Search Documents

By R. A. Metz, James W. Clark, William C. Dixon, Kevin L. Wiley, Thomas R. Couzens

This paper is a description of certain geologic aspects of the Inspiration mining operation. It is not a geologic description of the Inspiration deposit nor an exposition of all the geologic work involved in the development and exploitation of the deposit. A few specific examples of the application of geology and geostatistics to the mining process are given to illustrate the progress that has been made in making the Inspiration Mine more efficient and cost effective, and a statement of the philosophy of geologic applications is offered.

Jan 1, 1992

By Charles H. Jacoby

Introduction Although, in general, the openings created in domes or diapiric type salt deposits during mining operations are larger than those created in bedded deposits, the openings in bedded salts are of significant lateral extent. Thus, this paper will deal primarily with the dome deposits of the Gulf Coast and more specifically with the Avery Island dome operated by the International Salt Company where recent development activities have materially increased the sizes of previously standard openings. Geology The geology of salt deposits is the governing factor in the rock mechanics associated with the opening which is being created in the salt. Bedded salts are customarily characterized by having experienced solution along the interface between the top of the salt and the overlying bed. Thus, as the salt slowly dissolves there has been left behind a layer of laminated insolubles which is often incompetent. In most cases, this incompetent rock must be supported by a thickness of bedded salt which is left in the roof as support. Where this salt is of secondary deposition (recrystallized halite) with included moisture, additional thicknesses of roof salt are necessary to achieve stability. The salt which forms the domes of the Gulf Coast regions is from the Louann formation of the Jurassic period. These formations are dipping toward the Gulf of Mexico so that the upper tier of domes which have formed across northern Louisiana in an east-west direction into Mississippi and Texas have a salt source some 10 to 15,000 feet

Jan 1, 1976

By Trent Temple, Curtis Johnson, John Mudge

Newmont Gold Company uses centralized carbon handling facilities to strip loaded carbon from five mills and four leach facilities located along a 38 mile stretch of the Carlin Trend in Nevada. Both Zadra and AARL elution processes are employed at this centralized facility which is located near the company's Gold Quarry operations. The Zadra elution circuit was commissioned in 1985 and later expanded in 1987. This circuit can strip carbon at a rate of 24 tons per day. The AARL elution circuit, commissioned in 1988, also has the capacity to strip 24 tons of carbon per day. Two horizontal, rotating, regeneration kilns are used to reactivate approximately 60% of the stripped carbon before it is returned to the mills or leach facilities. One kiln is located in the Zadra plant, while the other is located in the AARL plant.

Jan 1, 1990

By Joe D. Allison, Tom D. Baugh

The analysis for total cyanides (CN, or the cyanide due to the combination of free, weakly associated and refractory cyanide complexes) is required by most regulatory agencies for determination of effluent compliance. This method requires a distillation of the sample at low pH's and is most often sent to contract laboratories at a high time and monetary cost. This paper describes a new micro­distillation apparatus which allows for a multiple of CN,"' analyses to be carried out simultaneously saving both time and money. It can be used in the field, since only electrical power is required for the method. While not being appropriate for reporting values to the respective regulatory agencies as of yet, it is quite valuable for screening a large number of samples prior to submission of the samples to a contract lab for "official" reporting.

Jan 1, 1990

By Paul A. Lahti

Independence Mining Company, Inc. (IMC) has for the past several years processed refractory gold ores at its Jerritt Canyon operation near Elko, Nevada. The ore is typical of those of the Carlin Trend and is refractory due to physical encapsulation of gold in carbon, pyrite, and arsenopyrite. It is also "preg robbing" due to the contained organic carbon that acts as a gold adsorber. Refractory ores require some form of pretreatment before cyanidation to enable economical recovery of gold. The metallurgical facility at Jerritt Canyon is unique in that it consists of two distinct pretreatment methods for the recovery of gold: a chemical process utilizing chlorine and a pyro-metal­lurgical process employing oxidative roasting. This paper pro­vides a comparison of the two methods highlighting flow sheets, pretreatment operation detail, performance comparisons, and pertinent environmental data.

