Search Documents

By L. B. Anderson, G. A. Carmody

We wish to comment on the paper by G.W. Heunisch (MINING ENGINEERING, January 1987), which raised several important points regarding treatment of acidic waste waters. This paper confirms, in part, tests carried out by Allyn Corp. Allyn is the manufacturer of the proprietary product Alka-Ment, one of the materials that Heunisch tested. The first point is the extreme sensitivity of the sedimentation rate on the nature of the treatment material used. This apparently results from differences in nucleation of the metal hydroxides, and is consistently higher for Alka-Ment. This decreased sludge volume is also observed when Alka-Ment is combined with flocculants, such as organic polymers (see Table 1). Our second point is to emphasize that Heunisch's work shows how dependent the sludge volume is on pH. It is common practice to overtreat AMD by raising pH to 9 or 10. This practice, in addition to being wasteful of material, actually decreases the density of the resulting sludge, probably by creating charged particles that do not readily coalesce. When treating with Alka-Ment, we recommend that the treatment be monitored by testing both pH and dissolved iron. For both tests, it is important to allow adequate time to elapse between treatment and measurement, so that dissolution of alkali, aerobic oxidation of iron, and precipitation of the metal hydroxides are nearly complete. Our tests have indicated that from 30 minutes to one hour is commonly required. Only in this way can a minimum pH be attained, with adequate treatment, denser sludge, and lower treatment rates achieved. Thirdly, Heunisch correctly recognizes that ASTM titration of Alka-Ment does not reflect the true treatment value available in a unit of Alka-Ment. Our work at Allyn indicates this is a most important consideration when evaluating various materials for the treatment of acidic waste waters. While we were unaware of Mr. Heunisch's work, we welcome comparisons between Alka-Ment and any competitive products readily available for field use. Allyn has hundreds of hours of laboratory and field data we are ready to share with interested parties treating acidic waste water.

Jan 1, 1988

By R. C. Kirkman

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

Jan 1, 1991

By C. W. Hunt

I wish to register strong disagreement with the choices of drilling sites chosen by the Continental Scientific Drilling Committee, while endorsing the stated objectives. Of special significance is the lack of any site involving the metals most needed today in the US, while 9 to 13 km of drilling are allocated to gold and silver districts and 11 to 17 km to base metal (mainly copper) districts. Why is nothing proposed for platinum group or chromite? Is this because the committee did not know of such a site? If so, I offer such a site in California (see Fig. 1). The mineralization shown in Table 1 occurs in a large peridotite body in western Tehama County, CA. Petrography has demonstrated unequivocal evidence of migrated PGE deposited in peridotite and chromite of hypabyssal nature. Active diapirism (due probably to serpentine buoyancy) above a reactivated mantle to surface conduit marks the position of the conduit. Young explosion breccia cemented loosely by volcanic glass and tuff demonstrates the significance of the conduit as the prime source of the various emissions. Deep drilling could result in major metals discoveries as well as shedding light on the grand questions of platinum group mineralization. What role water has played in this occurrence is not yet certain; but chlorine and asphaltite have been detected in and adjacent to native PGM, suggesting a major role for water. The explosion breccia suggests that this excellent site could overlie entrapped geothermal steam.

Jan 1, 1988

By C. Meyer, J. J. Eidel

C. W. Hunt I wish to register strong disagreement with the choices of drilling sites chosen by the Continental Scientific Drilling Committee, while endorsing the stated objectives. Of special significance is the lack of any site involving the metals most needed today in the US, while 9 to 13 km of drilling are allocated to gold and silver districts and 11 to 17 km to base metal (mainly copper) districts. Why is nothing proposed for platinum group or chromite? Is this because the committee did not know of such a site? If so, I offer such a site in California (see Fig. 1). The mineralization shown in Table 1 occurs in a large peridotite body in western Tehama County, CA. Petrography has demonstrated unequivocal evidence of migrated PGE deposited in peridotite and chromite of hypabyssal nature. Active diapirism (due probably to serpentine buoyancy) above a reactivated mantle to surface conduit marks the position of the conduit. Young explosion breccia cemented loosely by volcanic glass and tuff demonstrates the significance of the conduit as the prime source of the various emissions. Deep drilling could result in major metals discoveries as well as shedding light on the grand questions of platinum group mineralization. What role water has played in this occurrence is not yet certain; but chlorine and asphaltite have been detected in and adjacent to native PGM, suggesting a major role for water. The explosion breccia suggests that this excellent site could overlie entrapped geothermal steam.

