Search Documents

By Sean Hunter

Artificial Intelligence has a long history but is currently coming strongly into focus with new advancements. This leads to questions many people are asking: what exactly is AI, how can it be used effectively in mining operations, and what foundation is required to make AI implementations successful? In mining, many AI applications exist, from drill pattern optimization to predictive maintenance. However, many implementations struggle due to data integration challenges. Mining operations generate large amounts of data from many sources, such as fleet management systems, drill sensors, process control systems, and laboratory results. Unfortunately, this data often exists in silos where it’s difficult to get it out, making AI applications unable to leverage it. Worse still, tools that use AI don’t always provide their data back to the system, creating even further data silos. All these problems make it hard to take advantage of the data at the mine, slowing down and reducing the effectiveness of AI. This paper presents a comprehensive approach to organizing mining data using an AI-ready knowledge graph system. We will first explore the evolution of AI in mining, from early expert systems to modern machine learning applications. Then, we will detail how a knowledge graph can integrate business context, operational data, and AI models into a cohesive system that enables more effective AI implementations across mining operations. The proposed method has been developed considering both the unique data challenges faced by the mining industry, while also considering best practices learned from the AI field at large. By following this approach, it’s possible to better utilize existing data, getting higher quality and more complete results faster, and in a way that’s reusable and composable.

Feb 1, 2025

By S. M. Pickering, L. T. Gregg

Appraisal of industrial minerals beneath privately owned land requires a different approach and mindset from valuation of base and precious metals or energy minerals, and from valuation of government-owned mineral lands. First, is it the value of inground minerals or of mining rights that is being sought? Second, value to whom, the mining company, a potential investor, the mineral landowner, a lending institution, the property tax assessor, or a condemnor? Third, how should mineral value be apportioned between the land and mineral owner, and a mining company with limited years of lease-hold interest? These and many other questions must be addressed before a valuation method and Discount Rate are selected. For various reasons the Income Method is most often used, with Net Present Value calculations made for long term predicted mining income. Choice of an appropriate Discount Rate is critical.

Jan 1, 2000

By L. Andrews, G. Smits, M. D. Adams, E. A. Viljoen

A new approach has been developed that is capable of ascertaining the ore component that is responsible for the preg­robbing of pregnant pulps. Many gold mines are currently treating ores containing a component that is detrimental to the recovery of gold, in that they "preg-rob" the pregnant pulp by adsorption of some of the dissolved gold. The identity of the preg-robbing component in this type of ore has been the subject of considerable debate over a lengthy period, th various suggestions including amorphous carbon, chlonte, chalcopyrite and layered silicates, such as the phyllosilicate minerals pyrophyllite, kaolinite, phlogopite and illite. A means is now available to identify and characterize the preg-robber in gold ores. This new approach consists of contacting the ore with a synthetic aurocyanide solution, identifying the mineral grains by optical microscopy and analysing each grain individually using high-sensitivity electron microprobe analysis. The approach is exemplified in this initial study by identifying the preg-robbing component in an active sample of gold-bearing shale to be an amorphous carbonaceous phase consisting of discrete particles of about 5 µm diameter interspersed with shale particles and agglomerated into grains of up to 100 µm diameter. Microanalysis of these grains as well as other mineral particles revealed that the gold content of some of the carbonaceous grains was close to 7000 g,lt, with no gold being detected in any of the other mineral phases that were found to be present (e.g. quartz, chlorite, muscovite, pyrophyllite, etc). Bulk analysis of the sample for carbon and gold confirmed that gold loadings of around 7000 g,/t would be expected if all of the gold were adsorbed onto the carbonaceous component. The carbonaceous constituent is probably also responsible for the anomalously high surface area measured for the material. It probably acts in a similar fashion to activated carbon, and the correct choice of organic blinding agent will decrease the extent of preg-robbing by lowering the activity of the material for gold, without causing any downstream problems such as fouling of the activated carbon used for gold recovery

