Search Documents

By G. Sanders

The studies reported on in this paper were initiated to draw attention to the severe contamination problem in the Section 30 drilling program at Chimney Creek. The lithologic-subset sampling study reached a different conclusion from that presented in your paper, and I wish to comment on your subsequent analysis of the data and your conclusions. Request for more complete data In the section on subsampling, you mention that the subordinate lithologies were separated and sampled, yet only the dominant-lithology gold value is plotted in Fig. 4. In a contamination study, the reader is interested in the assay values for the individual subsets. Please include a table of the subsample assay data in your reply. Also, please indicate which analytical methods were used to arrive at the gold values in the subsampling study. Turning barren rock into low-grade ore Figure 5 is very revealing and typical of all of the cross sections in Section 30. Note the long strings of low-grade mineralization spread out for hundreds of feet below the ore zones. There were some very high gold values found in certain contaminated fractions during the subset sampling. The conclusion, here, was that the distinctive, strongly-mineralized dolomite layer was probably loose and crumbly and continued to disintegrate during drilling. This caused salting of the unmineralized rock samples below.

Jan 1, 1993

By B. Beatty

This is a response to M. J. Hrebar's paper, which tracks in detail the highly productive stripping capabilities of modern large bulldozers at two separate installations. It proves the old adage "economies of scale" and quantifies the advantage of being able to move large loads of dirt over comparatively short haul distances by sliding rather than carrying the load. This discussion examines whether a bulldozer is the most efficient way of using this geotechnical principle.

Jan 1, 1994

By R. C. Kirkman

Your interesting and well-written paper brings up the issue of the purpose or use of a mineral property appraisal, specifically the value of these evaluations when the quality and quantity of the mineral resource to be exploited have not been thoroughly investigated. I am not a practicing professional in regards to valuation of limestone investment opportunities. I simply wish to make a few generic observations about the appraisal process in order to stimulate meaningful thinking by appraisal professionals whose reports may be reviewed by professional investors and "laypersons" alike. It is my contention that the analysis given in your paper is very thorough, considering the data that was made available to you. But I would not like to be the person responsible for investment decision making without having a feel for the risk involved. Therefore, the reviewer must classify this type of analysis as relatively "subjective" because they have not received an indication of the inherent risk involved in exploiting a mineral resource. This risk can best be quantified by using probabilistic methods in conjunction with the quality and quantity of the mineral to be produced. Most appraisals passively ignore this problem. Specifically, you have accurately identified the various costs and values entering the economic appraisal process. These can usually be quantified with a great deal more certainty than the capability of the resource to provide 25 years of quality material. Also, in Cases A (West Virginia) and B (Alabama), you are fortunate enough to have previous operations data. What if there had never been production from these properties? How does a potential mineral property investor evaluate the resource capability to meet various projected financial outcomes without spending a good deal of up-front capital to drill and delineate enough quality resources for a 20-plus year operation.

Jan 1, 1990

By G. E. Agar

In the April issue of Mining Engineering there is a technical note "New size laboratory ball mill for Bond Work Index determination" written by M. Nematollahi which is very confusing. My recollection is that a description of an experimental procedure should be such that someone skilled in the art should be able to reproduce the results. Applying this test to this particular article would according to me cause a failure to be registered. There are apparently three batch laboratory test procedures referred to in the article. One of these is the traditional Bond test with all its limitations such as dry grinding followed by exclusively dry screening, two attributes which fail to simulate conventional industrial grinding. There is a second procedure (NSBM) which the author is advocating as an improvement of the Bond procedure but from the description I doubt that anyone would be able to repeat the procedure. For instance, is the grinding to be done wet or dry, if wet at what pulp density, and how is the screening to be done, wet or dry or a combination?

