Search Documents

By M. Lonoff

G. Campbell The paper by M. Lonoff looks at the importance of byproduct prices on copper production. The paper develops several interesting points on this topic, but there are some points in the theoretical discussion that could use further development. A couple of these theoretical topics will be considered here using the paper's framework of assumptions without concern about how realistic the assumptions are for the copper industry. Lonoff's theoretical model is based on a static, homogenous world where all copper/byproduct deposits are identical, and these deposits are the main source of these metals. Due to the importance of the byproducts to the production decision, the term coproducts will be substituted for the term byproducts to reflect more accurately this condition. The conclusion is drawn that a rise in coproduct prices necessitates a decrease in copper prices because copper production is increased as a consequence of increased coproduct production. The observation that real world behavior does not always follow this pattern is dismissed as "speculation." However, it can be easily shown that within this simple framework market forces might create the observed behavior. The key question to be answered is what causes coproduct prices to rise. Three possible cases will be used as illustrations. The first case is the one implicity assumed by Lonoff. Here, the demand for coproducts increases at all prices (an outward parallel shift of the demand curve) with the demand for copper remaining constant. As reported in the paper, the results are higher coproduct prices, an increase in coproduct production, and lower copper prices due to the resulting increase in copper production. The second case is when the supply of coproducts are constrained-leading to higher market prices. Copper production, as required by the simple model, is also reduced which Reply by M. Lonoff Campbell's comments give me an opportunity to clarify a few points in "Copper and Its Byproducts." That paper examined the affect of byproducts on the copper market and considered the relative riskiness of multi-metal deposits from an investment standpoint. That brief note made no attempt to be exhaustive. Nevertheless, Campbell's comments miss the point of the paper and necessitate a response. My "theoretical model" was static and I freely conceded after introducing the assumption of identical deposits that "none of the assumptions hold." These simplifying assumptions allowed me to bound the possible effects of higher byproduct prices on the copper price by assuming identical deposits and computing average price effects. I took great pains to subsequently explain that since deposits are not identical the identity of the marginal deposit might change due to byproduct price changes. In this case, average price affects will overstate the affect of byproducts on copper prices. According to Campbell, I dismiss as speculation any "real world behavior that does not always follow this pattern" (of metals prices moving in opposite directions). In the byproducts paper I noted that gold, copper, and silver price movements often parallel each other on an intra-day or day-to-day basis. Such movements are largely due to market anticipation of or reaction to changes in interest rates that affect carrying costs of metals stocks. Other movements may be due to anticipated changes in available supply or physical requirements. I loosely grouped these effects as speculative. To distinguish this statement from the main thrust of the paper, I contined "In the long run if gold and silver prices remain high the equilibrium copper price will be lower." The paper set out long run equilibrium conditions rather than attempting to explain price movements on a daily basis or on a year-to-year basis.

Jan 11, 1983

By M. G. Ayat, B. C. Scott

J. Dasher Having an interest in coal slurry pipelines from a decade of arguments with Ed Wasp and crew at Bechtel about pumping thicker slurries slower, I immediately read this article and found nothing in it pertinant to the title. Ayat and Scott pumped five unidentified coals at 9% solids (50%-60% is the area of interest) in a 25-mm (1-in.) pipe around two square elbows through a 76-mm (3-in.) cyclone for up to 60 minutes and sized a large number of samples of unstated size on an unidentified wet screening device. They did not measure power consumption, discharge pressure, flow rate, or give pump tip speed or impeller diameter. They siad the cyclone had a "high" pressure drop (unmeasured) and did much of the degradation (measured) but more or less per unit of energy expended? Hargrove was not measured, so there are no data as to whether it would correlate with degradation. The authors conclude, with no attempt, correlation is "hard to establish." Please experiment before concluding. I am at a loss to know what "increasingly smaller size" means, much less what theory says such particles take "exponentially larger quantities of energy," which the authors neglected to measure. If such experiments without pertinent data or justified conclusions must be published, please attach a pertinant title. reply by M. G. Ayat The first and the last criticism of this paper is that the work is not pertinent to the title. Anybody who reads this article will immediately realize that the work describes the breakage of coal particles to finer sizes in coal slurry pipes and pumps. If this is so, why not title the work "Degradation process in coal slurry pipelines"? What could be more pertinent to this title than the investigation concerning the degradation phenomenon of coal particles in a pipe carrying a coal slurry? Mr. Dasher complains that he does not understand the meaning of the term "increasingly smaller size." The first sentence of this article defines the degradation process as "the breakage of coal particles to increasingly finer sizes." The term "increasingly finer sizes" here means successive breakage of a fine particle to finer and finer sizes. According to Hukki (Hukki, 1975), the probability of breakage is high for large particles and rapidly diminished for fine sizes. We apologize for being brief about some of these definitions. The degradation process, breakage of particles to increasingly finer sizes, is so widespread in the mineral industry that we did not feel it necessary to bore the reader with lengthy definitions of some simple terms. Mr. Dasher states that the coals examined and their original size consist are unidentified. Please look at Table I and Table 2 in the paper again where you will find the original size consist of the coals examined and their full specifications. We only named the coals A, B, C, D, and E to avoid identifying the coal seams that were more susceptible to degradation. Not identifying the name of the wet screening device used in this work has also been criticized. In our opinion, wet screening operation is such a routine and standard procedure that naming the device by which the screening is performed would serve no purpose but to promote a sales approach. This was not our intention. We did not conclude that the correlation between the degradation process and Hardgrove Grindability Index is hard to establish as Mr. Dasher writes in his letter. We stated, not concluded, that "It is reasonable to assume that some relationship between the extent of degradation and its physical properties, such as Hardgrove Grindability Index, does exist. However, any definite correlation is difficult to establish." This statement is based on other researchers work, which are clearly referenced in the article. The conclusions of this paper were based solely on the findings of the experimental work. As for the theory of comminution that Mr. Dasher asks, we would like to refer him to some basic comminution books and articles where various theories are clearly described. For example, Hukki (Hukki, R.T.,"The Principles of Comminution; An Analytical Summary," Eng. Min. 176, 106, 1975) suggests that the relationship between energy and particle size is a composite form of three laws (Bond's law, Kick's law, and Rittinger's law). A comprehensive analysis of coal breakage processes is also performed by Broadbent and Callcott (S.R. Broadbent, and T.G. Callcott, "Coal Breakage Processes, I. - A New Analysis of Coal Breakage Processes;" and "Coal Breakage Processes, II. - A Matrix Representation of Breakage," Journal of the Institute of Fuel, pp. 524-539, December 1956). These and many other relevant publications explain the relationship between the particle size and energy much better that what can be said in this short reply. We will, however, agree with Mr. Dasher on one particular point. We, too, believe that if the investigation concerning the degradation process in coal slurry pipeline were to be pursued further, one could choose to determine one or more of the variables available in the process, such as discharge pressure, power consumption, percent solid, pipe diameter, etc.