Jan 1, 1993

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the fourth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. The table presents previous information plus about two dozen new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. Last year's tabulation appeared in two issues, to accommodate all of the information. This year the format has been changed slightly so the table can be printed in one issue. This year's table presents the commodities in the same sequence as last year. Sand and gravel information appears first, followed by: crushed stone for aggregate; other stone; industrial sand; other industrial minerals; energy minerals (coal, oil shale, uranium); and finally metals. As always, a caveat relates to factors that influence the reserve values. The data should serve only as a general reference. The table is not intended to present an absolute scale of reserve costs. Several factors influence the value of mineral commodities. These factors include: • location and transportation costs (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions for both the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; • quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing and beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; • and legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will influence reserve costs of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity; the location (either by state, US geographic area, or Canadian province); the cost (R for royalty and P for purchased cost); and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cuft), tons (/T) (2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.76m3 1 cu ft =0.28m3 1st = 0.9 t7 1 acre = 0.40 ha or m2 In several cases the royalty is a percentage of the finished products, sale price and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: J. Dunn, T. Eyde, K. Loda, L. Morgan, F. Nix, H. Sorenson, and L. Williams. Several people have said they would like this to be an annual tabulation. That can happen if new information comes to the writer. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write or call: H. L. Bourne, c/o Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo, Ltd., 38955 Hills Tech Dr., Farmington Hills, MI 48018, (313) 553-6300. Only with new information can this become an annual and current source of reserves costs.

Jan 8, 1986

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the fifth annual tabulation of mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data. There are also 60 new entries. In addition to royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. Two articles relative to the evaluation of minerals reserves appeared in December, 1986. R.H. Paschall (In the Aggregate, ME, p 1139) wrote a good article, although it lacked specific royalty data. However, this author takes exception to two ideas in Paschall's column. Paschall contends that the royalty rate does not affect the mineral appraisal. This present author could not disagree more. Paschall also claims the location of an industrial mineral deposit is the only serious or practical caveat in comparing royalties. Comments received here from readers helped make the list of caveats that are cited each year. The readers will decide which factors influence the mineral value for their commodities of interest. Paschall's point about the relationship of the parties who are negotiating a royalty agreement is important and very well taken. The other article, written by William Vernon (Pit and Quarry, December 1986), gives a step-by-step process on how to conduct a mineral appraisal. The article cites three reasons for an appraisal: transfer rights; collateral for a loan; and taxation. A fourth reason is to establish adequate compensation for reserves lost through condemnation. This author has appeared in several court cases where compensation for loss of mineral reserves through condemnation required a mineral appraisal. Royalty rate becomes an important factor in the appraisal process, although the Pit and Quarry article refers to that part of the valuation equation as "profitability." Both articles were well written and are recommended reading for those interested in mineral valuations. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation - especially significant for most industrial minerals; • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine; • quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give: • the location by state, US geographic area, or Canadian province ; • the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; • the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred; and • comments or footnotes for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/cu yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), short tons (/T), or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.76 M2 1cuft = 0.28m3 1 st = 0.9072 t 1 acre - 0.4047 ha or m2