Jan 1, 1996

By V. Fred Swanson, J. Patrick Glynn

The environment for process engineers today is very different from 20 years ago. The ideas and mathematical description of models for a multitude of different unit operations is an ongoing development. The computer tools to deal with the mathematics are readily available and specialist companies have developed, tested and verified their models. The challenge for the process engineer is to know which package to use and to know whether a particular application is the most accurate for the specific process. Metallurgical simulation programs today are well known and proven. Certain programs are specialized while others are broader based. The needs of each user are dependent on the application. Typically, most users require the following operations: • Comminution • Flotation • Hydrometallurgy • Pyrometallurgy • Additional requirements could be defined as: • Thermodynamic capabilities for solids, phases, and gases • Dynamic simulation • Data analysis tools • Coal oriented operations • Diamond oriented operations

Jan 1, 1997

By I. K. Gilmore

PCS Phosphate operates an open-pit phosphate mine in the central coastal plane of North Carolina. The company has mining and refining facilities located on the south shore of the Pamlico River. Phosphate ore is recovered at the Aurora facility by open-cast mining techniques. Walking draglines and bucketwheel excavators remove the overburden and mine the phosphate ore. The mined ore is slurried about 8 km (5 miles) to the processing plant. At the plant, the phosphate ore slurry is passed through screens to remove material coarser than 2 mm (10 mesh) and then pumped through hydrocyclones to remove material finer than 75 mm (200 mesh). The resulting phosphate and sand mixture is treated with various reagents and subjected to an anionic flotation process. A cationic flotation process removes the sand from the final phosphate concentrate.

Jan 1, 1995

By E. J. Donovan, O&apos

The use of Dynamic Analysis techniques in the design of conveyor systems is extremely limited. The most frequent use of the technique is in large and expensive systems where the emphasis is on insurance against failure caused by catastrophic tension waves. This paper sets out to illustrate a much wider range of applications where dynamic analysis has been successfully employed. The examples chosen deal with identification and correction of dynamic low tension problems, the variability in take-up movement as other system parameters change, the requirement for proper tuning of starting controls and finally the absolute necessity for a complete understanding of the entire system when specifying brakes for critical applications. The intent of the paper is to get designers to view a conveyor as a system of interacting flexible components rather than as a single rigid body.

Jan 1, 1993

By R. T. Swinderman

"Virtually every article you read on safety has a statement to the effect: “It’s obvious that safety pays”. If it is so obvious, why is it so hard to answer these questions? • How does the Maintenance or Operations Manager convince the Plant Manager to spend money from the annual budget for safety improvements? • How does the Plant Manager influence Corporate to prioritize safety improvements? • How does an engineering firm persuade the owner to spend more on design and equipment up front to reduce risk? There are many cultural and structural reasons why it is so difficult to prove the obvious. In my opinion the main culprits are: the almost universally used ‘Low Bid’ process, variations in reporting incident statistics between industries and countries, and, the Generally Accepted Accounting procedures (GAAP) [or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)]. Conventional wisdom is it’s smart not to spend more than you need to meet the minimum regulations and maximize production. But buying on price alone often harms people, degrades the environment, and reduces the company’s bottom line. How can this be? You met the minimum safety requirements and saved money by buying on price. Don’t those savings go right to the bottom line? When you buy on price you get minimum quality, minimum compliance and are often backed corner with no reasonable options to rectify the problems that arise from buying on price instead of buying on long term life cycle cost. Culturally few companies actually ‘walk the talk’. It is trendy to have giant billboards at plant entrances proclaiming world class compliance with quality and safety standards. Annual reports are embellished with safety slogans and sustainability statements. Behind the front gates and the glossy annual reports the message is clear: produce or be replaced. Only a few companies go beyond the window dressing and actually endorse, from the top down, continuously improving their safety culture. Those that do embrace safety, show significant performance advantages over their competition that are reflected in their safety, productivity and environmental records and, ultimately their financial statements and share price. Current accounting (and reward) systems make it unlikely financial managers will accept non-conventional approaches to justifying expenditures on safety because they are driven to report “hard” numbers that can be documented and are within the “GAAP or IFRS Rules.” But in reality, accountants quantify soft or intangible costs all the time in their financial statements. Justifying safety investments is greatly enhanced by quantifying what most financial managers would call intangible costs. Government agencies have no problem assigning intangible costs to justify regulations to improve safety. How many times have you heard that the regulation is justified because the cost to industry is X while the benefit to the society is 2 or 3X? How can they say that without including intangible costs? We find it hard to believe these government claims of benefits to society because we have been trained to think about saving hard direct costs to justify investments."

