Search Documents

By M Dickie

During the 1980s and early 1990s low cost gold treatment plants were at the forefront of the Australian engineering and mineral processing business. This opportunity was the result of a high gold price and innovative design by emerging engineering companies in an expanding market. The low cost approach to gold plant design and project execution resulted in smaller and shorter life projects becoming viable and the multiplicity and fast track approach of the projects resulted in sharp learning curves. From the mid 1990s to the early 2000s the relatively low commodity prices and resultant reduction in minerals opportunities also resulted in innovative design in both small and large plants, albeit on a reduced scale. The innovation was associated with alleviating capital cost pressures for large capacity low-grade (eg NewcrestÆs Cadia) or small-scale (eg JubileeÆs Cosmos) projects to either improve NPV or to enable the project to be won and profitable in the competitive lump sum environment. Between 2004 and 2008 the engineering market became less competitive from an engineerÆs perspective due to the high demand for engineering services in a high price commodity market. The need for innovation remained but was driven overtly by shortages in water, power and personnel and long equipment lead times. This paper discusses some of the factors that contribute to the capital cost of a project and the scope for improving the likelihood of financing and increasing the project net present value (NPV). Case studies with recent large copper concentrator projects will be used to demonstrate how a value driven approach to project and plant layout can result in significant improvement in NPV.

Jan 1, 2009

By P. J. Petit

Changing mining conditions, legislative issues, rising costs, and the constrained supply of skills and electricity in South Africa, have been some of the criteria forcing mine operators and engineers to review the traditional use of compressed air to power underground hand-held drilling operations in narrow-stope, hard-rock mines. In answering the question, 'What is the best way to power this mine?', they have resorted to trade-off studies with results of limited usefulness, because they are site-specific, and use only a few comparative parameters, based on a small data set. This paper aims to provide definitive, objective, and quantitative decision-making approaches to evaluating alternative energy-delivery systems for stoping in narrow-reef hard rock mines, based on primary and relevant criteria. These include quantifiable criteria such as capital expenditure, operating costs, resulting financial returns, energy and water usage, production performance, life-of-mine, etc. Other important criteria with qualitative aspects are integrated. These are safety, health, and environmental concerns, legislative requirements, business risk, technology change, etc. The paper begins with a review of decision-making processes available, and proposes the use of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method as a multiple-criteria decision-making tool and the decision tree based on milestone-driven uncertainties, to validate the selection of the energy delivery system. The results of a multiple-criteria questionnaire completed by a variety of industry experts and professionals, such as production and operation managers, consultants, suppliers, and techno-financial analysts, are discussed. The evaluation indicates the potential for hydropower to be the best solution for narrow-reef hard rock mines, based on current information, mine design layout and production.

Jan 1, 2013

THERE are certain facts that the mining industry in Australia is faced with at the present moment which may be accepted as axioms. The industry is at a low ebb, as evidenced by statistics. Metals form the basis of all modern industries, and are necessaryfor the welfare of Australia. Mining is a wasting asset. Every ton of ore extracted is one ton less which c.annot be made good, and it should be our duty to get as much profit froin that ore as possible, otherwise there is a permanent loss to the country.The metal market cannot be controlled by Australia; it is more or less an international matter. Australia has not been thoroughly prospected. There are no mines being developed that are likely to replace those which are being depleted.Our mining engineers are as capable as those in other parts of the world, and have made good where they have been given a chance. There is no one cause for the present depression; there are several, more or less, interwoven. Of course, the war has had an adverse effect, but that has only dislocated things temporarily; it upset our markets, influenced the price of metals, and affected the labour market and cost of stores. Labour troubles made their appearance before the wave of unrest swept over the world. The cause of labour discontent must be investigated, and if possible removed. As each industry has .its·own problems, miners must inquire into their special problems, as there is no sovereign remedy that will suit all cases.It is obvious that we cannot mine ore if we do not know where it is; therefore, the first thing is to discover workable deposits.

