Search Documents

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

By Katzer R. Klimpel, J. Sewell

Dr. Roussey Roussev The use of chemical additives on grinding is of significant importance considering the high energy consumption of grinding processes. My research indicates that the dispersant approach explains the effects, in this particular case of wet grinding. Further, the dispersant approach combined with torque measurements give the possibility of clarifying the mechanisms involved when using grinding aids. I find the conclusions derived from the data obtained to be correct and useful for grinding. In general, I agree with the explanations. However, I would like to discuss several additional points that I consider to be important, and in the same time to mention some of my own results from investigations similar to those presented in the study under discussion. The "bed volume concept" and the change of slurry viscosity explain adequately the data plotted on fig. 3, in conjunction with Figs. 1 and 2. However, the significant increase of the average torque in the case of 83% solid with XFS-4272 introduces the necessity of establishing the optimum of percent solid when dispersant is used. For example, the optimum percent of solid for different materials varies. One of the reasons is the material's mass density. On the other hand, it is necessary to determine the concentration of the chemical used. Because of this, it would be interesting to know how the cited concentration was selected. The supportive discussion and verification by Dr. Roussev, with results similar to that of the paper, is appreciated. I will try to answer the additional questions he has raised. To begin with, the mill was fitted with six lifters of approximately one-quarter inch height. There has been extensive lab and plant level work to understand downstream influences of using dispersants like XFS-4272*. In sulfide ore processing, which is the area in which most industrial scale testing has been performed with this approach, neutral to positive influences have been observed. For example, positive effects (e.g., increased recovery) have been noticed in flotation operations involving ores that have a tendency to produce excessive slimes upon grinding. (1) Also, the use of a dispersant has been shown to demonstrate a positive influence on classification by improving the sharpness of separation and preventing a decrease in d50 value that usually accompanies increasing flow rates to classifiers.(2) The biggest potential downstream problem is in thickening, which at the dosages involved, has not been a problem in plant scale usage. The commercial price of dispersants like XFS-4272 is quite variable depending on source, concentration, etc, but a typical cost of XFS-4272 to achieve a 10% increase in throughput in industrial mills has been between 20 and 35- US per ton of feed ore (1981).

Jan 12, 1982

By K. Hanumantha Rao, A. Nayak, K. S. Narasimhan, S. N. Mahapatra

B.A. Hancock It is not at all surprising that causticized potato and potato derived amylopectin starch solutions performed much better than their parent starches. Some preparation is required to rupture the starch granules to effect the polymeric adsorption and interparticle bridging necessary for selective flocculation. In laboratory work comparing the deslime performance of causticized and autoclave cooked laboratory corn starch solution preparations, it was found that higher deslime weight rejections, with attendant proportionally greater iron unit losses, occurred with the causticized starch. These results may be specific to the ore involved but they do suggest that cooking and causticizing cause different starch granule rupture and/or starch breakdown, which have an effect on desliming response. I calculated from the data in the article that the slimes product grades were high - 24.3% and 20.3% Fe when 53.7% and 54.5% Fe concentrate products were obtained, respectively, in Table 4, and 21% Fe with a 62.6% Fe concentrate in Table 5 - using the natural tailings sample, which had a head of 34.3% Fe. It may be advisable for the authors to consider different starch preparations in future investigations. The combination of upgrading and selectivity results presented in Table 4 are not as good as the authors suggest. The authors' claim that a system has been developed to produce saleable concentrates from the Kudremukh tailings is quite disconcerting. There are many hurdles yet to be crossed before commercial application of selective flocculation becomes possible because differences between the very small-scale laboratory tests conducted and commercial application are rather large. Among the many differences are varying circuit feed grades that will occur from use of tailings, the apparent face that much lower tailings grades will be encountered in practice (it is much easier to achieve a high concentrate grade with reasonable recoveries using 34.3% Fe tailings as in the study rather than 25.3% Fe tailings grades that the plant apparently averages), the hydraulic nature of the thickeners used in operations compared to the static system used in laboratory tests, the different size distributions that will be obtained from a plant closed grinding-classification circuit, and differences in water used in a plant operation and the laboratory. The authors wrote that it was necessary to overgrind to be sure that the coarse gangue would not settle with the iron oxide floccules. This situation is likely to be exaggerated in commercial operations where it is assumed cyclones would be used for classification. Because cyclone classification is greatly influenced by particle densities, there will probably be an even greater difference in size between the iron and gangue particles in the plant, which would make the gangue slightly coarser still in relation to the iron. This would make the selective flocculation-desliming separations using the procedure employed by the authors even more difficult and, using the dispersant system the authors employed, greater overgrinding would be required. To grind finer to minimize the coarse gangue in the flocculated iron oxides is quite inefficient and appears not to broach the problem. The actual problem appears to be insufficient dispersion of the ground pulp. In this situation, addition of a dispersant would likely be required to attain a sufficiently high pulp dispersion level to efficiently effect a selective flocculation-desliming separation. Although the very coarse particles would still have a tendency to settle with the floccules, it probably would be found unnecessary to overgrind as much as indicated. Use of an optimum combination of dispersant and pH modifying reagents may also significantly improve the selectivity of desliming. Additionally, although it is possible that sufficient dispersion may be obtained by pH control alone in some situations, it is quite probable that added dispersity was obtained in the reported work from using distilled water. It is research experience that distilled water enhances dispersion. In commercial operations it may not be expected that sufficient dispersion will be obtained by pH control alone, unless the water used in the process is by nature quite dispersive. Overall, a change in the Kudremukh tailings dispersant scheme appears necessary where a dispersant is used in conjunction with a pH modifying reagent. With this change, different dispersion-flocculation responses will result that would have to be further evaluated. Therefore, it is still an open question whether an efficient and effective selective flocculation separation using Kudremukh tailings may be obtained that will produce saleable concentrates.