Jan 1, 2017

By J. Roufagalas

Sustainable development requires that exploitation of environmental resources is such that it does not result in permanent damage to the environment. In many instances environmental damage is an external cost of the entity exploiting the resource. Ideally, the entity should be forced to internalize this cost. Various financial assurance schemes have been proposed to ensure that the entities fulfill their financial responsibility to restore the environmental dam-age. Prominent among these schemes are ?environmental bonding requirements?. A main issue with these financial assurance schemes is that many times the amount and duration of environmental damage is uncertain. That is, the cost of restoring the environment in the future may be unknown (or unknowable), and, furthermore, the extent of the damage may not be known for many years into the future. Nevertheless, bonding requirements have to be set in advance and the rules for returning the bond and absolving the entity of responsibility have to be specified ex ante. In practice, a problem of allocation of resources arises. To make sure that all external costs are internalized, in the face of uncertainty, will require a sufficiently (arbitrarily) large bond for a sufficiently (arbitrarily) long period of time. But such a requirement may prove too expensive and may result in not undertaking a project (even if, under certainty, the project may be profitable after internalizing all costs). This will result in a reduction in total welfare. Under present bonding requirements, firms are responsible up to the value of the bond. This results in an asymmetry: if environmental restoration is less than the bond amount, the firm has an incentive to restore and reclaim the bond; if the cost of the environmental restoration is above the value of the bond, the incentive is to forfeit the bond, imposing on the government/ society the excess cost. This also may reduce social welfare, at least on distributional grounds since the firm owners pocket the profits and the taxpayers foot the bill. The presence of uncertainty suggests that a fee based reclamation fund may be welfare enhancing. The thinking can be sketched as follows: All firms undertaking environmentally sensitive projects pay into the proposed fund. The fund examines the risks and sets the premiums at the level of the expected restoration costs (not the maximum!) plus administrative expenses. One advantage of the scheme is that this eliminates the asymmetry. Firms with restoration costs below expected end up subsidizing firms whose restoration costs were underestimated. In other words, the industry ends up internalizing the costs not internalized by the individual firms, instead of the taxpayers.

Jan 1, 2007

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 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 authors claim that their proposed jack-knife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from m 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 con¬sist 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 value-based 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, 1997

By Stephen C. Everett

Why? This is the first question that everyone asks. Why did Renison give away such a valuable asset? What is the problem with Mt Lyell? No doubt this question was asked of Denehurst regarding Woodlawn, MPI at Stawell, Golden Shamrock at Cobar, Western Metals at Cadjebut and Poseidon with the Big Pit. Whilst it is not possible to second guess the rationale behind Renison's strategic withdrawal from an operation that they considered to be uneconomic, the Renison/Mt Lyell deal has certain specific perspectives:

Jan 1, 1995

By Michael Gay

Right in the heart of Boston Harbor lies Deer Island, where a ten-year, 6 billion dollar sewage treatment plant is under construction. The 9.5 mile long, 25.5' diameter Effluent Outfall Tunnel is the center piece of this program. A Robbins double-shielded TBM is currently driving this challenging tunnel some 400 feet below sea level. This paper will discuss the set-up and operation of this Tunnel Boring Machine in driving the longest single heading tunnel ever built in North America.

Jan 1, 1993

By Alexander Filimonov, Yury Bloshteyn

The development of a high-efficiency control system for mine ventilation is a complicated scientific and engineering problem. As a result of high-costs and difficult conditions involved in experiments for the development and investigation of mine ventilation systems, simulation is a critical task in cost reduction and productivity. The paper presents the description of a universal simulation model for controlled aerodynamic processes in an Underground ventilation Network (UVN). The high-efficiency programming tool to design and investigate mine ventilation control systems (MVCS) is also suggested.

Jan 1, 1991

By G. Bräuner

The methods of burst control treated in the authors' very informative paper have been applied in the Ruhr Coalfield, Germany, for more than 20 years and have proved to be highly effective. It might be interesting here to mention a few experiences: • The symptoms of critical stresses when drilling with small diameters ("test drilling") are essentially the same as described. However, we consider the situation safe if these symptoms occur beyond a certain distance ahead of the face. • That safety distance equals three times the seam thickness plus the daily advance. It is the total seam thickness that counts, not merely the mined portion. • Critical stresses within the safety distance are dissolved by so-called destressing measures: drilling with heavier equip¬ment, blasting, or water infusion. • To avoid bump initiation, the destressing operations should begin at the sides of the stressed zone rather than in the middle. • As to water injection, there are two different principles. If the situation is critical already, high pressures are applied for hydraulic fracturing. If the stresses still allow to drill deep holes, the fluid pressure is kept low and acts for a longer time. This is to make the coal break successively instead of violently - a long-term precaution. • When the stresses are very high, destressing is the most appropriate means. We mostly drill with 95 mm-diam (3.7 in. - diam). The techniques in detail are somewhat complex and sub¬ject to modifications. But the general idea is to accomplish burst prevention by controlling the potential burst situations.

