Search Documents

Mining Methods GERALD F. SHERMAN, Chairman JOHN A. CHURCH, Vice-chaiman CHARLES W. WRIGHT, Secretary Alluvial Mining CLINTON BERNARD CHARLES JANIN H.R. NORSWORTHY Open-cut Mining Iron MAX H. BARBER J. A. MACKILLICAN Copper MICHAEL CURLEY R.B. TEMPEST Underground Mining Iron C. H. BAXTER TENNEY C. DESOLLAR

Jan 1, 1934

[1-Iron and Steel JOHN A. MATHEWS, Chairman RALPH H, SWEETSER, Vice-chairman WILLIAM CAMPBELL, Vice-chairman MAX ROESLER, Secretary Iron Ore CHARLES B. MURRAY, Chairman R. C, ALLEN W. 0, HOTCHKISS MAX ROESLER ERNEST F, BURCHARD WILLIAM KELLY DWIGHT E, WOODBRIDGE M. M, DUNCAN CHARLES F. RAND CARL ZAPFFE C, T, FAIRBAIRN THOMAS T, READ Blast Furnace WALTER MATHESIUS, Chairman WILLIAM H. BLAUVELT S. P, KINNEY C. SNELLING ROBINSON A. J. BOYNTON DORSEY A. LYON R. H. SWEETSER D. T. CROXTON RICHARD MCCAFFERY R. J, WYSOR THOMAS L, JOSEPH CHARLES P, PERIN]

Jan 1, 1928

[MINING METHODS PHILIP B. BUCKY, Chairman WILLIAM J. COULTER. Past Chairman J. B. HAPPER, Vice-Chairman LELAND A. WALKER, Vice-Chairman, CLYDE E. WEED, Vice-Chairman E. D. GARDNER, Secretary]

Jan 1, 1946

The experience of the Committee in connection with securing papers for the Butte meeting in August has shown that authors should begin early on papers contemplated for the New York meeting next February. So many papers come in at the last moment that it becomes exceedingly difficult to have them all read, indorsed, and delivered to the printer in time. Authors should remember that those serving on this Committee are doing so without pecuniary compensation, and it is hardly fair to expect them to devote so much of their time at the last moment from their private affairs. So many papers have to be sent back for corrections of one kind or another, that it is desirable that they be sent to the Committee at least three months previous to the date of the meeting. The Committee desires to be kept informed of contemplated papers on metallurgical subjects particularly. It is hoped that the Institute Transactions can be made an up-to-date record of metallurgical advance of all kinds. For the present, at least, the activities of the Committee include the refining and preparation of the non-metallic products such as phosphate rock, precious stones, cement, lime, gypsum, building stones, etc. Papers covering any of these subjects are desired. General papers covering geological, mining and metallurgical phases of an ore deposit can be sent either to this Committee or to one of the other Committees on Mining Geology or Mining Methods. C. W. GOODALE,Chairman. DARSIE C. BARD, Secretary.

Jan 8, 1913

ALBERT SAUVEUR, Chairman. A. A. STEVENSON, Vice-Chairman. HERBERT M. BOYLSTON, Secretary, Abbot Bldg., Cambridge, Mass. John Birkinbine, William Kelly, J. S. Unger, William H. Blauvelt, Charles Kirchhoff, Felix A. Vogel, James Gayley, Richard Moldenke, Leonard Waldo, Henry D. Hibbard, Joseph W. Richards, William R. Walker, Henry M. Howe, C. F. W. Rys, William R. Webster, Robert W. Hunt, E. Gybbon Spilsbury, Frederick W. Wood. J. E. Johnson, Jr., The innovation of a special meeting under the auspices of the Iron and Steel Committee was well justified, if we accept as a criterion the number of papers presented at the meeting held on Oct. 16 and 17 in New York and the attendance at that meeting. Twenty-four papers were read, and most of these were widely discussed orally, while doubtless the written discussions will be even larger in extent. Discussions will be received up to Dec. 1, 1913. The attendance at the meeting of 106 members and 75 guests is an evidence of the wide anti growing interest in the Institute of men interested chiefly in iron and steel. It is especially interesting to note this large attendance at a meeting where very little of a social nature was introduced into the program. An informal dinner for the men at the Engineers' Club closed the meeting. At this dinner were present about 70 members and guests. One of the Vice-Chairmen and the Secretary of the new Committee on Petroleum and Gas told of the important plans in prospect of that Committee. Brief impromptu speeches by a considerable number of the members and guests were enjoyed. Professor Marburg reiterated his previous assertion that he believed that the Institute and the American Society for Testing Materials, as well as some of the other technical societies, were all fighting for one good cause; that there was room in the field for all of these societies with their various points of view; and that they should march shoulder to shoulder. The success of this dinner was due largely to the efforts of Mr. Johnson who had the affair in charge.