Jan 9, 1986

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

By Adrian C. Dorenfeld, John T. Oleksy

John D. Maefadyen Subject paper unfortunately has some serious flaws negating the usefulness of the paper. The authors claim that sulfur is the major source of production problems in cement kilns. This is not the case. Sulfur is not a problem as long as the mole ratio of sulfur to alkali oxides is less than, or equal to, 1. This is attributed to the sulfur preferentially combining with the alkali oxides and not acting as a clogging agent due to the nature of the pre-heater vessels. Where the mole ratio exceeds 1, many methods are available to eliminate or reduce the clogging problems such as using the preheater bypass or a precalciner with up to 100% kiln gas bypass. In non-preheater kilns, the presence of sulfates is hardly ever a problem anyhow. Thus, the level of sulfur in the fuel and raw material that might cause problems is not a fixed amount, but is predictable. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the economics of conversion of kilns in the Indonesian and Phillippine cement industries from oil firing to coal firing. This economic analysis has very little to do with the sulfur levels. Thus, the section of the paper on sulfates is actually rather meaningless. The economic analysis is also rather meaningless because the authors have failed to follow accepted economic analysis procedures by including interest charges. They have fallen into the trap of confusing financing with economic evaluation. When the accepted methods of economic evaluation are used, the return on investment increases to about 35%. In conclusion, the paper is not a meaningful contribution, and sadly, quite erroneous.

Jan 11, 1982

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 au thors claim that their proposed jackknife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from 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 consist 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 valuebased 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, 1998

By Jay F. Smith

The Alan Wood BOF Shop consists of two 140 ton furnaces with a rated yearly capacity of 1-1/4 million ingot tons, he hot metal for the BOF Shop is supplied by two 18 foot blast furnaces which produce an average of 2000 tons per day, To achieve the rated ingot ton capacity with this limited supply of hot metal, the preheating of scrap is necessary. This is accomplished in the furnace by using an oxygen-natural gas burner. Piping Arrangement The natural gas and oxygen are piped into the Shop through 8-inch lines to their respective valving stations. As can be seen from Figure 1, the flow of natural gas passes through a flow control valve which is common to both furnaces, after which it divides into two 6-inch lines forming two identical and independent gas control lines, one for each furnace.