Jan 1, 1995

By L. Adler

The paper under discussion provides an excellent and concise study of compartment ergonomics for thin seam equipment. However, in accomplishing this, some very important operational aspects were ignored. Since these are likely to be determinant, the authors' response is solicited. The novel shuttle car with its cross-car, end-mounted compartment is operationally very different from the current one. The latter can be considered a highly mobile extension of the continuous miner or loader, with a pass-through conveyor, dump boom, and extra storage. As such, the vehicle's kinematics are the simple "I," or shuttle pattern, bent for going around pillars, with an intermediate stop at the "change-out point" (Adler, 1986). The action of the cable reel adjusts well to this pattern. The proposed shuttle car's motion either superimposes a "Y," time is lost (5 seconds) for each cycle, space is needed, line of sight is compromised, and a cable anchor is probably required at the dump. A chute is almost prohibitive in construction time and cost. The lack of a dump boom further curtails flexibility in the proposal. The value of a standard hand and opposite standard hand configuration also needs consideration. Many front-end loaders have a rocker (overshot) capability that is designed to achieve an "I" pattern. And crawler loaders sometimes use a side dumping bucket variant for the same purpose. These examples indicate the pattern's importance. For underground, thin seam application, the ram car has become popular. This is an articulated truck, battery-powered, and with an ejector dump. Its operational patterns would be similar to the novel shuttle car, except without the loading flexibility provided by a conveyor. Since the cab location of the proposed shuttle car largely obviates some of the major advantages of the present shuttle car, the question arises whether this configuration could be adapted to the current ram car and scoop.

Jan 1, 1990

By E. S. Cheney

Minter (1990) has provided an excellent summary of the sedimentology and theories of origin of the Witwatersrand paleoplacer Au/U deposits. However, recent stratigraphic, metamorphic and structural-tectonic research is radically changing the concepts about the Witwatersrand that now occur in most textbooks, review articles and North American minds. Presently, these concepts are biased by the past sedimentological research so well described by Minter. Specifically, the Witwatersrand Supergroup is Archean, does not occupy a depositional basin and is significantly metamorphosed and deformed. Thus, many of its sedimentary features, including the mineralogy of its ores, have been modified. The importance of the Witwatersrand ores cannot be overestimated. Since their discovery in 1886, they have produced 52% of the gold mined in all of human history (Pretorius, 1989).

Jan 1, 1991

Minter's excellent recent paper (1990) on the great paleoplacer gold deposits of the Witwatersrand and its subsequent discussion (Cheney, 1991) and reply (Minter, 1991) provide an informative, interesting and up-to-date review of the geology of these unique ores and some long enigmatic questions regarding their origin. Clearly summarized by Minter (1990) are the compelling sedimentologic and stratigraphic relationships indicating that the Central Rand Group conglomerates are ancient placers and documenting the fluvio-deltaic conditions of their transport and deposition. As Minter (1991) indicates, Cheney's discussion broadens Minter's 1990 coverage of the subject by considering higher and lower stratigraphic units and by adding detailed comments concerning recently published information about metamorphic and age relationships. Cheney's discussion and Minter's reply also readdress the old controversy of epigenetic hydrothermal vs. syndepositional placer origin for these deposits. This controversy has been resurrected by: • recent recognition of hydrothermally-altered granites (HAGS) in the older Archean basement rocks that lie unconformably beneath the Dominion Group rocks north and west of the Witwatersrand depository; • recognition of greenschist metamorphic assemblages in the Witwatersrand strata; and • the presence of interpreted epigenetic mineral assemblages and textures in some of the deposits. These relationships are briefly discussed by Cheney who suggests they may result from later, superimposed metamorphism and deformation and do not prove that the gold was introduced by epigenetic/metamorphogenic processes. In his paper, Minter (1990) cited the 1986 abstract of a subsequently published paper by Hutchinson and Viljoen (1988) who also considered many of these aspects and attempted to integrate them all in a broad genetic hypothesis. In addition, they emphasized the additional important problem of determining the source for the Witwatersrand gold. Although this issue was partially addressed by Reimer (1984), Mossman and Dyer (1985) and Reimer and Mossman (1990), the question has been generally under emphasized in earlier work and was, therefore, not stressed by Minter and Cheney. Reimer (1985) also emphasized the importance of weathering of the basin's Archean hinterland and its affects on Witwatersrand sedimentation.