Jan 6, 1987

By M. M. Botz, F. W. DeVries

Discussion by F.W. DeVries Comments on natural cyanide attenuation. The paper by Botz and Mudder in the November 2000 issue of Minerals and Metallurgical Processing had one disappointing aspect. Table 1 (p. 229) failed to include a significant species - neutral copper cyanide (CuCN). This compound has been most trouble-some in many plant-scale cyanide cleanup processes, includ- ing acidification-volatilization- reneutralization (AVR), hy- drogen peroxide cleanup and air/SO2 cleanup. It has also plagued many pilot efforts to use ion-exchange (IX) resin technology. This author elucidated the concept that, under some conditions, copper cyanide failed to precipitate out of treated effluents and appeared to exist as a filterable colloid that reported as copper and cyanide, with the latter measured as WAD (weak-acid-dissociable) cyanide in that analytical method. The concentrations measured were very near the levels of 0.2 ppm, often the regulatory limit for WAD cyanide. The copper concentration, using the 1 : 1 ratio for this com- pound, would then be more than 0.4 ppm, which could also be unacceptable. We discovered that it was unsafe to assume that the Cu(CN),- would surrender both cyanide ions simultaneously and allow cupric copper to be removed subsequently as, say, cupric ferrocyanide (Hatchett's Brown). This compound could be ignored as safely as the "iron blues," as essentially an inert solid, stable in geologic time if not exposed to sunlight. Under poorly controlled oxidation of the cyanocuprite ions (copper with four, three or two cyanides complexed to the copper), CuCN could well be formed and could not be assumed to precipitate out as a solid. The authors of the paper, by failing to include the CuCN species in their model, may have left users of the model prone to ignore the possible occurrence of the colloidal(?) form in the discharge, thus finding an effluent that failed to meet regulatory limits. (See addendum below.) This somewhat ephemeral material may well have been responsible for some large-scale failures of cyanide destruction technology to succeed at sites in North America and elsewhere. Two specific references alluding to this occurrence may be found: Griffiths et al., 1987, "The detoxification of gold-mill tailings with hydrogen peroxide," Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, September, p. 282. DeVries, 1989, "Improved understanding in detoxification of cyanide leach liquors using peroxide" Rand01 Gold Conference, Sacramento CA, p. 15 1. It is advisable for workers in this area of cyanide removal or recycle to avoid assuming that CuCN will, with certainty, precipitate out of solution, or that the dicyanocuprite ion will part simultaneously with both cyanide ions and allow cupric copper to be dealt with by other reactions. One further piece of work may be incomplete. That is, a definitive study of the long-term behavior of CuCN that does precipitate when exposed to other compounds present in neutralized tailings. Addendum. The extremely complex reaction of cupric ion on cyanide- which, of course, results in oxidation of cyanide to cyanate, probably through the intermediate stage of forming cyanogen [(CN)2] from oxidation of HCN with its hydrolysis to cyanate and cyanide ion - involves two cyanide moieties and the reduction of the cupric ion back again to the cuprous state. This, then, can form the CuCN potential "solid" that was already the undesirable species. In cyanide cleanup, with either air/SO2 or hydrogen peroxide, copper is generally employed as the catalyst, so it is unclear what happens when the CU(CN)2-1 is ultimately exhausted. Certainly, the field evidence is quite clear that all

Jan 1, 2002

By E. M. Spokes

A.B. Rushton The work and resulting publications of the Committee on Underground Coal Mine Safety and The President's Commission on Coal were appropriate at the time of publication. The statistics cited in the publications appeared to be valid, and the actions proposed by the committee had merit. Although the actions proposed to achieve further improvements in safety may have been worthy of repeating, to associate statistics (Table 1) that are seven to eight years old with company names is bad. Statistics are readily available from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and are usually within three months of being up to date. A review of the most recent Coal Controlling Co. Report will reveal significant changes in the rankings. The more recent statistics should have been cited, or at least compared with those used in the article. Westmoreland Coal Co. is listed as having a 21.1 disabling injury rate for the period (1/78-12/80). The disabling injury rate for the Company for the year ending 1985 was 7.4 for the underground mines and 6.25 for the total facilities. Through March 1986, the disabling rate for the underground mines was 2.86. The management and employees of Westmoreland Coal Co. are committed to safety. The improvements achieved over the past five years attest to that commitment. We are justifiably proud of the achievement and dislike being misrepresented as in the April 1986 article. Reply by E.M. Spokes I regret that the lapse of time since the original work gives a picture of safety practice that is no longer true today. That Westmoreland has reduced its disabling injury rate by 65% to 7.4 in 1985 is most commendable, and I congratulate you for this accomplishment. It is typical of the progress sought by the National Academy of Science and National Research Council when they funded the original study and published "Toward Safer Underground Coal Mines" in 1982. If a significant number of companies do as well as Westmoreland, the report will have served its purpose. Since the paper was primarily a condensation of the original report, it would not have been appropriate to seek access to later statistics. The purpose in seeking its publication at the time of presentation was to reach those who might have missed the original report. The fact that publication was delayed has not voided that purpose and may have reminded some who were aware of the original that its recommendations still apply to improvement of underground coal mine safety.

