Search Documents

By A. J. H. Newell, K. Doherty

A copper-gold project has required a number of trade-off studies underpinned by test work to settle on pragmatic flowsheets and throughputs to support a pre-feasibility study that provides a compelling financial case. The primary trade-off studies were based on the mine schedule, ore type feed-grade recovery relationships, likely concentrate grades and typical marketing terms as well as the estimated capital and operating costs for a range of throughputs and mining strategies. Secondary trade-off studies were conducted for specific circuits and additional processing options. Although the details of these studies are not presented, the technical options and subsequent flowsheets are discussed. While the flowsheets will be optimised during the feasibility study stage, the basis is now fixed for the four ore types that would be mined from the copper-gold orebody. The ore types, resulting from a strong weathering profile, exhibit a wide range of copper mineralisation and gold associations, as well as gangue types. They display a range of characteristics that necessitated a nuanced approach to flowsheet development. The primary separation techniques that have been employed include gravity, classification, flotation and leaching while a range of comminution methods have been selected to suit the properties of the ore types. While technical issues are important factors in terms of maximising the quality of separations, recoveries and revenues, attention to material handling, equipment characteristics, the mine schedule, and capital and operating costs are equally important considerations for settling upon a suitable and robust flowsheet. Keywords: Flowsheet, testwork, studies, saprolite gold, native copper, chalcocite, chalcopyrite

Jan 1, 2020

By Jonathon M. Hanson, John F. Schatz

A combined theoretical and laboratory test program is described with the purpose of providing a useful model of the multiple radial fracturing process. A non-quantitative conceptual model is developed as the basis for detailed mathematical modeling and test planning. The model includes borehole pressurization, flaw rupture, and gas- driven fracture propagation phases. The laboratory tests are carried out in blocks of scaled rock simulant loaded to a true three-dimension stress state and with miniature propellant/explosive charges in a wellbore as the fracturing energy source. The conceptual model, fracture initiation modeling, and laboratory test setup have been completed and are described. The remaining work is ongoing

Jan 1, 1986

By Dave I. McGregor

The Multiple Raise Round Blasting Technique (MRRBT) is a safe, efficient, cost effective method of blasting thee will use existing mine personnel. The MRRBT, developed from the conventional 'drop raise method' style of blasting, can be used for most raise mining applications. Current results using MRRBT indicate no upper limit for the maximum length that a raise can be blasted.

Jan 1, 1994

By David Newman

Multiple seam underground coal mining is ubiquitous in Appalachia. Many coal properties have from two to ten or more economically mineable coal seams. Because of the ability to penetrate 600-feet to 1,000-feet or deeper into the mountainside leaving panels of web pillars separated by barrier pillars, highwall mining is a hybrid between surface and underground mining. As a result, many of the ground control problems commonly associated with multiple seam underground mining exist with multiple seam highwall mining. These include: i) multiple seam interaction between web and barrier pillars in superjacent mines, ii) subsidence and caving propagating to overlying seams and mines, iii) pooled water and the potential for inundation resulting from a breakthrough between an active highwall mine and abandoned underground mines in the same or superjacent seams, iv) the presence of overlying or underlying mine workings where pillar columnization in the active mine is not possible, and v) the question of whether to mine ?top-down? or ?bottom-up.? Case histories are presented from southeast Ohio where the Middle Kittanning No. 6 and Lower Kittanning No. 5 seams are successfully highwall mined with 20-feet to 40-feet of largely shale interburden. A highwall miner was caught in a highwall collapse in the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam when it was overmining auger workings in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. Multiple seam interaction caused by the overmining transferred overburden stress onto the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. The overburden concentrated through web pillars initiated auger web pillar failure, resulting in roof collapse and subsidence in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam that propagated up to the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam. A second case history involves multiple seam highwall mining in southeast Kentucky. The A3 Rider, A3, B2, and C1 seams are being highwall mined around abandoned underground mines in the A3 and B2 seams and augering in the A3 Rider. Because of spoil storage constraints for the surface contour mines, the highwall miner follows the active pits in each seam so a standard sequence of ?top-down? or ?bottom-up mining does not exist.

