Search Documents

The mining industry worldwide is currently facing a significant restructuring process. In most underground mines, widespread mechanization of the mining processes increases production while reducing staff numbers. At the same time, mining depths as well as the lateral spread of the mine workings are increasing. This ever-changing mining environment requires sophisticated solutions for the design and operation of underground mines. In fact, a reduced number of mining engineers is taking responsibility for everincreasing mine operations. This applies not only to the excavation of the minerals, but also to all other aspects of the mining operation, including health and safety, disaster management, and mine rescue organization. Most mining engineering graduates entering the industry lack experience in mine emergency management. Young engineer trainees must learn mine emergency management and rescue work in addition to their normal training experience on the job. Often, and unfortunately, emergency and rescue training at different mining companies is not carried out to the highest level and standard and with the best possible training outcomes. The tasks and challenges a young engineer faces while being trained in a new position do not leave much room for additional training in mine rescue and emergency management. At the same time, experienced, ?old hands? are retiring and cannot easily be replaced due to limited graduation numbers. Strategies are being developed at mining universities worldwide to train mining engineering students in handling mine emergency situations and to provide hands-on experience for managing potential accident and disaster scenarios underground. Two of these strategies, from the USA and from Central Europe, are presented in this paper. These specific strategies have to be seen under special consideration of the local and regional boundary conditions, but might serve as case studies for mining schools and universities in other countries.

Jan 1, 2014

By N. Henderson, J. Weyer, J. F. Brune

"The mining industry worldwide is currently facing a significant restructuring process. In most underground mines, widespread mechanization of the mining processes increases production while reducing staff numbers. At the same time, mining depths as well as the lateral spread of the mine workings are increasing. This ever-changing mining environment requires sophisticated solutions for the design and operation of underground mines. In fact, a reduced number of mining engineers is taking responsibility for everincreasing mine operations. This applies not only to the excavation of the minerals, but also to all other aspects of the mining operation, including health and safety, disaster management, and mine rescue organization.Most mining engineering graduates entering the industry lack experience in mine emergency management. Young engineer trainees must learn mine emergency management and rescue work in addition to their normal training experience on the job. Often, and unfortunately, emergency and rescue training at different mining companies is not carried out to the highest level and standard and with the best possible training outcomes. The tasks and challenges a young engineer faces while being trained in a new position do not leave much room for additional training in mine rescue and emergency management. At the same time, experienced, ’old hands’ are retiring and cannot easily be replaced due to limited graduation numbers.Strategies are being developed at mining universities worldwide to train mining engineering students in handling mine emergency situations and to provide hands-on experience for managing potential accident and disaster scenarios underground. Two of these strategies, from the USA and from Central Europe, are presented in this paper. These specific strategies have to be seen under special consideration of the local and regional boundary conditions, but might serve as case studies for mining schools and universities in other countries."

Jan 1, 2014

By J. S. Gardner

Fortunately, few mining professionals have dealt with what all mining professionals fear---a mine disaster. Unfortunately, many have dealt with ?accidents? which may or may not claim lives but nevertheless rise to the level of a ?disaster? given the fallout of liability and litigation in today?s society.1 The undersigned authors published an article some ten years ago regarding crisis management2 based upon their collective first-hand experiences in actual disasters to that point in history. Unfortunately, disasters have occurred since that time, prompting legislation, and a fresh analysis and expansion of those basic principles is certainly in order. Without question, no two disasters are ever alike, yet general guidelines for forming an effective plan of action can be formulated?and if a mining operation is to have any chance of survival after a disaster, such a plan is vital. The primary concern as any disaster evolves remains as stated a 2003 SME article3--the protection of human life. From that point, the focus moves to any assistance that may be needed given the magnitude of the situation. Permeating throughout this process is "damage control." The first step in dealing with a disaster, however, begins long before any threat of danger arises?formulation and implementation of an Emergency Response Plan.