Jan 1, 1919

By J. A. Singmaster

A REPORT that it did not pay to use present-day galvanized iron on account of the short life of the material, accompanied by proofs of the state-ment in the form of a tabulated history of the first costs of various kinds of building materials and their main-tenance expense, started an investigation of modern galvanized products. At the very outset it was apparent that our experience with galvanized products was by no means unique. Correspondence with the State Agricultural Depart-ments, the Agricultural Experiment Stations, the County Agents and State Granges all over the United States brought a mass of complaint on this same score. Visits to large buyers of galvanized sheet and wire revealed the same condition coupled with an ever-increasing use of substitutes for galvanized iron. We believe, therefore, that the title of this article is fully warranted by the experience of the consuming public. A study of the proceedings of the various societies having to do with the testing and use of sheet iron and steel products revealed a tremendous amount of work on the life of the base metal itself. Great stress was laid on differences in life of various types of iron and steel, the difference amounting at best to months rather than years. Very little recent attention has been paid to a study of the life of the zinc coating and the causes of its present-day lack of durability. There have been some real exposure studies published, how-ever, which show that the weight of the zinc coating determines the protection afforded by the galvanizing, which is of far greater influence on the life than the base-metal composition. An interesting paper was published by the Phillipine Journal of Science in 1916, entitled: "Galvanized Roofing in the Phillipines," a contribution from the Bureau of Science of the Phillipine Island Government. The author, Mr. Arguelles, found on 18 old galvanized sheets, after from 30 to 35 years' exposure, from 2.3 to 4.1 oz. of zinc per sq. ft. of sheet and sums up the study by saying: Of the various factors influencing the durability of galvanized iron which have been studied with a view towards accounting for the difference in behavior of old and modern sheet, it appears evident that the greater weight of zinc per unit of area on the former accounts for the greater durability.

Jan 10, 1922

By S. M. Pickering, L. T. Gregg

Appraisal of industrial minerals beneath privately owned land requires a different approach and mindset from valuation of base and precious metals or energy minerals, and from valuation of government-owned mineral lands. First, is it the value of inground minerals or of mining rights that is being sought? Second, value to whom, the mining company, a potential investor, the mineral landowner, a lending institution, the property tax assessor, or a condemnor? Third, how should mineral value be apportioned between the land and mineral owner, and a mining company with limited years of lease-hold interest? These and many other questions must be addressed before a valuation method and Discount Rate are selected. For various reasons the Income Method is most often used, with Net Present Value calculations made for long term predicted mining income. Choice of an appropriate Discount Rate is critical.

Jan 1, 2000

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the fourth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. The table presents previous information plus about two dozen new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. Last year's tabulation appeared in two issues, to accommodate all of the information. This year the format has been changed slightly so the table can be printed in one issue. This year's table presents the commodities in the same sequence as last year. Sand and gravel information appears first, followed by: crushed stone for aggregate; other stone; industrial sand; other industrial minerals; energy minerals (coal, oil shale, uranium); and finally metals. As always, a caveat relates to factors that influence the reserve values. The data should serve only as a general reference. The table is not intended to present an absolute scale of reserve costs. Several factors influence the value of mineral commodities. These factors include: • location and transportation costs (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions for both the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; • quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing and beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; • and legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will influence reserve costs of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity; the location (either by state, US geographic area, or Canadian province); the cost (R for royalty and P for purchased cost); and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cuft), tons (/T) (2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.76m3 1 cu ft =0.28m3 1st = 0.9 t7 1 acre = 0.40 ha or m2 In several cases the royalty is a percentage of the finished products, sale price and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: J. Dunn, T. Eyde, K. Loda, L. Morgan, F. Nix, H. Sorenson, and L. Williams. Several people have said they would like this to be an annual tabulation. That can happen if new information comes to the writer. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write or call: H. L. Bourne, c/o Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo, Ltd., 38955 Hills Tech Dr., Farmington Hills, MI 48018, (313) 553-6300. Only with new information can this become an annual and current source of reserves costs.

