Search Documents

1. Domestic Production and Use: In 1978, 12 companies operated 31 primary aluminum reduction plants, with 3 firms accounting for 65% of production capacity. Washington, Oregon, and Montana accounted for 31% of the total capacity; Gulf Coast States 23%; Northern States 26%; and other Southern States 20%. Based on published producer prices, output of primary metal in 1978 was valued at $5 billion. Aluminum consumption by 25,000 firms was centered in the East Central United States. Of aluminum consuming industries in 1978, building accounted for about 25%; packaging 22%; transportation 23%; electrical 11%; consumer durables 8%; and other uses 11%.

Jan 1, 1979

By Jr. Boyle

This report analyzes the availability of chromium in the form of ferroalloy products (high-carbon and low-carbon ferrochromium and ferrochromium-silicon) and chromite products (metallurgical, chemical, refractory, and foundry sands) in market economy countries (MEC's). A total of 873.5 Mmt of in situ material, containing 202.5 Mmt of chromium, in 10 MEC countries was analyzed for availability as of the January 1989 study date. Extraction and beneficiation of this in situ material would result in 475.4 Mmt of marketable chromite products. As analyzed, 288.5 Mmt of these chromite products would be available for export or for internal chemical and refractory use and 186.9 Mmt would be smelted in-country to produce 74.3 Mmt of high-carbon ferrochromium, 3.9 Mmt of low-carbon ferrochromium, and 2.0 Mmt of ferrochromium-silicon, all available for export. A network flow model, which includes centrally planned economy countries (CPEC's), was also constructed to analyze world chromium supply and demand interactions for the period 1986 through 1994 and to address a hypothetical North American embargo on direct imports of all South African chromium products beginning in mid-1990. The model shows capacity constraints developing in the MEC high-carbon ferro chromium industry in 1987 and a possible subsequent overreaction by the industry in terms of new capacity additions. The results suggest that sufficient chromium is available to North America should an embargo on direct imports from South Africa be imposed by its governments. However, the effect on export revenues in South Africa is relatively small, and timely increases to world ferrochromium, chemical chromite, and foundry sand chromite capacities would be required.

Jan 1, 1993

Domestic Production and Use: In 1976, 12 companies operated 31 primary aluminum reduction plants, with 3 firms accounting for 63% of production capacity. Washington, Oregon, and Montana accounted for 36% of the total production; Gulf Coast States 19%, Northern States 29%, and other Southern States 16%. Based on published producer prices output of primary metal in 1976 was valued at $3.8 billion. Aluminum consumption by 25,000 firms was centered in the East Central United States. Of aluminum consuming industries in 1976 building accounted for about 25%; packaging 22%; transportation 19%; electrical 13%; , consumer durables 8%; and other uses, 13%.

Jan 1, 1977

By Edwin M. Thomasson

HELIUM SHIPMENTS in 1964 exceeded the volume shipped during the previous year for the 15th successive time. Shipments from Bureau of Mines helium plants were 667.4 million cubic feet,2 about 6 percent more than in 1963. Production at Bureau of Mines plants totaled 784.5 million cubic feet. An additional 3,193.1 million cubic feet, which was produced by private companies participating in the helium conservation program, was purchased by the Bureau and stored underground for future use. The Bureau of Mines continued to sell helium at $35 a thousand cubic feet, the price established in 1961. Substantial railway freight rate reductions for tank car shipments of helium went into effect during the year, resulting in a lower delivered price for helium. As the Nation moved ahead in the space age, it became increasingly apparent that helium would continue to play an essential role in research, in technology, in defense, and in industry.

Jan 1, 1965

By Scott G. Britton

Mine exploitation is a broad subject whose focus is the technical skills or efforts needed for the extraction of mineral from a known ore body. Mine exploitation can be considered the very core of the mining engineering discipline. It begins at the conclusion of the exploration and development stages of mining and ends when the ore body is exhausted and the mine (or mines)closes and is reclaimed. Section 8 on mine exploitation is comprised of seven chapters: (1) classification of mining methods, (2) mine surveying and mapping, 3) systems engineering, (4) computer methods, (5) labor relations and training, (6) management and administration, and (7) mine closure, sealing, and abandonment. Each chapter focuses its efforts towards providing detailed and useful information for the engineer on basic mine exploitation principles. The information can be applied to a broad range of mining problems without regard to mineral type or mining method.

