Search Documents

By Jean-Michel Rendu

That you are giving the Daniel C. Jackling award to me is a great personal honor. But more significantly, it is a recognition that geostatistics has come of age. And since I am considered by many as belonging to an older generation of geostatisticians, I thought that it would be fitting that I reflect on where geostatistics came from and where it might be going. First, though, let me propose a definition of geostatistics. Etymologically, paraphrasing Webster's definitions of "geo" and "statistics," it is "a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation and presentation of masses of numerical data taken from the earth." This definition is most appropriate in the context of mining geostatistics. It includes both classical and spatial statistics. It emphasizes the earth aspect, or the analysis of geologic features. And it should remind the practitioner that geologic input is a critical part of all geostatistical applications. In the 1910s, statistical methods were already used to analyze geological data. However, the origin of geostatistics, as we know it today, is best set in the late 1940s, when H.S. Sichel recognized the lognormal distribution of sample values in the South African gold mines. In 1951, Daniel Krige observed that "it can be expected that the gold values in a whole mine will be subject to a larger relative variation than those in a portion of the mine." In other words, samples taken close to each other are more likely to have similar values than if taken farther apart. This observation is the foundation on which spatial statistics, which characterizes values defined in a multidimensional space, is built. However, the 1950s were marked by studies based on classical, as opposed to spatial, statistics. It was only in the 1960s that the need was recognized to model the similarity between sample values as a function of the distance between samples and that the semivariogram was defined. A theoretical framework was developed by Matheron that supplied an elegant mathematical explanation to the empirical observations made by Krige. Matheron coined the term "kriging" in recognition of Krige's pioneering work on the geostatistical evaluation of mineral deposits. As soon as this theoretical framework was developed, it was possible to bring geostatistics to the academic world. The "Centre de Geostatistiques" was founded in Fontainebleau. Numerous students were trained there, disciples eager not only to improve the theory and develop more sophisticated mathematical tools, but also to spread the new faith throughout the world. Expansion of geostatistics exploded in the 1970s, arguably the most fertile decade if it is judged by the frequency of theoretical breakthroughs, the number of original publica-

Jan 1, 1995

[ ]

Jan 1, 1995

By Robert B. Parsons

"Finance Minister Paul Martin's second budget might be good for Canada's mining industry in the long run, but the budget raises a number of concerns for the industry in the near term. The budget papers suggest that the 25% resource allowance is not working as intended, and report that the Department of Finance will be reviewing this valuable allowance. The so-called ""large corporations tax"" rate will be increased. This annual tax, which is imposed on a corporation's capital even when the corporation is not in production, is particularly harmful to the mining sector.IntroductionThe Honourable Paul Martin, in his second federal budget, emphasized spending cuts and made only modest tax changes. However, two of these tax changes could have a serious impact on the Canadian mining industry: the proposed review of the 25% resource allowance; and, the increase in the large corporations tax rate.Personal Tax Measures Personal Tax Rates UnchangedThe government has been under political pressure not to increase personal tax rates. Mr. Martin's announcement that rates would not change will be popular."

Jan 1, 1995

By Klimpel. R. R.

