Search Documents

By M. Lonoff

G. Campbell The paper by M. Lonoff looks at the importance of byproduct prices on copper production. The paper develops several interesting points on this topic, but there are some points in the theoretical discussion that could use further development. A couple of these theoretical topics will be considered here using the paper's framework of assumptions without concern about how realistic the assumptions are for the copper industry. Lonoff's theoretical model is based on a static, homogenous world where all copper/byproduct deposits are identical, and these deposits are the main source of these metals. Due to the importance of the byproducts to the production decision, the term coproducts will be substituted for the term byproducts to reflect more accurately this condition. The conclusion is drawn that a rise in coproduct prices necessitates a decrease in copper prices because copper production is increased as a consequence of increased coproduct production. The observation that real world behavior does not always follow this pattern is dismissed as "speculation." However, it can be easily shown that within this simple framework market forces might create the observed behavior. The key question to be answered is what causes coproduct prices to rise. Three possible cases will be used as illustrations. The first case is the one implicity assumed by Lonoff. Here, the demand for coproducts increases at all prices (an outward parallel shift of the demand curve) with the demand for copper remaining constant. As reported in the paper, the results are higher coproduct prices, an increase in coproduct production, and lower copper prices due to the resulting increase in copper production. The second case is when the supply of coproducts are constrained-leading to higher market prices. Copper production, as required by the simple model, is also reduced which Reply by M. Lonoff Campbell's comments give me an opportunity to clarify a few points in "Copper and Its Byproducts." That paper examined the affect of byproducts on the copper market and considered the relative riskiness of multi-metal deposits from an investment standpoint. That brief note made no attempt to be exhaustive. Nevertheless, Campbell's comments miss the point of the paper and necessitate a response. My "theoretical model" was static and I freely conceded after introducing the assumption of identical deposits that "none of the assumptions hold." These simplifying assumptions allowed me to bound the possible effects of higher byproduct prices on the copper price by assuming identical deposits and computing average price effects. I took great pains to subsequently explain that since deposits are not identical the identity of the marginal deposit might change due to byproduct price changes. In this case, average price affects will overstate the affect of byproducts on copper prices. According to Campbell, I dismiss as speculation any "real world behavior that does not always follow this pattern" (of metals prices moving in opposite directions). In the byproducts paper I noted that gold, copper, and silver price movements often parallel each other on an intra-day or day-to-day basis. Such movements are largely due to market anticipation of or reaction to changes in interest rates that affect carrying costs of metals stocks. Other movements may be due to anticipated changes in available supply or physical requirements. I loosely grouped these effects as speculative. To distinguish this statement from the main thrust of the paper, I contined "In the long run if gold and silver prices remain high the equilibrium copper price will be lower." The paper set out long run equilibrium conditions rather than attempting to explain price movements on a daily basis or on a year-to-year basis.

Jan 11, 1983

By J. Gross

G. H. Clevenger, Chairman of the Milling Methods Committee of the Institute, made the following introductory remarks: "Several years ago, a number of us felt that the time was ripe for a fundamental investigation of crushing and grinding. At the outset, it appeared that the first thing we needed was a yardstick whereby grinding efficiency could be measured. "The U. S. Bureau of Mines has been most generous in cooperating with the Milling Methods Committee in getting this work well under way. John Gross, who served the committee for a year as secretary, was placed in charge of the investigation and has been ably assisted by S. R. Zimmerley. "Messrs. Gross and Zimmerley will now present the Progress Report covering their work to date." PROGRESS REPORT J. Gross, Salt Lake City, Utah. -This has not been a simple problem, and when I tell you that we can give you a verbal report of what we have done during three years in five or ten minutes you will realize that we have necessarily done a great deal of work that does not appear in the final results. We have been in a virtually new field. Therefore, we have had to feel our way at each step so as to be fairly sure we were correct. The first thing that was realized in this problem was that unless we had some method of measuring what happened when we crushed an ore, we might as well quit and not go further. We realized that if we tried to measure the results of crushing or grinding by the ordinary sizing test we would not get anywhere. We could sieve down to say 200 mesh fairly accurately; we could even go one sieve size further with a little less accuracy, and then we were absolutely lost, unless we went into microscopic measurement. Even this latter method would not have been satisfactory. The question was: what were we going to measure? If we were going to measure size, we might measure one particular dimension of a particle and be off 200 per cent. or more. If we tried to measure surface, we would have something tangible; the surface of a particle, no matter how irregular, is something definite, far more definite than any linear dimension would be. Moreover, if we could measure surface, we would immediately have a method of checking the Rittinger law as to whether it was or was not correct. So the first thing that we sought was a method whereby we could measure surface on crushed particles or, we will say, on particles; it would not make any difference whether crushed or not. It then became a question of what kind of particles we were going to use in obtaining a method for surface measurement. We realized that it would be rather a com-