Jan 1, 2008

By T. F. Anstett

The Bureau of Mines evaluated the potential availability of chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite asbestos from 42 properties in market economy countries. This resulted in the development of tonnage-cost relationships indicating the quantity of grades 3 through 7 asbestos at various average total costs of production at 0% and 15% rates of return on invested capital. The availability of grades 2 and 8 was also evaluated, but since each is produced at only one property, no analytical results were given. Total demonstrated recoverable chrysotile fiber potentially available of grades 3 through 7 from the 42 properties evaluated follow: 1.59 million t, 21.00 million t, 16.74 million t, 15.54 million t, and 19.27 million t, respectively. The total amount of crocidolite is 1.69 million t. Owing to the good potential for discovery and development of new deposits, long- term availability of fiber of all three types is not in jeopardy. However, many of the crocidolite properties evaluated in the northern Cape crocidolite field of South Africa have relatively small demonstrated resources, and new deposits will have to be exploited by the late 1990's to sustain projected levels of production.

Jan 1, 1985

By W. H. Coghill, F. D. DeVaney

"Introduction Numerous investigators have studied grinding. Each has contributed his bit to a literature that is difficult to correlate. Too many of the results have been transformed into curves with no many ""inflection points"" and ""counterflexures"" that they obscure the issue.Some of the investigators have neglected the very essence of the problem, namely, the power and the amount of material to which a known amount of work was applied. The purpose of this paper is to show the ease with which results can be interpreted when these quantities are duly recognized. Some grinding tests will be given for illustration.Grinding studies are of two kinds: (1) Study of the character of the ore and (2) study of the performance of the machines. Several ores may be crushed by a given machine, or several machines may be used on a given ore. The illustrations given in this report cover both objectives.Grindability Characteristics When the ores are being studied the information sought is grindability characteristics (grain-size distribution) and the grindability (work required to produce new surface) of a group of ores.When the study is of the machines, several machines are used for a given ore or given types of ores, and the grinding performances of the machines are compared by a grain-size study.Table 1 gives the grindability characteristics and grindability of six substances, one of which is coal. The substances are arranged from left to right in progressing order of tons per horsepower-hour. Curves and graphs are not needed for elucidation. The secret of the ease of interpretation is the order mentioned and the similarity of the sizing analyses. Power records must be complete in grinding studies.The grinding device was a ball, plunger, and mortar called the drop weight.' It may be used to advantage when the amount of material to be tested is too small for the orthodox machines.The upper part of table 1 shows the grindability characteristics by the cumulative-sizing analyses. Note how closely the percentage weights agree for a given sieve size. The lower part shows the grindability in terms defined elsewhere. The present paper should be read in conjunction with that paper."

Jun 1, 1934

By Sarkis G. Ampian

Crystalline silica (quartz, cristobalite, and tridyrnite) is regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) because of its potential for causing debilitating but nonmalignant lung diseases. In 1987, the International Agency for Research Against Cancer (IARC) conducted a review of the health literature and concluded that crystalline silica was a probable human carcinogen. As a result of this finding, OSHA was required to regulate crystalline silica under its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). The standard requires that all materials handled by OSHA-regulated facilities be labeled according to the requirements of RCS and that workers receive proper training on the handling of the material if the crystalline silica content equals or exceeds 0.1 weight percent (0.1 %). MSHA currently is considering enacting its own RCS. This will be similar to OSHA's RCS. If the standard is enacted, most mineral producers will have to determine the respirable monitor filter and bulk crystalline silica contents of their ores and products so that workers and/or customers will know whether they are in compliance with the 0.1% HCS and/or the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 µg for an 8-hour workday for respirable crystalline silica as determined from monitor samples. Two major concerns with the RCS are the widespread occurrence of crystalline silica in nature and the suitability of current technology for routinely determining crystalline silica concentrations at the 0.1 % RCS level. Most ores are extracted from silica-bearing deposits and it is a common constituent of rocks and soils. OSHA's RCS will have the greatest impact on the producers of crushed stone, diatomite, dimension stone, gravel, industrial sand, perlite, pumice, pyrophyllite, sand, and talc because these materials frequently are shipped directly from the mill to the customer. MSHA's RCS would affect nearly all mineral producers. Those producers that have crystalline silica present in concentrations near the 0.1 % cutoff point will have the most difficulty with the analysis. Crystalline silica can be quantified at the 0.1 % level by X-ray diffractometry in simple systems containing one, two, and possibly three minerals if (1) none of the accessory minerals has X-ray diffraction reflections that coincide or overlap with those of crystalline silica and (2) the standard has a particle size distribution and crystallinity similar to those of the sample. In some instances, it may not be possible to determine the crystalline silica content of a sample with any degree of certainty using the recommended regulatory protocol. In all cases, it is recommended that a qualified mineralogist identify the minerals in a sample prior to any regulatory analysis. Additionally, the uncertainty as to whether some silica polymorphs should be classified as crystalline or noncrystalline and the suitability of metastable high-temperature standards, such as cristobalite and tridyrnite, for regulatory analysis at ambient temperatures should be addressed further. This overview is written both to highlight these problems and to serve as a guide for analysts, regulators, and industry personnel who are involved in the crystalline silica issue. It also covers some of the difficulties and/or shortcomings in quantifying crystalline silica, such as the ubiquitous mineral quartz, in the workplace.