Jan 11, 1913

CHARLES KIRCHHOFF, Chairman. ALBERT SAUVEUR, Vice-Chairman. HERBERT M. BOYLSTON, Secretary, Abbot Bldg., Harvard Sq., Cambridge, Mass. John Birkinbine, J. E. Johnson, Jr., J. S. Unger, William H. Blauvelt, William Kelly, Felix A. Vogel, James Gayley, Richard Moldenke, Leonard Waldo, Henry D. Hibbard, Joseph W. Richards, William R. Walker, Henry M. Howe, C. F. W. Rys, William R. Webster, Robert W. Hunt, E. Gybbon Spilsbury, Frederick W. Wood. A. A. Stevenson, J. S. Unger and C. F. W. Rys have accepted membership on the Iron and Steel Committee. The Program Committee has held two meetings- in New York and has perfected the preliminary plans for the October meeting. The Committee will meet again in September. The following provisional program has been laid out by the Program Committee, but is subject to later additions and changes :

Jan 9, 1913

JOSEPH W. RICHARDS, Chairman. J. E. JOHNSON, JR., Vice-Chairman. ARTHUR S. CALLEN, Secretary, 453 Chestnut St., So. Bethlehem, Pa. SUB-COMMITTEES IRON ORE DWIGHT E. WOODBRIDGE, Chairman. ERNEST F. BURCHARD, WILLIAM KELLY, CHARLES F. RAND, FELIX A. VOGEL. BLAST FURNACES II. A. BRASSERT, Chairman. WILLIAM H. BLAUVELT, AMBROSE N. DIEHL, JAMES GAYLEY RICHARD V. McKAY. STEEL WORKS HENRY D. HIBBARD, Chairman. GUILLIAEM AERTSEN, C. F. W. RYS, .1. S. UNGER. FRANK D. CARNEY, A. A. STEVENSON, WILLIAM It. WALKER. MECHANICAL TREATMENT CHARLES A. BUCK, Chairman. ROBERT W. HUNT, GEORGE MESTA, FREDERICK W. WOOD.

Jan 6, 1915

IRON AND STEEL COMMITTEE ALBERT SAUVEUR, Chairman A. A. STEVENSON, Vice-Chairman HERBERT M. BOYLSTON, Secretary, Abbot Bldg., Cambridge,- Mass. Guilliaem Aertsen, Robert W. Hunt, E. Gybbon Spilsbury, John Birkinbine, J. E. Johnson, Jr., J. S. Unger, William H. Blauvelt, Charles Kirchhoff, Felix A. Vogel, Charles A. Buck, Richard Moldenke, Leonard Waldo, F. D. Carney, Charles F. Rand, William R. Walker, James Gayley, Joseph W. Richards, William R. Webster, Henry D. Hibbard, . C. F. W. Rys, . Frederick W. Wood. Henry M. Howe, Messrs. Guilliaem Aertsen, C. A. Buck, and F. D. Carney have accepted membership on the Committee.