Jan 1, 1972

By R. J. Pindred

Discussion by R.J. Pindred In his paper, Davis presents an overview of risk. He also introduces the Capital Asset Processing Model (CAPM) as a foundation for selecting the appropriate discount rate for a mining project. While applying portfolio theory is more defensible than the ad hoc adjustment of discount rates, the CAPM is not a panacea. CAPM shortcomings [The CAPM, as Davis stated, is expressed in the equation: ri=rf+pi4) where ri is the project discount rate rf is the risk free interest rate (3i is the project beta, and 0 is the market risk premium (rm - rf)] Application of the CAPM is more difficult than Davis indicates. Valuation is prospective, while the CAPM parameters are historical. Beta is determined from a regression analysis of historical data, while the beta needed for valuation is the expected beta. Betas are known to be unstable and the regressions that generate them often have low explanatory power. The difficulty of estimating a "project" beta must also be considered. Thus, the beta that is used in the CAPM will be based on the analyst's judgment. Like Cavender's discount rate, this judgment can lead to different project NPVs. Subjectivity in valuation cannot be avoided by a mechanical application of the CAPM. The risk-free rate, which Davis identifies as a short-term real rate of 4%, is also subject to scrutiny. A mining project is not a short-term investment and no single risk-free rate is appropriate for all of the cash flows. The hypothetical mine discussed in Cavender's paper is a six-year project. One might argue for the application of a risk-free rate from the Treasury yield curve at the duration of the project (in a bond-duration sense). This, too, is inappropriate. The risk-free rate should be matched to the timing of the cash flow. These rates can be determined by calculating the implied forward rates from the yield curve using a procedure known as "bootstrapping." It is likely that each of the project's cash flows would be discounted at a different rate. Commodity prices Davis criticizes the "ad hoc adjustment to the discount rate." Yet, in his discussion of the value of stochastic simulation, he suggests that the gold price be modeled as a "random walk, with or without a trend." This is essentially an arbitrary modeling of price risk. Consider that a liquid market in gold futures exists. The futures' price curve, which is closely related to the market's estimate of future spot gold prices, should be used to provide inputs to the model. This is especially true of a relatively short six-year project. Alternatively, as Davis correctly points out, a risk-averse investor can sell the commodity short to hedge price risk. Is it any more correct, in the portfolio sense, to account for price risk at all ?? References Cavender, B., 1992, "Determination of the optimum lifetime of a mining project using discounted cash flow and option pricing techniques," Mining Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 10, pp.1262-1268 Fabozzi, F.J., 1993, Bond Markets, Analysis and Strategies, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc. Higgins, R.C., 1992, Analysis for Financial Management, Third Edition, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Solnik, B., 1991, International Investments, Second Edition, Addison Wesley Reply by G.A. Davis Pindred discusses two issues related to my paper, the shortcomings of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and which commodity price values to use in the valuation exercise. Even though these topics are not directly related to the use or misuse of Monte Carlo simulation, they are important points to take into consideration in valuation exercises. Since I do not appear to have addressed these issues satisfactorily in my original paper, I will comment on each here. Pindred agrees with me that applying portfolio theory, and specifically the CAPM, to the selection of project discount rates is more defensible than ad hoc methods. But he then points out that the application of the CAPM to project valuation is more difficult that I indicate. It is true that the CAPM is a difficult tool for project valuation in general,. But the application of the CAPM to mining projects is one of the easiest I can think of. The biggest problem with using the CAPM for project valuation is coming up with an expected project beta. I suggest a project beta for gold projects of 0.45. The "true" value might be 0.35, 0.55 or whatever. Pindred correctly notes that the selection of the appropriate project beta is based

Jan 1, 1996

By B. E. Grant

There are several exceptions from the practical operating viewpoint that might be taken with the paper. The author recommends using a "curve" in plotting safety factors of ropes and suggests that the U. S. Bureau of Mines change its present "step curve" method to the "curve" method. From an engineering theoretical point of view that is possible, but from a practical standpoint it is not possible. Rope manufacturers fabricate their ropes in diameter gradients of 1/16 in. to 1/4 in. which automatically sets up a step pattern gradient. If ropes were manufactured in the diameter gradients of 1/1000 of an inch or thereabouts, the curve method could be used. Also, from a practical standpoint, if an operator is to hoist from a depth of 4000 ft, for example, he will determine the size of the rope necessary for that depth, and it is only natural that he will have safety factor to spare at lesser depths, and in plotting this excess capacity the natural end result is a curve. The U. S. Bureau of Mines tables are set up so that the operator will know what size rope at the required safety factor he will need at his maximum depth. He is not concerned with lesser depths. W. A. Boyer (author's reply)-Mr. Grant states, "Rope manufacturers fabricate their ropes in diameter gradients of 1/16" to 1/4" which automatically sets up a step pattern gradient." There is no connection or relationship between the "size" pattern gradient and the present "factor of safety" step pattern gradient. The inherent factor of safety values for any particular size of rope with a given connected load when plotted for various depths is a curve, and with modern rope material and construction the inherent factor of safety curve is quite far removed from the present recommended factor of safety step curve. This is shown quite clearly in Figs. 3 and 4 of my paper.