Jan 1, 1928

Mr. Raden has described the practical problems associated with fines in phosphate rock beneficiation. In this discussion, a colloid chemical viewpoint is given to the problem of separating phosphate values from phosphatic clay slurries. The phosphatic clays are predominantly colloids of a complex mixture of many minerals (1). The constituents are typically 25% apatite, 40-50% clays, and various amounts of wavellite, quartz, dolomite, fluorite, and other minerals. The clays are montmorillonite, attapulgite, and illite, with some kaolinite. The various mineral colloids in the slurry are heterogeneously coagulated in the as-produced state. Dispersion of the coagulated state is evident from the fact that dispersing agents (certain polyelectrolytes) cause a large reduction in the viscosity of the slurry (2). The as-produced slurry settles from 4 to 8% solids within a week, but thereafter settles much more slowly in the form of a sediment of flocs. The supernatant liquid is often clear because of the cooperative action of the mutual interaction of particles during settling. Mineral segregation during settling has not been observed for the same reason. The initial slow settling rates indicate that the coagulated assemblies are very small. Efforts to separate apatite from the other minerals would be complicated by the heterogeneous coagulation state. Somehow the apatite must be "liberated" from its association with the other minerals before it can be physically separated. One approach for liberating apatite is to disperse the entire suspension. While this is feasible technically, for example by using certain polyelectrolytes (2), the reagent costs based on present

Jan 1, 1979

The problems associated with the processing of the Tilden ore are very much representative of the problems encountered in plants processing fine grained magnetic and nonmagnetic iron ores. I would like to comment on some of the problems mentioned in Dr. Nummela'spaper and add to his list of research opportunities in the processing of iron ores. Grinding, the most important step in the processing of fine grained iron ores, is synonymous with liberation. One grinds to separate discrete grains of minerals from the gangue. By convention- al grinding in tumbling mills, mostly random size reduction is achieved with relatively little preferential liberation of minerals. Not only are discrete particles broken that should not be broken, but damage is done to the mineral surfaces. The combination of over- grinding and surface damage shows up in lower recovery figures and higher grinding costs. What is obviously needed is a better comminution process that is more discriminating and that would permit liberating mineral particles at the coarsest possible size with a minimum production of fines. Laboratory attempts at such preferential grinding have been quite successful, but technological difficulties have unfortunately prevented its use. Impact grinding is a good example of a new comminution process that has not been accepted because of equipment problems. Either these problems have to be solved or new comminution systems have to be developed to reduce grinding costs and improve liberation. In his paper Dr. Nummela mentions the change in the primary mill throughput that occurs during the winter months. Seasonal changes in the operation of the grinding circuit and other unit operations have been observed in many plants, and many explanations for this phenomenon have been advanced. The fact is that we do not fully

Jan 1, 1979

By M. G. Ayat, B. C. Scott

H. P. Ferri I refer to the article "Degradation Process in Coal Slurry Pipelines" by M.G. Ayat and B.C. Scott in the September 1988 issue of Mining Engineering. I would like to congratulate Dr. Ayat and his colleague on a very interesting and valuable piece of work. This article is an excellent one, describing a real phenomenon that has been ignored for so long. I do, however, have an objection. The article fails to address the degradation process when coal is processed or transported in other ways than slurry form, particularly those employed in this work. Could, for example, screening (wet or dry) have contributed to the extent of degradation? Perhaps scanning electron micrographs of the samples examined and after screening would have helped to clarify this. I would like to point out that degradation is also observed in pneumatic conveying systems, mechanical conveying, and other means of transportations employed by the mineral industry. Reply by M. G. Ayat We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Fern's comments on the subject paper. As he so rightly points out, the degradation process is a real problem, not only in coal slurry pipelines, but also in many handling and processing equipment employed by the coal and mineral industry. Scanning Electron Microscopic examination of samples may offer very little information about the extent of degradation for several reasons. One is that preparing a representative sample that has undergone degradation will be extremely difficult if not impossible. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that SEM requires only very small amounts of material for testing. Secondly, there is a sample preparation step involved in the SEM examination and, as such, it would be very difficult to associate the extent of degradation to either sample preparation or handling and processing operations. Finally, it is probably worth mentioning that degradation is a multi-faceted phenomenon involving many natural and man-made factors. The logical approach to this problem would, therefore, seem to be a "one-step-at-a-time" approach.

