Search Documents

[Adams, Leonard E .................... 8 19 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H ............................. 422 E. San Miguel, Colorado Springs, Colo: Allen, Earl W ........................... 2636 S. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas ......................... State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B .............................. P. 0. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Andrew, William . Boulder Valley Coal Co., Louisville, Colo. Apperson, A. B. .................... Brown Hotel, Denver, Colo. Arnold, G. O. ........................ Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel .......................... Somerset, Colo. Audin, Clement, Jr ................... Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1947

[Adams, Leonard E.819 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H422 East San Miguel. Colorado Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W.2636 So. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B P. O. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Apperson, A. B 394 Elm St., Denver 7, Colo. Arnold, G. O Phelps-Dodge Co., Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audis, Clement, Jr. Paonia, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1948

[Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coal Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances, 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B C. F. & I. Corp., P.O. Box 1738, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Thomas Chief, State Coal Mine Inspector, Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver Ambler, J.B P.O. Box 591, Denver., Colo. Anderson, A. R Jeffrey Mfg. Co., Columbus, Ohio Anderson, Merlynn D U. S. Fuel Co., Hiawatha, Utah Anderson, Nephi W Books Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Arnston, E. K Standard Oil Co., 4601 West 26th Ave., Denver 12, Colo. Audin. Clement, Jr Paonia,Colo.]

Jan 1, 1957

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

[Andrew Allen Glenwood Springs, Colorado C. S. Allen 211 Utah Oil Building, 10 West Broadway, Salt Lake City 1, Utah Earl W. Allen 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Louis B. Allen 411 Walker Bank Building, Salt Lake City, Utah Thomas Allen State Coal Mine Inspector of Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado J. B. Ambler P. O. Box 591, Denver, Colorado Nephi W. Anderson Dragerton, Utah F. F. Argust 270 High Street, Pueblo, Colorado E. K. Arnston : 4601 West 26th Avenue, Denver 12, Colorado Abel Audin Somerset, Colorado Clement Audin, Jr Paonia, Colorado Ralph Andin P. 0. Box 285, Somerset, Colorado ]

Jan 1, 1955

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the month of March, 1913 BAECHTOLD, CHARLES A., Engr 9G Liberty St., New York, N. Y. BRANTLY, JOHN E., Instructor in Geology Tuscaloosa, Ala. CADDY, JAMES P., Net., ,Lake View & Star, Ltd Fimiston, West. Australia. LONERGAN, PHILIP J., JR., Prof. of Mining, Government University, Peking, China. MCKANNA, EDWIN A., Min. Engr P. 0. Box 834, Oklahoma City, Okla. MACDONALD, ANGUS W., Supt. Labor Dept., Dominion Coal Co., Ltd., 21 Queen St., Sydney, N. S., Canada. TSUBOI, Yoshio, Min. and Met. Engr., Kosaka Mine, Fujita Co., Akita-ken, Japan.

Jan 4, 1913

Due to the advanced date of publication of this Bulletin, the lists of new members, changes of address, etc., for the month of July will be printed in the September number of the Bulletin. CANDIDATES FOR MEMBERSHIP. The following persons have been proposed during the period July 1-20, 1913, for election as members of the Institute. Their names are published for the information of members and associates, from whom the Committee on Membership earnestly invites confidential communications, favorable or unfavorable, concerning these candidates. A sufficient period (varying in the discretion of the Committee, according to the residence of the candidate) will be allowed for the reception of such communications, before any action upon these names by the Committee. After the lapse of this period, the Committee will recommend action by the Council, which has the power of final election.

Jan 8, 1913

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the month of October, 1913: Members. BARNES, KENNETT F., Secty Granby Min. & Smelting Co., St. Louis, Mo. BILLINGSLEY, PAUL, Geol 526 Hennessy Bldg., Butte, Mont. BLANCHORD, RALPH C., Geol 3 Lombard St., London, England. BOYLE, ALBERT C., Jr., Prof. of Min. and Met., University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. BRADFORD, JULIUS S., Min. Engr Chiksan Mining Co., Chiksan, Korea: CLEMES, ALFRED W., Min. Engr P. 0. Box 6,88, Moronic, Ariz. COPELAND, DURWARD, Met Cia. Estamifera de Llallagua, Bolivia, So. America. CRAWFORD, JOHN, JR., Mgr Noble Elec. Steel Co., Heroult, Shasta Co., Cal.