Jan 11, 1954

By L. W. Saperstein

P.J. Ehret By and large, I agree with many of the precepts discussed in the Saperstein paper. I believe there is much more that can be done on the local level to involve both government and planning in the mine permit review process. Admittedly, much can be done to improve discussion between the state regulatory authority, local authorities, and mine operators. However, I strongly disagree, as suggested in the paper's conclusion, that such a system, as outlined in Saperstein's paper, could result in a reduction of review time or a lowering in the cost of permitting. The implementation of such a system by its very nature would only add a new level of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome process. This system, in my opinion, would only add to the cost of permitting and the time necessary to obtain a permit. Admittedly, it would achieve the result of adding local influence into the permitting process, but at what off-setting cost? It has been my professional first-hand experience and observation in the permitting and lands unsuitable processes to note that under the present system, local governments that do feel they have a stake in local mines and actively ad¬vocate their position (not simply comment), have had significant input into the conduct of mining and reclamation plans in their areas. Mining companies that mine in these areas are aware of local interests and attitudes, and do consider them in their plans. Simply put, local governments that want to get involved and want to play significant roles can and do. Those that do not advocate a position or have no input to offer do not. Although the present system is not as direct in effect in regard to local control as Saperstein's, it does work. It does so without the red tape that would result from developing miniature regulatory authorities in every county in which mining occurs. Although local input is important, there are many more sections of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) than Sections 508(a)(8) and 522(a)(3)(A) that also are important. It appears Saperstein's paper may overindulge these sections. An additional specific comment is made in regard to the statement that while local areas benefit from mining (wages, salaries, and purchases), they also endure environmental deterioration caused by mining affects. It is believed that the whole purpose for which SMCRA and its resulting regulations were enacted and developed was so mining would not be permitted if significant environmental deterioration could occur. Therefore, it could be argued that this point under current law is moot. Reply by L.W. Saperstein P.J. Ehret writes in a reasoned and rational way and makes some good points. The arguments in favor of central control of the designation process reflect all of the benefits associated with central environmental control: consistency of enforcement, efficiency of operation, ease of communication among enforcing agency, etc. Nonetheless, the decision to mine or not to mine is a landuse decision which, in substance, is similar to the decision to build a shopping mall, a new highway, or a housing subdivision. Although, state and federal governments' interests in the protection of public welfare are real and are expressed properly in mining laws and mining enforcement agencies (OSM, Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, etc). I continue to maintain that the permitting and designation processes should originate with local government, which is in keeping with the American tradition of delegation of the land-use decision to local or regional government.

Jan 4, 1984

By P. J. Ehret

By and large, I agree with many of the precepts discussed in the Saperstein paper. I believe there is much more that can be done on the local level to involve both government and planning in the mine permit review process. Admittedly, much can be done to improve discussion between the state regulatory authority, local authorities, and mine operators. However, I strongly disagree, as suggested in the paper's conclusion, that such a system, as outlined in Saperstein's paper, could result in a reduction of review time or a lowering in the cost of permitting. The implementation of such a system by its very nature would only add a new level of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome process. This system, in my opinion, would only add to the cost of permitting and the time necessary to obtain a permit. Admittedly, it would achieve the result of adding local influence into the permitting process, but at what off-setting cost? It has been my professional first-hand experience and observation in the permitting and lands unsuitable processes to note that under the present system, local governments that do feel they have a stake in local mines and actively advocate their position (not simply comment), have had significant input into the conduct of mining and reclamation plans in their areas. Mining companies that mine in these areas are aware of local interests and attitudes, and do consider them in their plans. Simply put, local governments that want to get involved and want to play significant roles can and do. Those that do not advocate a position or have no input to offer do not. Although the present system is not as direct in effect in regard to local control as Saperstein's, it does work. It does so without the red tape that would result from developing miniature regulatory authorities in every county in which mining occurs. Although local input is important, there are many more sections of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) than Sections 508(a)(8) and 522(a)(3)(A) that also are important. It appears Saperstein's paper may overindulge these sections. An additional specific comment is made in regard to the statement that while local areas benefit from mining (wages, salaries, and purchases), they also endure environmental deterioration caused by mining affects. It is believed that the whole purpose for which SMCRA and its resulting regulations were enacted and developed was so mining would not be permitted if significant environmental deterioration could occur. Therefore, it could be argued that this point under current law is moot.

Jan 1, 1985

By M. E. Gershon

I would like to congratulate Professor Gershon on an idea that is obviously valuable and is certainly new to me. It has, however, to be further developed, in that one can get fallacious results by limiting oneself to positional weights. In the example problem, the positional weight of one block was 8.6 (the 8.0 value in the paper was incorrect) for 36 units in the cone, for a mean block value of 0.239. The positional weight of the second block was 4.4 for 15 units, for a mean block value of 0.293. Surely one would expect the second block to be rated higher. Additionally, the time value of money adjustment cannot be determined by depth, because the time that a block is mined is determined by the mining sequence, not depth. Figure 1 shows a slightly altered version of Professor Gershon’s pit. The overall value of the pit is the same, as are the total values under each of his blocks. The values in the right-hand cone have been reversed top to bottom, and the values in the rest of the pit adjusted to keep the central cone total unchanged. All values have been multiplied by 10. Figure 2 shows the sequence of mining, at three blocks per year, for Professor Gershon’s pit, and Fig. 3, the sequence for a pit under the other block. Table 1 shows the value and discounted value (157. ) of Professor Gershon’s pit, and Table 2 shows similar values for the second pit. It is apparent that the second pit schedule is more valuable than the first.