Jan 8, 1986

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the fifth annual tabulation of mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data. There are also 60 new entries. In addition to royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. Two articles relative to the evaluation of minerals reserves appeared in December, 1986. R.H. Paschall (In the Aggregate, ME, p 1139) wrote a good article, although it lacked specific royalty data. However, this author takes exception to two ideas in Paschall's column. Paschall contends that the royalty rate does not affect the mineral appraisal. This present author could not disagree more. Paschall also claims the location of an industrial mineral deposit is the only serious or practical caveat in comparing royalties. Comments received here from readers helped make the list of caveats that are cited each year. The readers will decide which factors influence the mineral value for their commodities of interest. Paschall's point about the relationship of the parties who are negotiating a royalty agreement is important and very well taken. The other article, written by William Vernon (Pit and Quarry, December 1986), gives a step-by-step process on how to conduct a mineral appraisal. The article cites three reasons for an appraisal: transfer rights; collateral for a loan; and taxation. A fourth reason is to establish adequate compensation for reserves lost through condemnation. This author has appeared in several court cases where compensation for loss of mineral reserves through condemnation required a mineral appraisal. Royalty rate becomes an important factor in the appraisal process, although the Pit and Quarry article refers to that part of the valuation equation as "profitability." Both articles were well written and are recommended reading for those interested in mineral valuations. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation - especially significant for most industrial minerals; • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine; • quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give: • the location by state, US geographic area, or Canadian province ; • the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; • the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred; and • comments or footnotes for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/cu yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), short tons (/T), or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.76 M2 1cuft = 0.28m3 1 st = 0.9072 t 1 acre - 0.4047 ha or m2

Jan 7, 1987

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the seventh annual tabulation of royalty information. It is also the first year in which some data have been deleted to make room for new data. The concept of royalties evolved from a time when the government owned all of the land, including mines, to the situation where free miners won the right to claim minerals but paid a portion of their production to the royal treasury. Today, a mineral royalty is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights for the privilege of producing the mineral commodity. However, some people incorrectly believe that the selling price and the royalty are the same thing. The contract between the owner (lessor) and the mining company (lessee) is the mineral lease. Some clauses that are common to mineral leases include: identification of property, granting clause, reservations, definitions, royalty rate, taxes and title, indemnity, termination, inspection, assignability, successors, and reclamation. There often are variations in royalty rates for a given commodity that reflect differences in location, quality, market conditions or public versus private ownership. History In the time of ancient Rome, the government owned the mining properties by virtue of conquest. It would lease the mines to favored citizens who would pay rent to the State. Various conditions of sovereign ownership of both land and mineral rights continued in Europe until the Renaissance. As the laws evolved for land ownership by private citizens, the concept that minerals belonged to the State (King, Crown, sovereign) continued until about the 15th century. Free miners challenged the notion of sovereign ownership and won the right to discover and claim minerals. But a portion of their production had to be paid to the sovereign - a royalty. So, the original concept of a mineral royalty was a tax on production that was due to the Crown or Church. The term mineral royalty, as it is known today, is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights (formerly the royal owner) for the privilege of mining and producing the mineral commodity. The owner of the mineral rights, the lessor, and the mine operator, the lessee, enter into an agreement to mine the property. The agreement is the lease. While this concept is common, there are some who do not understand that the royalty is a portion of production paid to the owner as agreed on in the lease document. This author has seen reports where the selling price of a commodity has been quoted as the royalty. ("They get 70 cents a ton royalty at their pit and the guy down the road only has a 65 cent royalty.") These reports have been authored by people not familiar with the mining industry. Lease clauses In addition to the amount to be paid the lessor, there are several other items to be addressed in the lease agreement. The following list may not be all inclusive, but briefly describes most of the common clauses any good mining lease should contain. Identification: This opening clause names the owner (lessor) and the operator (lessee), the address of each, and gives the legal description of the property. Granting clause: This part of the lease gives the time period or duration of the agreement and information about renewal periods. It also has language about the exclusive right of the lessee to mine the property. Reservations: If the owner wants to exclude any portion of the property or set some specific conditions about the operation, there needs to be a clause that describes these reservations. Definitions: This section should address some of the technical terms that the lessor may find confusing - short tons versus cubic yards, dollars versus percentage of average selling price, any escalator indices such as consumer price index or producer price index, and material mined versus material sold. Royalty: This section spells out what the royalty rate will be, how often it will be paid, if there is an annual minimum, the pay dates, and how the records will be kept. This section also describes the conditions under which the lessee is exempt from the annual minimum - natural disasters, strikes, governmental actions, or other causes referred to as force majeure. Taxes and title: The lease needs to identify who is responsible for the property taxes, severance taxes (if applicable), and other taxes that relate to the mining activity - taxes on equipment, improvements, or stockpiles. This is a good place in the lease for the owner to certify his ownership of the property and its mineral rights and also certify that no other leases are in effect. The lessees may want language that allows them to pay mortgages or other debts on the property to keep their lease in effect. Indemnity: This portion of the lease identifies that the lessee assumes the risks for lessee's mining operation. Lessor should expect indemnification by the lessee through standard insur¬ance policies - workers compensation, liability and property damage. Termination: Both the lessor and lessee want language that will allow them to terminate the lease. This section of the lease describes the conditions under which one of the parties may terminate the lease (failure of the