Jan 1, 1992

By D. Leppert

Mr. Garrett brings up several interesting points with respect to the proposed API specification for "nontreated bentonite." However, although not explicitly stated, these specifications are being written based strictly on bentonites from the Wyoming/South Dakota area. Other sodium bentonites may be suitable for use as drill mud but will be unacceptable since the specifications are designed for Wyoming bentonites. Regardless of the API's intent that its specifications are intended only as guidelines, they are generally adhered to on an international basis and, for practical purposes, might as well be chiseled in stone. Estes (1986) notes that the quality of bentonite available from Wyoming producers has steadily declined since the early 1960's. The plastic viscosity: yield point (PV:YP) ratio was included in the current API 13A specification primarily to prevent excessive polymer treatment of lower quality bentonites to make drill mud. However, with development of polymers designed to control YP, this specification cannot ensure that only high-quality bentonites are used for drill mud. Nor will the new specifications for untreated bentonites. Other sodium bentonites are available. Bentonite produced in southeast Oregon demonstrates superior performance characteristics without addition of polymer or other chemicals. However, the exceptionally high purity of these deposits leads to a relatively high YP:PV ratio since the naturally high YP probably results from the higher purity and smaller particle size of this bentonite (Rath, 1986 and personal communication). These bentonites typically have a smectite component exceeding 90% (Rath, 1985), compared with 70% to 75% smectite for typical Wyoming bentonites, as determined by X¬ray diffraction and tests for colloid content. As evident from the accompanying table, the untreated Oregon bentonite has excellent rheological properties, though different from Wyoming bentonites due to the high purity. Additionally, this bentonite reacts well with polymers typically used in the oil industry, making it eminently suitable for use in a low-solids mud system. The extremely low grit content, less that 0.5% on a 75 mm (200-mesh) wet sieve, greatly exceeds the standards set for Wyoming bentonite. Optimum rheological properties are obtained at a higher moisture content than Wyoming bentonites. At 10% moisture, API 13A maximum, the clay is overdried, again reflecting the high smectite content. In summary, the specifications proposed by the API Task Group will ensure that only Wyoming producers can supply "nontreated" bentonite to the oilfield since specifications are

Jan 1, 1989

By J. Dasher

Regarding the March 1991 ME technical paper by De Souza and Moore: For more than a decade since my February 1981 article on how to use modern metric, which SME-AIME had decided to do, I have monthly pointed out metric errors to the editors. In part, I do this because there has been no action to al low editors to fix figures and tables or to allow them to require authors to do so. The latest resulting atrocity provokes this discussion of vibrating drill handle units being stated in decibels.

Jan 1, 1991

By J. Parker

Gentlemen; Rainy day in Upper Michigan, a good time to catch up on reading. Am doing that, and have a couple of questions concerning the K and P paper on roof problems and supports. I wonder if the authors can enlighten me. The compressive strength of the coal was reported as 4.4 MPa (633 psi) and compressive stresses measured in the coal seam were reported at around 27.6 and 48.2 MPa (4000 and 7000 psi ). Can such a soft coal actually contain such a high level of stress? Can it be measured as if the material were elastic, or does the coal behave plastically? Can that stress level be confirmed with hydraulic load cells? And if the coal is so soft, and if it is plastic, why is the stress field not hydrostatic? The intact roofrock appears to be unusually strong, with compressive strength reported at around 145 MPa (21,000 psi), and some failures were noted as soon as the rock was exposed. Were tests run to find out how that rock responded to the addition

Jan 1, 1991

By G. T. Lineberry, R. S. Mateer

Often only after years of "technical dormancy" do errors in published literature become apparent and meaningful. To prevent duplication of effort for future generations, the fol¬lowing corrections are offered. These errors were discovered during a recent study in which a computer program for mine hoist rope selection was developed (Lineberry and Mateer, 1988). In order of increasing gravity: Captions for Figs. 3 and 4 are transposed. • Purported to be a more accurate method of rope selection than the process of successive approximation, the direct method assumes linearity between a given rope's minimum breaking strength, T, and unit rope weight, Wv. Because of the sensitive location of the constant, K, in equation (8) for breaking strength, the significance of this nonlinearity is magnified. For a typical 6 x 37 class fiber core wire rope (Wire Rope Corp. of America, 1985), K actually varies from 43,650 to 52,190, depending upon rope diameter. Although the direct solution permits a rapid selection of hoist rope, an indirect (iterative) solution procedure is favored because of its im¬proved accuracy and ease of computerization. • Equation (8) for minimum breaking strength is in error. It should read:

Jan 1, 1989

By A. Unal

Barbaro et al. (1990) implemented a tedious study aimed at delineating the short-scale spatial variability of sulfur in a coal seam. It is not possible, however, to extend their conclusions to any other coal seam or use theirs in any other fashion, because the background geology was not presented. Nor were the conclusions accompanied by geological interpretations in the paper. In addition, an unfortunate printing error occurred where the total sulfur (determined by High Temperature Combustion) variogram in Fig.3 was duplicated in Fig. 2 instead of the seam height variogram. A more serious error, however, has been committed in the definition of the variable, seam height. What is defined as seam height by Barbaro et al. (1990) is, in essence, mining height, and is not a regionalized variable that should be studied by geostatistical methods directly. Despite the fact that the variable, seam height, is not defined in the paper explicitly, the following quotation discloses the fallacy: "All roof rock that exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft) from the floor was not taken because the longwall was operated to not mine more than 1.8 m (6 ft) unless the coal seam height exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft)." From this definition, the seam height, and therefore the sampling height, is equal to the actual coal thickness, if the coal thickness is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft). Otherwise, it is equal to the sum of the coal thickness plus the thickness of the roof rock that complements the thickness to 1.8 m (6 ft). In the latter case, the seam height is constant and equal to 1.8 m (6 ft). It is possible to conduct a variogram study on a pool of samples that are realizations of two different variables. But the conclusions derived would not belong to any one of the two variables uniquely and, therefore, do not possess any significance. Geostatistical analysis is irrelevant for the sum of multiple regionalized variables formed by arbitrary selections. In a two¬seam setting, for example, the mining height, as defined by the thickness of one seam at one location and the thickness of both seams at another location (due to quality and/or minimum thickness considerations perhaps), should not be used in the calculation of one common variogram. The two seams should be modeled separately. They can then be combined according to the specific purposes of the study. On the other hand, if a constant is added to a regionalized variable (to incorporate dilution perhaps), the variogram of the new variable will not change. Barbaro et al.( 1990), surprisingly, does not give any geologi¬cal interpretation of their results despite the fact that most of them can be explained by the origins of sulfur in a coal seam. The presentation of the results of a geostatistical study with no reference to the geology of the deposit is uninformative. It may also be misleading for the potential users of geostatistics. It is not unusual to find nuggets of pyrite in coal seams. In such cases, pyritic sulfur will probably display a spatial structure for only a very small distance that will appear in the experimen-

Jan 1, 1991

By E. Arioglu

Y. Luo and S.S. Peng are to be congratulated for their outstanding paper providing new results from surface subsidence monitoring over longwall panels under different conditions. This writer found the authors' paper very interesting. In reference to this paper, the following contributions are offered: • In the paper, the maximum possible subsidence (?Smax) induced by chain pillar convergence has been related to a parameter (h/I -p) by linear regression. (Notations are expressed in this discussion's Fig. I (b).) It is a well-known fact that in a goaf the roof lowers onto broken material that gradually compacts. Then the physical behavior of goaf may closely follow the compaction characteristics of broken materials. In light of this assumption, a mathematical means (Fig. 1(a)) of defining the expected compaction (i.e. surface subsidence) represents an exponential expression between ?Smax/m vs. h/1-p. This is based on Luo and Peng's field observations from the Appalachian, Illinois and Alabama coal fields. (The coefficient of regression "r" under consideration was computed to be 0.883). • According to Wardell's (1969) findings for board and pillar mining, the maximum possible subsidence can be expressed in terms of maximum pillar loading (depth, ratio of extraction) and the height-to-width ratio of the pillars left. Using Luo and Peng's 1991 results, this writer discovered a regression equation between the above-mentioned factors. As displayed in Fig. 1(b), the functional expression approximates as closely as possible the observed subsidence data.