Jan 1, 1992

By T. A. Rickard

FROM AN OLD MANUSCRIPT THE text for this contribution to the history of the Patio process is a page taken from a Spanish manuscript of Bartholomé Arzaj Sanches y Uela, now in the possession of the library of Brown University (see Figure 1). I owe the photographic print to the courtesy of the librarian. The date, as will be seen, is 1577. The subject is the treatment of silver ores at Potosi, in old Peru, but in modern Bolivia. The group of drawings (see Figure 1) is entitled "Arrangement of the machines in which the ores of silver are ground on the bank of Potosi, the one of two batteries and the other of one". First, top-left, we have the sketch of a "machine of one battery" operated by a water-wheel. From this mill the water runs in part along an aqueduct supported by pillars to the two-battery mill and in part down the hillside, where men are at work with "tubs, which are called cochas, in which are washed the charges of ore and amalgam". Along the top of the page are shown the "various offices in which are stored the copper, the salt, the ucha [llama dung, used for fuel], the lime, and other materials for the re-duction of the ores". To the right of these are "apartments and warehouses in which is stored the ore brought down from the mountain"?the cerro de Potosi. Through the arched portal come the "sheep [llamas] on which is brought down the ore". To this is added a reference to "the second gate, which closes the whole works". On the level above the aqueduct are seen six men carrying skin-bags that contain water. This is being sprinkled on the ore. On the extreme right are six more of these water-carriers. Next comes the two-battery mill. The mortero, or mortar, is marked on the right. Another description says, "Stone, on which the stamps crush the ore, which is called a mortar". To the left of these are indicated "screens of wire in which the ore is sifted after it has been crushed". Farther to the left, near the ore-washers, is a "shed, in which is placed the metallurgist to test the ore of the boxes". Along the left side of the page are sundry buildings, one of which is labelled a "shed in which are placed the cones of silver". Near it, lower, to the right, is the "furnace, in which are roasted the sulphides to facilitate treatment". Farther to the right is the "place where the Indians mix the charges of sulphide ore, which is called a buitron". Alongside is a "buitron in which the charges are prepared for reduction". Inside is a container, to which are attached the words "measure, called topo" On the extreme right is "another buitron in which the Indians mix the ores with their feet, as well as the heaps for the preparation of the reduction". Near the bottom, on the extreme left, is the "chapel where the holy sacri¬fice of the mass is celebrated". Under the first buitron is the "place where they dry the moist ores, called pãpear".

Jan 1, 1935

By Trevor R. Ellis

Minerals appraisers/valuers often find great difficulty in attempting to employ the sales comparison approach to the market value appraisal of development and operating stage mineral properties. An important factor generally overlooked is a comparison of net operating income (NOI) margins on a per-unit-of-production basis between mineral properties, whether these be demonstrated or forecast margins. NOI margins can vary greatly between mines or quarries that are producing similar products. Ultimately, the expected NOI margin determines what a buyer is willing to pay for an income-producing property. Here, common criticisms of the sales comparison approach by mineral appraisers are introduced. These are counterbalanced by raising some issues in the way the inputs for the income approach are usually derived by minerals appraisers and by review of some conspicuous examples of the much-too-common misuse or abuse of the income approach in market value mineral appraisals. Example transaction analyses and sales comparison analyses are used to demonstrate the author?s methodology for adjusting units of resource in his transaction adjustment tables. The examples are used as the basis for a discussion of ways to employ adjustments for operating economics and many other factors, while warning against the potential for double counting. The conclusions include a recommendation that minerals appraisers attempt to apply at least two of the three valuation approaches when appraising the market or fair value of development and operating stage mineral properties, the two being the sales comparison and income approaches.