Jan 2, 1989

By N. D. Policow, J. S. Orphanos

D.A. Dahlstrom In the paper, a comparison was made between flowsheets using the screen bowl centrifuge and disc filters, respectively, as the primary dewatering device. The authors very effectively show that by raising feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced through reduced viscosity of the water. When a final coal moisture of 10% is required, the net effect of heating the feed is a reduction in thermal requirements because of the lower evaporated load on the dryer. The flowsheet comparison on this, however, was not completely correct. Disc filters do not generally utilize enhanced mechanical dewatering through increased temperature. Horizontal belt filters, through the optimal use of steam heating of the filter cake, have shown significant cost reductions over disc filters where steam is not used. In addition, the authors forgot to mention that there is a certain fraction of the feed that is so fine that it cannot be recovered by the centrifuge economically. That is the function of the filtration device shown in Fig. 4. In subbituminous pipeline coals, this fraction represents more than 10% of the feed. Even after flocculation and belt pressing, the moisture content in the fine fraction is 30%-40. Recent tests on a subbituminous pipeline coal slurry, compared an Eimco-Extractor horizontal belt filter with the screen bowl centrifuge flowsheet shown in Fig. 4. Mechanical dewatering was enhanced through the use of a steam dry zone after the initial dewatering zone. Vacuum pump horsepower was reduced by more than 50% through the use of condensors, and heat recovery was utilized to minimize thermal costs. Thermal drying to 10% moisture by weight was required in both flowsheets. The 0.5 wt% fines in the filtrate were flocculated and recycled to the filter, thus eliminating the belt press and solids mixers. When the three major operating costs (which normally account for 50%-75% of the coal operating costs) of steam, electricity, and flocculants at current prices were calculated, the flowsheets utilizing the Eimco-Extractor had cost savings vs the centrifuge flowsheet of 89¢/t (81o; per st) of surface dry coal. This advantage increases with increasing thermal and electricity prices. I congratulate the authors for the strides made with the screen bowl centrifuge. However, filtration flowsheets continue to be improved and their simplicity and low thermal and electrical requirements should not be so quickly dismissed. ? Reply by N.D. Policow From a technical standpoint, a number of extensive test programs have demonstrated that by raising the feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced whether it be centrifuges or filters performing the separation. Economic constraints usually become the over-riding issue. If an inexpensive source of thermal energy is available, i.e., waste steam, etc., the approach becomes commercially acceptable. For the specific case of coal slurry pipelines, since the dewatering plants will be located close to power generation stations, the preheating approach becomes especially attractive. The cost comparison shown in Fig. 7, which was prepared by a major West Coast engineering firm, contrasted screen bowl centrifuges and disc filters. In both alternatives, a thermal dryer was specified to produce a contract moisture of the final product. Sizing of the thermal dryer on the screen bowl alternative was substantially smaller than that of the filter, since the screen bowl was credited with a four to six percentage point decrease in product moisture compared to the disc. This comparison was made at ambient temperatures and reflected solely the mechanical dewatering capabilities of the two devices. No preheating of the feed was included in this particular comparison. Early generation screen bowl centrifuges operated under the principle of maximum bulk tonnage throughput. Second and third generation machines have followed the trends dictated by the coal industry calling for higher one-pass recoveries than previously demanded. The current generation of high-speed, long-bowl centrifuges permit recoveries of ultrafine solids directly comparable to commercial filter operation. On typical coal preparation plant feeds with nominal 600 E. an X 0 (28 mesh X 0) clean coal, recovery levels in excess of 99% are now obtained. The material that does escape the centrifuge and reports to the main effluent is typically -10 µm, high ash material. We have documented substantial beneficiation effects in screen bowl centrifuge performance with the cake product containing lower ash levels than the feed. On the referenced pipeline, coal tests performed on Western subbituminous coal, we found that the percentage of -10 µm material in the feed was six to eight times greater than normally encountered on eastern Appalachian seams. Our 45-t/h (50-stph) production centrifuge was never set up to maximize recovery. It was used as part of the two-stage dewatering circuit that had been chosen by designers of the proposed pipeline. Recoveries up to 95% were recorded. With field adjustments, that performance could most certainly have been improved. In contrast, manufacturers of the horizontal belt filter provided a small pilot-scale unit that operated on a side stream at the test facility. Numerous combinations of chemical additions were evaluated to determine those that had the best impact on filter performance. Whereas the screen bowl centrifuges operated without chemical addition, producing a dry, fluffy cake, the belt filter required two stages of chemical addition to attain satisfactory performance and high recovery levels. On the two-stage circuit that incorporated a belt press as the secondary

Jan 12, 1983

CONTENTS [The Nature of Strain Markings in Alpha Brass (paper by J. E. BURKE and C. S. BARRETT, Met. Tech. Feb. 1948. TP 2327). ......................... 2 X Ray Studies of Twinning and Untwinning in Magnesium Alloys (paper by J. B. HESS and R. L. DIETRICH, Met. Tech. Feb. 1948. TP 2328) ................ 11 ]

Jan 1, 1948

By H. P. Croft

[ ] Professor Hibbard's paper presents a very interesting theory concerning the influence of texture on the tendency of brass tube to stress-corrosion crack. I should like to present the result of some work done in 1941 which may throw further light on the subject. In the first place, in regard to his review of the influences of grain boundaries, we not only confirmed the findings which he quoted, but also were unable to crack single crystals of beta brass in the standard mercurous nitrate test in 50 hr under loads up to 18,500 psi. Samples containing two or more crystals of beta brass always cracked at grain boundaries and generally followed the same pattern as for alpha brass, although cracking occurred sooner than in alpha brass under the same conditions. Such a specimen is shown in Fig 4. Second, at the possible risk of repetition, we should like to call attention to the reported role of grain size as influencing the tendency to stress-corrosion crack. This phenomenon, originally mentioned by Dr. Allan Morris in the Transactions, AIME, 1931, is illustrated in Fig 5, showing the effect of variations in grain size on the tendency of drawn brass wires to crack under load in the mercurous nitrate solution. This was taken from my work published in Proceedings A.S.T.M. 41, (1941), 905.

