Search Documents

One common public perception of mining is that financially it is an extraordinarily risky business. Another and contrary view, in certain circles, is that price risk and other financial risks can be relatively easily removed or shifted by a number of schemes or devices. In reality, beyond the orebody discovery stage, mining need not be any more risky than most heavy industrial businesses. Nevertheless, as stated by Rappaport, (1986): Risk is a parameter of central importance in establishing the economic value of any asset. The level of risk is determined both by the nature of the firm's operations and by the relative proportions of debt and equity used to finance its investments. These two types of risk are commonly referred to as 'business risk' and 'financial risk' respectively. The term financial risk is used somewhat more loosely herein to recognise the reality that any risk inadequately addressed in the design, construction and operation of a mining project can have significant financial consequences; usually negative. For instance, a specific area of business risk in mining is often called technical risk which definitely has severe financial consequences if not managed correctly. The various risk shifting, hedging and risk management tools available all have their place and range from merely useful to almost indispensable. However, in the long-term, financial risks are maintained at acceptable levels by the application of sound, more fundamental business management principles. There are many with a vested interest in perpetuating a perception that the conceptual foundations of sound management practice are extremely complex. In reality, most management concepts are prosaic, but their application requires incredible discipline and hard work. There is no magic formula or 'silver bullet'. It appears that a company whose activities are restricted to mining can analyse the range of risks specific to mine development and operations more clearly than companies in which mining is just one of many businesses. The almost universal failure of large oil companies in the mining business is probably the best example of lack of any clear comprehension of fundamental business characteristics and risks. Conversely, in regard to risk management, choosing to be in other business as well as mining does nothing to reduce the risks of the mining business. The individual shareholder can probably make such 'diversification of portfolio' decisions better than most management teams. It could be argued that diversification across a number of disparate businesses may actually increase overall corporate risk due to lack of management concentration and focus. These differences between the perceptions of financial risks and the realities in mining need to be further elaborated in relation to some uncompromising business concepts.

Jan 1, 1994

By R Williams, P Kohout, J Comins

The Northside Storage Tunnel (NST) is the largest tunnelling project ever undertaken in Sydney. The tunnel extends deep underground from the western bank of the Lane Cove river to the North Head sewage treatment plant (STP), with a branch tunnel from Scotts Creek connecting to the main tunnel under Tunks Park. The aim of the tunnel is to intercept wet weather overflows from four key points along the northernsuburbs ocean outfall sewer (NSOOS) and provide short-term storage and transfer of sewage to NorthHead STP for treatment prior to discharge to the ocean through the deep ocean outfall. The project was an ambitious undertaking by an alliance between the client Sydney WaterCorporationand the engineering firms of Montgomery Watson, Connell Wagner and Transfield to design andconstruct approximately 20 kilometres of tunnel, tunnel declines and shafts in just over three years. In order to achieve this tight timeframe construction of the NST has been undertaken simultaneously at seven construction sites located across the northern suburbs of Sydney. As with most tunnelling operations, tunnel boring machines (TBMÆs) and roadheaders dominated the excavation activities. Tunks Park and North Head STP are the major tunnelling sites. An access decline was excavated using roadheaders at both of these sites to facilitate tunnelling using TBMÆs. Three TBMÆs 3.8 m, 6.0 m and 6.3 m diameter) were launched from Tunks Park and one TBM (6.5 m diameter) was launched from North Head. At the overflow interception sites of Scotts Creek, Lane Cove River and Quakers Hat Bay two vertical shafts known as drop and access/ventilation shafts were constructed. These shafts would provide the linkage between the existing sewer and the tunnel. As their names suggest the drop shaft would convey the wet weather sewage overflows to the tunnel while the access/ventilation shaft would provide access during dry weather and ventilation during a filling event. The fourth overflow site of Tunks Park would use the tunnel decline as its link to the tunnel. Originally these shafts were to be excavated using the raise bore method. This technique however, is entirely dependent on the TBMÆs reaching the shaft locations at the specified time. This was not the case at two of the three shaft excavation locations and top down methods of excavation such as, a percussive cone fracturing (PCF), blind bore, mechanical excavation and drill and blast were investigated to ensure the project met its completion schedule. Traditionally project decisions are dominated by cost and schedule objectives. The contractual arrangement of the Alliance however, required that the objectives of safety, community and environment also be considered in any decision making process. Thus each of these top down methods of excavation were assessed against these five objectives. On considering all of these factors the use of explosives was considered to be the superior technique.