Acknowledgments I am honored to be named as a recipient of the Antoine M. Gaudin Award, and I would like to briefly single out four groups who deserve a special thank-you relative to this award. The first group consists of Professor Kawatra, the many international support references that he gathered and the Gaudin Committee itself. I know such things don't come without considerable effort by many individuals, and I'm grateful for their support. The second group consists of the management of The Dow Chemical Company, the managements of various mining companies and, in recent years, the management of G. S. Technologies, all of whom supported me, financially and otherwise, in my grinding, flotation and other particle-processing work. Operations people are the most overworked and under recognized people in the world, whether they be in the mining or chemical industry. Obviously, without extensive industrial support, especially from operating personnel in the mining industry, almost nothing about the work contained in this lecture would have, or could have, happened. The third group consists of a number of coworkers who have played key roles in specifically implementing the new flotation-product portion of this lecture. Of these, Bob Hansen, Don Leonard, Basil Fee, Simon Isherwood, Fernando Cones and Marty Meulendyke deserve special recognition. They have not only been dedicated, but they have been great to work with. Also in this third group are many members of the international academic community, especially those at Penn State. Professor Leonard Austin must be singled out because he took me as a young mathematically oriented chemist and taught me to be an effective process-oriented engineer. Without this experience, I would not have had the over 30-year career as an engineer, which I have loved. In addition, Len planted the size-reduction-research virus in my blood, which I can't seem to get rid of. I also need to mention Professor Frank Aplan, whose obvious love of mineral processing and froth flotation helped to create my interest in flotation. Thus, for those of you who don't like my approach to flotation, it's all Frank's fault. The fourth, and certainly not the least, group to thank is my wife, Charlene, and our two sons, Richard and Steven. No one could have a more supportive family. In every sense of the word, my wife has been my partner from the beginningwe were married at the end of my freshman year in college. She has sacrificed much for me, and I will never really be able to express the depth of my gratitude for Charlene's encouragement, loyalty and support over the past 36 years. General comments on froth flotation The industrial process of froth flotation: Where is it going? I'm here to tell you loud and clear that froth flotation is alive, well, and growing. The inherent characteristics of high mineral throughput per unit of capital, low operating cost per unit of feed, high mineral specificity and high operating flexibility have guaranteed froth flotation an important past and a growing future. As with any evolving technology, there are always trends at the industrial level that are primarily driven by economics. The current trends include: •the movement towards larger and larger equipment, •more alternative equipment designs (e.g., the column cell),

Jan 1, 1996

[ ]

Jan 1, 1996

ACM Equipment Sales Co. ACM/ICM Andalex Resources, Inc. ARCO Coal Company Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc. Coastal State Energy Company Colowyo Coal Co. L.P. Commercial Testing & Engineering Company Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company Crane & Hoist Cyprus Amax Coal Company Dakota Coal Company Driltech Inc. Empire Machinery Energy West Mining Company Fleischli Oil Company Inc. Halbach & Braun Industries Hemscheidt Corporation GH Hensley Industries Ingersoll-Rand Company Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K & P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation LeTourneau,Inc. Long-Airdox Company Magnum Metals, Inc. McLanahan Corporation Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics Morrison Knudsen Corporation National Mining Association The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Phillips Machine Services, Inc. Pincock Allen & Holt Powder River Coal Co. Ramsey Technology, Inc. Rust Tractor Company Salt River Project Savage Industries Inc. Stamler Corporation Tamarron Resort TerraMatrix Inc. Texaco Lubricants Company TIC (The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc.) Trapper Mining Inc. Wagner Equipment Comp any Western Energy Company Wheeler Machinery Company

Jan 1, 1995

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

By John S. Livermore

I feel very privileged to be added to the distinguished group that has received this award since the first recipient, Reno Sales, received it in 1954. If my research is correct, the last geologist to be honored was Bill Callahan in 1982. Perhaps the Awards Committee decided it was about time to select a geologist, and I became the beneficiary. Regarding the discovery of the Carlin ore body, it was the culmination of several studies - one going back as far as 1939 when a US Bureau of Mines engineer named W.O. Vanderberg recognized an unusual type of gold mineralization in sediments in northern Nevada. What was unusual was the fact that the gold was so fine that it would not concentrate in a pan. This, plus the study of the Roberts Mountain thrust by Ralph Roberts (1960) and conversations with Harry Bishop, manager of the Gold Acres Mine, pointed Alan Coope and me in the direction of the Lynn Window and, eventually, the Carlin discovery. There has been a great deal written about this discovery. I thought it would be interesting to discuss the evolution of Carlin gold exploration in Nevada since this time and to discuss the changes in perception of this unique type of mineralization. The method used by Coope and me in following up on Roberts' work was to map geologically the Roberts Mountain thrust and conduct geochemical sampling of favorable outcrops and float. Coope was highly experienced in geochemical exploration, as he had graduated from the Royal School of Mines in London, studying under John S. Webb, one of the pioneers of geochemistry as applied to mineral exploration. We first considered using pathfinder elements, but finally concentrated on gold analyses alone, even though the sensitivity of fire assays used at that time was only about one-half part per million. According to the spatial relationship of the mineralization to the Roberts Mountain thrust, as pointed out by Roberts (1960), we were looking for mineralization within the thrust itself. Our models were the known Gold Acres and Getchell mines, which contained reserves on the order of 0.9 to 1.8 mt (1 to 2 million st). These were not of substantial size, but I had hoped we might find more than one of these tributary to a mill that would justify an operation for our employer, Newmont Mining Corp. What we ended up with was the type of deposit we were looking for - an open pit deposit of micron gold, which the old timers had missed because the gold was not capable of being panned. But never in our wildest dreams did we think there was a chance of finding a body containing 10 mt (11 million st) of ore at 0.30 oz/st (10.3 g/t).The deposit was not in the thrust proper but was found in a favorable horizon of Roberts Mountain siltstone that was below the thrust. This is the first example of how a model should not be followed blindly. Newmont was successful in keeping this discovery quiet for some time. After a considerable amount of drilling, a rumor circulated that they had discovered a large low-grade ore body of around 1.7 to 2.1 g/t (0.05 to 0.06 oz/st), which of course would not have been economic with gold at $1.13/g ($35/oz), which was the fixed price at that time. The company, for obvious reasons, did not discourage the rumor. When, however, the true results came out there was a lot of feverish activity. Because of this new type of so-called "invisible gold," which could have been missed by the old timers, the thought was that other deposits would be discovered very soon. The Carlin and other smaller deposits, including Bootstrap, Blue Star and Gold Quarry, were in windows where the lower plate of the Roberts Mountain formation (below the thrust) had been exposed by erosion. This then became the new

