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

MR. GIBSON (continuing): In connection with the coal from this mine, I will say that it is not a very dirty coal. The vein where most of the coal comes from is about eight feet thick, and two feet from the bottom there is a small boney band about two inches thick. The breaking shot has to be placed over the, band, therefore breaking the boney into fine particles which goes off with the slack. This coal is a very good domestic coal and the slack is in great demand for various power, plants, such as sugar plants, smelters and other industries, but where this, boney is broken up and goes into the slack, it is very injurious in effect and retards the sale of the slack. Therefore the Spring Canyon Coal Company went to the expense of' building this plant, costing over $250,000, just in order to get that, two inches of boney coal out of the rest of the vein. The market in, Utah is very critical, and in order to sell coal, the product must be thoroughly clean in every way and, as Mr. Murphy says, I believe they have succeeded in making a very good commercial product. In any event the Spring Canyon Coal Company put out more coal than any other one mine during the last year, 1924, they had the largest production. I thank, you. (Applause). PRESIDENT MARKS: With the assistance of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Miller, I am sorry you could not get the pictures a little better synchronized with the story. MR. F. C. MILLER (Chief Chemist The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, Pueblo) : We had seven slides to show eighteen different views on the screen and we did remarkably well. (Laughter.) PRESIDENT MARKS: Is there : any further discussion on this paper? MR. G. B. JONES (Mining Inspector, Victor-American Fuel Co.) : I would like to ask a question on the

Jan 1, 1926

By Fred C. Bond

This article is interesting because it deals with the fundamentals of grinding in a novel manner. However, it is somewhat reminiscent of Mark Twain's famous evaluation of science as the production of pounds of conjecture from ounces of fact. Extrapolations abound, and some cases they are treated with a seriousness that is undeserved. Tests should undoubtedly be made of wet grinding at supercritical speeds, using smooth mill lining and mill charges of large grinding balls as well as pebbles. However, the performance predicted in the article needs more qualification than it has received.

Jan 5, 1958

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

By J. D. Patsey, G. T. Lineberry

A.E. Hall The authors are to be commended for their attempt to provide a convenient piece of software for preliminary drum hoist specification. This field has received little attention in recent years and is eminently suited to calculation by computer. Unfortunately, there appears to be an error in the calculation of the required rope diameter. The 66-mm (2 5/8-in.) rope selected is oversized for this application. Wire rope weight and breaking strength are related to the rope diameter. For a round strand rope

Jan 8, 1987

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 J. Hanna, H. R. Gonzalez

Discussion by N.L. Hargett Dear Dr. Hanna: As discussed in our phone conversation, we are enclosing a suggested revision to the paper, "Application of Bentonitic Clays in Suspension Fertilizer Formulations," published in MINERAL & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING, May 1990. The revision will replace the second paragraph in the article. The reason for the revision is that suspensions have decreased in market share since 1984 and at present comprise an estimated 25% to 30% of fluid mixtures. This represents 6% to 7% of all fluids and only 2% to 3% percent of all fertilizers. Based on national surveys conducted by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO), suspensions comprised an estimated 25% of all fluid mixtures in 1974, 33% in 1976, 35% in 1980, 40% in 1984, and 36% in 1988. Revision to "Application of Bentonitic Clays in Suspension Fertilizer Formulations." Suspension fertilizers are an important segment of the fertilizer industry in the United States. Suspensions allow higher concentrations of nutrients (N, P2O5, K2O) than clear liquid solution fertilizers. K20 content of solutions is limited to about 10%, while suspensions can contain more than 30% K2O. Suspensions can tolerate greater variations in temperature than solutions. In suspensions, if crystallization occurs, the crystals can remain suspended in a clay jell instead of settling as they would in solutions. Solubility is not a limiting factor in suspensions, since complete solubility of phosphate is not required. This allows a wider range of phosphate materials to be used. Also, materials commonly used in formulating suspensions are less expensive and more widely available than those for clear liquids (Getsiner et al., 1984).

Jan 1, 1992

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 C. J. Pritchard, R. E. Gundersen

I commend the authors on examining an interesting method of shaft lining and attempting to improve safety in a dangerous environment by remotely installing the shaft lining. It is important, though, to not trade off shaft lining safety for long-term mine safety by lining an intake shaft with combustible material. In many operations, the mine utilities are installed next to the lining of the intake shaft, supplying a possible ignition source if damaged or overloaded. Although the polyurethane studied in the paper is of relatively high density, no mention is made of the flame retardency of the samples. When exposed to heat, small amounts of polyurethane will melt and bum but are extinguished when the heat source is removed. If large surface areas of combustible polyurethane - a tunnel or mine shaft- are exposed to ignition heat sources that are not removed or extinguished early, an uncontrollable, fuel rich fire may result with high carbon monoxide levels, low oxygen concentrations, and greatly increased burning rates that can have devastating effects on the ventilation system and miners' safety. Although these heavy polyurethanes lend themselves to a "pouring" application around the annulus of the shaft liners and is a continuous process, past experience with atomizing and frothing polyurethane spray systems indicates a high degree of maintenance and operator attention to the nozzle1 delivery system. This may require more miner's time to be spent in the shaft maintaining the foam system, negating some of the safety advantages of the system. If polyurethane foams are to be used in mines, they must be of the highest quality available in terms of flame spread, heat emitted while curing, and contaminants emitted while curing and spraying. In addition, employees must be given adequate training and be thoroughly informed in all aspects of polyurethane foam safety procedures. As witnessed by our fellow miners in South Africa, we can accept no less.