Jan 1, 1989

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the ninth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for more than 30 new entries. Several articles and publications crossed the author's desk this past year that relate to mineral valuation and mineral royalty. Tom Loucks presented a paper, "The Valuation of Hard Rock Mineral Property," at the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation in Santa Fe, NM in July, 1990. His paper gives an indepth explanation of the definitions and concepts related to mineral valuation. It includes descriptions of numerous legal cases that have dealt with mineral valuation and proper reference is given for each case. Loucks works for the Denver Mining Finance Co. Gold royalties generally range from 5% to 7%, net smelter return. However, Severn Brown sent information that shows a much wider variation. Echo Bay Mines reported in its 1989 annual report royalties that range from 1.5 % to 30% for gold from various gold properties. Brown also sent a copy of an article that appeared in the Dec. 27, 1982, issue of Fortune magazine. This issue carried an article by Walter Guzzardi, Jr. "The Huge Find in Roy Ash's Backyard." The article gives the history of Newmont's leasing in Nevada on property that became the Carlin, Bootstrap and Blue Star Mines. The article states that the initial royalty was 10% that escalated to more than 16%. Another property, the site of Gold Quarry, provides an 18% royalty to the same own¬ers. The article makes interesting reading for those interested in mining history.

Jan 1, 1991

By H. Lyn Bourne

This marks the 15th consecutive year for this column. During 1995, readers were asked to supply royalty data for construction raw materials especially for states where none is available. The response was discouraging and royalty data are still missing for several states for either sand and gravel or crushed stone. Several readers have said that this article has merit but more new information is needed to justify its continuation. Several articles and pieces of news relative to mineral royalties appeared in the trade journals. R. Lee Aston (E&MJ, November, 1995, p. 16N) described South Australian royalties as amended by the government in1994. The royalty rate (a percentage) was lowered but the assessed value for minerals was raised and the current rate amounts to 20 cents//t (18 cents/st).

Jan 1, 1996

I want to explore whether it is valid or even useful to talk about sustainable corporations. After 20 years of focus on sustainable development, the concept of a sustainable corporation is not particularly helpful and it may in fact be profoundly misleading. Why? û because it obscures the need for corporations to be recognised as part of a sustainable society, rather than achieving some kind of corporate nirvana divorced from the social, political and environmental reality. It is more helpful to ask whether corporations are ready to recognise that they are one player among many within society û with the demands this would place on them in terms of transparency, accountability and social responsibility. The achievement of sustainable development has become the new corporate orthodoxy of many large corporations. It has become a clichT to argue that corporations must become æsustainableÆ. The achievement of æsustainabilityÆ is encouraged, as the ultimate step in some form of corporate evolution. We are failing to recognise that sustainability a process û not an end in itself. An enormous array of instruments is being developed to measure when sustainability is or is not being achieved. For example, corporate reporting has burgeoned into an art form, which describes æsustainabilityÆ in a variety of ways. There is no external standard applied to such reporting. These descriptions are quite partial and often place the best possible gloss on the companyÆs activities. I have become increasingly uneasy about this rhetoric and this paper has allowed me the luxury of sorting out my unease. I will discuss, largely in the Australian context, the current debate and literature and describe the way some global mining corporations are dealing with these questions, and finally, offer some suggestions which might be helpful at the operational level.

Jan 1, 2002

By D Kent, D Eisner

A lot of talk has been generated about the so called ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) and its potential to transform the way we interact with our homes and devices. But the true potential and value of IoT is not going to be realised by the general consumer but by businesses.This paper outlines the application of IoT in mining and how it is a natural extension to the base networks becoming commonplace in both surface and underground mines. The potential for ubiquitous monitoring throughout a mining operation at low capital and support costs will transform the ability to monitor, analyse, report and manage all of the key processes involved in a mining operation.Importantly, the paper will discuss the practical applications that the IoT offers mining and explain how this really is transformative technology, not just the latest buzz words from the information technology (IT) world. If leveraged correctly the impact on mining, its cost base and efficiencies, is enormous.CITATION:Kent, D and Eisner, D, 2015. What the internet of things means to mining, in Proceedings Third International Future Mining Conference, pp 65–70 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Nov 4, 2015