Jan 1, 2001

By J Leppinen, B Johanson, R Kalapudas, G McMahon

The Suurikuusikko gold deposit was discovered in 1987 in western Finnish Lapland, 54 km NNE from the town centre of KittilS in the volcanic belt of Central Lapland. It is hosted by tholeiitic basalts in a graphite-bearing albitite breccia. The ore is located in subvertical shear zones characterised by strong albitisation, carbonatisation and sulfidisation. The ore minerals consist of arsenopyrite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, tetrahedrite, bournonite and rutile. Small amounts of pyrrhotite, gersdorffite, jamesonite, bornite, gudmundite, tetrahedrite, stibnite, kermesite, berthierite and native Sb are also present. Gold occurs as invisible and as 1 - 2 ¦m size inclusions in arsenopyrite and pyrite, on their grain boundaries and in fractures. The average amount of gold leached by cyanide is 2.93 per cent. The æinvisibleÆ gold contents were studied in pyrite and arsenopyrite by electron microprobe analysis (EPMA) and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) at CANMET/ MTL. Gold element distribution images show zoned patterns both in pyrite and arsenopyrite. SIMS analyses range from 343 to 55 ppm Au in arsenopyrite and from 217 ppm down to 0.32 ppm (detection limit 478 ppb) Au in pyrite. EPMA results range from 939 to below the detection limit 24 ppm Au in arsenopyrite and from 267 ppm to below 22 ppm Au in pyrite. Recovery of the refractory gold ore was studied using grinding, flotation, bio-oxidation and cyanidation tests. A sulfide bulk concentrate containing 40 ppm Au was obtained by flotation at 90 per cent recovery (As content 5.5 per cent, S content 22 per cent, and mass recovery 15 per cent). The grinding fineness in flotation was P80 -100 to 120 ¦m. At the original fineness the cyanidation recovery from the concentrate was lower than ten per cent, after ultra-fine grinding P80 -10 to 2 ¦m the Au recovery was less than 17 per cent. After bio- oxidation, Au recovery of 95 per cent was obtained in carbon-in-leach (CIL). The bio-oxidation time was two weeks in laboratory test, but after regrinding the oxidation rate was faster and recovery of Au higher. However, the selected method for the mining to be started in summer 2008 is open pit mining and mineral processing methods sulfide flotation and pressure oxidation in an autoclave. The ore reserves were estimated 31 December 2007 as: Probable 18.2 Mt with 5.1 g/t Au, Indicated 5.4 Mt with 3.0 g/t Au and Inferred 10.8 Mt with 3.4 g/t Au. The production capacity will be 3000 t/day.

Jan 1, 2008

The mine manager is one of the oldest jobs in the world. Over many centuries the fundamentals of how this job was approached did not change much. However since the later part of the 1980s there has been a dramatic shift in the expectations and role of the mine manager as the pressures of globalisation and consolidation have increased the size of companies and the production levels of mining operations. The changes have been dramatic, with demanding requirements on mine managers to continually improve the skill levels of people, to apply and develop rapidly changing technologies and to consider far broader business issues that need to be managed in a truly globally connected world. This paper will attempt to outline some of the issues, the complexity surrounding them and some of the approaches that have been made to manage them. There is not a single correct answer or approach, but there are many key success factors that have led to some amazing levels of performance being achieved as we go deeper, broader and literally move mountains to meet the customerÆs needs for today and tomorrow. This contrasts with many mining operations in developing countries that still have a traditional approach to how they mine. Society is the river of life that continually flows and changes the environment that surrounds it. The pressures from the customers and world growth, shape and force alterations to be made in an industry that has to live with the far greater primal and uncompromising forces of the earth we mine. This has led to some paradigm shifts in how we accept what we manage. TodayÆs mine manager must manage a far broader range of issues, than just how do we get tonnage out of the mine and product out of the ore. These include but are not limited to technical, commercial, product quality and end use understanding, employee and community issues, environmental and the ever increasing complexities of sustainable development. Organisations will have to look at how they structure their management of the business to manage functions to meet the complexity of different stakeholders needs û the business, the employees, the customer and the broader community within an environment that is becoming more attuned to the harm impacts to the world in which we operate. The attraction and retention of skilled people that contribute to the value and worth of the corporation, will become critical to sustain a companyÆs growth. One of the fundamental elements of successfully doing this will always be the skills of the mine manager and his/her extended team with the continued development and support that they will need to meet these demands.

Jan 1, 2006

Geophysics is playing an increasingly important role in the exploration industry. In the soft rock scene the application of seismic techniques is basically mandatory prior to any drilling program. Simply, this is because, in a majority of situations, the seismic method is ideally suited to mapping accurately relatively flat lying strata and displaying structures that may host oil or gas. It is worth stressing that seismic methods do not delineate oil or gas but they map well in two or three dimensions. In the base metal arena, geophysical methods used are generally focussed on direct detection methods with the mapping application not often used except in potential fields (magnetics and gravity). The success rate in the last decade has not been good but this does not only apply to the application of geophysics; it really applies across the board of exploration techniques. Both geological and geochemical exploration have not had a success rate commensurate with the funds injected. Basically in the last ten years we have failed as explorers! As explorers we have been negligent in mapping. As geoscientists we have let the basic mapping and observation skills diminish û the old adage æboots on the groundÆ is still applicable but are we doing enough of it? The answer is clearly no. As explorers the huge burden of bureaucracy, eg Government Acts û local, state and federal, safety compliance, environmental compliance, etc has reduced the ægeologicalÆ time dramatically. This has culminated in an over-reliance on quick fix solutions, eg spot the bump geophysics or geochemistry. This obviously simplistic scenario is arguable but there is no doubt in the geoscientific areas we have failed in the last decade to provide adequate geoscientific maps to assist in exploration. This failure could partially be responsible for the current demise of the industry resulting in a reduction in exploration dollars and, hence, people. This trend is seen acutely in the geophysical area where the head count in comparison with the geological fraternity is low. Other trends during this downturn are inevitable as explorers maximise the use of the dollar in exploration and diminish spending on advances in geophysics. Improvements are being seen however in geophysical equipment, although it is considered that the main improvement will be in the interpretation of data. Specifically, the trend will be towards integrating geophysical data into geological, geochemical and spatial data sets producing quality interpretation and providing low risk drill targets. Examples of the current trends in hardware and future directions are discussed below. In interpretive schemes there are very few examples of integrated interpretation but the possible trends will be discussed with limited examples.

Jan 1, 2000

Sampling and analysis of mineral deposits need to be executed without fear or favour of financial or personal impacts. Examples are given to illustrate the effects of departures, witting and unwitting, from correct use of appropriate techniques and/or equipment with emphasis on exploration and mining of porphyry copper deposits of the Pacific Rim. Some of the results of errors on the low and high sides of true value in exploration, resource or reserve estimations and in production caused by sampling and/or sample preparation mistakes, faulty practices, equipment and/or analysis are considered.

Jan 1, 2004