. The source of the mineralizing solutions and their copper is not known.

Jan 1, 1968

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

By H. O. Hofman

Jan 1, 1896

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the month of April, 1913: BARNES, BLAKESLEE, Min. Engr Burrwood, La. BOYLSTON, HERBERT M., Cons. Met. Engr 26 Abbot Bldg., Cambridge, Mass. BUEHLER, HENRY A., State Geol Rolla, Mo. CASTO, WILLIAM H., JR., Mining Bonanza, Idaho. COHEN, MAXWELL B., Mill Operator Miami, Ariz. EVANS, MILTON R., Shop Draftsman 92 Division St., Kingston, Pa. HARPER, WALTER S., Asst. Treas 42 Broadway, New York, N. Y. JAMES. JAMES S.. Min. Engr Telluride. Colo.

Jan 5, 1913

By Hal T. Morris

The main Tintic mining district in central Utah has produced approximately 13,500,000 tons of ore, containing silver, lead, gold, copper, zinc, and other metals, valued at more than $315,000,000. More than 90 per cent of this ore has come from large, irregular ore bodies that have replaced folded and faulted limestone and dolomite strata. Of lesser importance are replacement veins that chiefly cut contact-pyrometasomatized carbonate rocks and fissure veins that cut altered intrμsive bodies and volcanic rocks. The district is in the west-central part of the East Tintic Mountains, a north-trending fault-block range near the eastern margin of the Great Basin. The consolidated sedimentary rocks exposed at the surface and in mine workings are miogeosynclinal deposits more than 10,000 feet thick that range in age from late Precambrian to Late Mississippian. They are folded and strongly faulted and are partly overlain by volcanic tuffs and agglomerates and by extensive flows of porphyritic and vitrophyric quartz latite, latite, and trachyandesite of Eocene age. All of these rocks are locally concealed beneath thick alluvial deposits of Pliocene and Quaternary age. The Eocene and older rocks are cut by dikes, sills, and small stocks of porphyritic quartz monzonite, monzonite, and latite, which are genetically related to the ore deposits. The district is inactive except for the production of halloysite clay and for minor leasing activity and exploration ventures. Several exploration targets remain untested.

Jan 1, 1968

By PERCY E. BARBOUR

SECONDARY copper1 has &come more or less of a bugbear generally. What is its influence is often the subject of heated argument. The inedapable fact usually quoted is that since in 1929 primary production of copper in the United States was 1,026,348 tons and secondary production was 626,550 tons, there- fore, 0.6 lb. of secondary is produced for every pound of primary, and "How can you get around that?" The matter seems very plain, now that I have reached my conclusions, but they are the result of much laborious study and research. I shall show that' the production of secondary copper is not 0.6 per lb. of primary, in spite of statistical appearances; that the production of secondary is a function of primary production rather than of price; that secondary production has 'only a sub-. ordinate influence on the price of copper and then only in abnormal times; that there is not an accumulating reservoir of secondary from which the country is some- time to be drowned in copper, as is believed by some, or a reservoir from which we are going to draw much needed and more or less inexhaustible stores in the future, as is believed by others; and finally, that the United States always produces more copper than it uses and exports the surplus. These are all controversial points, and for that reason and to anticipate argument I have set forth my reasoning in considerable detail.

Jan 1, 1931

THE twelfth annual meeting of the American Asso-ciation of Petroleum Geologists will be held in Tulsa, Okla., on March 24 to 26, at the Mayo Hotel. The per-sonnel of the committee on arrangements for this meet-ing is as follows : Chairman, M. M. Valerius ; finance, J. H. Gardner; program, Sidney Powers,; publicity, Luther H. White; reception, L. G. Welsh; registration, Frank A. Herald; exhibits, Frank C. Greene; entertain¬ment, Harry H. Nowlan ; ladies' entertainment, T. E. Weirich; golf tournament, A. L. Beekly; hotels, G. C. Potter; transportation, A. W. Duston; banquet, R. Hughes; decoration, V. H. Hughes.