Jan 1, 1948

By B. R. Queneau

[ ] B. R. QUENEAU-One of the difficulties in metallurgy has always been a lack of precision in measurement, and I think the authors are to be congratulated on developing a method which will give us an accurate and dependable quantitative estimate of the amount of retained austenite. O. ZMESKAL*-As Chairman Queneau said, this is indeed an ingenious and needed determination. We have seen figures presented of 1/2 pct retained austenite determined, and I would like to ask the authors the lower limits of this method. How far down do they feel they can go in improving the technique still more?

Jan 1, 1948

[ ] DISCUSSION F A LORIA*-The method of testing gun steel for resistance to surface cracking described in this paper was restricted to the examination of small, rod-shaped specimens The writer would like to point out the importance of other factors in producing defects in forged and bored gun tubes which would not be apparent in this investigation because of the nature of )he test Actual section size would accentuate the possibility of internal wall (bore) defects arising from unequal expansion between the internal and external wall surfaces on firing, resulting in internal tearing Checks and tears on the inside walls arise from internal tensions and nonuniformity on cooling, but the internal tearing can be reduced by using alloys of low expansion and of good thermal conductivity so as to reduce the difference between the outer and inner wall surfaces Also, the possibility of the location of inclusion segregates within a machined gun tube becomes more likely than in a small test specimen The effect of these nonmetallics on gun life and performance is evident when one realizes that the inclusions are soft yet brittle They reduce the amount of plastic deformation which can take place before cohesive failure occurs Once localized fracture has occurred at the position of a chain of these inclusions, a sharp notch (crack) is formed which produces stress conditions more favorable to cohesive failure than to plastic deformation These cracks aid erosion by providing channelways for the explosive gases, eventually leading to the tearing out or spalling of blocks of metal Oxidation of the surface may be partly responsible for the change in the surface of gun steel during firing observed by the author The appearance of burn on the surface is an indication that high temperatures were reached on firing, resulting in a slight oxidation of the surface Since the color of the oxidized film depends on both temperature and time, a higher temperature is required for a given color to form when it is caused by explosive heat, which acts for only an extremely short time at a given spot, than when it is caused by ordinary tempering The cross section of the gun steel specimen, Fig 16, illustrates that the repeated firing temperatures were high enough to cause

Jan 1, 1948

By R. M. Schuster, F. M. Benavides

Samuel G. Bonasso The article by Benavides and Schuster provides an in-depth study of three transportation alternatives for a four-mine complex in western Kentucky. The examination of aerial tramways was not undertaken as an alternative solution. We feel this is an oversight since industrial ropeways are competitive with both belt conveyance and overland truck hauling. In fact, there are aerial tramway systems, operational today, which are 100 years old and operating with some original components. Maybe unfortunately, there are no fixed rules or guidelines whereby the most cost-effective means of transporting and handling material for a given situation may be selected. Each situation must be evaluated so the variables that influence the selection of the desired alternative can be clearly defined. However, there are in-place industrial ropeway systems that have proven economically feasible over a range of 1.6-50 km (1-31 miles). The more difficult the terrain, the greater the cost efficiency.

Jan 1, 1983

By A. G. Sciulli, G. P. Ballock, K. K. Wu

Waste disposal underground is the most effective method when viewed from an environmental aspect. As costs of other methods of disposal continue to escalate, the cost effectiveness of underground disposal during the mining cycle becomes increasingly attractive. The use of concrete for sealing abandoned mines has proved to be suspect when associated with a relatively incompetent adjacent strata due to its shrinkage characteristics. Complete failure of the plug has been known to occur in some instances. A more effective, cost competitive seal can be obtained using pneumatically stowed material and incorporating a polyurethane grout, which has greater adhesion characteristics than concrete. Injection of the surrounding strata and of the stowed material helps to ensure an impervious barrier and prevent the plug from moving when subject to high pressure heads. When properly placed, impervious seals cause the old workings to flood, raise the mine pool level, and thus eventually eliminate the potential for oxidation, which is the primary cause of acidity in the water.