Jan 1, 1997

[ ]

Jan 1, 1997

The fifth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held June 29 through July 2 in conjunction with the 92nd RMCMI Convention. Eight teams from four states participated. They were: BHP La Plata Mine NM Capt. Jonathon Sorrell BHP Navajo Mine NM Capt. Ron Miller BHP San Juan Mine NM Capt. Albert Nelson Bridger Coal Company WY Capt. Ted Laughlin Coteau Properties Co ND Capt. Terry Davis Kerr-McGee Coal Corp WY Capt. Elvin Stanton Sabine Mining Company TX Capt. Spencer Thompson Solvay Minerals WY Capt. Ray Blaisdell Activities started with a Rope Rescue class taught by John Peleaux, from Innovative Access, at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. The Mine Rescue Reception, Team Meeting, and Equipment Inspection was held Saturday evening. All participants received a T-shirt and cap. The Mine Rescue Evaluation started Sunday morning and ran until it was rained out around 3:00 p.m. There was a team swap meet Sunday evening at which teams bought extra caps and shirts. They also traded with other teams. [ ] The Evaluation resumed Monday morning and ran until mid-afternoon. The Evaluation was made up of seven stations. There were six scenarios and a written test. Teams were also challenged by a 14-foot confidence course wall to get their team over. The teams were evaluated by: Jack Knight Champion International, Pensacola, FL Becki Pickert Colorado Northwestern Community College, Craig, CO John Peleaux Innovative Access, Evergreen, CO Lynn Busskohl Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Lenny Altenburg Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Elvin Stanton Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Clarence Baker Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY The victims for the scenarios were from the Kerr-McGee Mine Rescue-Team. They were: Dana Cooper, Doland Zink, Suzanne Ott, Mike Szuma, and Craig Moore. Also helping as a victim was Candy Cobb from Casper, WY. [ ] The program concluded Tuesday morning with the Awards Breakfast. A medical kit, donated by Strategic Supply, was given to the Solvay Minerals Team for the fastest time over the confidence wall. Engraved stone awards were given to the teams indicating the rating they achieved. Four teams received Level Ill (The highest rating) and three received Level II. The Kerr-McGee team also received an award for helping put on the evaluation. Additional stones were presented to Jack Knight, John Peleaux, Becki Pickert, and RMCMI President. Marcie Greenberg. The current plans for the 1997 Mine Rescue program are that Jim Andrews with Colowyo Coal will assume the chairmanship. Goals for next year are to increase funding and participation by establishing sub-committees or task groups. With the chair located in Colorado, coordination of the evaluation should be easier. Comments from all the teams were positive and they intend to return next year at Steamboat Springs. [ ]

Jan 1, 1996

[Mr. Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Mr. Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum Pl-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Mr. Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84518-1420 Mr. Thomas D. Aderman The North American Coal Corp 14758 Preston Rd #1100 Dallas, TX 75240-7891]