Feb 23, 2014

By Z. Hyder, M. D. Cleason

"INTRODUCTION Mine Ventilation has come a long way over the years. The main purpose of mine ventilation is to keep conditions in the mine safe for the worker so that the mine will be productive and profitable. Technological developments to the mine ventilation system itself and the development of mining techniques have helped improve the safety and productivity of the miners and the mine. Most of the developments to mine ventilation and to safety devices came as the result of serious mining disasters. Another effect of those mining disasters, especially in the late 19th century and after, was legislation to set specific safety standards for mines, especially in the underground coal mines. This paper will focus on the connection between mines disasters and the mine safety legislations promulgated because of those disasters. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MINE SAFETY LEGISLATION Mine legislation has a long history in the U.S. dating back well in the 1800’s. However, mine safety legislation is considerably newer. In 1891, the U.S. Congress passed the very first version of mine safety legislations setting up minimum safety standards. By today’s standards, the 1891 legislation was incredibly basic (7). It took a series of horrific mining disasters for Congress to take action a second time. In 1910, Congress established the Bureau of mines. The role of Bureau developed and changed over next 60 years. In 1995, Congress voted to disband it (27). Initially the Bureau was only charged with investigating and coming up with ways to reduce accidents in coal mines. It was not until 1941, when Congress formally allowed Bureau of Mines’ Inspectors into the mines. In 1947, the Congress enacted and adopted a set of federal safety regulations for the inspectors to follow (1). Finally, in 1952 Congress granted the Bureau of Mines the authority to inspect the mines and to issue citations and/or orders of withdrawals. This act was known as the 1952 Coal Act and the penalties were limited to civil penalties. It would take a couple more iterations of mine safety legislation for monetary and criminal penalties to be introduced (10). Up until 1966, mine safety legislation was directed primarily at underground coal mines and surface coal mines. Congress passed the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966, thus providing a set of standards for all mines to follow (1). The 1952 Coal Act was amended again to be the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. This amendment was the beginning of modern mine safety legislation (13). In 1973, Congress created what can be considered the first ‘version’ of the modern day MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration). The initial version was the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administrations or MESA. Congress created MESA to act as the enforcement agency, relieving the Bureau of Mines of that responsibility so they could focus on their initial purpose, the development of countries natural resources (14). As mining industry grew, mine safety and health became a greater concern and priority. More efforts were put in legislating the industry. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 provided the platform for today’s mine safety and health legislation. Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, also known as the Mine Act, MSHA came into being (1)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Robert B. Scott

The Dents Run Demonstration Project near Morgantown, West Virginia, was a cooperative venture involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Water Resources Division (WRD)(1) of the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Christopher Division of the Consolidation Coal Company (CONSOL). The object of this project was to demonstrate pollution control methods and to clean up a 37.8 sq km (14.6 sq mi) watershed severely polluted by coal mine drainage. A study entitled, "Water Infiltration Control to Achieve Mine Water Pollution Control" (EPA-R-2-73-142),(2) was conducted by the Cyrus Wm. Rico Division of NUS Corporation for the grantee to determine the feasibility of utilizing remedial techniques to improve the Dents Run water¬shed. This study showed that the Dents Run watershed was discharging as much as 6,870 kg/day (15,100 lb/day) of acid; 1620 kg/day (3,560 lb/day) of iron 17,250 kg/day (38,000 lb/day) of sulfates; and 29,500 kg/day (64,900 lb/day) of total dissolved solids into the Monongahela River near Morgantown, West Virginia. This pollution was caused by the combination of borehole pump discharges from active underground mines, runoff from abandoned strip mines, and runoff from refuse dumps.

Jan 1, 1977

By H. B. Charmbury

In the United States and in Pennsylvania in particular the coal mine drainage problem is of continuing and growing interest to the coal mining industry, the state government, the federal government and the public at large. The 1965 amendments to Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law prohibit the discharge of acid mine drainage into the streams of the Commonwealth after January 1, 1967. Because of this new legislation, the coal mining industry and state government are extremely aware of the necessity for new techniques for treatment and prevention of the flow of acid mine drainage from the active mines of the Commonwealth in order to keep the coal mining industry in business in Pennsylvania. Approximately one-third of the total volume of mine drainage presently polluting the streams of the Commonwealth originates from "active" coal operations and two-thirds comes from "abandoned" mine discharges. As early as 1963 it became evident that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the coal industry in Pennsylvania would have to take active steps to abate the mine drainage pollution of Pennsylvania's streams and rivers. This became quite clear during the deliberations in Harrisburg which climaxed a twenty year struggle for effective strip mining legislation. The bituminous strip mining law enacted that year made it unlawful to have any acid discharge from active stripping operations.