Jan 11, 1986

By V. Miller

C. Hertzler The difference of means of milling characteristics by rock and ore type is tested in a statistical manner in the paper. The null hypothesis being tested is that the sample means of two different populations are equal. It is assumed that the null hypothesis is true when performing the test. Because of this, acceptance of this hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the sample means of the two different populations are equal (or there is no significant difference between the sample means), not that the samples come from the same population, as the author asserts. Rejection of the null hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the sample means of the two different populations are not equal. A P value for this test is reported in Table 2 and is incorrectly identified as the probability that the two samples came from different populations. Actually, what was recorded was 100(1 - p) where p is the usual p-value. The usual p-value measures, on a scale of zero to one, the extent to which the data agree with the null hypothesis. It is the probability of observing a value of the test statistic (Z score) that is at least as contradictory to the null hypothesis as the one computed from the sample data (McClave and Dietrich II, 1982). The author makes no mention of the fact that were these tests to be conducted together, the chances of determining that the null hypothesis is not true when it is really true are increased considerably (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980). This is a multiple comparisons problem and should be dealt with accordingly. The usual methods involve adjusting the level of the individual tests. Table 2 reports an incorrect 100(1 - p) value in the comparison of concentrate grades for other rock types with .30 to .69 % Cu vs other rock types with .70 + % Cu; 86 % should be 98.6 %. Although the article can be criticized for poor data presentation and discussion of that data, the point the author makes regarding the use of these statistics in the ore reserve estimation process is well taken. It does not appear that inaccuracies in the statistical interpretations have hindered that usefulness. References McClave, J.T., and Dietrich, II, F.H., 1982, "Statistics," Dellen Publishing Co., San Francisco and Santa Clara, CA, 766 p. Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G., 1980, "Statistical Methods," The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 561 p. Reply by V. Miller After reading Ms. Hertzler's comments, it appears that the differences noted were basically semantics. If the paper is ever presented at a math symposium, some changes will be needed. When deciding the best way to present the data to mining engineers and geologists, I decided that presenting the probability that the two sample groupings came from different populations (reverse to the Null hypothesis) was easier and would require less verbage to explain. Hence, the 100(1 - p) difference which was noted. Ideally, I would have preferred to give the recovery and concentrate grades, then comment which ones had significant differences. Unfortunately, Kennecott Corp. did not grant permission to publish the ore body's actual recoveries and concentrate grades. The conclusion is that there was, as expected, a relationship between the ore's geologic properties and the metallurgical properties, and by determining this relationship, the overall mineral model was greatly improved.

Jan 8, 1984

By J. H. Tu

The technical paper correctly points out that the kriging variance is not a good measure of the uncertainty of the estimated (i.e., kriged) value of individual blocks. The authors claim that their proposed jack-knife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from m the original sample set and then taking the average of the rekriged estimates, not only gives good block estimates, but the resulting jackknife kriging standard deviation is a useful indicator of the "true uncertainty associated with block estimates." However, they immediately abandon the idea of using the block-by-block standard deviations, reasoning that these standard deviations are not independent and that there is no easy way to utilize them. There may be another reason for not using them. The jackknife standard deviations for individual blocks given in their example are mostly in the range of 0.004 to 0.005 oz/st (0.14 to 0.17 g/t) with only one block having a high value of 0.012 oz/st (0.41 g/ t). These individual block standard deviations are as low as the jackknife standard deviation for the mean grade of the entire shape, i.e., 0.0041 oz/st (0.14 g/t). Do they represent the "true uncertainty" .of the individual block estimates? Could the authors explain this? In a global shape consisting of a large number of blocks, any given sample will affect the kriged estimate of only those few blocks within its vicinity. This is the rationale for the authors' selective rekriging, making the jackknife algorithm more efficient. On second thought, why not do away with jackknifing altogether? Just cumulate and normalize, if necessary, the kriging weights of each sample used during the ordinary block kriging process, and then compute the global variance from these kriging weights and their respective sample grades? After all, isn't the global mean grade nothing but the weighted average of the samples used in the estimation? Reply by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester The jackknife is one of the many tools in a practitioner's toolbox to solve estimation problems. The strengths of the technique lies in its simplicity, i.e., it uses the concept of mean and standard deviation and the fact that it can be easily combined with other tools, in this case kriging. Because the jackknife kriging (JK) estimate is also the mean of the pseudovalues, the JK standard deviation is attractive just as the standard deviation of the mean explains the variability of the data. The difference is that the pseudovalue calculation in jackknife kriging uses the ordinary kriging (OK) weighting scheme instead of simple arithmetic averaging. The data used to illustrate the jackknife technique in the paper con¬sist of high values that are roughly three times the low values. The resulting JK estimate of the block grades show that the highest estimate is roughly twice the grade of the lowest estimate. The contrast between the low and the high estimate is more evident in the JK estimate than in the OK estimate, even though the mean grades of the blocks for the two estimates are very similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we are concentrating more on the need for a more realistic measure of uncertainty, or precision, for the estimate. Unlike its OK counterpart, the JK standard deviation of the blocks clearly reflects the original data variation. The highest JK standard deviation of the blocks is three times its lowest value. This follows our intuition that, when the samples used to estimate a block is more variable, the resulting estimation variance (or standard deviation) should be higher than the case where the samples are more uniformly valued. However, block-by-block standard deviation or variance is of little practical value in reserve estimation and classification, as well as in mine planning. One is usually more interested in quantifying not the variance of the individual block estimate, but the uncertainties associated with a much larger dimension, such as the minable reserve. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to find a simple way to obtain a single estimation variance or standard deviation associated with the reserve grade estimate. The discussion by J.H. Tu did not mention how one would obtain the global variance from the OK weights and the sample grades. As a technique that offers a data value-based measure of uncertainty for its estimate, the "leave-one-out" jackknife fills this need nicely through the block kriging shortcut approach described in the paper. Note: The first column and the last two columns of Table 3 in the paper should have contained a single number each, namely, an OK estimate of 0.0317, a JK estimate of 0.0333 and a JK standard deviation of 0.0041 oz/st, respectively, for the shape, as are obvious from the text.