Jan 6, 1986

By S. D. Thompson, L. Adler

J.R. Sturgul Thompson and Adler (1988) present a new simulator for use in designing conveyor belt systems for underground mines. Their model uses a large Fortran program to do a Monte Carlo simulation. Their approach is similar to that done by other researchers, such as Stanford (1965) and Newhart (1977). All Fortran based simulation models use an imaginary clock that is advanced a time increment. At each advance of time increment the program has to determine what is to take place in the system. Since many things can take place at different places in the system, this approach requires that a large amount of logic is needed at each step of the program. This, then, necessitates a great amount of jumping between different portions of the program. In fact, the Fortran program, CMBCS, takes up to 15 to 20 minutes to run on the mainframe and several hours for the PC. Such execution times are typical of Fortran based simulation studies. There have been other examples of Fortran based simulation studies in mining. Cross and Williamson (1969) presented a model of a working open-pit copper mine. Fosinato (1982) presented a model of the bucketwheel excavators for the large open-pit mines in Southern Victoria in Australia. These excavators discharge into a complex conveyor system, which can be thought of as being similar, but more complicated than the one modeled by CMBCS. All previous simulation studies using Fortran as the source code have several things in common: they all are very lengthy, often being of the order of 10,000 lines of code and take a great deal of CPU time to execute. The program of Fosinato takes more than 4.5 hours to run on a large mainframe. Also not mentioned by Thompson and Adler is the actual time it took to write the Fortran code. This, too, can be considerable, as Fosinato's program took several man years to write and de-bug. In order to change it, as the parameters change or as the mine increases, further large amount of time is needed. An alternate to such Fortran based programs is provided by using a special computer language known as General Purpose Simulation System (GPSS). This language is designed to solve a wide variety of discrete event simulation problems and appears to be particularly suited for mining situations as shown by Sturgul and Yi (1987). Although GPSS was introduced as far back as 1961, it has not been used in mining to any great extent. However, the original form was quite crude and inefficient compared to modern versions. Perhaps with the increasing popularity and availability of these recent versions, this will change. Two such versions are GPSS/H for the mainframe and GPSS/PC for the personal computer. GPSS/H allows for interactive usage, such as allowing input data to be entered via a menu. GPSS/PC has excellent graphical capabilities and one can actually view the simulation in progress. In addition, one can halt the simulation and change values of various parameters. If a particular portion of the simulation is in progress via a concept known as "microwindows." These new versions have greatly increased the potential for using the language for mining situations. Mining applications of GPSS have been given by Sturgul and Yi (1987), Sturgul and Harrison (1987), Sturgul (1987), and Sturgul and Singhal (1988). Schriber (1987) presents a summary of the recent advances in GPSS.

Jan 12, 1988

By J. R. Sturgul

Thompson and Adler (1988) present a new simulator for use in designing conveyor belt systems for underground mines. Their model uses a large Fortran program to do a Monte Carlo simulation. Their approach is similar to that done by other researchers, such as Stanford (1965) and Newhart (1977). All Fortran based simulation models use an imaginary clock that is advanced a time increment. At each advance of time increment the program has to determine what is to take place in the system. Since many things can take place at different places in the system, this approach requires that a large amount of logic is needed at each step of the program. This, then, necessitates a great amount of jumping between different portions of the program. In fact, the Fortran program, CMBCS, takes up to 15 to 20 minutes to run on the mainframe and several hours for the PC. Such execution times are typical of Fortran based simulation studies. There have been other examples of Fortran based simulation studies in mining. Cross and Williamson (1969) presented a model of a working open-pit copper mine. Fosinato (1982) presented a model of the bucketwheel excavators for the large open-pit mines in Southern Victoria in Australia. These excavators discharge into a complex conveyor system, which can be thought of as being similar, but more complicated than the one modeled by CMBCS. All previous simulation studies using Fortran as the source code have several things in common: they all are very lengthy, often being of the order of 10,000 lines of code and take a great deal of CPU time to execute. The program of Fosinato takes more than 4.5 hours to run on a large mainframe. Also not mentioned by Thompson and Adler is the actual time it took to write the Fortran code. This, too, can be considerable, as Fosinato's program took several man years to write and de-bug. In order to change it, as the parameters change or as the mine increases, further large amount of time is needed. An alternate to such Fortran based programs is provided by using a special computer language known as General Purpose Simulation System (GPSS). This language is designed to solve a wide variety of discrete event simulation problems and appears to be particularly suited for mining situations as shown by Sturgul and Yi (1 987). Although GPSS was introduced as far back as 1961, it has not been used in mining to any great extent. However, the original form was quite crude and inefficient compared to modem versions. Perhaps with the increasing popularity and availability of these recent versions, this will change. Two such versions are GPSS/H for the mainframe and GPSS/PC for the personal computer. GPSS/H allows for interactive usage, such as allowing input data to be entered via a menu. GPSS/PC has excellent graphical capabilities and one can actually view the simulation in progress. In addition, one can halt the simulation and change values of various parameters. If a particular portion of the simulation is in progress via a concept known as "microwindows." These new versions have greatly increased the potential for using the language for mining situations. Mining applications of GPSS have been given by Sturgul and Yi (1987), Sturgul and Harrison (1987), Sturgul (1987), and Sturgul and Singhal (1988). Schriber (1987) presents a summary of the recent advances in GPSS.