Jan 7, 1987

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the seventh annual tabulation of royalty information. It is also the first year in which some data have been deleted to make room for new data. The concept of royalties evolved from a time when the government owned all of the land, including mines, to the situation where free miners won the right to claim minerals but paid a portion of their production to the royal treasury. Today, a mineral royalty is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights for the privilege of producing the mineral commodity. However, some people incorrectly believe that the selling price and the royalty are the same thing. The contract between the owner (lessor) and the mining company (lessee) is the mineral lease. Some clauses that are common to mineral leases include: identification of property, granting clause, reservations, definitions, royalty rate, taxes and title, indemnity, termination, inspection, assignability, successors, and reclamation. There often are variations in royalty rates for a given commodity that reflect differences in location, quality, market conditions or public versus private ownership. History In the time of ancient Rome, the government owned the mining properties by virtue of conquest. It would lease the mines to favored citizens who would pay rent to the State. Various conditions of sovereign ownership of both land and mineral rights continued in Europe until the Renaissance. As the laws evolved for land ownership by private citizens, the concept that minerals belonged to the State (King, Crown, sovereign) continued until about the 15th century. Free miners challenged the notion of sovereign ownership and won the right to discover and claim minerals. But a portion of their production had to be paid to the sovereign - a royalty. So, the original concept of a mineral royalty was a tax on production that was due to the Crown or Church. The term mineral royalty, as it is known today, is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights (formerly the royal owner) for the privilege of mining and producing the mineral commodity. The owner of the mineral rights, the lessor, and the mine operator, the lessee, enter into an agreement to mine the property. The agreement is the lease. While this concept is common, there are some who do not understand that the royalty is a portion of production paid to the owner as agreed on in the lease document. This author has seen reports where the selling price of a commodity has been quoted as the royalty. ("They get 70 cents a ton royalty at their pit and the guy down the road only has a 65 cent royalty.") These reports have been authored by people not familiar with the mining industry. Lease clauses In addition to the amount to be paid the lessor, there are several other items to be addressed in the lease agreement. The following list may not be all inclusive, but briefly describes most of the common clauses any good mining lease should contain. Identification: This opening clause names the owner (lessor) and the operator (lessee), the address of each, and gives the legal description of the property. Granting clause: This part of the lease gives the time period or duration of the agreement and information about renewal periods. It also has language about the exclusive right of the lessee to mine the property. Reservations: If the owner wants to exclude any portion of the property or set some specific conditions about the operation, there needs to be a clause that describes these reservations. Definitions: This section should address some of the technical terms that the lessor may find confusing - short tons versus cubic yards, dollars versus percentage of average selling price, any escalator indices such as consumer price index or producer price index, and material mined versus material sold. Royalty: This section spells out what the royalty rate will be, how often it will be paid, if there is an annual minimum, the pay dates, and how the records will be kept. This section also describes the conditions under which the lessee is exempt from the annual minimum - natural disasters, strikes, governmental actions, or other causes referred to as force majeure. Taxes and title: The lease needs to identify who is responsible for the property taxes, severance taxes (if applicable), and other taxes that relate to the mining activity - taxes on equipment, improvements, or stockpiles. This is a good place in the lease for the owner to certify his ownership of the property and its mineral rights and also certify that no other leases are in effect. The lessees may want language that allows them to pay mortgages or other debts on the property to keep their lease in effect. Indemnity: This portion of the lease identifies that the lessee assumes the risks for lessee's mining operation. Lessor should expect indemnification by the lessee through standard insur¬ance policies - workers compensation, liability and property damage. Termination: Both the lessor and lessee want language that will allow them to terminate the lease. This section of the lease describes the conditions under which one of the parties may terminate the lease (failure of the

Jan 1, 1989

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the ninth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for more than 30 new entries. Several articles and publications crossed the author's desk this past year that relate to mineral valuation and mineral royalty. Tom Loucks presented a paper, "The Valuation of Hard Rock Mineral Property," at the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation in Santa Fe, NM in July, 1990. His paper gives an indepth explanation of the definitions and concepts related to mineral valuation. It includes descriptions of numerous legal cases that have dealt with mineral valuation and proper reference is given for each case. Loucks works for the Denver Mining Finance Co. Gold royalties generally range from 5% to 7%, net smelter return. However, Severn Brown sent information that shows a much wider variation. Echo Bay Mines reported in its 1989 annual report royalties that range from 1.5 % to 30% for gold from various gold properties. Brown also sent a copy of an article that appeared in the Dec. 27, 1982, issue of Fortune magazine. This issue carried an article by Walter Guzzardi, Jr. "The Huge Find in Roy Ash's Backyard." The article gives the history of Newmont's leasing in Nevada on property that became the Carlin, Bootstrap and Blue Star Mines. The article states that the initial royalty was 10% that escalated to more than 16%. Another property, the site of Gold Quarry, provides an 18% royalty to the same own¬ers. The article makes interesting reading for those interested in mining history.

Jan 1, 1991

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the eighth annual tabulation of royalty information. Again this year, some of the older information has been deleted to make room for nearly 30 new entries. Several articles and publications have appeared recently that relate to mineral royalty or mineral valuation. R. B. Parsons wrote "Mining agreements, royalties and profits" (CIM Bulletin, November 1988). He distinguished between net smelter return (NSR) and net profit interest (NPI). Parsons used examples to show the difference between these royalty payment methods. Mining Engineering (January 1990) carried an article by H. V. S. Tingley entitled "Using business due diligence to help evaluate mineral deposits." The article identifies some factors that must be examined during mergers or acquisitions in the mining industry. Since each mining operation is unique, each has risks and opportunities that need recognition and evaluation. The author suggests that a team is necessary for a proper evaluation because no one person has expertise in all of the factors that must be examined. Also in January's Mining Engineering was "Limestone mining: Reserves and valuation," by B. C. Lewis and R. P. Moran. They presented two case studies of valuation of limestone reserves. One was a 109-hm2 (270-acre) parcel in West Virginia and the other a 121-hm2 (300-acre) tract in Alabama. The authors discussed risk, discount rates, and royalty methods as financial parameters in valuation of limestone reserves. Two papers were presented at the SME meeting in Las Vegas, NV in 1989 that bear mention. J.G. Russell's talk was entitled "Valuation of industrial