Jan 1, 2011

By J P. Sykes, T C. McCuaig, M Jessell, A Trench

The election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum herald a shift towards a tighter definition of economic value, at the expense of the broader value concept of sustainable development; as well as a rise of protectionism, reversing a long-term trend of globalisation. However, the situation is complex, especially over the longer term in which mine project development and exploration operates. The minerals sector should proceed with caution. A greater focus on the local impacts of mining may be strategically beneficial, not only to mitigate against a potential protectionist future, but also because sustainable development has become more ‘localist’ via the concept of ‘social licence to operate’, whilst globalisation also seems to provoke increased ‘localist’ sentiments (known as ‘glocalism’). Localist strategies, therefore, seem a good hedge against multiple political futures. By contrast, moving away from sustainable development appears strategically riskier. Not only are ‘unsustainable’ activities, such as pollution and civil rights infringements harder to reverse, but a movement towards a more sustainable global economy may already be predetermined, even if the journey there may seem oblique. It appears that the increased economic development that is coveted globally is intrinsically linked to a rise in environmental and social consciousness.CITATION:Sykes, J P, Trench, A, McCuaig, T C and Jessell, M, 2017. Charles Dickens on the (potentially) changing role of globalisation and sustainability in the long-term future of mining and exploration, in Proceedings Tenth International Mining Geology Conference 2017, pp 239–256 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Sep 20, 2017

"How Wall Street Darling Molycorp Undermined the U.S. Economy, Degraded our National Security and Distorted the Global Economic Balance and How These Falsehoods Continue to be Promoted Even Today INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY In 2007 the Molycorp Mountain Pass rare earth mine was resurrected from its desert-grave in California by its then-owner Chevron Mining. Responding to elevated rare earth prices Chevron began processing on-site rare earth concentrates left over from past mining operations that were terminated in 1998i. Chinese demand had sparked what was being described as a commodities super-cycleii. Commodity prices were on the move. Wall Street smelled opportunity. In 2008 Goldman Sachs, Pegasus Partners, Resource Capital Funds, Traxys North America LLC and Carint Group LLC acquired the mining assets from Chevron. In an environment of ever-declining ethical standards and regulatory consequences the private capital group and their investment bankers would bring Molycorp to market. Molycorp, with its high powered investment banking team of Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morganiii, easily dominated the contest. Molycorp promoted itself, largely based on its past operating history and proven reserves, as the best company to challenge China’s monopoly control over the production of rare earths: a group of elements critical to most advanced technologies and U.S. defense systemsiv. Most of Wall Street’s hottest investment sectors were dependent on these materials: alternative energy, green technologies, computing, personal communications, advanced electronics and defense systems. By late 2010 there were dozens of prospective rare earth start-up ‘mining companies’ seeking capital. Eventually the number of prospective rare earth mining companies seeking capital exceeded 400, despite the reality that supply requirements of this market were disproportionally small when compared to other natural resource sectorsv. In the world of finance ‘smart money’ picks the winners. Consequently just twovi projects attracted nearly all of the capital (Molycorp and Lynas). Wall street picked Molycorpvii. This paper will primarily focus on Molycorp. By early 2010 the words “Molycorp” and “Rare Earths” electrified many people in the mining industry, most non-Chinese manufacturing technology companies, U.S. & allied defense contractors, technocrats in the U.S. national security community and eager investors across most of the world’s stock markets. It was the hottest story of the yearviii. The financial, technology and defense press coverage verged on euphoric: heaping fuel on fuel until the highly combustible Molycorp-pyre cast a long shadow over all of its rivalsix. When the IPO match was lit the spectacular flaming pyre sucked all of the oxygen out of the rare earth spacex. Molycorp was ranked the most lucrative IPO of 2010, resulting in record breaking profits to its private investors and massive returns for its early stock holding investors."