Jan 1, 1987

By A. G. Mayton, L. Adler

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

Jan 1, 1991

By Y. C. Kim, F. Szidarovszky

G.M. Philip and D.F. Watson The article cited above reflects the difficulty that is often encountered in interpreting different aspects of kriging. Baafi et al. write : "Due to negative kriging weights, negative block grades may be obtained in some extreme situations, which makes no practical sense." Their solution to this particular problem is to constrain the kriged estimates to data values that have positive weights, i.e., reduce the subset size contributing to the estimation. As Journel (1986, p. 133) has already observed, "Negative weights are no evil." Indeed, they are an ineluctable result of the Lagrangian multipliers in the system of simultaneous equations. The fact that data distant from the estimation point may be given negative weights simply means that the influence of such distant values must be negated because their influence is contradictory to closer values (as illustrated by Baafi et al. in their Figs. 3 and 4). Of course negative kriging weights applied to distant grade values will not in themselves induce negative grade at some central interpolation point. Negative grade values, rather, seem to be a particular artifact of automatic methods of estimation involving accu¬mulations (Philip and Watson, 1985a, 1985b, 1987b). The elimination of negative weights, suggested by Baafi et al., is likely to exacerbate a quite different problem of kriging and piecewise spline interpolation discussed elsewhere (Philip and Watson, 1987a). In interpolating large data sets of scattered observations, changing local subsets or neighborhoods must be selected automatically. Because of the mathematical formulation of kriging and spline interpolation, discontinuities then occur between closely-spaced estimation points as the subset used in the estimation changes. If this subset is reduced in number and size, the discontinuities will be amplified and more common. ? References Journel, A.G., 1986, "Geostatistics: models and tools for Earth Sciences," Journal of Mathematical Geology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 119-139. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1985a, "Theoretical aspects of grade-tonnage calculations," International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 149-154. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1985b, "A deterministic approach to computing ore reserves. I, Grade Estimation," Earth Resources Foundation, Occas. Paper 2, The University of Sydney, 24 pp. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1987a, "Neighborhood discontinuities in bivariate interpolation of scattered observations," Mathematical Geology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 69-74. Philip, G.M., and Watson, D.F., 1987b, "Estimating interactions of topological functions," Mathematical Geology, Vol. 18, (at press). Reply by Y. C. Kim Before replying to the comments by Philip and Watson, it is desirable to establish the original perspective of our paper, which was intended primarily for the practitioners of mining who possess a working knowledge of ordinary kriging. The paper tried to convey the following practical points: (1) there are circumstances in which one observes negative weights, (2) illustration of circumstances under which one can expect negative weights, (3) should one obtain a negative estimated grade, one can resort to elimination of negative weights using the technique outlined in the paper, and (4) one could normally select only the first layer of surrounding assays to estimate the block grade. Under such a perspective, most of the comments by Philip and Watson are irrelevant and misdirected. For example, the practitioners do not find it difficult to "interpret" the results of ordinary kriging, as evidenced by the fact that they have been using the results for nearly a decade. Nor are the practitioners concerned with discontinuities in estimated block grades due to changing neighborhood of assays during kriging. What matters to the practitioners is the fact that kriging does provide the best estimate among all the estimation tools available to them as of today. ?