Jan 1, 1997

By R. J. Sweigard, R. V. Ramani

G.F. Learning The paper by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard is a wonderful description of the labyrinthine web that has been spun about the mining industry by energetic bureaucrats and politicians over the past 50 years. The remedy for the problem, however, is not more of the same, but less. That may be difficult for the industry to achieve, for it is not a technical solution but a political one. And the current fervor for more detailed planning at all levels of government and private enterprise has become deeply ingrained. The authors recommend the provision of more information about mining and mineral resources to "macro" (i.e., government) land use planners. They apparently overlook, however, the already strong tendency on the part of most government land use planners to consider themselves omniscient. Thus, giving them more information about the technical problems of mining will only make them want to get more and more involved in the "micro" (private, site specific) mine development and production plans of the individual mining firm. In fact, this has already happened at all levels of jurisdiction from municipal to federal government. Examples are legion. The most effective way to ameliorate the adverse impacts of government land use planning on existing and potential mining operations is to: (1) introduce greater flexibility in the definition of land use zones by local and state governments; (2) adopt realistic and relevant ambient environmental performance standards in governing relationships between mineral land uses and concurrent or subsequent nonmining land uses; (3) allow greater leeway for economic considerations in land use decisions in contrast to the explicit legalistic approach now in vogue; (4) recognize that all minerals are not the same and that sand and gravel mining should not be treated the same as underground metal mining, coal stripping, oil field production, or in situ leaching; and (5) eliminate the notion that mining operators should be responsible for determining in detail the use of land by subsequent owners of mined land. This last bit of conventional ethic really makes no more sense than requiring the builders of every shopping center or government office complex to provide detailed plans for the use of that land when its use for shopping or government is ended. Did the builder of Ebbetts Field plan for Brooklyn after the Dodgers went to Los Angeles? Should the developer of the Bingham Pit plan for suburban Salt Lake City after the copper mining goes to Chile? The nation's mining industry must address these questions before further bankrupting itself to provide more data to planners and spending thousands of dollars per acre to create land that when reclaimed is worth only a few hundred dollars per acre. Reply by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard We thank Mr. Leaming for his valuable contribution. His views on the problems of land use planning and mineral resources are most welcome additions to our paper. As the title indicates, our paper was more concerned with the impacts of land use planning on mineral resource conservation than with the details of the planning process. On the whole, his five recommendations would be helpful for mineral resource conservation. However, we would suggest that the argument he presents for his final recommendation does not address the differences between mining as a land use and commercial or institutional uses. We believe that this difference is the crux of the issue. We share Mr. Leaming's desire to ameliorate the adverse impacts of land use planning. Possibly the most detrimental impact is the loss of mineral resources. Any development, whether mineral or community, that does not give proper consideration to other resources can result in permanent loss or sterilization of resources. With proper planning, some of these losses can be avoided. As our paper indicated, one factor that limits the consideration of mineral resources, and ultimately leads to their sterilization, is the generally inadequate levels of resource characterization and understanding of the unique nature of mineral resources and mining operations. The last point raised by Mr. Leaming is also important. In terms of reclamation and land use planning in mining districts, we certainly do not advocate spending more than what the results are worth. The main thrust of the paper was to explore the avenues for conserving the mineral resources so that, at some appropriate time, the issue of mining and reclamation can still be addressed.