Jan 1, 1992

By Erich U. Petersen

Harbuck et al. (1990) present results of research on sulfuric acid leaching of a germanium-gallium ore and shed considerable insight on possible extraction methods for gallium and germanium. However, the presentation does not give sufficient details to evaluate the research, so some of the conclusions may not be as applicable as stated. The objective of this communi¬cation is to indicate that relevant and easily obtainable geological and technical information was omitted. Consequently, on this basis, alternative explanations for some of the data are possible. Discussed below are the omission of: • pertinent geological, mineralogical and geochemical literature; • details regarding the determination of germanium concentration in quartz by electron microprobe; and • details on the calculation of the amount of germanium locked in quartz.

Jan 1, 1992

I was very interested in Professor Park's data on subsidence over longwall panels. His paragraph labeled "Conclusion," however, does not seem appropriate for the article. Nothing in the article gives any discussion of how knowledge of subsidence characteristics can be used in mine design to minimize damage. That thought may have been a reason for undertaking this study, but not a conclusion of it. From his article, I would conclude that subsidence movements last considerably longer at great depth. And the National Coal Board's subsidence prediction model represents this area reasonably accurately, though most literature claims their model predicts far greater disturbances than actually occur in most areas of the United States. Also, I would like to know, is the method used to determine angle of draw? The criterion used can make a significant difference in the value obtained. With 30 m (100 ft) spacing and a 122-m (400-ft) depth the angle between stations can be up to 14°.

Jan 1, 1989

By Dan Plazak

The authors are to be congratulated for presenting a simple and practical tool for quick estimates of ground water flow rates. At the risk of detracting from the simplicity of the method, I would like to suggest a slight refinement to the equation as presented. As the authors noted, the Jacob-Lohman equation (1952) assumes confined-aquifer conditions. To use confined-aquifer equations in water-table aquifers, Jacob (1963) presented a correction to convert water-table aquifer drawdowns [ ] to equivalent confinedaquifer drawdowns [ ]:

Jan 1, 1994

By N. Standish

Leonard and Newman (1989) describe concepts and plans of their forthcoming project designed to increase the bulk density of broken coal at various stages of its production and handling. This is an excellent idea and something that will certainly be useful to the coal mining industry worldwide. The authors seek to achieve bulk density increase by "reducing oreliminating, through chemical additives and engineering design, particle voidage and enhance particle consolidation trickling between the point of breakage (at the face) and loading (in the shuttle car) to increase coal bulk density and productivity." In the paper, they present some supporting results of bulk density versus moisture, with or without oil addition, from the steel industry research. Unfortunately, the paper contains many misconceptions and half-truths that detract from an otherwise excellent objective of the project of increasing bulk density by reducing particle voidage -"the bottom line evaluator." Correct.