Jan 1, 1990

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the 10th annual tabulation of US mineral royalties published in MINING ENGINEERING. The first year, 1982, the author solicited information about royalties and the cost of reserves. That column contained only a few royalties - not enough to tabulate. Since then, the response has been sporadic but the entries have grown to more than 300. Some have been deleted. Some of the older information has been deleted to make room for new entries. All indications suggest that the readers enjoy and use the information. But more information is needed. Russian practice In 1989, this column gave a brief history of mineral leasing and royalty payments as the concept applies to mining in the United States. This year's narrative deals with information about the mineral ownership in Russia. That country is in political and economic turmoil, including administrative systems and methods. And many laws are likely to change. What follows describes the Russian system of mineral ownership as of early 1992, according to Kirill Kavun. He begins "All the subsurface space of the Russian Federation with minerals contained belongs exclusively to the state. This forms the Common State Mineral Fund. Land parcels may be state, municipal, public or private property. They may be let to be owned and used by individuals, juridical persons, national/territorial or administrative/ territorial formations." This seems to apply to surface rights, as known in the US.

Jan 1, 1992

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the 12th year for this column and the 11th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. This year adds 20 to 30 new entries. There are, however, some deficiencies that the readership hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. There are several states where no royalty information was available for either commodity. Readers can help share information about these missing states, so next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sent helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The summer 1992 issue of PDAC Digest recommended"... the most useful technical paper ever published for economic geologists...." "Net smelter return models and their use in the exploration, evaluation and exploitation of polymetallic deposits" was written by R. Goldie and P. Tredger (Geoscience Canada, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 159-171). Last year's column described leasing practices in Russia. Some new information has been gathered since then. Kirill Kavun is the managing director of the International Geoeconomic Center in Moscow. He sent two publications from 1992-"Regulation on the procedure of licensing the use of the subsurface," and "Law of the Russian federation on the subsurface." Both are supplements to the magazine Mineral Re¬sources of Russia, Economics and Management.

Jan 1, 1993

By H. Lyn Bourne

This marks the 15th consecutive year for this column. During 1995, readers were asked to supply royalty data for construction raw materials especially for states where none is available. The response was discouraging and royalty data are still missing for several states for either sand and gravel or crushed stone. Several readers have said that this article has merit but more new information is needed to justify its continuation. Several articles and pieces of news relative to mineral royalties appeared in the trade journals. R. Lee Aston (E&MJ, November, 1995, p. 16N) described South Australian royalties as amended by the government in1994. The royalty rate (a percentage) was lowered but the assessed value for minerals was raised and the current rate amounts to 20 cents//t (18 cents/st).

Jan 1, 1996

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 14th consecutive year for this column and the 13th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. Some holes still exist in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. Construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone - are the most common mineral commodity. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, royalty information for these commodities has been difficult to acquire from some states. Readers can help. Share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Dennis Bryan sent a copy of a report, "Regional Appraisal of Mineral Materials: Carson City District, BLM." The report was authored by real-estate appraisers. It contains more than 50 references to leases of various construction materials in Nevada and nearby states. It gives a thumbnail sketch of each lease and is a good reference. However, the authors erroneously imply that the royalty rate and the in-place value are the same. Several of this year's new entries come from the report. However, the royalties for landscaping materials vary from state to state and by rock type. Some boulders used for landscaping in Nevada have a royalty reported at $1.10/t ($1/st). At the other extreme is lava from Idaho. Used for the same purpose, it has a royalty range of $11 to $18.70/t ($10 to $17/st). Chuanming Tian of Beijing, China has shared some information about the changing mineral royalty policies in China. China first implemented an oil and gas royalty in 1984. In 1992, the government expanded that to include iron ore. In 1994, the royalty policy was extended to all mineral commodities. At the same time, the royalty rate for iron ore increased tenfold.