Jan 11, 1913

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the month of flay, 1913: Members. BASTIN, EDSON S., Geol U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C BUCHERER, Louis, Cons. Engr Apartado 1471, Mexico City, Mexico. BURDICK, CHARLES A., Min. Engr 74 Broadway, New York, N. Y. CARR, HOMER L., Min. Engr 109 W. 88th St., New York, N. Y. CARTER, RUSSELL S., Mech. Engr. & Asst. Gent Mgr., Ingersoll-Rand Co., 11 Broadway, New York, N. Y.

Jan 6, 1913

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the month of September, 1913: Members. ANDERSON, ANDREW P., Min. Engr 908 Story Bldg., Los Angeles, Cal. ANDROS, STEPHEN 0., Min. Engr University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. BECKETT, PERCY G., Min. Engr Globe, Ariz. BLAIR, THOMAS S., JR., Prest. Blair Engrg. Co 343 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Ill. BOYLE, HARRY, Min. Engr S07 Lowman Bldg., Seattle, Wash. BRADEN, EUGENE B., Vice-Prest., Selby Smelting & Lead Co., Merchants Exchange Bldg., San Francisco, Cal. CHALMERS, JOHN W., Min. and Elec. Engr., Morro Velho, Villa Nova de Lima, Honorio Becalho Minas Geraes, Brazil, So. America.

Jan 10, 1913

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the month of November, 1913: Members. AGNEW, JOHN L., Gent Supt Copper Cliff, Ont., Canada. BAILEY, FRANK C, Mine Mgr 2003 IV. Snito Ave., Spokane, Wash. BATEMAN, ALAN M., Min. Geol.,Care L. C. Graton, Geological Museum, Cambridge,Mass. BERRYHILL, JAMES G.,Atty.-at-law and Mining Investor, Equitable Bldg., Des Moines, Ia. CARTLIDGE, OSCAR, Mgr. State Mine Rescue Station, 452 W. South Grand Ave.. Springfield. Ill.

Jan 12, 1913

Jan 1, 1907

Jan 1, 1909

Jan 1, 1908

Jan 1, 1910

By G. J. G. Juby

The Chamber of Mines Research Organization has been evaluating three membrane-desalination processes for use within the South African mining industry. These processes are electrodialysis reversal (EDR), tubular reverse osmosis (IRO), and slurry precipitation and recycle reverse osmosis (SPARRO). The evaluation of EDR and TRO is complete, and the operating costs (1988) associated with each process are expected to be about 50 cents per kilolitre for a plant of 50 l/s (4 Ml/d) installed capacity. The SPARRO process is still being evaluated. Pilot plant results, water Qualities, and expected capital costs are presented where appropriate.

Jan 1, 1992

By Larry A. Lien

Membrane technology has been available for about 30 years, but has been used very sparingly within the general mining industry. However, recent developments in polymer chemistry, spiral wound element construction, pretreatment equipment and element cleaning techniques have improved the reliability and robustness of membrane based systems. These improvements have expanded the potential to use this "new" technology to enhance critical recoveries of gold and silver in heap leaching operations or in the extraction circuit. Another opportunity for the mining industry will be to use membrane technology in new processes like controlling organic acids or ammonium thiosul­fate to enhance gold and silver extraction during leaching opera­tions. Finally, the most common use for membrane technology is for the control of mining water balance and acid mine drainage issues. Polymeric membranes, specifically thin-film composites, have been developed that will purify, fractionate or concentrate gold or silver. Recent applications have been developed for spi­ral wound modules that operate across the pH spectrum from 0 to 14. Systems using membranes have been constructed that operated on feed streams from 200° C to 3000 centipoise. Most recently, membrane based systems have been pilot tested suc­cessfully to purify solvents, like LIX. Opportunities exist to apply membrane technology to concen­trate gold and silver cyanide solutions with thin-film composite Reverse Osmosis (RO) membranes at elevated pH values above 10. Incorporating membrane technology could allow one to increase production without incurring additional expansion of the gold extraction side of the process. Furthermore, free cyanide is not rejected by the Reverse Osmosis membranes, but other inorganic salts are rejected 98+%, thereby, allowing an essentially ion free, except for the free cyanide, to be recirculat­ed back to the heap leach operation for enhanced extraction.