Jan 4, 1985

By G. Chi, M. C. Fuerstenau, R. C. Bradt, A. Ghosh

Technical Papers, Mining Engineering Vol. 49, No. 12, pp. 70-75, Discussion by McIvor, R. and Fink, R. P. We must challenge what we consider to be dubious statements in the above-mentioned article. Much of what is reported was published elsewhere over a year ago (i.e., in their reference: Chi, G., Fuerstenau, M.C., Brandt, R.C. and Ghosh, A., 1996, "Improved comminution efficiency through controlled blasting during mining," International Journal of Min¬eral Processing, Vol. 47, p. 93). There is nothing unusual or significant about a 10% or more difference in grindability between two materials of apparently similar origin and other attributes (such as chemical assays, hardness and specific gravity). Consider also that: • the materials came from different locations in the pit; • only two sets of four blastholes were considered per blast: • spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was also altered; • only two pairs of data were collected; • the impact of sampling error and bias, • both of which could be significant in this case; and • normal experimental error in parameter measurement and calculation. It is clearly inappropriate to draw any conclusions with regard to cause-and-effect relationships without first presenting a thorough error analysis. A substantial number of randomly selected test and control areas might provide meaningful statistical evidence of the claimed effect of the variables being studied. Even that appears doubtful, however, because Figures 3 and 4 show about as much variation in crushing energy for the two "regular" conditions vs. regular and altered conditions. On a separate, but also important issue, broad experience with autogenous/semiautogenous milling has shown that smaller or weaker feed material results in reduced tonnage. ? Reply Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of Messrs. Mclvor ant Fink. The points raised are addressed in the order of presentation. As the commenters noted, there are parallels between this article and a previous manuscript. The reason for these complementary articles is that the audiences for the two publications are different, although there is obviously some overlap. We believe that the different audiences each profit from the technical aspects of the two manuscripts. We are not in agreement that a grindability difference of 10% is insignificant. The laboratory work is corroborated by data obtained at plant scale, which confirms that an increase in throughput of the same magnitude (between 5% and 10%) is achieved when the blasting pattern is modified, i.e., reduced from 9 to 8 m (29.5 to 26.2 ft). This increase in throughput translates into substantial power savings for ore grinding. No differences in appearance in the rock were noted between the two adjacent areas. Rock in both areas belonged to the same rock mass/block, which was quite homogeneous and without geological features in between that could create drastic differences in comminution characteristics. Given the resources, we would have sampled from all of the holes. Additional data would certainly have been desirable, as would have been additional funding to expand the study. Their comment, "spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was also altered," is not clear. Figure 1 does not show the initiation sequence. Without the initiation sequence, we do not understand how the commenters concluded that spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was altered. The commenters may be trying to make the point that the four-hole configurations with respect to the original bench face are not exactly the same. In fragmenting the

Jan 1, 1999

H. H. Bleakney (Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa, Canada)— The work of Dr. Machlin and his colleagues at Columbia University is so scholarly that one hesitates to take issue with them. Nevertheless the writer feels compelled to enter a demurrer to the mechanism of intercrystalline cracking proposed in this paper. The principal obstacle to its acceptance is found in its preoccupation with purely mechanical influences and its disregard for the chemical effect of impurities. The writer believes that the destruction of metallic cohesion by concentration of impurities at the grain boundaries is a necessary and sufficient condition for the development of intercrystalline cracking; and he believes that discussion of the numerous mechanical explanations proposed should wait until some valid objection to the chemical hypothesis has been advanced. It is nearly twenty years since Gillett" drew attention to the possibility that the chemical influence of precipitation might be the cause of intercrystalline cracking. As early as 1935, Greenwood'" remarked that grain-boundary precipitation of impurities in lead appeared to promote intercrystalline cracking. Again in 1939, Scott commented as follows on a paper by Thielemann and Parker:'" "There are at least two familiar phenomena that can influence grain-boundary cohesion: 1) intergranular oxidation; and 2) grain boundary precipitation. An important consideration in this work, therefore, is to determine which, if either, of these factors is responsible for the low values of cohesive strength observed." In 1952. the writer presented evidence," some original and some abstracted, which indicated that in copper, silver, aluminum, lead and iron, intergranular cohesion was a function of the purity of the metal. In 1954 Glen, discussing a paper by Ridley and Tapsell14 indicated his belief in a precipitation mechanism for the intercrystalline embrit-tlement of molybdenum steel and suggested that with an absolutely pure metal it would be almost impossible to obtain an intercrystalline crack. This suggestion has

Jan 1, 1959

By C. H. Gerould

I would like to take a moment to consider our polystyrene-silica replica technique, which was developed at the Dow Chemical Co. and which was mentioned in the paper just given by Mr. Thielsch. He stated that he feared that our replica technique would cause difficulty due to deformation of the metal as a result of the application of pressure during the molding process. We at the Dow have never had any reason to suspect that any deformation of the metal was occurring during the molding process. Our procedure has been to heat the polystyrene to a temperature of 160°C. before applying any pressure, at which temperature the polystyrene is a viscous liquid. By so doing the pressure of the polystyrene against the metal is essentially hydraulic and is therefore applied equally in all directions, which we feel should not cause deformation. Our work using this replica technique has brought forth several indications that deformation of the specimen is negligible. These indications are: I. Direct comparisons have been made between the light and electron microscopes when studying a specific spot on a metal surface. These "same spot" studies were obtained by first taking micrographs at high magnification, with a light microscope, of a specific structure that could be readily recog-