Jan 12, 1987

By C. J. Hall

I would like to congratulate Professor Gershon on an idea that is obviously valuable and is certainly new to me. It has, however, to be further developed, in that one can get fallacious results by limiting oneself to positional weights. In the example problem, the positional weight of one block was 8.6 (the 8.0 value in the paper was incorrect) for 36 units in the cone, for a mean block value of 0.239. The positional weight of the second block was 4.4 for 15 units, for a mean block value of 0.293. Surely one would expect the second block to be rated higher. Additionally, the time value of money adjustment cannot be determined by depth, because the time that a block is mined is determined by the mining sequence, not depth. Figure 1 shows a slightly altered version of Professor Gershon's pit. The overall value of the pit is the same, as are the total values under each of his blocks. The values in the right-hand cone have been reversed top to bottom, and the values in the rest of the pit adjusted to keep the central cone total unchanged. All values have been multiplied by 10. Figure 2 shows the sequence of mining, at three blocks per year, for Professor Gershon's pit, and Fig. 3, the sequence for a pit under the other block. Table 1 shows the value and discounted value (15%) of Professor Gershon's pit, and Table 2 shows similar values for the second pit. It is apparent that the second pit schedule is more valuable than the first.

Jan 1, 1988

By E. Tulcanaza

M.S. Azun I do not at all agree with the basic points of the author's conclusion. The use of lognormal or normal model to respond to the attribute distribution function should be carefully questioned. If fitting a distribution function of regionalized variables is the main purpose, one may employ one of certain well-known families of distributions, such as Tukey's lambda functions. For instance, the distribution function of gold assay values studied by Krige (Krige, 1978) may fit the lognormal model well, but one should not exclude that the basic idea of using the distribution function of observed data is to have insight of the physical mechanism that gives rise to the regionalized variables. In Applied Geostatistics, there are many examples considering only lognormal or normal model for the distribution function of geostatistical data even if the observed distribution function has more than one mode. Of course, using lognormal or normal model always brings easy computation for the statistical properties of attribute under investigation. Still, I object to adopting any of those models without having any "statistical inference." As seen from the author's paper, lognormal and normal model produce the same average grade (0.746% copper) and almost the same sample variance. Therefore, which model explains the probabilistic behavior of ore deposit is always an important question that should be replied by the geostatistician using not the common sense but the statistical and probabilistic methods. For kriging procedures, such as linear kriging, one should describe either second order stationary properties or bivariate properties of regionalized variables. Second order properties, such as correlogram function or semivariogram function, are the inputs of the so-called kriging equations. Selecting one of any useable models for the observed second order properties, such as spherical model, is not easy since the models are not based on the correlations structure of the regionalized variables. How those models being used in Applied Geostatistics can be distinguished is another important problem. One may develop many fitting models to respond to the observed second order properties of regionalized variables. However, I suggest that the model should be based on the probabilistic behavior of geologic process. The author used spherical model for copper, wolfram, and silver grades from isotropic sector (Fig. 2, 4, 3b) and exponential model for silver grades obtained along raises in isotropic sector (Fig. 3a). It seems that those semivariograms given in Fig. 3b for isotropic sector and Fig. 4 may be described by the random model implying that regionalized variables do belong to renewal process (Azun, 1983). If I knew the total number of data points used in estimation, I may prove that my conclusion is correct. Recalling the test for the first order sample correlogram value, the test procedure is introduced such that the independence is rejected if [ ] where Za/2 is the a/2 percentile of standard normal random variable and N is the total number of samples used in estimation (Azun, 1983). For the other observed semivariogram functions I suggest the author might try to use the so-called "Markovian model" describing not only the correlation structure of regionalized variables, but also the physical mechanism that produces the regionalized variables. The Markovian model for correlogram function is, [ ] The Markovian model for the other second order properties of ReV are also derived. T ve B, in the above equation, show, for example, structural change and mineralizational variation in a considered deposit, respectively (Azun, 1983). In selecting any model, it is not easy to search for the "best" response to the observed second order properties of ReV's. The Markovian model, based on a theoretical understanding of underlying mechanism, gives more information about the occurrence of regionalized variables and respond to all properties. Random model and the so-called hole effect structure can be easily defined as a special form of the Markovian model (Azun, 1983). An estimation of any second order properties of regionalized variables may be computed through (N-1) lag. However, the dependency between the regionalized variables may be deemed to have "died out" after the so-called stationarity width (range). In practice, the estimation is carried out through 25% of the total number samples available. Therefore, the large fluctuations around the zero level and variance for correlogram or covariogram function and semi-variogram function, respectively, cannot be observed. Since the number of pairs involved in the estimation of higher second order properties is small, the estimation variance at those lags is large. There is no need to show higher order estimated second order properties. After using one of any kriging procedure for block estimation, the distribution function of average grades has the same mean as the drilling sample grades but