By Marianne Snedeker

In September 1985 we published a questionnaire asking about the content of MINING ENGINEERING and about your interests. By Dec. 10, our cutoff date, we had 430 responses, representing about 1.5% of the 28,238 people who received the September issue of ME. In the data that follow the tabulation and percentages are based on the number of individuals who responded to the particular question. About ME Through responses to the questionnaire, we were hoping to learn more about you, your interests, and how the magazine could better serve you. Those of you who responded told us something positive - you look at or read the magazine. Of the 430 respondents, 428 or 99.5% indicated that they had read or looked through the July and/or August issues. Those of you who refer to the magazine once are 207 or 48.5%. Those of you who refer to the magazine two or three times are 193 or 45.2%. Those of you who refer to the magazine four or more times are 27 or 6.3%. How much time do you spend reading the magazine? Of those responding to this question: 64 spent up to 1/2 hr 15.0% 224 spent up to 1 hr 52.6% 115 spent up to 1-2 hr 27.0% 23 spent more than 2 hr 5.4% In an informal survey among our staff, we determined that most people spend 1/2 to 1 hr reading magazines to which they subscribe at home. Does that match your experience? Many of you, 335 or 79%, clip your magazine for further reference. Also, many of you, 313 or 73.6%, do not pass your copy on to another reader, indicating that you are clipping it or receiving the magazine at home. Those magazines that are passed on reach: 1 person 3 0.7% 2 people 64 15.1% 3-5 people 34 8.0% 5 or more 11 2.6% Answers to what portions of the magazine you find useful indicated that the top three were Industry Newswatch, feature articles and Technical Papers; see Table 1. The "other" category included advertising - display, classified, Employment, and Professional Services - Washington Survey, New Products, Free Literature, book reviews, technology news, and Coming Events and Short Courses. We asked your appraisal of the technical level of the magazine. Of those responding, 39 or 9.1% indicated that it is too technical, 55 or 12.8% indicated it is not technical enough, and 335 or 78.1% judged it to have the correct technical level. In response to the question about whether you like to read an occasional feature that is not technically oriented, 21 or 5.1% said no, but an overwhelming 94.9% (393) said yes. Of the specific

Jan 1, 1986

By Scott Rosenthal, Kyle Murphy

This paper discusses the trials and tribulations of obtaining Velocity of Detonation (VOD) readings in small diameter blast holes in an underground mine. Montana Technological University (Montana Tech) obtained a time-domain reflectometer (TDR) type VOD monitoring unit. Purchase of the VOD monitor was justified on verifying explosives performance used in Montana Tech’s practical underground mining class and provide a teaching aid for the school’s rock fragmentation class. Before demonstrating the unit to students, we figured we better learn how to use it first so we give the students an appropriate experience. Our first learning was in obtaining the correct coaxial cable for the VOD monitor and how to properly terminate the cable. Once the cable was on-site and terminated, VOD testing could commence. Use of the VOD monitor was tested underground in small diameter holes (1.5-inch, 38 millimeter) pneumatically loaded with ANFO. After a few failed trials, and follow-up discussions with the supplier, VOD readings were obtained for the ANFO loaded holes. Additional readings were obtained for a pre-split product and detonating cord to satisfy our curiosity that the unit was performing as specified by the manufacturer. This paper will share our learnings in the hopes that others can benefit.

By R. Adsero

The analysis of equipment trends in AUSIMM?s Revision of Monograph 19; Australasian Mining and Metallurgy Operating Practices (AMMOP) in the paper by Dight et al (in press) raised some interesting and in parts disturbing trends in the Open Cut Mining Industry. According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics the US mining and petroleum industries? productivity is down by 12% since 2004 while the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the productivity of the Australian mining industry is down by 34% since 2001. In terms of open cut equipment median output for draglines is down by 15% since 2003; electric rope shovels are down by 41% since 2003; hydraulic excavators are down by 39% since 2008; front end loaders are down by 39% since 2007 and trucks are down by 41% since 2006. Clearly the boom has not been good for the efficiency of the mines. During this same time, best practice (defined as the average of the top 10% by annual output per unit of input) has declined but not by as much as the median (eg. shovels down by 8%, excavators down by 19% and FEL?s down by 5%). This paper will build on the analysis of AMMOP to understand the differences occurring between median and best practice and identify the factors contributing to the decline in performance. As the industry enters a period of potentially lower prices for commodities and reduced margins pressure will be brought to bear on mine sites to start moving more with the equipment they have. An understanding of where efficiency has been lost will be a key component in that. The information contained in AMMOP, and the subsequent analysis of that information in papers such as this one will be crucial to reversing the decline in open cut equipment performance.