Jan 1, 1998

By Spencer R. Titley

"For his pioneering contributions to the understanding of the geology of porphyry copper systems" Recipient Of The 1997 D. C. Jackling Award SPENCER R. TITLEY Introduction The subject of this lecture, a late century perspective on porphyry copper geology, is one of current interest and importance as the search for these ores remains intense. It is presented in the belief that an appreciation of our present understanding of the subject requires it to be viewed historically, thus providing a basis for evaluating appropriate directions for continued study. At the outset, it is important to note that the technology of mining and extractive metallurgy has developed ore from these low grade orebodies, starting with D. C. Jackling, and has continued to create them as copper grade and price have diminished. But the continued search for them is a geological problem that responds to growing expectations of people and societies; exploration based upon ever increasing knowledge of the habits of the ores has been very successful. This is the story of evolution of geological thought and practice in porphyry ore search across an interval of time beginning with the bulk mining of "low grade" copper ores at Bingham and ending with late Century concepts. "How did we get here?" The lecture concerns the ideas of many different people. The ideas and events discussed reflect a bias on North American thought, where the great low grade orebodies were first recognized as such and where many of the basic geological ideas were developed. A very great number of geologists have contributed to this understanding. In no sense is it meant to minimize the contributions to the story that have evolved in the study and mining of ores of the Andes, whose development and expansion has been nearly synchronous with that in North America - nor to minimized comparable contributions made in the late century from studies of the newer discoveries of deposits in other regions, especially the southwestern Pacific regions. In expansion of this topic, I have found that many important concepts are marked by appropriate publication but some are not, or I have not been able to discover documentation. Many notions appear to have become conventional knowledge without publication, mostly being geological viewpoints developed synchronously from similar observation. Thus, apologies are extended in advance to those whose work I have might have missed and to those unknown to me whose unpublished ideas may have seeped into the pool of common knowledge without appropriate recognition. The analysis here addresses events of two time segments, an older one extending from the developments at Bingham in the early 1900s through the Second World War, ending about 1950: the second period extends from that time to the present. This separation is seen in Figure 1, which traces numbers of publications through the period as extracted from some 700 publications, again with a North American bias, from an annotated bibliography of porphyry copper geology in preparation. During the early period, exploration was "immature" in North America, that is, geologists looked for new districts and sites of the deposits. Outcrops were sought that carried the signatures of former mineralization and regional controls related to structural geology were closely studied. In the later period, North American exploration had "matured" into a study of districts, rather than a search for them. As the studies of these ores intensified during the younger period concommitant with increasing demands for the metal, they did so with a broadened understanding of some habits of occurrence, of hydrothermal alteration, mineral zoning, petrology, and geochemical and geophysical signatures. Outside of North America, search remained "immature" but closely related to the

Jan 1, 1998

By Spencer R. Titley

The subject of this lecture, a late century perspective on porphyry copper geology, is one of current interest and importance as the search for these ores remains intense. It is presented in the belief that an appreciation of our present understanding of the subject requires it to be viewed historically, thus providing a basis for evaluating appropriate directions for con¬tinued study. At the outset, it is important to note that the technology of mining and extractive metallurgy has developed ore from these low grade orebodies, starting with D. C. Jackling, and has continued to create them as copper grade and price have diminished. But the continued search for them is a geological problem that responds to growing expectations of people and societies; exploration based upon ever increasing knowledge of the habits of the ores has been very successful. This is the story of evolution of geological thought and practice in porphyry ore search across an interval of time beginning with the bulk mining of "low grade copper ores at Bingham and ending with late Century concepts. "How did we get here?" The lecture concerns the ideas of many different people. The ideas and events discussed reflect a bias on North American thought, where the great low grade orebodies were first recognized as such and where many of the basic geological ideas were developed. A very great number of geologists have contributed to this understanding. In no sense is it meant to minimize the contributions to the story that have evolved in the study and mining of ores of the Andes, whose development and expansion has been nearly synchronous with that in North America - nor to minimized comparable contributions made in the late century from studies of the newer discoveries of deposits in other regions, especially the southwestern Pacific regions. In expansion of this topic, I have found that many important concepts are marked by appropriate publication but some are not, or I have not been able to discover documentation. Many notions appear to have become conventional knowledge without publication, mostly being geological viewpoints developed synchronously from similar observation. Thus, apologies are extended in advance to those whose work I have might have missed and to those unknown to me whose unpublished ideas may have seeped into the pool of common knowledge without appropriate recognition. . The analysis here addresses events of two time segments, an older one extending from the developments at Bingham in the early 1900s through the Second World War, ending about 1950; the second period extends from that time to the present. This separation is seen in Figure 1, which traces numbers of publications through the period as extracted from some 700 publications, again with a North American bias, from an annotated bibliography of porphyry copper geology in preparation. During the early period, exploration was "immature" in North America, that is, geologists looked for new districts and sites of the deposits. Outcrops were sought that carried the signatures of former mineralization and regional controls related to structural geology were closely studied. In the later period, North American exploration had "matured" into a study of districts, rather than a search for them. As the studies of these ores intensified during the younger period concommitant with increasing demands for the metal, they did so with a broadened understanding of some habits of occurrence, of hydrothermal alteration, mineral zoning, petrology, and geochemical and geophysical signatures. Outside of North America, search remained "immature" but closely related to the