Jan 3, 1985

By M. S. Azun

I do not at all agree with the basic points of the author's conclusion. The use of lognormal or normal model to respond to the attribute distribution function should be carefully questioned. If fitting a distribution function of regionalized variables is the main purpose, one may employ one of certain well-known families of distributions, such as Tukey's lambda functions. For instance, the distribution function of gold assay values studied by Krige (Krige, 1978) may fit the lognormal model well, but one should not exclude that the basic idea of using the distribution function of observed data is to have insight of the physical mechanism that gives rise to the regionalized variables. In Applied Geostatistics, there are many examples considering only lognormal or normal model for the distribution function of geostatistical data even if the observed distribution function has more than one mode. Of course, using lognormal or normal model always brings easy computation for the statistical properties of attribute under investigation. Still, I object to adopting any of those models without having any "statistical inference." As seen from the author's paper, lognormal and normal model produce the same average grade (0.746% copper) and almost the same sample variance. Therefore, which model explains the probabilistic behavior of ore deposit is always an important question that should be replied by the geostatistician using not the common sense but the statistical and probabilistic methods. For kriging procedures, such as linear kriging, one should describe either second order stationary properties or bivariate properties of regionalized variables. Second order properties, such as correlogram function or semivariogram function, are the inputs of the so-called kriging equations. Selecting one of any useable models for the observed second order properties, such as spherical model, is not easy since the models are not based on the correlations structure of the regionalized variables. How those models being used in Applied Geostatistics can be distinguished is another important problem. One may develop many fitting models to respond to the observed second order properties of regionalized variables. However, I suggest that the model should be based on the probabilistic behavior of geologic process. The author used spherical model for copper, wolfram, and silver grades from isotropic sector (Fig. 2, 4, 3b) and exponential model for silver grades obtained along raises in isotropic sector (Fig. 3a). It seems that those semivariograms given in Fig. 3b for isotropic sector and Fig. 4 may be described by the random model implying that regionalized variables do belong to renewal process (Azun, 1983). If I knew the total number of data points used in estimation, may prove that my conclusion is correct. Recalling the test for the first order sample correlogram value, the test procedure is introduced such that the independence is rejected if [Ir(1) I > Za/2 N1/2] where Za/2 is the a/2 percentile of standard normal random variable and N is the total number of samples used in estimation (Azun, 1983). For the other observed semivariogram functions I suggest the author might try to use the so-called "Markovian model" describing not only the correlation structure of regionalized variables, but also the physical mechanism that produces the regionalized variables. The Markovian model for correlogram function is, [p (h) = T 1ih , h>1 ,] The Markovian model for the other second order properties of ReV are also derived. [T veß], in the above equation, show, for example, structural change and mineralizational variation in a considered deposit, respectively (Azun, 1983). In selecting any model, it is not easy to search for the "best" response to the observed second order properties of ReV's. The Markovian model, based on a theoretical understanding of underlying mechanism, gives more information about the occurrence of regionalized variables and respond to all properties. Random model and the so-called hole effect structure can be easily defined as a special form of the Markovian model (Azun, 1983). An estimation of any second order properties of regionalized variables may be computed through (N-1) lag. However, the dependency between the regionalized variables may be deemed to have "died out" after the so-called stationarity width (range). In practice, the estimation is carried out through 25% of the total number samples available. Therefore, the large fluctuations around the zero level and variance for correlogram or covariogram function and semivariogram function, respectively, cannot be observed. Since the number of pairs involved in the estimation of higher second order properties is small, the estimation variance at those lags is large. There is no need to show higher order estimated second order properties. After using one of any kriging procedure for block estimation, the distribution function of average grades has the same mean as the drilling sample grades but

Jan 1, 1986

By Bunting S. Crocker

Bunting S. Crocker (Executive Vice President, Kilborn Engineering Ltd., Toronto, Ont., Canada)-This is an interesting report on laboratory-scale testing with pebble charges in 12-in.-diam mills, and the author correctly concludes that useful laboratory testing can be done. In the opening paragraphs he states, "laboratory pebble-milling tests have been considered too difficult to perform and not relevant enough to the actual grinding situation"!! This is definitely not so! The writer published detailed tests done in a 12-in.-diam mill comparing pebble and steel balls in 1952 6 and again in 1954 7. We note that our review paper in 1963 was the only one mentioned in the References. The author states that "a smooth lining is more frequently used in commercial-scale pebble grinding." The writer has designed some 22 plants treating 134,000 tpd in North America and Australia. He has also visited pebble installations in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and South Africa. All these plants correctly use heavier lifters than would be considered standard for ball mills of a similar size. Smooth liners are not recommended in wet ore treating plants. In the 1952 paper6 it was clearly demonstrated in the test work that the individual ore pebbles had to be the same weight-not the same diameter or size-as the steel balls if comparable grinding results were to be obtained. In the tests performed in this study most of the pebbles "passed 50-mm round hole screen openings and remained on a 40-mm round hole sieve. Correspondingly most of the ball mill experiments were performed with 50 or 40-mm steel balls". Thus, the balls and pebbles were essentially the same size or diameter. This means we are comparing apples and oranges. When the feed being ground is fine enough the pebbles will be superior. When the feed is coarse the steel balls will be the better. This is similar to grinding tests in which two sizes of steel balls are compared. In the middle of the article, "Crocker5 has reported that equal weights of pebbles and steel balls achieve the same grinding capacities under similar conditions …", then he proceeds to question this postulate. In the eight reports that I have published, I have never made this statement. What I have said is "for comparable grinding, the individual pebbles in the mill charge should be the same weight as the individual steel balls." This is not the first time that I have been misquoted on this point! It is most unfortunate that this test work has been done with a ball and pebble of the same diameter and not the same weight. It is impossible to properly evaluate the results. I also regret the fact that the screen analyses of the tests were not shown. Many of us who have been 40 years or less in the grinding game can easily read screen analyses at a glance. We can tell whether the top meshes are being ground by the ball charge, etc., etc. The graphs are fine for the summary or to illustrate conclusions but are often misleading in the report itself. However, we do agree that useful pebble grinding tests can be done in a 12-in. mill.