Jan 2, 1987

By W. E. L. Minter

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

Jan 1, 1992

By W. E. L. Minter

Discussion by R.W. Hutchinson Minter's excellent recent paper (1990) on the great paleoplacer gold deposits of the Witwatersrand and its subsequent discussion (Cheney, 1991) and reply (Minter, 1991) provide an informative, interesting and up-to-date review of the geology of these unique ores and some long enigmatic questions regarding their origin. Clearly summarized by Minter (1990) are the compelling sedimentologic and stratigraphic relationships indicating that the Central Rand Group conglomerates are ancient placers and documenting the fluvio-deltaic conditions of their transport and deposition. As Minter (1991) indicates, Cheney's discussion broadens Minter's 1990 coverage of the subject by considering higher and lower stratigraphic units and by adding detailed comments concerning recently published information about metamorphic and age relationships. Cheney's discussion and Minter's reply also readdress the old controversy of epigenetic hydrothermal vs. syndepositional placer origin for these deposits. This controversy has been resurrected by: • recent recognition of hydrothermally-altered granites (HAGS) in the older Archean basement rocks that lie unconformably beneath the Dominion Group rocks north and west of the Witwatersrand depository; • recognition of greenschist metamorphic assemblages in the Witwatersrand strata; and • the presence of interpreted epigenetic mineral assemblages and textures in some of the deposits. These relationships are briefly discussed by Cheney who suggests they may result from later, superimposed metamorphism and deformation and do not prove that the gold was introduced by epigenetic/metamorphogenic processes. In his paper, Minter (1990) cited the 1986 abstract of a subsequently published paper by Hutchinson and Viljoen (1988) who also considered many of these aspects and attempted to integrate them all in abroad genetic hypothesis. In addition, they emphasized the additional important problem of determining the source for the Witwatersrand gold. Although this issue was partially addressed by Reimer (1984), Mossman and Dyer (1985) and Reimer and Mossman (1990), the question has been generally under emphasized in earlier work and was, therefore, not stressed by Minter and Cheney. Reimer (1985) also emphasized the importance of weathering of the basin's Archean hinterland and its affects on Witwatersrand sedimentation. Since the epigenetic hydrothermal hypothesis was essentially discarded in favor of placerist origin, the gold source for these great deposits has generally been attributed to the weathering of lodes in greenstones or granites of the uplifted, older Archean hinterland to the north and west. However, Hutchinson & Viljoen (1988) present evidence that this explanation is inadequate, as well as data in support of an alternative explanation. They suggest that the gold and accompanying abundant, clearly detrital and auriferous pyrite in the conglomerate reefs were derived by erosional degradation of auriferous-pyritic exhalite previously deposited, by shallow marine discharge of hydrothermal fluids, along the fault-bound northwestern margins of the Witwatersrand depository. The auriferous-pyritic exhalites were generated by fluid-rock reactions in the subsurface, particularly in the highly-altered lavas of the Dominion Group but also in adjacent basement granitic rocks. The process envisaged is comparable to that observed in sea floor hydrothermal systems today, although, in this case, it occurred at the margin of a rapidly subsiding, shallow marine or continental basin. Important evidence for this explanation is the anomalous gold content of the ferruginous, shaley strata occurring throughout the Witwatersrand Supergroup and including the distinctive contorted bed that is an iron formation. These layers have been interpreted (Hutchinson and Viljoen, 1988 and 1990) to represent the more distal, finer-grained, mixed chemical/clastic sedimentary strata. Thus, they are the basinal equivalents of the proximal, auriferous-pyritic exhalites that were deposited along the basin's margin and subsequently reworked by sedimentary processes. This gold source explanation resolves many of the enigmatic questions regarding Witwatersrand geology and the reawakened controversy between proponents of hydrothermal and placerist genetic hypotheses. The theory invokes a hydrothermal origin for the gold in the basin-margin pyritic exhalites, thus explaining the visible hydrothermal characteristics (Figs. 1 and 2). It also provides compelling evidence for placer origin by encompassing all of the fluvio-deltaic processes of clastic sedimentary transport and deposition that are clearly summarized by Minter. These characteristics result from the degradational reworking of the pyritic exhalites along the depository's margins. Fluvial reworking, transport and deltaic redeposition of this detritus, along with additional detritus carried into the depository from the hinterland, then formed the conglomerate reefs. Other enigmatic aspects of Witwatersrand geology include: • the rarity of magnetite and ilmenite (the two most common heavy minerals in placer deposits) and the contrary abundance of leucoxene in the conglomerate reefs; • the presence of differing varieties of pyrite (authigenic, allogenic, compact and porous) all of which are auriferous; and • the presence of well-rounded pebbles, even cobbles, of pyrite that, in view of the brittleness of the mineral, could not have been transported great distances from a hinterland.

Jan 1, 1993

By Y. C. Kim, I. S. Roditis, P. K. Medhi

P. Mousset-Jones I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reference Kwa, B.L., and Mousset-Jones, P., 1986, "Indicator Kriging Applied to a Gold Deposit in Nevada," Proceedings, Symposium on Ore Reserve Estimation Methods, Models, and Reality, CIMM Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May, pp. 185194. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent comparative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging. Reference Lindsey, D.S., 1987, "A Comparative Study: Probability Kriging vs. Ordinary Kriging at the Golden Sunlight Mine," MS Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte, MT, May, 81 pp.

Jan 3, 1988

I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent com¬parative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging.