Jan 2, 1927

By John Hays Hammond

Discussion of the paper of John Hays Hammond, presented at the Chattanooga meeting, October, 1908, and published in Bi.-Monthly Bulletin., No. 24, November, 1908, pp. 1171 to 117S. PROF. HENRY Louis, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, En j. (communication to the Secretary'`) :-I welcome Mr. Hammond's paper as an. attempt to give definiteness to the best modern professional practice. Such a codification of our professional ethics is urgently needed, seeing how widely the views of mining engineers differ on some of the point-,. raised, for example, I have no hesitation it) performing a class of work, as to which Mr. Hammond seems to entertain some doubts, and, on the other hand, I strongly condemn a practice which he appears to recommend. I have not the least hesitation in making reports for vendors of mining properties, and am constantly doing so; . the best justification for this practice may be found in the fact that such reports have been repeatedly accepted by buyers as giving a correct representation of the facts of the case, which is all that should be demanded from any report. On the other hand, Mr. Hammond advocates that mitring engineers should take payment for their reports tin shares of a company to be floated upon the basis of such reports. I hold that this is ethically wrong, as even the most honest of men is liable to be unconsciously biased under these conditions. Indeed, I go much further, and maintain that a mining engineer who re¬ports or advises upon mining properties should never hold any-mining shares at all, or be himself interested in any mine,' and this has been my consistent practice for many years. A man who holds shares in a mine, and is called upon to report upon a neighboring property or a similar mine, can never be wholly unbiased, and even if lie could be, he would always lay himself open to the suspicion that he was giving a favorable report so as to-enhance the value of the property in which he himself is interested, or an unfavorable report so as to stifle competi-

Jun 1, 1909

Jan 1, 1955

By G. W. Phelps

The field of industrial minerals is concerned with both sieve size and distribution of sub-sieve particles. A great deal of work has been reported on the techniques designed to provide information of this work. The term sub-sieve is here considered to include particular material that will pass a 325-mesh testing sieve. Plant men require rapid, precise and simple testing techniques that are, if possible, inexpensive with respect to equipment and manpower. A number of particle-size procedures have been developed, based on the Stokes equation for streamline movement of a particle of diam D, moving at velocity V through a liquid of viscosity n. 1 Particles are considered to be rigid, smooth spheres, completely dispersed at low concentration and moving at low velocity through the suspending medium with no slippage between particle and liquid. In particle size determinations the particle moves either from natural gravitational forces or those provided by centrifugal means. The diagram of Fig. 1 shows a spherical particle of density S and diam D moving downward at velocity L/T (or V) through a liquid of density So and viscosity n. The forces of gravity G (natural) or Gc (centrifugal) cause the particle to move through the liquid, thereby creating a viscous drag F or Fc. Within the streamline flow

Jan 1, 1967

By E. W. Pehrson, J. W. Furness

THE five charts presented here- with are part of an original group prepared by the U. S. Bureau of Mines showing the international trade in the principal metals and metallic ores. Charts 011 anti- mony, chromite, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, tin, tungsten, and zinc were published in the February, 1936, issue of the Engineering and Mining Journal. Those shown here include bauxite, aluminum, iron ore, pig iron, and the platinum-group metals.

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1970

By Henry N. McCarl

Mineral aggregates are those natural and manufactured industrial mineral and rock materials that provide bulk and strength in port- land cement concrete, bituminous concrete mixes, and plaster or stucco surfaces. They may also provide special characteristics such as thermal and acoustical insulation, weight, surface textures, abrasion resistance, and impermeability to various concrete products and mixes. Most aggregates are relatively inexpensive materials, but despite their low unit value, the tonnages consumed each year in the United States and throughout the world make mineral aggregates by far the leading industrial mineral and rock materials both in terms of volume (tonnage) produced and value consumed. The major use of mineral aggregates is in concrete. The low cost, high bulk aggregates tend to keep concrete construction costs at levels competitive with other building materials. Other major uses of aggregates include highway and railroad base or ballast materials, graded fill, and various industrial uses such as metallurgical and chemical fluxes and raw materials-these latter uses are often considered nonaggregate uses of mineral aggre- gate materials. The value of mineral aggregate materials at the production plant varies from less than a dollar per ton to several dollars per ton for most crushed stone and sand and gravel, $2 to $15 per ton for slag and expanded clay or shale aggregate, to as much as $60 to $100 per ton for expanded perlite or vermicu- lite. The more specialized the use, the higher the price-although there are naturally some exceptions to this rule of thumb. The first four parts of "Construction Materials" deal with the utilization of four major mineral aggregate types: Crushed Stone, Light- weight Aggregates, Sand and Gravel, and Slag. While the focus will be on the use of these industrial minerals and rocks there will also be some coverage of sources, mining and production, especially in those cases where they are

Jan 1, 1975

Jan 1, 1967