Feb 27, 2013

By Richard Adsero

The Australian Bureau of Statistics and the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics publish data for a range of industries, allowing a measure of performance to be quantified, called multifactor productivity (MFP), and allowing performance between industries to be compared on a consistent basis. At the time of writing, the last released data was for 2011-2012. For Australia, the plot of mining industry productivity and a basket of the 12 most significant industries in Australia?s economy (including mining) are shown in Fig. 1. For the United States, mining and petroleum and all manufacturing productivity are also displayed in Fig. 1. The trends are as follows: ? The MFP in the Australian mining sector rose 36 percent from 1986-1987 to 2000-2001. There was a 47-percent decline in MFP from 2000-2001 to 2011-2012 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). ? The MFP in the United States mining sector rose 17 percent from 1986-1987 to 2004-2005. There was a 7-percent decline in MFP 2004-2005 to 2010-2011, (Topp et al., 2008).

Sep 1, 2013

æSustainabilityÆ is one of those words that has gained more usage in popular discourse than in the dictionary. In fact it is not in many dictionaries at all. Typically, given this, it also seems to mean different things depending on whose lips it emerges from. It is now like a code word in that if people say it, you donÆt have to think about its meaning; it is just æthereÆ and is taken for granted. This is a problem for the mining industry as we are now using the term too and to be effective in what we do, we need to have a reality check and see how those outside who have views on us (æstakeholdersÆ maybe) use it. The core issue seems to be æsustainability of whatÆ: the industry?, a company?, the global environment?, particular ecosystems?, the community? At these levels, the term seems almost meaningless. If we do not even agree on what it is, at least broadly, our communication and possible partnerships for going forward will be difficult to say the least. One reference to æsustainÆ in my thesaurus is: æTo keep from failing during stress or difficultyÆ. This may be a clue to something approaching a common notion. I suggest that to use æsustainabilityÆ we make the following assumptions:that we are talking about human activity aimed at making a living that has an impact on the natural and social environment; that humans must make a living (though what this needs to include is problematic); that the impact of particular activities has been problematic to date and needs to be monitored, altered, stopped, etc; that there is stress on both social and natural environments; and that change can be effected in order that particular activities such as mining minimise their negative effects and maximise their positive. This is why we are taking part in sessions such as this one today. Two more initial observations: First, it strikes me that even with the above assumptions laid out, æsustainabilityÆ and æsustainable developmentÆ are too abstract and general as concepts. We have to break these high and mighty ideals down into workable, bite-size chunks, into practical ways of dealing with the world outside our sites and companies. Second, sustainability, on both sides of the fence, too often focuses on nature and environment as though they are independent of people and community. I would argue, perhaps provocatively, that sustainability is primarily a people issue and has to be tackled as such. I want to look at the overall climate for business today and how it has responded before I return to what we can and need to do as the mining industry to make æsustainabilityÆwork.