Jan 1, 1973

By J. Laskowski

J. Laskowski (Associate Professor, Dept, of Mineral Processing and Coal Preparation, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland) -Referring to the papers by J. A. L. Campbell and S. C. Sun, I must say that I am very pleased to see that type of work, because it is the only way to progress towards an understanding of flotation mechanisms. All those interested in the science of the surface chemistry of coals would find these papers a valuable contribution to the literature. In their extensive research, the authors attempt to synthesize their findings into a theory of coal flotation. To do this, the zeta potential of bituminous coals and their lithotypes, as well as that of an anthracite coal, was measured and H+ and OH- ions were found to be potential determining ions. The measured ZPC of bituminous coals was at a pH range from 3.5 to 4.6 and for the anthracites between 2.0 and 4.5. The authors have pointed out that since the hydrophobicity is pH-controlled, the flotation mechanism should also be. The Campbell and Sun papers confirm a good many of the conclusions on surface properties of coals reported in recent years. It is noteworthy to point out that the ZPC found in the paper on bituminous coals was approximately pH 4, similar to the ZPC for the anthracite coal. In fact, we have been investigating different coals from low to high ranks. Thus, the plot of the pH for ZPC against rank could be derived and this curve-an electrocapillary one-indicates a pH near which the hydrophobicity of the coal surface should be at maximum. This can be proved by so-called salt flotation, which, in a sense, can be treated as method of surface charge measurement. It is obvious that the salt flotation experiment is possible when the native hydrophobicity of the mineral surface is high, e.g., when the solid surface does not have an orienting influence on an adjacent water layer and the hydration layers are controlled by the electrical double-layer potential. The addition of electrolyte or a change of pH which decreases the thickness of the stabilizing double-layer "opens up" the hydrophobic surface micro-area mosaic. Thereby the surface becomes hydrophobic and particles become floatable. The orienting influence of surface on hydration layer increases even after very slight oxidation and flotation is affected by it. It seems that such an explanation agrees reasonably well with those of Campbell and Sun.

Jan 1, 1972

By G. F. Raymond

Discussion by G.F. Raymond Knudsen's study presents two curious conclusions: • The kriging of blasthole assays can systematically overstate mill head grades by as much as 21% as a result of unbiased sample variance. • No estimation method is able to reduce this bias to a small margin. The study is based on a simulation using real data and what are presumed to be actual variogram parameters from a real deposit. Although I have no doubt that the first conclusion (21% overestimation) is correct for the author's simulation, I do not believe this represents a realistic mining situation. Over the past 15 years I have done extensive comparisons between exploration drill-hole assays, blasthole assays and mill head grades on seven major open-pit mines, including some very erratic gold deposits. Commonly, nugget effects on blasthole variograms were 10% - 20% higher than on exploration variograms. And in one extreme case, the difference was 50%. Even in the extreme case, ordinary kriging on blastholes agreed well with the mill head grade over the long term. In Knudsen's simulation, the blasthole nugget effect is assumed to be 200% higher than exploration data's. He supports this by variogram plots from each. My guess is that the apparent, large difference between these variograms results from a failure to account for the proportional effect (blasthole assays are likely from a higher-grade area). A simple check would be a comparison of the variance of exploration samples nearest blastholes. As for a nearly conditionally-unbiased estimator of a large random error, the arithmetic mean of all of the data certainly qualifies, provided there is an even data spacing. As a corollary, so does simple kriging, which would include, in this case, a large weighting to the arithmetic mean. Similarly, using a large number of samples with ordinary kriging or indicator kriging would significantly reduce the bias in the case of a large nugget effect for the variogram.[ ] Reply by H. Peter Knudsen Raymond questions two conclusions in the paper. First, he wonders whether a 21 % overestimation represents a realistic mining situation. I agree that 21 % is high, but overestimation in the range of 10% to 15% is certainly common in my experience. Furthermore, several years ago I consulted on a gold mine that was experiencing a 45% overestimation due, predominantly, to poor blasthole samples: In further questioning of the 21 % value, Raymond wonders whether the nugget effect of the blastholes is really so much larger than the nugget values of the exploration data. It is consistently larger throughout the deposit. In my experience with six Nevada gold mines, the high nugget value is not unusual. In fact, for some reason, nugget values for blasthole samples are typically about 0.0005 (opt squared). I am of the opinion that this high nugget effect observed at many gold mines is predominantly due to the inherent inadequacies of the blasthole sample and subsequent sample preparation. The second conclusion Raymond questions is the inability of the estimators tested to reduce the conditional bias. In fact, the conditional bias is extreme with the polygon estimator and greatly reduced by ordinary kriging. However, it was not eliminated. Raymond suggests using simple kriging, or perhaps a larger number of samples, to reduce the conditional bias. The technique of simple kriging may be less affected by the random errors in the data, but I did not test the technique. Using a larger amount of data presupposes that too few samples were used initially. In ordinary kriging and indicator kriging, the screen effect comes into play and ensures that samples beyond the second screen are given zero weight. Hence, increasing the sample size does not change the estimates nor the conditional bias. The main point of my paper is that the random unbiased errors (a fact of life in blasthole samples) cause a conditional bias in our estimates. The mechanics by which the conditional bias is introduced are nicely explained by Springett. My paper simply shows that the bias is also present when working with linear estimators, such as ordinary kriging, and even with nonlinear estimators, such as indicator kriging.[ ]