Jan 3, 1914

IRON AND STEEL COMMITTEE ALBERT SAUVEUR, Chairman. A. A. STEVENSON, Vice-Chairman. HERBERT M. BOYLSTON, Secretary, Abbot Bldg., Cambridge, Mass. John Birkinbine, William Kelly, J. S. Unger, William H. Blauvelt, Charles Kirchhoff, Felix A. Vogel, James Gayley, Richard Moldenke, Leonard Waldo, Henry D. Hibbard, Joseph W. Richards, William R. Walker, Henry M. Howe, C. F. W. Rys, William R. Webster, Robert W. Hunt, E. Gybbon Spilsbury, Frederick W. Wood. J. E. Johnson, Jr.,

Jan 1, 1914

By James E. Monsees, Wayne A. Carbiener, Michael R. Wigley

This paper illustrates an approach to quantitatively document the degree of technical conservatism to be incorporated into the design of a waste isolation system in bedded salt. It is anticipated that for an actual repository site the key performance constraints and/or design bases identified in this paper will be reviewed, and modified or supplemented as required. Ultimate acceptance of a repository will be dependent upon scientific peer input and scrutiny of the demonstrated conservatism inherent in each specific repository site and design.

Jan 1, 1981

By Masszi D

INTRODUCTION The association of methane with coal has been known almost since coal was first mined and in general it has been considered the curse of underground coal mining. Historically, most of the effort to handle this methane has been directed at diluting it to a safe level and preventing an explosive mixture of methane and oxygen from forming in any part of the mine. This is generally achieved by in-mine activites. This approach has two principal drawbacks, the severity of which are dependent on local conditions. The first is that the activity associated with the handling of the methane is undertaken in the mine and there- fore competes with the mining activity for the limited space available. The second drawback is that the whole methane handling activity is generally a cost to the coal because methane is so diluted that it cannot be used. With the value of energy increasing thi; second drawback is gaining importance so th.u several mines in Europe and North America ;it,, now installing systems to recover the methane in a useful form. Two approaches are

Jan 1, 1982

By Mark J. Dowiak, Daniel Threlfall

The disposal of hazardous chemical wastes will be one of the major environmental issues of the 1980s. About 45 Mt of hazardous wastes are produced yearly. One major aspect of the problem is the siting, design, and construction of' environmentally acceptable disposal facilities to accommodate this huge volume of material. Surface mines have been considered attractive for development as disposal sites for several reasons. • Surface mines offer an open pit that can conveniently serve as a repository for wastes. This could represent a significant economic, savings when compared with sites on undisturbed lands that might require extensive excavation or embankment construction. • Surface mines often have an abundance of mine spoil available that could potentially serve as construction material. This could result in a significant economic advantage over other sites that might require extensive amounts of construction material to be excavated or hauled in. • Operation of a commercial disposal facility in a surface mine can reduce or totally alleviate reclamation costs. • For an abandoned surface mine, conversion into a disposal facility could represent a positive form of land use and may provide a means for reclaiming lands that would otherwise remain unreclaimed. Despite these positive reasons, there are many technical factors associated with surface raining that can make the prospect of disposal site development an uncertain one. Before discussing factors associated with mining that can present siting, design, or construction problems, some understanding of the basic components of a chemical waste disposal facility is necessary.

Jan 2, 1981

By Daniel Threlfall

The disposal of hazardous chemical wastes will be one of the major environmental issues of the 1980's. Approximately 50 million tons of hazardous wastes are produced yearly. One of the major aspects of the problem is the siting, design and construction of environmentally acceptable disposal facilities to accommodate this huge volume of material. Surface mines have been considered attractive for development as disposal sires for several reasons: 1. Surface mines represent an open pit that can conveniently serve as a repository for wastes. This could represent a significant economic savings when compared with sites on undisturbed lands chat might require extensive excavation or embankment construction.