Jan 1, 1990

By B. Mather

I was very glad to see an article on alkali-silica reactivity of concrete aggregate in Mining Engineering. It is a topic that should be reexamined every 45 or 50 years. The last paper (that I am aware of) that examined this topic in Mining Engineering was Rexford (1950), who, at the time, was chief of the Petrography Section, South Pacific Division Laboratory, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, CA. The paper was presented at the AIME meeting in Los Angeles in October 1948. Professor Leming's discussion generally reflects the current state-of-the-art; but it provides no references for more detailed information. I wrote a paper titled "How to avoid excessive expansion of concrete due to alkali-aggregate reaction," which was included in the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Hydroelectric Plants and Dams (Mather, 1995). In it, I emphasized that it was the hydroxide ion (not the alkali ion) that caused the pore fluid in the concrete to dissolve reactive silica, producing alkali-silica gel capable of taking up water, thereby, causing swelling and rupturing of the concrete. Excessive expansion will not occur unless there is a sufficient amount of potentially expansive alkali-silica reaction product and water. However, this will not occur unless there is a sufficient quantity of reactive aggregate and unless there is a mechanism by which the pH of the pore fluid can get well above the normal value of about 12.6. In many cases it is sufficient that the cementitious medium not only contains portland cement but also contains ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) or a pozzolan such as fly ash, silica fume, metakaolin, volcanic glass or calcined shale - any of which may have been included for economic reasons. If, however, the person selecting the ingredients for concrete knows that the aggregate is reactive (with no alternate nonreactive aggregate available) and if the person knows that the only available portland cement has a high alkali content (i.e., more than 0.6% Na2O.; Na2e = % Na20 + 0.658 x % K20), then it becomes irresponsible not to establish what reasonable precaution one should take. Professor Leming suggests using one of the following: 30% Class F fly ash, 50% GGBFS or 7% to 10% silica fume. My view is that one should prepare test specimens with the cement and aggregate to be used and then expose these both with and without at least two dosages of each of the various alternative materials (slag, pozzolan and lithium salts), so that the required dosage. to control the expansion is established. Then, economic considerations can dictate the final selection. I would point out to the author that GGBFS is not a pozzolan and is not an admixture, but, rather, it is a latent hydraulic cement. An admixture is, by definition, a material other than hydraulic cement. I commend him for suggesting that aggregate producers should become more active in knowing about the reactivity of their products and the precautions needed to permit those products to be safely used in concrete.

Jan 1, 1997

By E. C. Robertson

D.G. Wilder I found the suggestion that the amount of displacement of a fault can be numerically related to the thickness of gouge or breccia to be both intuitively satisfying and intriguing. I have long agreed that there is some type of relationship between the amount of gouge and the amount of displacement of faults. I congratulate the author for developing a numerical relationship between them. However, I am concerned that the limits for applying this relationship be fully understood. An underlying assumption in this approach is that there is either a uniform thickness of gouge or breccia along a given fault or the thickness does not vary widely. Since it is not always possible to confirm this, the displacements derived by this method should be viewed with caution unless significant fault extent can be observed. At the Nevada Test Site, in drifts constructed in granite for test emplacement of spent nuclear reactor fuel, we found a fault with 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gouge. Within a few meters of this location, the fault had no clay gouge, but rather consisted of a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides. Based on Fig. 1, the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness of gouge would indicate a displacement in excess of 30 m (98 ft). However, no gouge thickness would indicate essentially no displacement. Based on a quartz vein that terminated on the fault, and is not identified nearby, an estimated displacement of more than a few meters was made. This estimate is consistent with that obtained using the regression line proposed in the paper if the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness for the gouge is used. However, using the regression curves with zero thickness would not yield results consistent with what was observed in the field. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the suggested procedure would properly yield a range of probable displacements. ? *Work performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Reply by E.C. Robertson It is certainly true that the t (thickness) of gg-bx (gouge and breccia) on a fault does vary along the fault. My observations have been that near the termination of a fault, the displacement d is small and the t is also small, whereas the maximum d and t will usually be found in the central part of the fault. The information on gg-bx and t of the fault found in granite in the NTS tunnel by Mr. Wilder could be interpreted somewhat differently than he does. He speaks of the fault changing within a few meters from 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gg to "a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides," but no gg. The highly fractured rock may be taken to be bx, rock not so finely ground as gg but still crushed by the fault movement, equivalent to the gg in my usage, and probably occupying about the same t. Mr. Wilder's estimates for the fault in the NTS tunnel for t of 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) and for d of a quartz vein, in excess of "a few meters," would place the point on the low side of the central trend line in my Fig. 1, at the lower limit. There is, of course, a problem with determining d using displacement of only one planar surface. It would be greater or lesser depending on the rake of the movement. Finally, estimating the d of a fault from its t should be made with awareness of our present uncertainties, as pointed out by Mr. Wilder. Although the central trend line in my Fig. 1 has a ratio of d/t of 100, I have put the limiting ratios at 10 and 1000. Understanding of the values of the ratio will be improved only with collection of more data, for which the discussion of Mr. Wilder is much appreciated. G.C. Waterman E.C. Robertson's paper provides significant information to a geologist attempting to deduce fault offset by noting the products of structural dislocation. However, considerable mapping in underground and open-pit mines, and examination of structures produced in different geological settings, have convinced me that gouge and breccia thickness are controlled by geological conditions and fault movement. The following paragraphs suggest geological variables that control them. 1. Depth of Loading A near-surface fault resulting from tensional stress has more breccia/gouge than is produced by a similar stress at considerable depth. A deep-loaded compressional stress may produce a linear zone of schist, or structural dislocation may occur along an earlier formed belt of schist. Such "shear zones" are common in Canadian mines in precambrian rocks. In neither case can offset be directly deduced by an analysis of the minimal gouge/breccia in the shistose rocks. At greater depth, stress may be partially to wholly relieved by flowage. I vividly recall first noting the regional "Midas Thrust" in the Lark mine, Bingham Mining District, UT (where we called the structure the North Fault). My recorded notes, as I remember them, showed a narrow gouge streak separated the `Jordan" and "Commercial" limestone units from impure, muddy limestone beds of uncertain stratigraphic position. The visible structure did not indicate the great importance of this premineral fault