Jan 1, 1993

The authors provide a discussion of the paper, ?Coal workers? pneumoconiosis prevalence disparity between australia and the united States,? a peer-reviewed paper that appeared in the technical papers section of the July 2012 issue of Mining Engineering magazine. The original authors, G.J. Joy (gjoy@cdc.gov), J.F. Colinet (jcolinet@cdc.gov) and D.D. Landen (dlanden@cdc.gov), respond.

Jan 1, 2013

By V. Rajaram

R.C. Rex, Jr. V. Rajaram's paper does not accurately reflect the status of Eastern oil shale development as it stands today. Today, there are numerous firms and research organizations pursuing development of the Eastern oil shale resource. Details of the current projects can be found in the symposium proceedings for the 1985 Eastern Oil Shale Symposium held in Lexington, KY, in November 1985. Additionally, the comparison of the Paraho and HYTORT processes is invalid because the HYTORT process design used it not an accurate representation of the HYTORT process. I will briefly address this point. It is disconcerting to see the author reference hydroretorting work conducted at the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) (circa 1978) in the introduction, which indicates hydroretorting (the HYTORT process concept) yields of up to 250% of the Fischer Assay oil yield, and then turn around and base the remainder of the paper on the 1981 "Synthetic Fuels From Eastern Oil Shale Report," which depicts the HYTORT process as yielding only 115% of Fischer Assay. Indeed, work conducted at IGT to 1981 indicates commercial oil yields for the HYTORT process would be in the range of 200% to 210% of Fischer Assay. A more thorough literature search by the author would have yielded a 1981 publication by Schora et al., entitled "Update on the HYTORT Process" presented at the Symposium on Synthetic Fuels From Oil Shale in Nashville, TN, October 1981. This paper thoroughly discusses the shortcomings of the referenced study with respect to the HYTORT process. For the interested reader, I can also recommend a June 1984 report entitled "An Economic Comparison of Five Process Concepts for Using Eastern Oil Shale," published by Los Alomos National Laboratory (LA-10106-MS, Parkinson et al., NTIS No. DE84-015981). This study applies a realistic HYTORT design (circa 1982) and indicates that HYTORT is the most econom¬ical method of processing Eastern oil shales (about $20/bbl less than Paraho). Additionally, completion of the HYTORT feasibility study in June 1983 by Phillips Petroleum Co., Bechtel Group Inc., HYCRUDE Corp., and IGT has resulted in development of designs that will make the use of HYTORT on Eastern oil shales even more economic. HYCRUDE Corp., a second-tier subsidiary of IGT, is involved in commercialization and licensing of the HYTORT process and is active in efforts to develop the Eastern oil shale resource. As such, I am disappointed to see outdated material that has the potential for adversely affecting development of Eastern oil shale resources published in MINING ENGINEERING. I can only hope that this response will serve to mitigate any negative opinions that may have been formed. Today, activity in commercializing Eastern oil shales dominates the oil shale scene in the US and indicates a realization of the potential for these shales. Reply by V. Rajaram I appreciate the updates on the HYTORT process provided by R.C. Rex, Jr. I hope that Hycrude's work will lead to the funding of a pilot plant to demonstrate that yields of greater than 200% of Fischer Assay can be achieved in a commercial plant using eastern US oil shales.

Jan 9, 1986