Jan 1, 1987

By M. Kalin, C. Steinberg

We have worked on several flooded pits from coal-mining activities in the former East Germany, as well as ones associated with hard- rock mining, including the B-zone pit discussed in the above technical paper. We found the paper to be a useful summary, but, unfortunately, it failed to give an adequate comparison of the physical limnology of the flooded pits, which is an essential component. While the title suggests that the primary focus of the review is physical limnology, it appears that it is essentially pit-lake chemistry being presented. Physical limnology requires that factors such as fetch, latitude, light penetration, relation to ground water table, methods of flooding and the physical shape of the pits be defined. These physical aspects of a pit interact with the chemical and biological processes taking place in it, all of which contribute to the character of a water body. Few of these physical aspects are presented, however. The conclusion that the authors reach suggests that meromixis may be a condition that would serve as an effective containment mechanism for contaminants in a pit. Although this may be desirable, such limnological conditions are not clearly supported by the data presented for any of the pits. These data should be summarized to facilitate comparison between the same structural units of the pit water - the epi- and metalimnion for example. The thermocline depth is a reflection of the physical forces mixing the water body, and pit dimensions affect these forces. Due to the use of different scales in Figs. 2 through 5, it is difficult to determine whether the thermocline is at the expected depth, because the fetch is not given. Moreover, the status of a water body cannot be determined unless measurements cover a period of at least one year, and depth profiles are completed to represent the entire depth of the pit. This shortcoming is most notable in the case of the Berkeley pit, where data are given for depths of only 20 and 35 m (66 and 115 ft), although the pit is reported to be 242 m (794 ft) deep. Limnological data to define the status of the pit water have to be collected at regular intervals, for the same parameters. The authors present temperature measurements for 1-m (3.3-ft) intervals, but fail to use that interval for other parameters, such as dissolved oxygen or, in some cases, for contaminant concentrations. Furthermore, the profiles for the deepest part of the pit display only part of the picture, because pits are rarely conical. Profiles can be considered to represent the status of a water body only after other stations in the pit have been monitored regularly and the consistency is determined. For example, fresh water, which can enter a pit at any depth, would interfere with the proposed meromictic conditions. Similarly, organic material at the bottom of a pit, such as the fish-waste deposited in the Gunnar pit, contribute to oxygen consumption. Oxygen depletion alone is not indicative of meromixis. It is interesting to note that the Dpit arsenic concentrations could possibly be slightly higher than the B-zone pit concentrations at depth, although this is difficult to determine accurately when a log scale is used for the D-pit and not for the B-zone pit. In our investigations, we noted arsenic removal in the B-zone pit bottom water, which was due to the formation of particles that are relegated to the newly forming sediment in the bottom of the pit. Particle-carrying contaminants form due to a combination of geochemical and biological factors and TSS contributed from erosion of the upper parts of the pit walls, whereas the settling out of particles from the water column is controlled by the physical conditions or turn over, for example. during ice cover in the B-zone pit. Although meromictic conditions for flooded pits may be desirable at decommissioning, this would depend largely on the physical conditions of the pit, because, under no circumstances, would this water be of desirable ground-water quality. Under meromictic conditions, acidity, if an environmental issue, may be reduced by microbial acid-neutralizing activity, and several heavy metals may form more or less stable sulphitic compounds. These may stay suspended in the water if conditions are such that they are not relegated to the sediments, i.e., in the absence of turnover. These processes do not take place in meromictic conditions only, but meromixis does require autochthonous and/or allochthonous organic substrate supplies, which are generated under aerobic conditions. Specific limnological (biological, chemical and physical) features of the pit lake under consideration have to be defined, such that water quality parameters can be predicted, and the objectives of the decommissioning activities, environ-

Jan 1, 1999

By C. F. de Mendonca, T. Kater, R. P. de Souza

The authors are to be commended for finding a material for pellets binding that we were unable to uncover during the investigations that led to US Patent No. 3,748,116, “Method for producing metallic iron powder from iron ore concentrate, ” July 24, 1973, by G.G. Reed, Jr., J.M. Karpinski, and S.V. Fox. This patent concerns a method of processing “super’ ‘-concentrates prepared from magnetite or “blue dust” into molding-grade metallic iron powder for use as a bulk commodity, in contrast to current methods which produce small batches that are custom-blended with additives and/or alloye to customer specifications. The one thing we had not found at that time was an organic binder (mineral-matter-free ) that would allow induration to produce hardened pellets that would survive SL/RN Direct Reduction. Peridur appears to provide this missing link needed for large scale (200 t/a, or 220,460 stpy) single line plant capacity consistent with a low market price to ensure greatly broadened use of metallic iron powder. I hope that industry will adopt this combination so that metallic iron powder usage can fulfill its potential