Jan 1, 2009

By David Newman

Multiple seam underground coal mining is ubiquitous in Appalachia. Many coal properties have from two to ten or more economically mineable coal seams. Because of the ability to penetrate 600-feet to 1,000-feet or deeper into the mountainside leaving panels of web pillars separated by barrier pillars, highwall mining is a hybrid between surface and underground mining. As a result, many of the ground control problems commonly associated with multiple seam underground mining exist with multiple seam highwall mining. These include: i) superjacent mines, subsidence and caving propagating to overlying seams and ii) mines, pooled water and the potential for inundation resulting from a iii) breakthrough between an active highwall mine and abandoned underground mines in the same or superjacent seams, the presence of overlying or underlying mine workings where iv) pillar columnization in the active mine is not possible, and v) the question of whether to mine ?top-down? or ?bottom-up.? Case histories are presented from southeast Ohio where the Middle Kittanning No. 6 and Lower Kittanning No. 5 seams are successfully highwall mined with 20-feet to 40-feet of largely shale interburden. A highwall miner was caught in a highwall collapse in the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam when it was overmining auger workings in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. Multiple seam interaction caused by the overmining transferred overburden stress onto the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. The overburden concentrated through web pillars initiated auger web pillar failure, resulting in roof collapse and subsidence in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam that propagated up to the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam. A second case history involves multiple seam highwall mining in southeast Kentucky. The A3 Rider, A3, B2, and C1 seams are being highwall mined around abandoned underground mines in the A3 and B2 seams and augering in the A3 Rider. Because of spoil storage constraints for the surface contour mines, the highwall miner follows the active pits in each seam so a standard sequence of ?top-down? or ?bottom-up mining does not exist. The planning and engineering design considerations associated with each case history is presented along with geotechnical information. In the case of the highwall collapse a back analysis is presented of the stability and safety factors for the auger webs, highwall miner web pillars, and barrier pillars.

Jan 1, 2009

By John Latilla

Exxaro Mining?s Matla Coal situated in Mpumalanga, South Africa operates two shortwall faces on the No 4 and No 2 seam while the No 5 seam has also been longwalled in the past. Severe strata loading events have lead to a number of serious roof falls on the wall face (facebreaks) resulting in safety threats as well as considerable production losses. In 2002 the No 4 seam shortwall suffered a facebreak restricted mainly to the tailgate side of the mining panel due to a thick, near surface dolerite sill not breaking properly. This was partly due to the premature suspension of longwalling in the overlying No 5 seam. The resultant overloading lead to severe pillar damage and subsequent bord collapse. Surface pre-split blasting was successfully used to relieve the pressure as well as to pre-condition the dolerite above the following two panels. The shortwall on the No 2 seam has experienced mid-face loading due to No 4 seam chain pillars lying over this area and creating a secondary cantilever effect. Pre-split blasting of the solid rock above the No 4 seam pillars has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of facebreaks. The panel layout of the No 2 seam was subsequently changed so that the chain pillars on both the No 4 and No 2 seam are superimposed whereas previously they were offset.

Jan 1, 2007

Relatively few longwall mines in the U.S. operate under multiple seam conditions where the two seams are less than 200 ft apart. This paper describes the experience of six that do. These operations are located in PA, WV and UT, and include examples of both undermining and overmining. Some operate above or beneath their own workings, others are in historic mining districts and must contend with abandoned mines that are decades old. The lessons that these mines have learned cover a broad range of topics, including: • Whether to stack gateroads or place them under old gob areas; • How to size pillars and select artificial support to cross longwall stop lines; • How to use yield pillars to minimize multiple seam stresses and coal bump potential, and; • When to anticipate the creation of pathways for gas, water, or oxygen between current and abandoned gobs.

Relatively few longwall mines in the U.S. operate under multiple seam conditions where the two seams are less than 200 ft apart. This paper describes the experience of six that do. These operations are located in PA, WV and UT, and include examples of both undermining and overmining. Some operate above or beneath their own workings, others are in historic mining districts and must contend with abandoned mines that are decades old. The lessons that these mines have learned cover a broad range of topics, including: • Whether to stack gateroads or place them under old gob areas; • How to size pillars and select artificial support to cross longwall stop lines; • How to use yield pillars to minimize multiple seam stresses and coal bump potential, and; • When to anticipate the creation of pathways for gas, water, or oxygen between current and abandoned gobs.