Jan 1, 1998

By Rory Cameron, Chuck Edwards

"Stringent environmental performance criteria and regulations, and the desire to minimize water use have made membrane-based treatment and separation processes an attractive option. This has lead to many advances in all aspects of the technology. Membrane separation processes have found application in sea water desalination, brackish water treatment, decontamination of ground water, and wastewater treatment. Development of membranes with better resistance to harsh feed conditions has created new opportunities for the broader application of membrane separation technologies to mineral processing streams. There are examples in mineral processing operations, including treatment of acidic drainage, pre-concentration of pregnant leaching solution in heap leaching operations, separation of acids and metals from waste streams and intermediate process streams, as well as gold and cyanide recovery from a heap leaching operation. This paper provides a brief overview of membrane technology principles, followed by a discussion of current membrane technology applications relevant to the mining and mineral processing industry. The paper further explores the potential for the application of membrane separation as an integrated component in mineral processing operations.INTRODUCTION Increased regulatory pressures, emphasis on water conservation, and scarcity of water in arid regions have resulted in substantial changes in industrial practices in recent years. As a result, many industries have become more open to adopting innovative technologies such as membrane separation. The mining industry, which is typically very conservative, has adopted membrane separation as an effective end-of-pipe solution for effluent and acidic drainage (AD) treatment; however, its use as an integrated component in plant operations has progressed more slowly. With increasingly stringent environmental regulations coupled with the desire for low- and zero-discharge operations, the use of membrane separation technology for achieving acceptable environmental performance may be unavoidable in the future. The relatively small footprint requirement, versatility, and modular construction of membrane separation units facilitate their introduction into existing processes with a suitable feed stream. Membrane separation is not a stand-alone process that provides the ultimate solution to water and wastewater treatment; however, it can often be economically added to conventional waste treatment plants to increase throughput and/or decrease contaminant output (Mortazavi, 2008). Although membrane separation technology has become an established separation technique that is widely used in drinking water production and other industries, it is still considered an emerging technology within the mining and mineral processing industry. This technology offers many potential benefits such as clean water recovery from wastewater, significant reduction of volume requiring conventional treatment, decreased usage of reagents, and acid recovery, all of which lead to increased treatment efficiencies and lower reagent consumption. This could translate to smaller and more efficient plants with lower capital and operating costs and lower environmental impacts. Plant expansion may be facilitated by incorporating a membrane separation unit operation in order to utilize existing treatment systems at higher throughputs."

Jan 1, 2012

By Peter K. Eriksson

Nanofiltration is very efficient in separating heavy metals from water solutions, even if they contain strong acids. Desalination System, Inc., has many years of experience in this area, and this paper deals with three different such cases. The first case deals with concentrating the heavy metals in the pregnant leach solution from a copper dump leaching site with a surplus water problem. The increased copper concentration in the pregnant leach solution increases the capacity of the following copper extraction stage. The nanofIltration permeate is polished with a biomass adsorption column to remove the small amounts of remaining heavy metals, before being discharged. This method eliminates sludge handling and disposal, which are quite costly with the alternative precipitation process. In the second case, a complicated precipitation method was used to remove heavy metals from the waste stream of a specialty metals manufacturer. Nanofiltration was installed to increase the metals concentration four times, which greatly simplified the precipitation process. The chemical consumption and sludge production decreased by more than 80 percent, and the labor cost decreased by 66 percent. In the third case, nanofiltration was used to purify waste sulfuric acid solutions containing heavy metals, to meet the specifications for technical grade acid. Sulfuric acid concentrations above 30 weight percent were successfully purified in a multiple pass membrane system.

Jan 1, 1996

By H. C. Liang

Reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) are widely regarded as being best available technologies (BATs) for removing contaminants of concern from water. In recent years, NF or RO treatment has increasingly gained more acceptance in the mining industry for treating mine water to remove a wide assortment of contaminants, either for meeting discharge standards or for internal re-use in mining processes. Consequently, the number of NF or RO membrane mine water treatment facilities has steadily increased. Although NF or RO membrane filtration can be a powerful tool in mine water treatment, especially when multiple contaminant removal is required, it also has many potential disadvantages. Besides the generally higher capital and operational costs for the high pressure membrane processes, organic constituents in mine water may foul the membranes, while inorganic compounds such as gypsum, calcite, or silica are liable to scale the expensive membranes if proper pre-treatment processes are not implemented. Additionally, because these membrane treatment processes generate a substantial reject or brine waste stream in addition to the clean treated water or permeate stream, brine management also needs to be considered carefully when deciding upon the viability of an NF or RO mine water treatment process. Because of these issues, it is important to conduct detailed analyses of the trade-off between selecting NF or RO vs. using chemical treatment processes when designing a mine water treatment facility.

Jan 1, 2012