Jan 1, 1989

By Douglas J. Piper

On reflection of certain overall circumstances which have pervaded the gold mining industry, it appears useful to point out some specifics which the writer hopes will improve the potential for success in the application of hydraulic dredges to gold mining activity. I will, prior to entering into that discussion, comment briefly on rule of thumb for the application of the three types of equipment. The three are bucket line, bucket wheel and drag line dredges. From a standpoint of high volume movement over a short distance, between 50 and 300 feet, the drag line dredge is historically the most cost effective type of machine to be utilized if bulk excavation is the single driving consideration. It is typical for this sort of equipment to operate in the 10 to 30 cents per cubic yard range, however, cost of operation is not the sole consideration. Typically the drag line mixes and remixes the material which it excavates. In the event that gold recovery is the object of the exercise, a strong potential for loss of the valued mineral exists. Additionally, drag lines do a poor job of bottom cleaning, particularly if there is a ridged or creviced bottom which must be cleaned and in some cases partially removed to assure recovery of the highest percent of valuable ore. The bucket line dredge has, until recently, been considered an extremely cost effective device. However, the high cost of manufacture of this type of equipment has mitigated against its use in the majority of

Jan 1, 1992

By G. Bräuner

The methods of burst control treated in the authors' very informative paper have been applied in the Ruhr Coalfield, Germany, for more than 20 years and have proved to be highly effective. It might be interesting here to mention a few experiences: The symptoms of critical stresses when drilling with small diameters ("test drilling") are essentially the same as described. However, we consider the situation safe if these symptoms occur beyond a certain distance ahead of the face. That safety distance equals three times the seam thickness plus the daily advance. It is the total seam thickness that counts, not merely the mined portion. Critical stresses within the safety distance are dissolved by so-called destressing measures: drilling with heavier equipment, blasting, or water infusion. To avoid bump initiation, the destressing operations should begin at the sides of the stressed zone rather than in the middle. As to water injection, there are two different principles. If the situation is critical already, high pressures are applied for hydraulic fracturing. If the stresses still allow to drill deep holes, the fluid pressure is kept low and acts for a longer time. This is to make the coal break successively instead of violently - a long-term precaution. When the stresses are very high, destressing is the most appropriate means. We mostly drill with 95 mm-diam (3.7 in.- diam). The techniques in detail are somewhat complex and subject to modifications. But the general idea is to accomplish burst prevention by controlling the potential burst situations.

Jan 1, 1990

By Ann M. Gosier

Over the past 20 years, diesel-powered equipment has been introduced into the underground mining environment in increasing numbers. While the introduction began years earlier in the metal-nonmetal sector, the exponential growth in coal mining use during this time has been more pronounced. Reasons for the continued use and rapid growth of diesel equipment in underground mines are easily understood. The safety and operational advantages afforded by this equipment in production and support systems are demonstrable. As other mine operators witness the advantages enjoyed by their competitors, they too move to introduce an increasingly diverse array of such equipment into their underground mines. As with any industrial technology, the use of diesel-powered equipment entails potential safety and health concerns. Existing Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)approval regulations (30 CFR Parts 31, 32 and 36) apply only to diesel locomotives and mobile diesel-powered equipment for noncoal mines. In the absence of specific regulations, MSHA has required the use of equipment approved under Part 36 (gassy noncoal mines) for areas of underground coal mines where permissible electrical equipment is required. However, a considerable amount of diesel-powered equipment without explosion-proof or fire prevention features is in use in areas of coal mines where permissible electrical equipment is not required. It is on the use of this latter class of equipment that MSHA is focusing much of its regulatory attention relative to coal. The agency also is focused on revising existing occupational exposure limits for gaseous emissions and instituting limits on diesel particulate emissions for both coal and metal-nonmetal mines.

Jan 1, 1993

By John H. Duke

The success of most attempts to evaluate gold orebodies depends largely on the reliability and availability of representative sampling data and the accuracy of geological interpretation. An accurate prediction of the continuity of geology is paramount to a reliable prediction of gold reserves. Many of the problems encountered in gold mine evaluation and planning revolve around the difficulties in interpreting complex geology from sparse drilling data and the eagerness of mine financiers and promoters to start mining in order to derive an early cash flow. Following a program of sampling, geophysics, mapping and geological interpretation, a conceptual orebody model evolves in the minds of those working on the project. It is this model which is used typically in ore reserve computations and mine planning. Computer modelling techniques to represent and evaluate the conceptual model are now available. The main advantages of using computer modelling methods lie in being able to rapidly evaluate, modify and quantify the conceptual orebody model. Ore zones or domains can be recognised and defined both from geology and sampling results. Once these domains are defined as a series of boundaries, they may be modelled as two dimensional grid surfaces or as wire-framed three dimensional geometries, depending on the complexity of the orebody. It is the definition of these domains which provides the sound geological basis for reserves computation. To estimate reserves it is necessary to determine both volume of ore and grade of ore. The ore volume is calculated within each domain as defined by the confining surfaces or wire-frames. The ore

Jan 1, 1987