Jan 1, 1947

By H. [Eyring], B. J. Zwolinski

[ ] The authors are to be commended for their excellent work on the activities of components in the solid state. It is, however, felt that certain points require clarification with reference to diffusion in the solid state. It is a well established point that any rate process in a non-ideal system can be expressed by the general equation [ ] where ko is the specific rate in an ideal system, and ?A, ?B ... , the activity coefficients of the reactants and ?± and ?M,?N the activity coefficient of the activated complex and the intermediates, respectively. With reference to diffusion, the following simplified treatment in correcting for non-ideality is proposed. The same free energy change is involved in moving a particle from a solution of one activity to a solution of another activity,

Jan 1, 1947

M.S. Azun I have many objections to the content of the author's paper. Before discussing it, however, I would like to repeat the property of semivariogram function. Second order stationary properties of regionalized variables (ReV's) such as semivariogram function y(h) are perfectly known in geostatistics. Also, the kriging equations in the language of mathematical statistics using second order stationary properties are well understood. However, the way to use the sample (estimated) semivariogram function in any one of the kriging procedures is vague. The sample semivariogram function is given as follows: [ ] where N is the total number of samples, Xi is the sample value at the i - th location, Xi+h is the sample value at the i + h - th location, and h is the distance among the samples. An estimation variance of sample semivariogram function of first lag is smaller than that of higher order lag. The theoretical semivariogram function reaches the variance of samples asymptotically. But this is not easily observable because of the larger variation involved in the estimate of semivariogram function. In general, an estimation procedure is done for h = 0, 1, 2, up to the greatest integer less than N/2, even though sample semivariogram function can be computable through N-1. After estimating semivariogram function, the critical question of how to model sample semivariogram function arises. As seen in the above equation, sample semivariogram function is discrete and can be smoothed by the model being selected. Therefore, modeling of sample semivariogram function is the most important step in geostatistics. It not only smoothes a discrete function but also affects the results of the kriging procedure. When the only aim is to model the semivariogram function, which is the basic point of the author's paper, one can employ any fitting techniques, such as curve fitting, or any arbitrary functions, which are called submodels in the paper. The term "arbitrary function" is used rather than "submodel" because there is no basic understanding of developing them. The author suggests that the sum of those submodels can also be used for the modeling of sample semivariogram function. The combination of any arbitrary functions brings many problems instead of giving an insight of the domain structure considered. The author used two arbitrary functions and the nugget effect in response to sample semivariogram function (Fig. 10). For the same example, he stated that the parameters involved in the mixed arbitrary function model can be accepted when the discrepancy between sample semivariogram function and the model is small visually. For verifying the fitting behavior of any selected model, one should not be contented with the visual satisfactory. Some statistical measure such as goodness of fit has to be used. The author's practice is no more than an exercise in curve fitting without any fundamental understanding or conceptualization of the underlying physical mechanism. Furthermore, the selection of any model is not an easy task if the purpose is the search for the "best" response to the observed second order properties of ReV's. I suggest that the Markovian model (Azun, 1983), on the basis of a theoretical understanding of underlying mechanism, which gives more information about the occurrence of regionalized variables, is used to respond all properties of ReV's. There are a lot of problems for modeling of one-dimensional sample semivariogram function. Thus, it is not appropriate to go to higher order dimensional sample semivariogram function modeling. In the meantime, I would recommend that one can connect the values of standardized sample semivariogram function rather than simple values of semivariogram function in the two-dimensional estimation. The standardized values can be computed in dividing the semivariogram function value by the number of sample pairs involved in each lag regardless of the directions. In conclusion, geostatistics is an interdisciplinary area in mining that uses the principles of mathematical statistics. Thus, it should not violate any probabilistic and statistical rules. When Matheron was developing the theory of geostatistical study in the early years of geostatistics, many mining people had a reservation accepting the geostatistical tools. However, this does not mean that we, the geostatisticians, might try to convince those people using some "strange" tools or rules as some authors implied (Baafi and Kim, 1984). Instead, we have to develop and explain the geostatistical tools staying only in the framework of statistical concepts and properties. References Azun, M.S., 1983, "Stochastic Process Modeling of Spatially Distributed Geostatistical Data," Columbia University, Ph.D. Thesis. Baafi, E.Y., and Kim, Y.C., 1984, "Discussion - Comparison of Different Ore Reserve Estimation Methods Using Conditional Simulation," Mining Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 280. Reply by J.M. Rendu The interactive method proposed by Rendu allows practitioners to develop semivariogram models that take into account not only the numerical information obtained by sampling, but also highly significant additional information that often cannot be quantified. The geology of the deposit - including hypotheses concerning its genesis, sampling methods, assaying methods, and mathematical methods used to calculate the semivariograms - all have an influence on the numerical results obtained and on how these results should be interpreted. If all the information concerning the spatial distribution of values in a mineral deposit was contained in the sample values, it could be argued that statistical techniques alone would produce optimum models. However, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Methods that allow the user to take into account his experience and his geologic understanding of the deposit should not be rejected for the sake of theoretical statistical purity.

Jan 11, 1985