Jan 1, 1995

By H. Lyn Bourne

The is the 13th year for this column and the 12th in which the royalty data have been tabulated. There still exist some holes in the list of royalties that readers hopefully will fill. The most common mineral commodity is construction aggregates - either sand and gravel or crushed stone. In spite of their pervasive use nationwide, there are states from which the author has no information about royalties for either of these commodities. The reader can help - share information about these missing states and next year there will be fewer states without information. Severn Brown again sends helpful information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The PDAC Digest contained an article that distinguished between ‘net smelter return royalty' and ‘net profits royalty’ (Haase). The article also lists clauses and details that Brown suggests should be included in a net profits royalty contract.

Jan 1, 1994

By H. Lyn Bourne

This is the sixth annual tabulation that gives mineral royalty information. This tabulation, like the previous editions, includes all of the earlier data plus more than 100 new entries. In addition to the royalty information, some entries show the cost of purchased reserves. An article in the December 1984 Kentucky Coal Journal could have far reaching applications. It explains that a banking firm examined the "reserve risk" as one of six factors for analysis when financing a coal project. The firm concluded that coal reserves in Kentucky are worth an average of $0.29/t ($0.26 per st) in-place. The banking firm based this in-place value on its examination of more than 50 leases. In-place value is especially important when trying to establish a mineral value for a given deposit. Ernie Lehman wrote to this author after last year's column appeared and he quoted the lease rates for lead and zinc on federal land. He states, from first hand information, that the leases are based on a percentage of net smelter return as follows: 4% for the first five years, 4.5% for the next five years, and 5% thereafter. The figures used in last year's column ($ per st) came from dividing reported royalty income by reported production. The information reported last year merely translates the results of the net smelter return (as written in the lease) to royalty income per ton to the US Government for the various years. Statistics from the Minerals Management Service of the Federal Government show that oil and gas account for 40% and 53%, respectively, of the Federal royalty income. Coal accounts for about 4% and all other minerals, the remaining 3%. Oil and gas leases are mostly at 12.5%. Most of the coal leases are at 12.5% for surface mining operations and 8% for underground mining. Many of the other commodities are leased at 5%, which has been true for decades. Relative to Federal leases, this year's table shows some percentages and some costs per ton. This was done to give information about the leases and also to show income produced by various commodities. Note that some commodities have a variation in $/ton even though the royalty percent is the same. These variations result from a combination of factors that influence the value of a mineral commodity. The same caveats that have appeared in previous columns relative to factors that influence the value of reserves are restated. The data in the table serve as a general reference and are not intended to present an absolute scale of reserves costs. Several factors influence the value of any mineral commodity. The factors include: • location/transportation (especially significant for most industrial minerals); • market conditions both for the commodity and the company acquiring the right to mine it; *quality or grade of the deposit as it reflects the amount of processing/beneficiation necessary to produce the finished product; and • legislative restrictions and conditions for mining a given material at a given site. These and other factors will significantly influence the cost of reserves. The table shows the range of royalties and the variations in the basis of computing the fees. In a few instances, it gives the cost of acquired reserves based on purchase price and quantitative estimates of the material in place. The table lists the commodity in column 1, and the subsequent columns give the location - either by state, US geographic area or Canadian province; the cost - R for royalty and P for purchased cost; and the year in which the lease or purchase agreement occurred. The last column offers either comments or gives a footnote number for more information. The cost column requires more explanation. The units may refer to cubic yards (/yd), cubic feet (/cu ft), tons (/T, 2000 lbs) or acres (/A). 1 cu yd = 0.7646 m3 1 cu ft = 0.2832 m3 1st=0.9078t 1 acre = 0.4047 hm or m2 In several cases, the royalty is a percentage of the sales price of the finished product and is levied against either the amount produced or the amount sold. We thank those who contributed information for the table: G. Anderson, B. Brown, R. Ganis, K. Hauser, E. Lehman, and S. Sims. Their help is appreciated as are the contributions by those who asked to remain anonymous. This column requires additional information each year. That data must come from people in the minerals industry who have royalty information. What appears in the table is only a very small fraction of the cost information relative to the various commodities and the geographic areas for which there is royalty information. If you find this column of interest and possess information write the author at the address given in the author's box or call 313-462-0005.

Jan 7, 1988

By M. T. Ityokumbul

Flotation columns and their variations are increasingly replacing conventional cells in mineral-processing circuits. While the operational characteristics of columns differ from those of conventional cells, the same scale-up methodologies are being employed. This practice may be attributed to a poor understanding of the factors that control throughput. The use of tall flotation columns is frequently justified because of the need for an increased particle residence time. However, it is shown that longer particle residence times alone do not translate into increased recoveries. In this paper, throughput data from several industrial flotation-column installations is presented. Also, an attempt is made at using dimensional analysis to provide a scale-up methodology for the factors controlling column throughput.