Jan 1, 1968

By Roger C. Wilmoth

The most common method of treating mine drainage to prevent water pollution consists of neutralization and aeration. This process removes the acidity, iron, aluminum, and some other heavy metals, but does not render a water suitable for domestic or industrial use because of the high dissolved solids, hardness, and sulfate in the treated water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has been sponsoring and conducting research since 1966 on the use of reverse osmosis (R.O.) for the treatment of mine drainage. This process has been found to be highly effective in the removal of nearly all the dissolved solids. In addition, since R.O. is a concentrating process, potentials for recovery of valuable heavy metals are possible. This paper is a review of the state-of-the-art on the treatment of mine drainage by reverse osmosis.

Jan 1, 1972

By N. J. Roodt

Mine dumps created in terms of the pre-MPRDA regime (old order mine dumps) are currently not regulated by the MPRDA, and the common law owners of such dumps are free to process them without the need to obtain the relevant rights. The MPRDA Amendment Act purports to change this position. However, the wording of the Amendment Act raises a number of problems which render the post-amendment position at best unclear and at worst absurd and unworkable. The primary concern with the Amendment Act is that, on one interpretation, material placed on the same dump at different times may be treated differently at law. Thus, parts of a dump may be subject to one person?s right while others may be subject to another?s right. Moreover, case law has generally regarded mine dumps as movable property and, by extending the MPRDA to apply to all mine dumps, the Legislature is extending the ambit of the Act to cover movable property, a scenario not contemplated by the wording of the Act (even after its amendment) in relation to applications for rights. The better interpretation of the amendments, which are not yet in force, is that they will not apply retrospectively to old order mine dumps.

Jan 1, 2010

By W. Moser

During the ten year span from 1978 to 1987, the number of fires which occurred in under-ground coal mines doubled from the previous ten years. Anyone involved with underground coal mines is well aware of the associated tragedy that can result from these fires, both to personnel and to property. Every day mine management and mining personnel face this threat of a possible mine disaster or fire. Their ability to deal with such a situation safely and effectively depends on the level of emergency preparation developed and maintained. As a direct result of the ever-increasing interest in the Mine Emergency Preparedness Program and the Mine Fire Training Programs currently being conducted, the Emergency Preparedness Center was created. As a branch of the Mining Extension Service at West Virginia University, the Center provides preparedness training at several different levels on a varying range of topics. Classes are conducted at a new especially-designed training laboratory at the National Mine Safety & Health Academy in West Virginia. By maintaining the proper equipment and levels of training allowing for immediate response, the personnel who are part of the Center believe that the impact of a mine fire or other such emergency situation can be minimized. This paper will present recommendations for maintaining an efficient mine emergency preparedness program and will provide information regarding the Mine Fire Training Program as conducted by the Emergency Preparedness Center and describe the advantages of the newly constructed training facility.

Jan 1, 1993

By R. L. Derick

The Orchard Valley Mine, a large underground coal mine located in western Colorado, experienced a major mine fire during an idled Sunday on June 1, 1986. This mine had extensive problems with spontaneous combustion near the coal outcrop. Spontaneous combustion has been determined to be the probable cause of that fire. Preparing for a mine emergency was an on-going task. Once the emergency occurred, much of the preparation work was implemented and aided in controlling the situation. Later, the successes and shortfalls that arose from that emergency were analyzed for future course of action. This paper summarizes the activity that led up to the major fire, the handling of that emergency, the lessons learned, and the changes implemented.

Jan 1, 1993

By M. L. Matt

The Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center of the Mine Safety and Health Administration has developed the Mine Emergency Responsiveness Development (MERD) program to improve the reaction and response of mine personnel in mine emergency situations. The MERD program simulates problems that may be encountered in underground mine fires, underground mine explosions or surface mine accidents. Since its inception in 1982, the MERD program has been presented to MSHA, Industry, Labor and State Government Personnel. The program is extremely versatile and is easily adapted to suit various training requirements. It gives the participants the opportunity to experience some of the emotions, frustrations and successes of a mine emergency in a controlled environment without having to be involved in one. Past participants have indicated that this training has better prepared them in actual emergency situations through increased awareness and advanced preparation of plans and resources. In 1992, a Mine Simulation Laboratory, which simulates a coal mine and metal/nonmetal mine, was built to improve training for mine emergencies and prevention and fighting of mine fires. This facility has been included in the MERD Program to provide realistic and practical training for mine rescue teams and MERD participants in advanced mine emergency operations. This paper presents an overview of the MERD program.