Jan 1, 1997

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 154 ACZ 149 AmerCable,Inc 144 Andalex Resources, Inc 118 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 101 Canyon Fuel Company 145 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 95 Continental Conveyor 148 Cove Shoes 136-137 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 121 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 134 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 115 Dakota Coal Company DriltechInc 135 Empire Machinery Company 94 Energy West Mining Company 122 Fluor Daniel 100 GH Hensley Industries 126. 127 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 123 Holme, Roberts & Owen 98 Honnen Equipment Company 150 Ingersoll-Rand Company 141 Jennmar Corporation 142 Joy Mining Machinery - A Harnischfeger Industries Company 104 K & P Sales Engineers, Inc 114 Kennecott Energy Company 155 Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation 96 LeTourneau,Inc 160 Long-Airdox Company 112 Magnum Metals, Inc 133 McLanahan Corporation 129 Mine Technik America 124 Mineral Tech 151 Morrison Knudsen Corporation 97 The North American Coal Corporation 130 Northwestern Resources Company 125 P&H MinePro Services 157 Peabody Western Coal Co 131 Phillips Machine Service, Inc Pincock Allen & Holt 120 Powder River Coal Company 107 Pyro-Chem 156 RamseyTechnology, Inc 119 Rust Tractor Company 90 Salt River Project 91 Savage Industries Inc 89 Schroeder Industries 147 Sheraton Steamboat Resort and Conference Center 111 Skelly & Loy 138 Snowmass Village at Aspen 146 Stamler Corporation (An Oldenburg Group Company) 117 Tamarron Hilton Resort 140 TerraMatrix Inc 139 TIC (The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc.) 99 Trapper Mining Inc 106 Wagner Equipment Company 116 Weir International Mining Consultants 113 Westech 152 Wheeler Machinery Company 128]

Jan 1, 1997

The sixth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1997 Institute convention at Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Gary Cook, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1997 the largest number of teams participated in the program. There were nine: BHP Minerals - La Plata Mine, BHP Minerals - Navajo Coal Co., BHP Minerals - San Juan Coal Co., Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., General Chemical Co., The Sabine Mining Co., Solvay Minerals and Western Energy Co. Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the 80 participants were Jack Knight of Milton, Florida; Wilson Begay, Chris Saxon, and Gaylon Yazzie all of Western States Security; Mary Bailey, Bailey Associates; Tom Bass, California Department of Corrections; and Art Saenz, BDC. Seven members made up each team plus one or more trainers and represented the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Ten different scenarios were presented during the two day evaluation. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. Mine Rescue families and friends participated as victims providing realistic scenarios to simulate the stress of an actual rescue incident. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving at the various scenes in and around the Sheraton resort. [ ] These teams are providers of prompt rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1997 program are: Argo Industrial, Antelope Construction, Fisher Safety Supply, Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc; Intermountain Electronics, Inc.; King Energy Services, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, LS.; TerraMatrix and Triune Inc. On Saturday evening, June 28, a reception was held for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for this social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue participants and registered families attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q. This was followed by an adult western melodrama. [ ] Glass awards with the RMCMI logo and a Mine Rescue figure were presented at the Tuesday Mine Rescue buffet breakfast to all nine teams, each of which had achieved proficiency at level 3. Captains of the teams pictured below are (from left standing): Ron Neff, BHP-San Juan; Ted Laughline, Bridger, Terry Davis, Coteau; Jim Knutson, General Chemical (from left kneeling): Dan Allerdings, Rosebud; Ron Miller, BHP-Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP-La Plata and Ray Blaisdell, Solvay. Gary Cook is to be commended for his solo last minute supervision of the Mine Rescue program, due to Becki Beam's unavoidable absence. The teams look forward to the 1998 convention at Snowmass Village Resort, Colorado Thursday and Friday, June 25 and 26.