Jan 1, 2002

By Marianne Snedeker

In January we published a questionnaire asking about the content of MINING ENGINEERING and about your interests. At the same time we hired an outside firm, READEX Inc., of St. Paul, MN, to send the same questionnaire to a sampling of about 1000 US members, selected on an nth name basis, so that we could have some preliminary numbers for the Annual Meeting in February. READEX sent us the final results of its survey in March. At that time, 525 responses of the 992 surveys sent out had been returned, for a 52.9% response, an extraordinarily high return for a low-key (no incentive for return) random sampling. On May 7, we cut off on tabulating returns from the magazine so that we could report the results to you in this issue. At that time, we had 594 questionnaires returned. Our 594 and READEX's 525 (we have assumed that relatively few people returned both), represent a 1119 return, about 3.5% of the approximately 32,000 who received the January issue of ME. About ME Through responses to the questionnaire, we were hoping to learn more about you, your interests, and how the magazine could better serve you. Those of you who responded, told us something positive-you look at or read the magazine. Of the 1119 respondents, 1068 or 95.4% indicated that they had read or looked through the November and/or December issues. Those of you who refer to the magazine once are 466 or 42.6%. Those of you who refer to the magazine two or three times are 559 or 51.1%. Those of you who refer to the magazine four or more times are 68 or 6.2%. How much time do you spend reading the magazine? Of those responding to this question: 186 spent up to 1/2 hr 16.6% 590 spent up to 1 hr 52.7% 292 spent 1-2 hr 26.1% 51 spent more than 2 hr 4.6% In an informal survey among our staff, we determined that most people spend 1/2 to 1 hr reading magazines to which they subscribe at home. Does that match your experience? Many of you, 764 or 69.4%, clip your magazine for further reference. Also, many of you, 513 or 64.2%, do not pass your copy on to another reader, indicating perhaps that you are clipping it or receiving the magazine at home. Those magazines that are passed on reach: 2 people - 159 - 20.0% 3-5 people - 95 - 11.9% 5 or more - 31 - 3.9% Answers to what portions of the magazine you find useful indicated that the top three were Industry News, feature articles, and Technical Papers; see Table 1. The "other" category included advertising-display, classified, and employment-Coming Events, product information, Washington Survey, new books, the reader service card, and Engineering Fundamentals. Of those responding, 797 or 75.3% indicated a preference for dual notation of SI (metric) with English units; 228 or 21.5% preferred all SI units; while 34 or 3.2% preferred SI with dual notation of other metric units. Based on the preliminary numbers reported by READEX for this question, the MINING ENGINEERING Committee in February voted to return to a policy of dual notation. This decision has been implemented. We asked for your appraisal of the technical level of the magazine. Of those responding, 78 or 7.4% indicated it is too technical, 147 or 13.8% indicated it is not technical enough, and 836 or 78.8% judged it to have the correct tech¬nical level. In response to the question about whether you like to read an occasional feature that is not technically oriented, 32 said no, but an overwhelming 97% (1024) said yes. Of the specific topics, 785 like history, 558 political or socioeconomic articles, 440 career development, and 373 human interest. Other topics suggested included new disciplines, mineral resources of the world by

Jan 6, 1982

By D Craw, S Clearwater, S Hammit, C Smith

Prior to rehabilitation, plant cover on quartz gravel overburden at Wangaloa coal mine was highly patchy. Stabilisation techniques have since considerably altered the condition of the main overburden yet deposits in the east and west remain largely intact. On the eastern overburden, three distinct zones of revegetation have naturally developed: Zone 1 represents a dense plant cover, Zone 2 a patchy cover and Zone 3 a sparse cover of isolated plants. Aerial photographs show much of the eastern overburden was deposited between 1940 and 1960s. Yet we found that the temporal scale of deposition did not wholly account for the differences observed in vegetation development. To investigate other influential factors, we set up 12 study plots using four replicates in each vegetation zone. The diversity and density of plants in each plot were measured to quantify the degree of vegetation development. Samples from the substrate in each plot were collected using soil cores to a depth of 10 cm. Cores were analysed for indicators of nutrient availability, metal content and physical composition. We found that substrate chemistry varied between individual study plots, but showed little difference overall along the vegetation gradient. Substrate physical differences were much greater. The ratio of coarse quartz pebbles: fines was considerably higher in Zone 3 than other zones, and within zones where plants were not growing. Bulk density also increased successively from Zone 1 - 3. We found clear evidence for the reversed stratigraphy of excavation superimposed over the time scale of deposition, and the corresponding nature of fine particles. The rate of revegetation was therefore highly dependent upon the substrate composition of the last surface deposit from the dumping truck. Our data suggests an optimum ratio exists between inert coarse material and a fine matrix for progressive natural vegetation development on mine substrates.

Jan 1, 2004

By David Whittle

When does a project with questionable viability, warrant further investment? There are cases in which projects, which evaluate to a negative mean probable value, are worth investing in. There are also cases in which projects that evaluate to a positive mean probable value, should not be invested in. The author will present a model for ?project-control?which includes an adaptation of a well know grade-control concept. Comments on Resources and Reserves ?Resource and Reserve estimates are based on positive information (43-101). ?Reserve and Resource confidence qualitatively assessed. ?U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recognizes Undiscovered Resources (U.S. Geological Survey 2003).

May 1, 2006