Search Documents

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 GEORGE ROBERT DE BEQUE

WHAT is wrong with oil shale? The answer is of interest to the public, to the oil refiner, and to the engineer. Many people have invested in shale land or shale securities, and others would invest if early development of the industry were certain. In the face of increasing demands for oil products, oil refiners are threatened with inability to maintain present output unless the supply of domestic petroleum is supplemented. Development of the oil shale industry would open a new field for engineering services. The object of this paper is to suggest reasons why there is but one shale plant in operation in the United States, and to discuss the probable time when the business will be firmly established in Colorado. As the Colorado deposits are the richest and largest in the world, ample supply of material is assured, consequently, this discussion will be confined principally to technical problems and economic problems affecting shale development.

Jan 1, 1924

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

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the sixth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data plus more than 100 new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. An article in the December 1984 Kentucky Coal Journal could have far reaching applications. It explains that a banking firm examined the "reserve risk" as one of six factors for analysis when financing a coal project. The firm concluded that coal reserves in Kentucky are worth an average of $0.29/t ($0.26 per st) in-place. The banking firm based this in-place value on its examination of more than 50 leases. In-place value is especially important when trying to establish a mineral value for a given deposit. Ernie Lehman wrote to this author after last year's column appeared and he quoted the lease rates for lead and zinc on federal land. He states, from first hand information, that the leases are based on a percentage of net smelter return as follows: 4% for the first five years, 4.5% for the next five years, and 5% thereafter. The figures used in last year's column ($ per st) came from dividing reported royalty income by reported production. The information reported last year merely translates the results of the net smelter return (as written in the lease) to royalty income per ton to the US Government for the various years. Statistics from the Minerals Management Service of the Federal Government show that oil and gas account for 40% and 53%, respectively, of the Federal royalty income. Coal accounts for about 4% and all other minerals, the remaining 3%. Oil and gas leases are mostly at 12.5%. Most of the coal leases are at 12.5% for surface mining operations and 8% for underground mining. Many of the other commodities are leased at 5%, which has been true for decades. Relative to Federal leases, this year's table shows some percentages and some costs per ton. This was done to give information about the leases and also to show income produced by various commodities. Note that some commodities have a variation in $/ton even though the royalty percent is the same. These variations result from a combination of factors that influence the value of a mineral commodity. 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 it; *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 - 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 (/cu ft), tons (/T, 2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.7646 m3 1 cu ft = 0.2832 m3 1st=0.9078t 1 acre = 0.4047 hm or m2 In several cases, the royalty is a percentage of the sales price of the finished product and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: G. Anderson, B. Brown, R. Ganis, K. Hauser, E. Lehman, and S. Sims. Their help is appreciated as are the contributions by those who asked to remain anonymous. This column requires additional information each year. That data must come from people in the minerals industry who have royalty information. 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 the author at the address given in the author's box or call 313-462-0005.

Jan 7, 1988

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 Hal M. Lewers

IN the past few years and especially since the beginning of World War No. 2, gold has attained a new, important. and critical place in the international scene, and in world affairs. In the past, as far back as history records, most wars have been waged for the purpose of acquiring it from someone else by conquest. But now, the most titanic struggle of all time is being waged with the avowed purpose of not only destroying it, but of destroying all that it stands for and represents. A tradition dating back to ancient Rome, affirms that battles are fought by men with weapons, but wars arc eventually won by gold. The validity of that tradition is now being subjected to its major test. Hitler has proclaimed that in his new world order, the work dollar or reichsmark, a beautifully engraved paper currency representing only a theory of value, based on unit of work and production, will become the supreme medium of world exchange, and that gold eventually will he valueless and obsolete.

Jan 1, 1942

By M. T. Ityokumbul

Flotation columns and their variations are increasingly replacing conventional cells in mineral processing circuitry. While the operational characteristics of columns differ from those of conventional cells, the same scale-up methodologies are being employed in design. This practice may be attributed to poor understanding of the factors controlling throughput. The use of tall flotation columns is frequently justified on the requirement for increased particle residence time. It is shown that longer particle residence times in the column cell alone do not translate into increased recoveries. Throughput data from several industrial flotation column installations is presented. An attempt at using dimensional analysis to provide scale-up methodology for the factors controlling column throughput is made.

Jan 1, 1995

By Jean M. Bouvet, Pierre M. Vuillaume

There is not just one ANFO: ANFO explosive behaviour depends significantly on the blasting conditions and on its physico-chemical characteristics. For instance, ANFO effficiency increases whereas AN porosity is higher and consequently loading density of the explosive is less. This can be argued against generally admitted ideas. Therefore, the efficiency of industrial explosives related to ANFO (for example "relative weight strength" or "relative bulk strength") is a tool that must be used with caution.

Jan 1, 1993

By Doris Hiam-Galvez

The latest technologies that improve mining and mineral processing efficiency and significantly reduce the emissions and effluents will be briefly reviewed. In this sense, the paper point out that the water treatment using techniques such as nanofiltration through membranes to achieve purity levels equal to the incoming water supply is now possible and examples of how this is done will be presented. Membrane technology using nanofiltration can be effectively used for recovering valuable products in water from mining operations and also to remove contaminants. The resulting water is of prime quality equalling potable water standards. The technology can be adapted to most mining operations.

Sep 12, 2011

By Oliver Bowles, Carl A. Gnam

THE construction industry normally contributes extensively to the general economic welfare of all sections of the country. Billions of dollars are spent for materials and labor, and the success or failure of many business enterprises depends upon the volume of construction. The steel, aluminum, copper, cement, brick and tile, lime, gypsum, stone, sand and gravel, and several of the less prominent mineral industries are vitally concerned. Of great interest, therefore, is the accumulation of needed construction following the relative inactivity of the past five years, the recent moderate revival in building, and the prospect of a broader and more definite upturn. One may judge the magnitude of possible expenditure for construction by what has occurred in the past. The peak years were 1925 to 1928, inclusive, when the annual values of con- tracts awarded amounted to over six billion dollars. In marked contrast was the 1933 total of about 1% billion, the lowest level shown in the Federal Reserve Board Index, which goes back to 1919, and the more favorable 1935 figure of about 1.7 billion. An increase of nearly four billion over the 1935 volume would be necessary to equal the peak year 1928.

Jan 1, 1936

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

The purpose of this talk is to report the answers to the-'two following questions: I. What unique services does the mining industry expect of mining and mineral processing engineers? II. What suggestions does industry offer to educators to help revamp curricula to meet the needs of a changing industry? As the result of many questionnaires filled out in person by presidents, managers, superintendents, chief engineers, metallurgists, and other responsible individuals in operations and management of large and small metal and nonmetallic mining companies in the U. S., and to some extent abroad, we now have some, specific answers to the above questions. Although answers to questionnaires continue to arrive at this writing (February 10) the volume already received is sufficient to clearly justify certain conclusions and observations. A copy of the tally of the first 117 questionnaires received accompanies this report, and I am certain that a compilation of additional questionnaire data will merely reinforce, the trends in thinking that have been' established thus far. Here are the results of the survey:

Jan 1, 1961

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