Jan 1, 2017

By J. S. Kennedy, M. M. Fine

"INTRODUCTION Barite is one of the major industrial minerals whose production has increased considerably in the last 10 years. In 1935 domestic production of barite was 218,075 tons and. had increased by 1944 to 515,136 tons. 3/ Most of the primary uses for barite and barite products were developed before 1935, so the increase in barite production reflects the growth of industry in general rather than any recent developments in barite technology.The principal uses for ground and crushed barrite are as a weighting agent in heavy drilling fluids, as a filler in rubber and other materials, as a pigment and extender in paints, and as a flux in glass melt. In addition, a considerable' quantity of barite serves as the raw material for the manufacture of lithopone and barium chemicals.Specifications for barrite vary widely and depend primarily on the use to which the material is put. The primary requisites for barite used in heavy drilling muds -are that it have a minimum specific gravity of 4.2 and be very,low in soluble salts. A minimun barium sulfate content of 92 percent may be specified; but this is less important than the gravity. 4/ In addition before consumption the material must be ground to '92 percent minus 325-mesh. 5/ Lithopone and chemical manufacturers require a minimum of 94 Percent barium sulfate, a maximum of 1.0 percent iron oxide, and not more than a trace of fluorine. 6/ Barite used as fillers in light-colored products should be of fairly high grade, but the filler used in dark products may be considerably lower grade.Glass barite should contain a minimum of 96 percent barium sulfate, not more than 3 percent moisture, a maxium of 0.2 to 0.4 percent iron oxide, and not more than a trace of titanium oxide. Particle size is a matter of some importance in glass barite, also. 7/"

May 1, 1948

By W. H. Coghill

Numerous investigators have studied grinding. Each has contributed his bit to a literature that is difficult to correlate. Too many of the results have been transformed into curves with so many "inflection points" and "counterflexures" that they obscure the issue. Some of the investigators have neglected the very essence of the problem, namely the power and the amount of material to which a known amount of work was applied. The purpose of this paper is to show the ease with which results can be interpreted when these quantities are duly recognized. Some grinding tests will be given for illustration. Grinding studies are of two kinds: (1) Study of the character of the ore and (2) study of the performance of the machines. Several ores may be crushed by a given machine, or several machines may be used on a given ore. The illustrations given in this report cover both objectives.

Jan 1, 1934

By T. Lane Carter

(Canal Zone Meeting , October , 1910.) INTRODUCTION. IT is a curious fact that while in our Transactions there are papers dealing with mining-districts in all parts of the world, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, there is not one which describes the mining possibilities of Nicaragua; our near neighbor. To be most interested in distant objects, like the moon, .and to neglect what lies at our feet, appears to be a trait of human nature. The neglect of Nicaragua is not confined to the American Institute of Mining Engineers. In no other transactions am I :able to find papers dealing with mining in Nicaragua, some parts of which are as much in need of discovery and research as the North Pole.. I hope this paper will be the precursor of many others to be printed in our Transactions, dealing not only with the mining possibilities of Nicaragua, but with the whole of Central America, where there are vast areas awaiting skill and capital for their development. Much of this capital and skill should come from the United States in the future, although it is probable that European capitalists, when they appreciate fully the possibilities, will investigate more and more the mining-resources of Nicaragua and other Central American republics. Fig. 1 is a sketch-map of Nicaragua showing the principal mining-districts. II. HISTORY. Mining in Nicaragua did not begin yesterday. It was commenced by civilized man when the Spanish conquerors penetrated into the interior and forced the natives to procure the precious metal for them. It is strange that the Spaniards did not find more gold, and work on a scale as extensive as in Colombia and other parts of South America. Probably in Nicaragua the Indians covered up most of the rich prospects

Dec 1, 1910

With the dawning of a new century came the beginning of a new era in the coal industry. Instead of the traditional practice of only buying and selling produced coal in the United States, a coal futures market was established. The New York Mercantile Exchange began trading coal futures in July 2001. But, even in this new era, many of the old is-sues that have beset the coal industry still remain, as was evident in2001. Coal production increased to are cord level during 2001, according to preliminary data from the US Energy Information Administration(EIA). Production in 2001 rose by4% to 1.01 Gt (1.12 billion st), compared with 2000 (Table 1). This barely surpassed the previous record level of 1 Gt (1.11 billion st)set in 1998. Coal consumption remained unchanged. The additional production was used to replenish the depleted stockpiles that had resulted after two years of declining coal production and increasing coal consumption.