Jan 9, 1985

By T. N. Moore, E. M. De Souza

J. Dasher Regarding the March 1991 ME technical paper by De Souza and Moore: For more than a decade since my February 1981 article on how to use modern metric, which SME-AIME had decided to do, I have monthly pointed out metric errors to the editors. In part, I do this because there has been no action to allow editors to fix figures and tables or to allow them to require authors to do so. The latest resulting atrocity provokes this discussion of vibrating drill handle units being stated in decibels. Reply by T. Moore We have read the discussion of our paper by Mr. Dasher. Our reaction is one of surprise and incredulity. It would seem that Mr. Dasher takes exception to the use of the decibel scale to present vibration acceleration data, and the use of hertz as the unit for frequency. The basis for his objection to the decibel appears to be that it has no dimensions (which somehow invalidates its use), that it is "non-metric" and, finally, that it is parochial (of limited or narrow scope). His objection to the use of the term hertz is not stated, but we will assume that it stands condemned as "non-metric" and parochial. Obviously we disagree with Mr. Dasher's views and will now outline our reasons. Although the decibel scale originates from transmission line theory and telephone engineering, it is also at present widely used, not only in the fields of electronic engineering and acoustics, but also in the area of vibration. The original definition of the decibel (dB) was based on power ratios: dB = 10 log 10(W/W0) where Wo is a reference power. However, as the power measured across a given impedance is related to the square of the force acting upon this impedance, Z, a more commonly used definition is: [2 dB = 10 logF /Z) = 20 log F/F 10\ F0 2 /Z(0)] where F and F0 are the r.m.s. values of the forces. Now, if the measurements are related to one and the same impedance, the decibel notation in the form of 20log10(X/Xo) may be used as a convenient relative magnitude scale for a variety of quantities. Thus, X may, for instance, be an r.m.s. displacement, velocity or acceleration. It is only required that XD always be a reference quantity of the same type as X. That is, when X represents an acceleration, then X0 represents a reference acceleration. This is the formulation used in our paper. This was not an arbitrary choice on our behalf but reflects standard practice as specified in the International Standard ISO 5349-1986(E) Mechanical Vibration - Guidelines for the Measurement and the Assessment of Human Despite the metric prefix, the decibel is a parochial expression of (l) the logarithmic ratio of the loudness of a sound to what is normally audible or (2) the logarithmic ratio of two power signals in radio or electronics. A decibel is not a unit, much less an SI, unit and has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceleration of drill handles. Stating that m/s2 (acceleration) is decibels is without reason. Whoever reviewed this material should not have allowed publication of figures of dB and H.[ ] Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration. This was clearly stated in the "measurement protocol" section of our paper. This quantity is then referred to as the acceleration level and is expressed in dB. We may have inadvertently caused some confusion when we simply used the term acceleration to refer to acceleration level on our diagrams. At the time, we felt the use of dB or m/s2 would make the context clear to the reader. For any confusion this decision may have engendered, we apologize. Since the decibel expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it certainly has no dimensions. It is, however, common practice to treat "decibel" as a unit as, for example, in the sentence, "The acceleration level measured at the operator's hand was 160 dB." The expression of measured quantities in dimensionless form is not inherently unacceptable. In fact, in many areas of engineering it is standard practice (consider the use of Reynolds Number, Nusselt Number, etc.). The fact that the decibel is a dimensionless quantity makes the question of whether it is a SI unit nonsensical. However, it is valid to insist that the dimensional quantities used to obtain the decibel values be expressed in SI units. A careful reading of our paper will make it clear that the measured acceleration was, in fact, expressed in units of m/s2 as was the reference acceleration (l x 10-6 m/S2). These are the accepted derived SI units for acceleration. See, for example, the standard ASTM E380-89a Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (SI) (The Modernized Metric System). Concerning Mr. Dasher's implication that hertz (Hz) is an unacceptable unit of measure for frequency, we would again refer him to the standard ASTM E380-89a. Here, he will find (section 2.4.2) that hertz is an accepted "special name" for the derived SI units-1. This is in keeping with numerous other international standards including ISO 5349-1986(E) to which we referred in our paper. In conclusion, we agree with Mr. Dasher on the desirability of expressing measurements in modern SI units. But we would remind him that the standards that define the use of these units, and the accepted means of presenting measured data, are in a continual state of refinement. It is, therefore, incumbent upon him to keep abreast of these changes if he wishes to constructively critique the work of others.[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

By E. L. Fidler, T. E. Finch

Wayne Anderson Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 11, 1982

By A. W. Khair, S. S. Peng

Discussion by J. Parker Gentlemen; Rainy day in Upper Michigan, a good time to catch up on reading. Am doing that, and have a couple of questions concerning the K and P paper on roof problems and supports. I wonder if the authors can enlighten me. The compressive strength of the coal was reported as 4.4 MPa (633 psi) and compressive stresses measured in the coal seam were reported at around 27.6 and 48.2 MPa(4000 and 7000psi ). Can such a soft coal actually contain such a high level of stress? Can it be measured as if the material were elastic, or does the coal behave plastically? Can that stress level be confirmed with hydraulic load cells? And if the coal is so soft, and if it is plastic, why is the stress field not hydrostatic'? The intact roofrock appears to be unusually strong, with compressive strength reported at around 145 MPa (21,000 psi), and some failures were noted as soon as the rock was exposed. Were tests run to find out how that rock responded to the addition of moisture, from sprays or from humid air? Did moisture weaken the rock? Did it cause the rock to expand quickly, thus to induce internal compressive stress? How can the near-vertical cutters, as shown in the photographs, be attributed to primarily horizontal stresses? Did the cutters follow any particular pattern in the development panels, which might be related to a particular stress pattern? For example, did they always appear alongside the stiffest pillar? Or always along the northwest rib? Was there any evidence of the pillars and entries "rotating" under the influence of differential horizontal stresses? How much did the entries and pillars rotate as the longwall face approached and passed? After rooffalls, did the openings assume shapes which would indicate a preferred shape in that stressfield and geology? Did crosscuts always survive without damage, as shown in the sketch?