Jan 1, 2007

By B. Ehgartner, M. Karmis, C. Haycocks

INTRODUCTION Interaction effects between mining operations developed on different levels of contiguously placed bedded deposits are a major problem in many parts of the United States. Efficient design criteria, derived from careful analysis of field studies as well as theoretical and model analysis, have shown that many problems that may result from seam interaction can be avoided, minimized, or on occasion used with beneficial results. Selection of seam mining sequence is rarely based only on ground control considerations, but rather on factors such as seam ownership, characteristics and accessibility. Therefore all possible mining sequences and methods must be considered in the development of multi-seam design criteria. Increased utilization of the longwall method of mining creates special problems in multi-seam mining due to the inevitability of caving and, therefore, subsidence. Considerable valuable experience has been gained in this direction from British mining operations where interaction problems are extremely common and the longwall method is the primary method used. However, limitations persist in the application of much of this information to U.S. conditions due to variation in layouts between advancing and retreating longwall systems and the inherent difference in the geologic environment. Considerable field data is available for U.S. room and pillar operations, and where successful pillaring operations have been carried out close parallels may be drawn with ground control mechanisms in longwall operations. VARIABLES AFFECTING INTERACTION Analysis of ground control multi-seam problems shows that factors contributing to interaction may be classified into variables that are fixed by the geo- logic environment and those that depend on engineering design. These may be described as follows (Haycocks et al, 1982): Fixed: (i) Depth*, (ii) Innerburden thickness*, (iii) Innerburden physical characteristics*, (iv) Stress field, (v) Seam thickness, (vi) Coal characteristics, (vii) Completed mining operations either above or below the seam to ve mined, and (viii) Age of workings. Mining: (i) Height, (ii) Dimensions and geometry*, (iii) Method*, and (iv) Spatial location of entries* *These variables are regarded as being critical effects. Few attempts have been made to quantify the variables controlling interaction. Dunham's (1978) linear regression analysis, combined with the National Coal Board's MRDE Roadway Monogram, is probably the most noteworthy. This study involved eighteen multi- seam longwall mines in the United Kingdom. The following variables were taken into account: seam depth, pillar width, opening shape, floor and roof conditions, rate of face advance, vertical seam interval, and age and geometry of overlying workings. A multi-linear regression analysis of these variables fitted by appropriate field values developed a prediction equation for lower seam stability. Although the study included many variables, it neglected the nature or geology of the innerburden. The prediction equation was found unreliable, but it did show the significance of geometry as a factor controlling lower seam stability. MINING SEQUENCES Irrespective of the type of mining method selected only four possible mining sequences are possible for two seams. Finlay and Winstanley wrote in 1934. .. "Experience has shown that whether the upper or lower seam was worked first, the subsequent working of the other seam in the same area seriously affected the roads in the seam first worked." Those effects depended upon the four basic mining sequences: 1) The upper seam is mined out prior to mining the underlying seam; i.e., the seams are mined sequentially downward and mining of the underlying seam is not commenced until operations above are completed and have ceased.

Jan 1, 1982

By Matthew Spedding

The complex nature of the carboniferous measures prevailing in the U.K. has dictated the types of mining required to exploit the coal seams. Most mines in Britain are referred to as deep mines in the sense that they operate at depths of 1800 - 3000 feet. The main system of coal transport to the surface is by vertical shafts which intersect the workable seams which at times number between 4 and 5. As mining has been practiced in most of the major coalfields in the U.K. for well over 100 years, with the initial extraction of the shallower and more profitable seams, the present management have been left a legacy of indiscriminate extraction which severely hampers their efforts to maximise the mine layouts. There is no single standard design of mining layout capable of meeting the wide variety of conditions which exist in the British coalfields. Mining layouts are subject to fixed and variable parameters. In discussing multi-seam working, the main parameter must be the effect of old workings above and below the seam to be extracted. There is a distinct lack of reliable information which would enable layouts to be designed to completely avoid or control these destructive forces. The guidelines are, therefore, mostly empirical.

Jan 1, 1977

By Karl A. Olsson

The Glenharold Mine is a surface mine operated by Consolidation Coal Company. The mine is located approximately 90 kilometers (55 miles) northwest of Bismarck, and 3 kilometers (2 miles) southeast of Stanton in west central North Dakota. Glenharold has a nominal design capacity of 3.0 million metric tons per year (3.3 million short tons per year). With the exception of local coal sales, this production supplies fuel for Basin Electric's Leland Olds generating station, a mine mouth power plant. The mine has 175 hourly and 50 salary employees. The Glenharold reserve extends over 210 square kilometers (80 square miles). The mining area is on a dissected plateau between the broad flat Missouri River flood plain to the north and the gently rolling uplands to the south. Erosion by intermittently flowing streams has produced many narrow, steep-walled, drainage ways. Mining begins at the 6 meter (20 foot) cover line and continues to the economic recovery line.