Jan 12, 1984

By K. A. Grace

K.A. Grace's article advocates usage of the terms describing resources as defined by the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). Originally recommended in 1943, the terms were revised in 1976 and again in 1980. Mr. Grace further recommends that the term reserves should be severely restricted and that it should encompass mining and processing factors. The list of references quoted in the article does not, however, mention the study concerning reserves that was made over a period of almost four years by a joint Committee on Definitions. This committee was sponsored by three societies - the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), the Society of Economic Geologists (SEG), and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG). Most of the detailed work was done by a working party appointed by the Society of Mining Engineers (SME) of AIME. After studying previous definitions in the US as well as in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and other European countries, the following definitions were proposed and accepted in 1974 by the SME board of directors. (Ore reserve definitions in Rhodesia, South Africa, or New Zealand were not mentioned as having been reviewed.) Table 1 lists definitions from MINING ENGINEERING, July 1975. Notice in Table 1 it was mentioned, under Resources, that the definitions of reserves were recommended for the purposes of commercial evaluation. It was further stated that the terminology adopted by the USBM and the USGS, as released to the public, covering resources, was recognized as such. Mr. Grace also recommends that reserve calculations should allow for future losses in ore tonnage, ore grade, milling, and smelting. Unfortunately, it might take years to develop a prospect after it has been discovered. Mining methods have to be tested before being finalized in order to know what tonnage of ore is going to be lost, or how much dilution is likely to occur. The same problems are present in concentrating or in smelting. Operating mines usually know how mined grade compares with ore reserve grade. They can usually predict fairly closely what their final metal recoveries are probably going to be. It is, however, expecting too much to have to delay quoting reserves from say a recently drilled prospect. Any responsible mining geologist or mining engineer (or company for that matter) should state several things about an ore reserve calculation: that it is or is not a preliminary estimate only; that estimated grades have not been diluted to allow for a future, as yet unknown, mining method; that metal recoveries are or are not only tentative, based perhaps on drill hole samples only or on no metallurgical testing at all. Reserves of a partially explored prospect are always quoted when it becomes necessary to raise capital. If they are described as preliminary only (really just tonnage and grade estimates and not true "reserves") in addition to being accompanied by some of the items just mentioned, nobody is going to be misled. If, on the other hand, a report by a member of the SME or SEG is intentionally misleading, the individual must be reported and eventually disbarred from his or her society. To summarize, let us stay with the definitions of ore, ore reserves, and related terms as recommended and accepted by SME. I might add that on occasion I have used a fourth category in my ore reserve calculations, namely Geologically Possible Ore. This category is more or less the same as Inferred ore defined by the USBM and USGS. I have never given a grade to this category, which may be based only on geological mapping, geochemical sampling, or geophysical traversing.

Jan 8, 1985