Jan 1, 1981

By Dean Brox

Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) have been used for the construction of various tunnels for mining projects for the purpose of access, conveyance of ore and waste, drainage, exploration, water supply and water diversion. Several mining projects have seen the successful and economic beneficial use of TBMs, and there is an increasing awareness of the benefits of TBMs for mining projects. Key technical considerations for the use of TBMs for the construction of tunnels for mining projects include geological issues (rock type, rock alteration, rock strength, rock abrasivity, durability, ground water in flows), depth of cover and the potential for overstressing/rockbursts, site access and terrain, portal locations, TBM constraints, minimum tunnel size, tunnel support requirements, contractor and labor experience, and project schedule demands. TBMs offer key project schedule benefits with high rates of progress, which is a unique economic advantage recognized for mining projects where timing is of the essence in order to advance mining development and achieve early startup for operations. A thorough evaluation of the anticipated ground conditions should be performed as part of the decision to adopt a TBM for a mining project. Minimum specifications for TBMs are necessary in order to prevent the incorrect type of TBM from being used. Appropriate geotechnical investigations are necessary in order to provide key information on the anticipated subsurface conditions for careful planning and design of the proposed tunnel alignment. The overall site and geological conditions associated with some projects may suggest that it is not appropriate to use TBMs for some mining projects due to a perceived higher risk. Key words: TBM, Tunnel boring machines, Tunneling in mining

Feb 1, 2014

By Dean Brox

Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) have been used for the construction of various tunnels for mining projects for the purpose of access, conveyance of ore and waste, drainage, exploration, water supply and water diversion. Several mining projects have seen the successful and economic beneficial use of TBMs, and there is an increasing awareness of the benefits of TBMs for mining projects. Key technical considerations for the use of TBMs for the construction of tunnels for mining projects include geological issues (rock type, rock alteration, rock strength, rock abrasivity, durability, ground water inflows), depth of cover and the potential for overstressing/rockbursts, site access and terrain, portal locations, TBM constraints, minimum tunnel size, tunnel support requirements, contractor and labor experience, and project schedule demands. TBMs offer key project schedule benefits with high rates of progress, which is a unique economic advantage recognized for mining projects where timing is of the essence in order to advance mining development and achieve early startup for operations. A thorough evaluation of the anticipated ground conditions should be performed as part of the decision to adopt a TBM for a mining project. Minimum specifications for TBMs are necessary in order to prevent the incorrect type of TBM from being used. Appropriate geotechnical investigations are necessary in order to provide key information on the anticipated subsurface conditions for careful planning and design of the proposed tunnel alignment. The overall site and geological conditions associated with some projects may suggest that it is not appropriate to use TBMs for some mining projects due to a perceived higher risk.

Jan 1, 2013

By Dean Brox

The use of Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) for tunnel construction of long tunnels in the Andes of South America has been of mixed success in the past due to a variety of reasons and key lessons can be recognized. A review of past TBM tunnel projects in the Andes has unveiled some interesting findings for different TBM tunnel approaches with both world records of progress as well as nearly in-completed projects with machines being abandoned. Key considerations for the use of TBMs for tunnel construction in the Andes include geological issues; (faults, rock type, rock strength, rock abrasivity, durability, groundwater inflows),depth of cover and the potential for overstressing/rockbursts, site access and terrain, portal locations, intermediate access possibilities, minimum tunnel size, support requirements, contractor and labour experience, and project schedule demands. TBMs offer highly recognized schedule benefits(high progress, no concrete lining) for a project if intermediate access adits are limited as well as hydraulic benefits for water conveyance projects. Minimum specifications for TBMs can be easily developed to suit the unique requirements of any project so as long as all factors are carefully considered. The overall conditions and factors associated with some projects may suggest that it is not appropriate to use TBMs due to a perceived high risk. Finally, access for geotechnical investigations by drilling in the commonly steep terrain of the Andes is typically difficult and often not impossible. Alternative approaches for geotechnical investigations for TBM tunnels including comprehensive mapping, high-resolution airborne electric-magnetics for delineation of possible fault zones, and rock block sampling is presented and discussed.