Jan 1, 1982

By K. A. Olsson

The Glenharold mine is a multiple seam dragline operation where many different stripping methods are employed. This paper describes the production operations of over-burden removal, coal loading, and haulage. Emphasis is placed on the methods used to uncover fie seam using draglines, scrapers, and a small shovel.

Jan 1, 1984

By Rebecca Hardy

The escalating demand for coal, in addition to the steady depletion of reserves, has produced increasingly difficult mining conditions for coal mining companies within the United States, resulting in mining above or below previously mined areas. The safe and productive extraction of coal in a multiple seam environment requires specific design technology for effective mine planning. Presently, one of the most useful design approaches for multiple-seam feasibility analysis is using numerical modeling techniques. Therefore, numerical modeling programs LaModel 2.1 and Lam2D were used to determine the feasibility of mining the Herrin (No. 6) coal seam over an existing room-and-pillar mine in the Springfield (No. 5) coal seam in the Illinois Basin.

Jan 1, 2006

By D. Newman

Multiple seam mining is prevalent in Southern Appalachia because economically mineable coal seams are numerous and frequently occur in close vertical proximity. West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia have 117, 55, and 40 mineable coal seams respectively. It is extremely rare to have an underground mine that has not been undermined, overmined, or has mining adjacent to it. In many cases the multiple seam mining is concurrent with extraction sequenced in superjacent seams. Because underground mining is focused on recovering the most valuable reserves, mining is rarely practiced from the top seam down, which is the practice most conducive to stability. The combination of room-and-pillar mining methods that include development only, small block, partial retreat, full retreat, and longwall mining produce a wide range of mining geometries and complexity in underlying and overlying seams. In the future, the number of multiple seam operations will increase as reserves are depleted and future mines are, by default, located closer to abandoned mine workings. The improved coal market has transformed many formerally uneconomically mineable seams into attractive reserves. The approaches and methodologies used for multiple seam stability analysis are dictated by the site conditions, including overburden/interburden thickness and lithology, mining geometry, and the mining methods in both the active and abandoned mines. Multiple seam stability analysis using analytical and numerical methods is illustrated by two case histories that reflect close proximity room-and-pillar mining and mining in bump prone situations.

Jan 1, 2007

By Khaled Morsy

The studied mine extracts the Sewickley seam using room-and-pillar method. The overburden at study site ranges from 400 to 800 ft. Eight years earlier, the Pittsburgh seam was mined 80 ft underneath the Sewickley seam. Parts of the mains at the study site experienced problems of rib spalling associated with floor heave. Numerical modeling was used to explain the mechanism of ground control problems encountered at the mains of the upper seam. The modeling results show that the ground control problems encountered were caused by multiple seam interactions with the previously mined longwall panel of the lower seam. Based on the modeling results, a criterion to predict the probability of multiple seam interactions was proposed.

Jan 1, 2006

By Phyllip Worley, Frank E. Chase, Christopher Mark

The Harris No. 1 Mine, located in Boone County, WV, has been longwalling the Eagle Coalbed for over 30 years. Harris has experienced numerous interactions associated with the extensive room-and-pillar and longwall mining operations which have been conducted in the overlying No. 2 Gas Coalbed. The problems have included roof falls, excessive rib sloughage, and gateroad and bleeder entry closure. A detailed evaluation of the multiple seam experiences at Harris No. 1 Mine was conducted as part of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) nation-wide multiple seam mining case history data base. One observation from the Harris gateroad case histories was that smaller, critically loaded, upper seam pillars seemed to cause more severe ground conditions than did wider pillars. The LaModel program was used to investigate this supposition, and the results confirmed that “critical” sized pillars do transmit the highest amounts of stress to adjacent seams. In addition, the data suggest that the probability of a major multiple seam mining interaction increases when the depth of cover is 1,000 ft or greater and when the Eagle seam pillars have a Analysis of Longwall Pillar stability factor less than 1.50.