Jan 1, 1997

By James A. Finch

The Gaudin lecture is devoted to fundamentals. Given my involvement with column flotation over the last 20 years, this is my topic. I have tried to identify spinoff basic research and provide a personal list of favorites. Two are selected for discussion here. They are single bubble rise and bubble surface area flux. The rationale for such work, as well as some of the findings, are reviewed. Support for fundamental work seems as volatile as the economy (and the link is probably not coincidental). I hope some utility to the minerals industry is evident in the text. Column flotation in its current form originated in the early 1960s. The method was invented by Boutin, patented by Boutin and Tremblay and pursued doggedly by Wheeler. Their aim was to overcome the problem of mechanical entrainment of fine particles in the water carried by the bubbles, which they were convinced contributed to lowering flotation concentrate grades (Wheeler, 1988; Finch and Dobby, 1990). The solution was a combination of columnar geometry, the addition of wash water into a deep froth and the maintenance of an excess of water to the tailings, as compared to the feed (a so-called positive bias). Success at Les Mines Gaspe, Quebec, on cleaning Mo in the early 1980s signaled the start of industrial acceptance, making the column one of the flotation machines of choice today. Over the next 20 years, column applications mushroomed to cover virtually all mineral commodities, as well as nonmineral applications such as soil decontamination, deoiling of water and deinking of recycled paper. In the wake, research groups are continuing to probe the fundamentals, conferences and workshops have been transferring the technology and specialist companies have emerged to service the demand. Innovations were triggered as problems arose (for instance, in gas injection systems) and novel flotation cells, much in vogue in the 1990s, had the door opened. Mechanical cell manufacturers have not been idle - there is nothing like competition to provoke a fresh look at an established business. Flotation-cell technology has probably not seen so much activity since the patent rush in the early days of flotation, which occurred around the turn of the century. For an industry often considered reluctant to risk innovation, this is not a bad record. A good idea will find a place, but patience (not always an innovators strong suit) and careful preparation are required. Two books (Finch and Dobby, 1990; Rubenstein, 1996), three symposia (Sastry, 1988; Agar and Huls, 1991; Gomez and Finch, 1996), and a series of reviews (Dobby and Finch, 1991; Finch and Dobby, 1991; Finch, 1995; Finch et al., 1995) document the period. Like many good ideas, column flotation has been overexposed, and there have been disappointments. In a recent example, columns performing scavenging duty were replaced by mechanical cells (Chong et al., 1998). The further applications stray from the original - to

Jan 1, 1999

By Donald W. Gentry

Introduction The mining industry is perhaps best characterized by the numerous and abnormally high risks associated with the business of mining and by its most basic assets - ore deposits, people and technology. At the most fundamental level, it is the quality and effective utilization of these basic assets that determine a mining company's ability to compete efficiently in the international market place. The gold industry has received much attention in recent years and especially in recent months, for good reason. This commodity serves as an excellent platform for the subsequent discussion of these three basic assets and their role in mining's future. Facets of the gold industry The fate of this noble metal in recent times illustrates some of the various risks associated with the mining industry and the importance of high-quality assets, whether they be ore deposits, people or technologies. The following comments pertaining to the gold industry help place proper focus on subsequent discussions. All monetary amounts given are in US dollars. Throughout 1997, falling gold prices broke record after record: first hitting three-year lows, then a 12-year low in July and finally an 18-year low at year's end. From Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 1997, the price of gold fell by more than $2.57/g ($80/oz), or some 22%. The decline in gold-mining profitability and stock prices was even more dramatic. At the beginning of 1997, the 20 largest gold producers in North America had a market capitalization of approximately $44.5 billion. At year's end, this market cap had fallen to $26.2 billion, a reduction of 41%. The total market cap of all the world's gold companies fell from $71 billion to $46 billion, a 35% drop (Serwer, 1998). Analyses suggest that, at a spot gold price of $9.65/g ($300/oz), only one, or possibly two, North American gold-producing companies can make money when break-even or "total costs of production" are considered. While strong hedge positions mitigate this situation in the short term, clearly, this is an industry in desperate straits. For example, write-downs for North American producers in 1997 were approximately $2.5 billion. Speculative short positions in 1997 were near historical record highs and generally exceeded long positions by factors of 9:1 or 10:1. Much of this is driven by some US commercial banks, hedge fund managers and commodity speculators who can significantly move gold prices sharply over short periods of time by selling gold they do not own in the expectation they can buy it back at a lower price before they have to deliver. These signifcant short positions are likely to continue as long as central banks are willing to sell or loan gold to financial institutions that in turn make the gold available to speculators who hope to capitalize on price fluctuations. The Far East accounts for approximately 26% of the annual demand for gold. Including India, the region accounts for 43% of total demand. More than 85% of the physical demand for gold is for investment jewelry in Asia and the Middle East. This demand is extraordinarily price sensitive. The fairly recent turmoil in Asian markets and economies, combined with currency devaluations throughout the region, have made gold more expensive (30% to 50% in local currencies) for those peoples most likely to treat gold as a safe investment haven. Higher interest rates also have reduced the amount of money they have to spend on consumer goods such as jewelry. All of these recent Asian events are deflationary in nature. Deflation, if coincident with rising unemployment, could result in significant dishoarding of gold. There is one key fact to remember when analyzing