Jan 1, 1997

By M. T. Ityokumbul

Flotation columns and their variations are increasingly replacing conventional cells in mineral processing circuitry. While the operational characteristics of columns differ from those of conventional cells, the same scale-up methodologies are being employed in design. This practice may be attributed to poor understanding of the factors controlling throughput. The use of tall flotation columns is frequently justified on the requirement for increased particle residence time. It is shown that longer particle residence times in the column cell alone do not translate into increased recoveries. Throughput data from several industrial flotation column installations is presented. An attempt at using dimensional analysis to provide scale-up methodology for the factors controlling column throughput is made.

Jan 1, 1995

At first glance the staid Joralemon background does not seem to equate with the life of adventure that irresistibly called me for over 70 years. But my ancestors had their adventures too. My father's family were Dutch Reformed Protestants who had energy or daring enough to come to America to escape the Catholic persecution that followed the Massacre of St. Bartholemew. The first Joralemon came from Friesland to New Amsterdam m 1636, just after Peter Stuyvesant. My father's mother's family, the Berdans, were French Huguenots who came to northern New Jersey only a little later to escape the Catholic domination in France. Some say that the first Berdan to come to America was given all the land between the Passaic and the Hacken-sack Rivers by King James. Whatever, the Berdan family settled there and was able to make a scanty living by farming and selling their produce in Manhattan. The spirit of adventure in my mother's family was just as tenuous. Gamaliel Beaman was pastor of a shipload of Puritans who came to Massachusetts in 1636. Gamaliel's descendents were peaceful farmers and some ministers in New England and later New York State. They had got all of the adventure out of their systems in the long and dangerous voyage across the Atlantic to escape religious persecution. The Joralemons and the Berdans married into families that had been in America almost as long as they had. On my father's side the Berdans, Doremus, DeGreys, Vanderbeeks, and Varicks showed by their names their Dutch or French Huguenot stock. The only one who achieved any fame was Peter Varick, who was George Washington's military secretary during the American Revolution. After this he was nine times mayor of New York and was one of the founders of Kings College, later Columbia University. He was responsible for one of my few ancestral claims to distinction. When the Marquis de Lafayette made a fare-

Jan 1, 1976

By Carl L. Morris

This short dissertation concerning "what the client expects from the engineer" is directed mainly at the design and construction of metallic ore concentration or beneficiation plants. However, practically the same conditions apply to the design and construction of cement and lime manufacturing facilities, with the exception that the latter facilities reflect the client's and engineer's concepts of customer service and in some cases reflect promotional considerations for the product manufactured and distributed. The client expects his engineering contractor to contribute in an efficient, cooperative, and economical manner current industry-wide know-how and experience to the specific project under consideration through the client's organization

Jan 1, 1969

By Barry J. Hansen

Mining can make two major contributions to the cleanup of the environment. The first of these is the extractive technology that has become highly developed as a result of centuries of development. Of equal impor­tance are the methodology of analysis and the development of engineering solutions that are the stock in trade of the mining industry. Despite the differences between the industries, the processes for the development of a mine and the cleanup of a hazardous waste site are similar. The characteristics that impact the ability to develop a suitable process for treating an ore body or correct­ing an environmental problem are those relat­ed to the distribution of the contaminant or metal in the host material.

Jan 1, 1991

By Hans von Michaelis

It is appropriate that this opening session of HAZPAC '91 and Randol Gold Forum CAIRNS '91 should address the question of what the two industries can learn from each other. The panel is made up of members with experience in both industry. Several are experts on managing both hazardous waste and the mine/mineral processing environment. There is a marked difference in the regulatory needs with respect to treating and disposing of mining and mineral processing wastes, and "hazardous" or industrial waste materials. The topic of this paper is on the things that the two industries have in common: Many of the processes and technologies that are being used or are currently being developed for treatment of hazardous waste are the same or similar to the processes that have been used for decades or k,nger in the mineral processing industry. Hazardous waste treatment and remediation of contaminated solid and/or groundwater is a relatively new industry. Many of the practitioners in this new industry are relatively inexperienced in most of the "new" technologies that are being applied or developed.

Jan 1, 1991