Jan 1, 2002

By H. Lyn Bourne

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

Jan 1, 1989

By E. J. Kloos, R. H. Schutz, B. I. Ferber

To Assist users in the selection of reliable and satisfactory respiratory protective devices, the Bureau of Mines has established five schedules of minimum performance requirements for the approval of respirators . The current revisions of these schedules include 13D for self-contained breathing apparatus, 14F for gas masks , 19B and the amendments to 19B for suppliedair respirators , 21B for dust , fume, and mist respirators , and 23B for chemical cartridge respirators . Copies of these schedules may be obtained from the Bureau of Mines, Publications Distribution Section, 4800 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh , Pa . , 15213 . Approval tests on respirators are performed only at the request of the manufacturer of the respirator and at his expense. If the device meets the approval requirements , a certificate of approval is granted on the complete respirator. This certificate states that as long as the respirator is manufactured as originally approved, or in accordance with any changes covered by an extension of the original approval, the manufacturer may advertise and sell his respirator as being approved by the Bureau of Mines. Many industries and regulatory agencies require that respirators approved by the Bureau of Mines be used where respiratory protection is needed. The Bureau of Mines, however, has no regulatory power over the use of the respirators that it approves. It acts as an impartial testing agency to insure the availability of suitable and safe respirators. At frequent intervals, the Bureau of Mines purchases approved respirators and replacement parts on the open market. These are examined for conformity to the approved status, and are checked to insure that the manufacturer's production facilities are maintaining a satisfactory quality control .

Jan 1, 1966

By E. J. Kloos, R. H. Schutz, B. I. Ferber

To protective devices, the Bureau of Mines has established five schedules of minimum performance requirements for the approval of respirators. The current revisions of these schedules include 13D for self-contained breathing apparatus, 14F for gas masks, 19B and the amendments to 19B for supplied- air respirators, 21B for dust, fume, and mist respirators, and 23B for chemical cartridge respirators. Copies of these schedules may be obtained from the Bureau of Mines, Publications Distribution Section, 4800 Forbes Avenue, Pitts- burgh, Pa., 15213. Approval tests on respirators are performed only at the request of the manufacturer of the respirator and at his expense. If the device meets the approval requirements, a certificate of approval is granted on the complete respirator. This certificate states that as long as the respirator is manufactured as originally approved, or in accordance with any changes covered by an exten- sion of the original approval, the manufacturer may advertise and sell his respirator as being approved by the Bureau of Mines. Many industries and regulatory agencies require that respirators approved by the Bureau of Mines be used where respiratory protection is needed. The Bureau of Mines, how- ever, has no regulatory power over the use of the respirators that it approves. It acts as an impartial testing agency to insure the availability of suitable and safe respirators. At frequent intervals, the Bureau of Mines purchases approved respirators and replacement parts on the open market. These are examined for conformity to the approved status, and are checked to insure that the manufacturer's pro- duction facilities are maintaining a satisfactory quality control.

Oct 1, 1965

By D. R. Wilburn

This summary of international mineral exploration activities for the year 2009 draws upon information from industry sources, published literature and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) specialists. The summary provides data on industry exploration budgets by region and mineral commodity, identifies significant mineral discoveries and areas of mineral exploration, discusses government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry and presents analyses of exploration activities by the mineral industry based upon these data. Two types of information are reported and analyzed in this annual review of international exploration for the year 2009: 1) budgetary statistics expressed in U.S. nominal dollars provided by Metals Economics Group (MEG) of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and 2) information on regional and site-specific exploration activities that took place in 2009 and were compiled by the USGS. The MEG information summarizes planned company budgets for worldwide exploration activities in 2009, primarily for base metals (copper, lead, nickel and zinc), diamond and precious metals (gold, platinum-group metals and silver). Information on uranium exploration was included in the MEG overview for the first time in 2007, although this information was not included in the USGS analysis prior to 2008. The MEG survey methodology was changed in 1999 to include companies with exploration budgets greater than $100,000, as well as those companies included in prior studies whose anticipated budgets were above $2.9 million. MEG estimates that its post-1999 surveys cover at least 90 percent of world nonferrous nonfuel mineral exploration budgets. The 2009 survey is reported by MEG to cover an estimated 95 percent. Companies who chose not to participate in the MEG study, private companies that do not publish data and government-funded exploration activities make up the majority of the remaining 5 percent. MEG included 86 more companies in its 2009 survey than it did in 2008.

May 1, 2010