Jan 1, 1991

By H. Nemutolluhi

Discussion 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 he done, wet or dry or a combination? On top of that uncertainty the author refers to a simplified "Anaconda" test. No reference is provided for this procedure and in the text the results of the technique are referred to "Denver wet ball mill" results and say nothing of Anaconda results. Reply by H. Nematollahi I think that the method proposed to determine the Bond Work Index in this paper is clearly described in the paper as follows: •The method of grinding is dry (Ref. paragraph I, subject Method description); •The size of ball mill, the quantity and size of balls are noted (Ref. paragraph 1, subject Test equipment); and The test procedure is described in detail (Ref. paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, subject Test procedure). As it is noted in the paper, the test has been worked out under the same condition as Standard Bond Test with ball mill, so dry (screening should be dry also), but using a smaller ball mill and a smaller quantity of sample. Considering the above mentioned points, I believe that the method has been fully and clearly described and it ought to be repeatable as well. The Anaconda test is a method for determination of Work Index and could be done by any types of laboratory wet ball mill (Yan, R.F., et al., cf. References). I applied this method using a laboratory Denver ball mill (Ref. paragraph I subject Determining the Bond Work Index). So the results referred to Denver wet ball mill can be equated the same as Anaconda method.

Jan 1, 1996

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

Three -dimensional boundary value problems are difficult to solve. Indeed, while the separation of the scalar wave equation can be effected in 11 different coordinate systems, an analytic solution requires that the boundaries, both external and internal, possess the same symmetry as the coordinate system. Numerical methods are thus of great importance for the solution of such problems; however, despite the availability of high-speed, large memory digital computers , the solution to a significant three -dimensional problem is by no means trivial. It is unfortunate that the results reported here by Jones are invalid. Jones discusses a model in which a three-dimensional island lies off a linear coastline where all the interfaces lie in the coordinate planes in a Cartesian system. A downward plane em wave polarized with the electric field parallel to the linear coastline, and two of the islands coast, is incident downward. This, of course, requires that the incident electric field is perpendicular to the other faces of the idealized Cartesian island. The significant equation used by Jones for his finite difference calculations is [ ] where n2 = sµ? . is the conductivity, µ=µo is the permeability of the appropriate medium, and w is the angular frequency of a Fourier component of the incident field. We see that the displacement current term is omitted, which is an excellent approximation for the parameters of interest in this model. In the similar equation for the y- component of the diffusion equation, the same considerations which we are about to discuss are equally valid. It can be seen from the equation that the field components are related and thus any errors introduced will be propagated into all three components. The difficulty arises when Ex or E is perpendicular Y to one or other of the surfaces of discontinuity in s. The continuity of current at the air-earth interface (upper surface), e. g., jy, requires

Jan 1, 1973

Gerald Sherman, Bisbee, Ariz. (written discussion*) .—The fact that, after a change in the hours of labor, as much work is found to be done in 8 hr. as was accomplished in 10, probably results from the more rigid examination of operating methods that is made when the management faces new and more difficult conditions. Although A better working pace will prevail, most of the gain will result from economies of plan and only a part of it from the improved effciency of labor. The Iabor of shoveling is so severe that it may be easily believed that a working period of less than 7 hr. will give maximum results, but there arc many other occupations about a mine in which this is not true, and in which the rate of accomplishment is in proportion to the time employed, up to 9 or 10 hours. Mr. Harley's study of shoveling has becn thorough, and demonstrates the benefit of investigation and education even in such simple work, but his reference to methods of payment opens a subject even more important in mine management. The efficiency of labor may be excellent, but unless a method of equitable payment accompanies it, the result will be only temporary. With strict but sympathetic supervision, a good average day's work can be obtained; but with the exception of those unusual men who cannot be restrained from working to their limit, an average daily wage does not bring out the remarkable performance of which many men are capable. There is also a considerable variation in the average amount accomplished, dependent on the supply of Iabor. This can readily be shown by any labor record that covers several periods of shortage or superabundance of labor. An increase in the daily wage in the time of labor shortage does not necessarily bring out an increased day's work; there is usuaIly a decrease in labor efficiency at such times regardless of the wage, whenever a daily rate is used. Rewards to individuals for exceptional performance appearing as an increased rate of pay cannot be made in a large organization without bad feeling. In a small organization, an individual's ability may be so well recognized that different rates of pay can be applied. Exceptional work can only be obtained by a method of payment based on the valuable results accomplished. As a basis for such payment, an

Jan 1, 1920

Contribution by G. Narsimhan It was with much pleasure that I went through D.F. Malan's excellent paper. The following explanatory and critical note has been the result of my deep study of the paper. Although by qualifications and experience I have been a chemical engineer, involved over four decades with problems in the modeling and simulation of transport-limited (heat and mass) chemical reactions in multi-phase systems, I have of and on interested myself in challenging problems in extractive metallurgy. This is the first time I have veered of to continuum mechanics, at the age of 71! Author's reply. I thank Professor Narsimhan for his extensive contribution to the paper. It provided me with the stimulus to derive an extended model. However, there are some inaccuracies in his arguments that need further discussion. Professor Narsimhan's main concern is that there is not a good enough fit between the derived viscoelastic Kelvin model and the experimental data supplied by Güler1 (see Figure l1 on page 218 of my paper). I will therefore explain the choice of a viscoelastic model in more detail and also make specific comments on the arguments given in his contribution.

Jan 1, 1996

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