Jan 1, 1992

By Maurice Grieves

GC. Waterman Mr. Grieves' paper on "Shaft Sinking Today--A Boring Business Tomorrow" in the Dec. 1981 issue of MINING ENGINEERING is an excellent description of recent improvements in speed and costs of shaft sinking. However, shaft boring techniques are not a recent development. In 1935-36, the Idaho Maryland Co. (gold), Grass Valley, CA, bored the vertical 1.5-m-diam Idaho No. 2 ventilation and supply shaft to a depth of 346 m. The equipment was designed and perfected by Branner Newsome and was, I believe, described in "Transactions." Pickands Mather later bored a 1.8-m-diam shaft to a depth of about 305 m using Newsome's design. The Idaho No. 2 shaft cut through hard gabbro, diabase dikes, soft serpentine, very incompetent ankeritized serpentine and a strong fault zone. The completed shaft did not require timber support; the fault zone was cemented. Equipment consisted of a rotating 1.5-m or 3-m core barrel with a slotted bottom which cut a 76-mm kerf. The cutting agent was chilled steel shot introduced into the slot as needed. The driving mechanism and core barrel were lowered into the shaft, the former secured to the wall and the inshaft "engineer" operated the motors which controlled core barrel rpm and advance. After an advance of 1.5-3 m the equipment was lifted out of the shaft, a half(?) stick of powder cut off the drilled core, and it was hoisted to the surface with a cable attached to an eye bolt at the tope of the core. A "shift" consisted of three men: hoistman, equipment operator (down the shaft), and a surface laborer. Advance was variable as equipment and techniques were perfected. Near the end of the job advance was, as I remember, 1.5-3 m per shift. Costs were, as I recall, about $115/m. Up to 4 m cores were lifted out in one piece and swung to the dump by a stiff leg derrick. The Newsome equipment was relatively inexpensive to build and operate and his method should be (more than?) competetive with the methods described by Grieves. W.E. Hawes The author, in mentioning the South African developments of the cactus grab, ignores the parallel development of the Cryderman mucker in this hemisphere. Perhaps a slightly longer history of blind hold drilling would have been in order. Blind shaft boring got a major boost at the Nevada Test Site, as part of the nuclear weapons development, when it was essential to be able to quickly assess depth for weapons testing. One of the early civilian attempts to utilize this technology occurred when Kerr McGee drilled the shaft at the Section 19 Mine at Ambrosia Lake, NM. This twin masted drill rig belonged to a subsidiary of Kerr McGee, not Shaft Drillers. This was a difficult hole, due to bentonitic shales that decomposed. Later advances in drilling fluids eliminated this problem. The Conoco project referred to is not entirely correct, and needs minor amplification: The depth of the development (not pilot) shaft drilled was 684 m, at a diameter of 3.05 m, with a 2.16 m ID hydratatic casing being installed to a depth of 669 m. Conoco Inc., not Challenger, executed the drilling, however Conoco did use Challenger Drilling Company's Rig 14-S. Rig 14-S is unique in that it is specifically designed for shaft drilling, rather than being an oil field rig used for this service. All work was planned and directed by Conoco personnel. Deviation of the aforementioned shaft from vertical was 31 cm. Two smaller shafts (pilot shafts) were drilled with the same rig. These smaller ones were drilled 1.8 m in diameter, to depth of 665 m and cased with .91-m-diam casing, to depth of 650 m to be used as pilot holes for 5.5 m diameter shafts. The total elapsed time for all drilling, casing, cementing, and rig moves was 50 weeks. The constraints mentioned of vertical accuracy, torque, wall collapse, rig set up time, lining time etc., pumping out, etc., may not be as serious as the author implies. First, vertical accuracy: The record achieved by Conoco indicates that with reasonable care, good accuracy can be obtained, primarily by having a fair amount of weight in tension, rather than on the drill bit. Second, the amount of torque that can be applied to the drill stem has been greatly increased by the introduction of larger diameter drill stems, such as the new Hughes rig uses. Third, risk of collapse of shaft walls is minimal with the proper mud program. Basically, the walls are supported by the weight of the mud and it is not removed until some type of casing is installed and grouted in. Here in the real challenge of blind drilling shafts to devise a more economical method of lining bored shafts than using steel casing. The remaining issues were minor at Conoco, provided adequate planning and scheduling takes place. An excellent paper, "Shaft Drilling--Crownpoint Project" by Hassell H. Hunter, presented at the Fifth Uranium Symposium in Albuquerque in Sept. 1981 contains details of this project. A combination of blind boring, with enlargement by either mechanical means (boring machine, or tunneling type shield) or slabbing down, with muck removal through a larger bored shaft would seem to be the future trend in shaft development. The economics, especially for wet conditions, favor this concept over conventional sinking, as has been demonstrated at Kerr McGee --Churchrock, UNC--Churchrock and Conoco at Crownpoint.

Jan 3, 1983