By D. T. Kirkwood

The practice of impounding mine water and liquid fine waste in underground mines is increasing. Often these underground impoundments are created by constructing seals or bulkheads designed to withstand the expected hydraulic pressures. Occasionally seals are built for another purpose, usually to act as explosion-resistant ventilation barriers. Due to factors such as clogged drain pipes or unexpectedly high inflow rates, these explosion-resistant seals sometimes become subjected to hydraulic pressures. The incidence of seal failures due to inadequate design and/or construction is also on the increase. Fortunately, to date, no lives have been lost by water seal failures, but a clearer understanding of the design and construction considerations specific to water seals is vital to keep this from occurring in the future. This paper presents technical considerations for the design and construction of seals which will specifically be required to withstand hydraulic pressures in underground mines.

Jan 1, 1995

By Olav Mejia

The rising energy costs and environmental considerations in mining necessitate the development of energy-efficient copper and gold processing plants. This paper presents an analysis of technical strategies aimed at reducing energy consumption in these plants. Key approaches include the integration of advanced ore sorting technologies, High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR), Coarse Particle Flotation (CPF), and high-intensity flotation. Ore sorting enables early-stage waste removal, reducing the downstream processing load and associated energy use. HPGR technology, recognized for its energy efficiency, contributes to significant energy savings in comminution circuits by reducing reliance on traditional grinding methods. CPF technology further optimizes flotation performance by enabling the recovery of larger particles, thereby decreasing the need for fine grinding and reducing overall power demand. High-intensity flotation units enhance separation efficiency and mineral recovery in a compact footprint, offering further reductions in energy consumption. Together, these technologies provide energy saving opportunities to achieve a more sustainable and economically viable processing operation. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of each method, highlighting their potential impacts on energy consumption, operational efficiency, and cost-effectiveness in copper and gold processing

May 4, 2025

By P Stephenson, G Mosher, M Berry, C Arnold, P Stoker

"An EXTENDED ABSTRACT is available for download. A full-length paper was not prepared for this presentation. Globally, private minerals companies considering the transition to a public company and entrepreneurs looking to create a new public company through, for example, an initial public offering or by a reverse takeover have many options. For companies with assets around the Pacific Rim, there are arguably five key stock/securities exchanges that actively promote international minerals company listings, and these are located in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom.Listing on any of these exchanges requires a range of technical, commercial, financial and legal documentation. Each exchange has specific rules and requirements for technical documentation to support the listing process. Once listed, each exchange also has specific rules for technical information to meet ongoing compliance requirements. The nature and detail of this documentation differs for the five exchanges.This paper presents statistics on the minerals company listings on each exchange and provides an overview of the technical documentation required to prepare for an initial listing and ongoing compliance.CITATION:Berry, M, Stoker, P, Stephenson, P, Arnold, C and Mosher, G, 2015. Technical considerations of public listing and ongoing compliance for minerals companies , in Proceedings PACRIM 2015 Congress, pp 101–108 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 18, 2015

By Kirk Carlton

This paper deals with a group of subjects so familiar to all of us that we might question the need for discussion. Even so, nearly every day's business turns up expensive examples of differences in understanding, misdirected assumptions and incomplete technical purchase documents. As our international activities increase, so do these problem areas. Their expense in both money and embarrassment gives rise to this attempt to focus a little extra attention on technical criteria and specifications. The two terms ?criteria? and "specifications" are, we believe, worth separating with respect to meaning. They should not be used interchangeably, although they often are. Criteria are by definition "standards for judging", whereas specifications are "enumerations of particulars". In relation to plant or project engineering, the criteria are the general rules and data which apply to the whole project and the specifications are the further listing of detailed requirements for specific contractual items or pieces of equipment. We'll look a little more closely at specifications after we give another minute or two to this "criteria" subject,

Jan 1, 1973