Jan 1, 1999

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 138 AmerCable 130 Andalex Resources, Inc 82 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 83 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 86 Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co 87 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 12 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 88 Dakota Coal Company 89 Empire Machinery Company 90 Energy West Mining Company 91 GH Hensley Industries 92, 93 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 96 Ingersoll-Rand Company 131]

Jan 1, 1998

The seventh Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1998 Institute convention at the Silvertree Hotel, in Snowmass Village, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Elliott Tsosie, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1998 a record number of 10 teams participated in the program. The teams were from the four western states of Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming and were comprised of about eight members each. Teams participating were BHP-La Plata Mine, BHP-Navajo Mine, BHP-San Juan Mine, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming; General Chemical, Green River, Wyoming; Jacobs Ranch Mine, Gillette, Wyoming; Powder River Coal Company-North Antelope/Rochelle, Gillette, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Hallsville, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River Wyoming, and Western Energy-Colstrip, Montana. The professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for over 90 participants and many observers. The evaluators were: Art Saenz and Tom Bass of Western Environmental Associates, Keith Mitchell and Jim Jennings of Emergency Services Detail; Mary Bailey of Mary Bailey Associates; and John Peleaux of Innovative Access. Teams are not given advance warning of what the problem will entail. They are provided the necessary details when they arrive at the scenario location and work to resolve the problem in an effective and efficient manner. [ ] Seven participants made up each team with an . eighth member as an alternate. Team trainers and other mine personnel traveled with the team from scenario to scenario providing support and encouragement. The teams were presented with four scenarios each day, involving High Angle Rescue, Low Angle Rescue/Medical, Hazmat, and Confined Space. All of the victims, except for one, were provided through the cooperative efforts of the Snowmass Fire Department, who also assisted with providing several evaluators. Snowmass Fire Department is to be commended for providing over 20 victims/evaluators each day to facilitate the evaluations. Training sessions were held Friday afternoon and Saturday evening to help the teams prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was held Friday evening for teams to trade hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers, etc. All mine rescue participants and spouses and registered families attended the Bar-B-Q on Sunday evening followed by an adult dance. [ ] Front row: Ray Blaisdell, Solvay; Gary Rasmussen, General Chemical; Spencer Thompson, Sabine; Jack Ervin, Western Energy. Back Row: Ken Kellywood, BHP Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP LaPlata; Elton Stanton, Jacobs Ranch; Travis Roy, Powder River Coal; Ron Neff, BHP San Juan; Steve Whaley, Bridger. Sponsors who contributed to the 1998 program financially were: Blue Mountain Energy, (Deserado Mine); Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, L.S.; and Western Environmental Associates. Glass trophy cups, with an etching of a Mine Rescue figure and the RMCMI Logo on cherry wood bases, were presented to the 10 team captains at the Monday Mine Rescue Awards Breakfast. Eight of the ten teams had a proficiency level of 3 and 2 teams achieved a proficiency level of 2.

Jan 1, 1998

[Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Randy Acre Joy Mining Machinery 2569 Silver Oak Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum P1-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84528-1420 Kent Adamson Solvay Minerals POB 1167 Green River, WY 82935]

Jan 1, 1999