Jan 1, 1993

By William C. York-Feirn, Jeffrey H. Kravitz, David Stalfort

"Mining is an inherently risky business. Over the years, major mine disasters have resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of miners in the United States. These disasters also resulted in innovations in approaches to mine design, operations and the training of miners and mine rescue teams. The U.S. Congress responded to these disasters with new laws designed to create mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the nation’s mines.Following a mine emergency preparedness and response holistic gap analysis in 2012, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) identified the need for the development of risk and readiness assessment models for MSHA and the mining industry. MSHA’s objective was to evolve existing theoretical concepts for risk and readiness assessment into simplified tools that can be applied by the mining industry for use at operational levels. In 2012, MSHA hired ABS Group, a recognized industry leader in safety risk management and a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Bureau of Shipping, to develop self-assessment models to help meet this objective.In September 2012, MSHA chartered a project to supply the coal mining industry with a pro-active toolset for mine operators to:1. Self-assess the risks associated with underground coal mining operations in order to prevent major mine emergencies.2. Assess the preparedness of mine operators to respond to an emergency.3. Measure the readiness of mine rescue teams and responsible persons to execute emergency plans.MSHA’s objective was to evolve existing theoretical concepts for risk and readiness assessment into simplified tools that can be applied by the coal mining industry for use at operational levels."

Jan 10, 2018

By J. B. Watts

"THE Mine Engineering Department at Gaspe Copper is staffed by a chief engineer, assist-ant engineer, research engineer, chief surveyor, four instrument men, chief bonus clerk, draftsman, and a helper pool of four permanent men plus one or two students in the summer. The men are grouped according to function for organization purposes. Routine services provided by the Mine Engineering Department in-elude ail surface and underground surveying and mapping, preparation of working drawings, compilation of engineering reports, recommendations on ventilation, testing the mine air for carbon monoxide, research on mine equipment and its use, and the calculation of incentive bonus. Demand jobs from departments other than the Mine Department .are done on request. Such jobs may be in the plantsite, the Town of Murdochville, or at the shipping points at Gaspe harbour or the St. Lawrence river."

Jan 1, 1959

By D Cliff

"It has been 17 years since the mine disaster at Moura No 2 Mine in Queensland. Recent disasters in the USA and New Zealand prompt the question what has changed since 1994. This paper att emptsto answer this question and identify areas that need improvement."

Jun 1, 2012

By John Jonkman

The cost of equipment maintenance is the largest single expense at many mines and processing plants. It is not unusual for a maintenance and repair budget to be larger than 50% of the punt's total budget. Generally, in the mining industry, 400-60% of the work force in a plant reports to the maintenance department. Studies have shown that many plant maintenance workers are only 33 to 40% productive, working 2.6 to 3.7 hours of every 8-hour day. In recent years, many companies have begun to recognize that- productivity improvements and cost reductions can he achieved by upgrading maintenance methods. This paper discusses ten common causes of low maintenance productivity and how recent advancements in computing technology can be utilized to address these causes for low productivity.

Jan 1, 1986

By Timothy J. Orr, Jami M. Girard

A NIOSH study on occupational deaths between 1980 and 1989 indicated that in the United States, mining had the highest average annual fatality rate (3 1.9 per 100,000 workers) of any other major industry. Since "lack of training" was often cited as the primary cause of accidents, NIOSH has been investigating new methods for effective training. One such method is the use of low- cost, desktop computers to simulate a virtual mining environment. Computer-based training offers several advantages over conventional training because the computer programs provide a three- dimensional environment that allows the trainee to practice using evacuation routes, encounter mining hazards, and view mining operations without being exposed to any real danger. One major focus of the project is mine escapeway multiuser training using desktop virtual reality programs. Researchers have imported mine maps into the software for the purpose of practicing actual evacuation routes and procedures. Various scenarios for evacuation can be practiced in a three-dimensional computer simulation of the mine in a disaster situation, complete with smoke, fire, and other dangers. Depending on the trainee's job description (i.e., foreman, shift boss, beltman, etc.), certain tasks need to be performed in addition to navigating primary and/or secondary escape routes. Each scenario allows for individual or team-based training and provides a means to educate mine workers in hazard recognition and hazard avoidance. Using this program, mine workers can practice evacuating various mine layouts without the danger and expense associated with escapeway training in an actual underground mine. Each scenario can be changed to test the trainee's reaction in a variety of circumstances and run many times so the trainee can practice concepts. This training experience will help reinforce the knowledge acquired during more conventional classroom instruction, and the inherent flexibility of the program allows training materials to be tailored to meet the specific requirements of individual mines.