By Frank E. Chase

The Harris No. 1 Mine, located in Boone County, WV, has been longwalling the Eagle Coalbed for over 30 years. Harris has experienced numerous interactions associated with the extensive room-and-pillar and longwall mining operations which have been conducted in the overlying No. 2 Gas Coalbed. The problems have included roof falls, excessive rib sloughage, and gateroad and bleeder entry closure. A detailed evaluation of the multiple seam experiences at Harris No. 1 Mine was conducted as part of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) nation-wide multiple seam mining case history data base. One observation from the Harris gateroad case histories was that smaller, critically loaded, upper seam pillars seemed to cause more severe ground conditions than did wider pillars. The LaModel program was used to investigate this supposition, and the results confirmed that "critical" sized pillars do transmit the highest amounts of stress to adjacent seams. In addition, the data suggest that the probability of a major multiple seam mining interaction increases when the depth of cover is 1,000 ft or greater and when the Eagle seam pillars have a Analysis of Longwall Pillar stability factor less than 1.50.

Jan 1, 2005

By R Yang, D B. Kay

"Blast vibration control is of vital importance for tunnel blasting in urban environments. A vibration model with multiple seed waveforms (MSW) as input for a point of interest was developed in recent years by one of its authors. The MSW blast vibration model has been applied successfully in open cut and quarry blasting situations. From the literature, it appears that there may not be any seed wave-based vibration modelling work for tunnel blasting.A project was conducted to test the MSW model for tunnel blast vibration. A series of tunnel blast rounds were fired and tri-axial vibration waveforms from the blasts were recorded with several seismographs at distances ranging from 10 to 100 metres from the blasts. Seed waveforms were collected and the charge weight scaling law for the signature hole PPV were established.The MSW model is applied to tunnel blasting and specific issues associated with tunnel blast vibration addressed, such as variable effects of confinement and screening to vibration during a blast round. The capability of the model in terms of the PPV and frequency prediction is demonstrated in the paper. The paper demonstrates that the MSW blast vibration model is a useful tool for managing tunnel blast vibration with the potential to optimise round by round design in terms of managing the vibration below the limit while maximising tunnel advance rate."

Jan 1, 2011

By Joe Atalla, Leojenen Etulle, Jesse Desrochers, Joseph Mukendi Kabuya, Remi Proulx, Ruilin Yang

The Mont-Wright mine is Canada's largest open-pit iron ore mine with multiple open pits in operation. It is operated by ArcelorMittal Mining Canada in the northeast of the province of Quebec, near the town of Fermont. Fragmentation of rocks with explosives generates vibrations and gas expansion that damage intact rocks, affect existing crack networks, reduce the shear strength of discontinuities and the quality of the rock mass of the highwalls. The efficiency of its blasting operations is challenged by the need to optimize production and manage the risk of mine slope instability caused by vibrations from successive blasts. This paper presents a Multiple Seed Waveform (MSW) vibration model that was established at the mine for this purpose. Near-field signature hole blast vibration monitoring was conducted in multiple areas to establish site characterization as input to the blast vibration modeling at the highwalls of the site. The vibration attenuation laws were established and the effects of different blasthole diameters, shifting frequencies and presplit design were evaluated. Based on the results obtained from the near-field blast vibration monitoring, the calibrated MSW vibration model was used to select blast design parameters to control blast vibration while maximizing productivity of blasts at Mont-Wright mine.

Jan 26, 2026

By H Bibby

Initial analysis of Long Offset Time Domain Electromagnetic (LOTEM) data has traditionally been made in terms of early and late time apparent resistivities. By using more than one grounded bipole as a source, a tensor analysis technique analogous to the method used to analyse DC resistivity multiple-source bipole-dipole surveying may be formulated. We define the æinstantaneous apparent resistivity tensorÆ as the tensor that relates the total electric field vectors at each instant to the steady state (DC) uniform half space current density vectors due to each source. Instantaneous apparent resistivity tensors calculated for a 3D resistivity model suggest that profiles of LOTEM measurements across simple 3D structures can be used to create an image that reproduces the main features of the subsurface resistivity. Where measurements are distributed over an area, maps of the tensor invariants or the tensor ellipses at different times can be made into a sequence of images which provide a way of ætime slicingÆ down through the target structure.

Jan 1, 1996