Jan 1, 2002

By Donald W. Gentry

This section deals with one of the most fascinating aspects of mining the evaluation of mine investment opportunities. Be-fore proceeding further, it is important to clarify the meaning of some fundamental terms used frequently in the text. 6.0.1.1 Mine Valuation vs. Evaluation The words "valuation" and "evaluation" in a mining context are often used interchangeably. However, for the purposes of this section, a distinction is made between the two terms in accordance with commonly accepted practice. The word valuation in a mining project context has the rather narrow meaning of placing a dollar or other currency value on the worth of the project as a whole. In other words, the value of a mining project refers to a measure of the desirability of ownership of that property. As such, the major item of interest is, "what is the mine worth?," or `what is the value of the mine?" The value of a mining project may actually be determined in the marketplace at any specific point in time, or it may be estimated by one of several methods. The topic of mine valuation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.1. The word evaluation in a mining project context connotes the broader meaning of determining the numerical values of all

Jan 1, 2008

By H. C. W. Bosman

"Over the past five years, contributions from geologists and mining engineers were instrumental in the successful development of MEPS. It is a system of FORTRAN programs specifically designed to be used by mining personnel to solve geological and mining problems. MEPS is a flexible keyword-driven system. Extensive error editing procedures significantly reduce the time required to proceed from problem recognition to solution. Possibly the most attractive feature of MEPS is that computer solutions may be guided or selectively modified to obtain desired solutions. Some highlights of MEPS are:1. Vocabulary that is familiar to mining people.2. Geological data storage and retrieval.3. Statistical analysis and variograms.4. Contour maps of assays and geological horizons.5. Trend surface analysis with residual evaluation.6. Ore reserve calculations.7. Open-pit mine design.8. Marginal profitability calculations on pit walls.9. Production scheduling.10. Vertical cross-section plots indicating pit outlines, ore grade contours and selected geological horizons."

Jan 1, 1973

By Scott G. Giltner, Alex Schwenk

An iron operation sought to extend the life of the mine by conducting a major pit pushback in an area close to several public structures and the neighboring town. The result of the pushback would make millions of tonnes of ore available for mining allowing many additional years of taconite mining. This paper discusses the initial development blasts conducted for the pit pushback. For the development blasts, it was determined that no fly rock should leave the mine site and that the blast vibrations should be as low as possible, but specifically under 19 mm/s (0.75 in/s) at a nearby sewage treatment plant. One issue complicating the blast design was the variation in hole depth within any given blast. For the initial sinking shot, the hole depths varied from 6.4 m (21 ft) to 12.5 m (41 ft). In the subsequent blasts the hole depths within each blast could vary up to 5.8 m (19 ft). Various tools were employed to design the blasts to ensure there was no fly rock and that the blast vibrations were as low as possible. UAV surveys of the blast areas were conducted to provide a 3-D representation of the free faces and bench surface. The 3-D point cloud produced from this was used to measure the shape of the free faces. Once the shape of the free faces was quantified, it was possible to establish proper placement of the crest holes and develop a custom explosive load for each blast hole. In addition, signature hole analysis was performed for each blast to determine the optimum delay time that balanced the need for minimal vibration, prevent fly rock, and a well fragmented muck pile. Electronic detonators were applied to achieve the necessary control of the blast that balances these three concerns. The results of the seven blasts conducted to date provided the desired results. The peak vibration level at the sewage treatment plant for the seven blasts was 10 mm/s (0.40 in/s). The only fly rock occurred when there was a miscommunication in the blast design resulting in under burdened holes on the front row. To date, the mine has been able to safely expand the pit into an area that will add many years to the mine life. The muck piles have been well fragmented with reports from the shovel that they have all dug well.

Jan 21, 2025

By Scott G. Britton

Mine exploitation is a broad subject whose focus is the technical skills or efforts needed for the extraction of mineral from a known ore body. Mine exploitation can be considered the very core of the mining engineering discipline. It begins at the conclusion of the exploration and development stages of mining and ends when the ore body is exhausted and the mine (or mines)closes and is reclaimed. Section 8 on mine exploitation is comprised of seven chapters: (1) classification of mining methods, (2) mine surveying and mapping, 3) systems engineering, (4) computer methods, (5) labor relations and training, (6) management and administration, and (7) mine closure, sealing, and abandonment. Each chapter focuses its efforts towards providing detailed and useful information for the engineer on basic mine exploitation principles. The information can be applied to a broad range of mining problems without regard to mineral type or mining method.

Jan 1, 2008