Jan 1, 1989

By M. G. Ayat, B. C. Scott

H. P. Ferri I refer to the article "Degradation Process in Coal Slurry Pipelines" by M.G. Ayat and B.C. Scott in the September 1988 issue of Mining Engineering. I would like to congratulate Dr. Ayat and his colleague on a very interesting and valuable piece of work. This article is an excellent one, describing a real phenomenon that has been ignored for so long. I do, however, have an objection. The article fails to address the degradation process when coal is processed or transported in other ways than slurry form, particularly those employed in this work. Could, for example, screening (wet or dry) have contributed to the extent of degradation? Perhaps scanning electron micrographs of the samples examined and after screening would have helped to clarify this. I would like to point out that degradation is also observed in pneumatic conveying systems, mechanical conveying, and other means of transportations employed by the mineral industry. Reply by M. G. Ayat We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Fern's comments on the subject paper. As he so rightly points out, the degradation process is a real problem, not only in coal slurry pipelines, but also in many handling and processing equipment employed by the coal and mineral industry. Scanning Electron Microscopic examination of samples may offer very little information about the extent of degradation for several reasons. One is that preparing a representative sample that has undergone degradation will be extremely difficult if not impossible. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that SEM requires only very small amounts of material for testing. Secondly, there is a sample preparation step involved in the SEM examination and, as such, it would be very difficult to associate the extent of degradation to either sample preparation or handling and processing operations. Finally, it is probably worth mentioning that degradation is a multi-faceted phenomenon involving many natural and man-made factors. The logical approach to this problem would, therefore, seem to be a "one-step-at-a-time" approach.

Jan 2, 1989

By P. L. Webster, S. D. Thompson

Sevim and Wang (1988a) have presented a model for designing haulage systems in underground coal mines. The authors contend that their model uses a heuristic algorithm to optimize various haulage system parameters. In reality, it would be nearly impossible to optimize a haulage system, because mining plans are uncertain and often change with respect to time. Therefore, haulage system design poses both a stochastic and a dynamic design problem, and its optimization appears to be well beyond the scope of heuristic algorithms. In regard to the authors' design model and its practical significance, a number of additional issues warrant further discussion and clarification. These issues include: l) their model's alleged advantage over simulation models, 2) the correctness of their belt network design, 3) the correctness of their bunker design, 4) the necessity of their proposed bunker clearance policies, 5) the correctness of their shaft-bottom bin design, and 6) the

Jan 1, 1991

Dunn has written an excellent paper providing a wealth of advice on what is often the most costly consumable in the mineral processing plant. As he pointed out, grinding media selection and quality control can play a major role in successful plant operation. Owing to the economic importance of this topic, there are some important factors related to media sizing that I believe merit further comment. Dunn made reference to a slightly simplified version of the Azzaroni (1981) equation and pointed out its successful use for the Henderson SAG and Climax ball mills.

Jan 1, 1991

By P. Malozemoff

Discussion by P. Malozemoff I have no objection to using mathematics in the value appraisal of properties. The factor that is not emphasized in the paper is that very few important properties have a lifetime that reflects the initial ore reserves of the property divided by the rate of production adopted. In the majority of cases, major properties mine out several times the initial reserves. How much more will be mined out is not known, and only exceptionally gifted geologists can predict that additional reserves will be found. There is the further factor of metals price, which, over the long term, is not predictable. Another factor vitiating making calculations on initially established ore reserves is the speculative nature of exploration success. In my judgment, the life of a property, in addition to an established ore reserve, should include ample time for exploration to find additional reserves. The likelihood of additional reserves is based on the geological promise of the general area where the mine is established. This is especially important because of various risk factors associated with small orebodies, the economic life of which is about five to seven years. In underground mines, it is not economic to develop reserves beyond a certain depth, so the life of initially established reserves must be limited. In these cases, it is especially important to have a good geological understanding of the orebody and its continuity. To accommodate these concepts and present proof of economic soundness for a mining enterprise, a mathematical analysis should yield a life long enough to allow exploration and the development of additional reserves that would ensure a longer mine life and a more profitable result.

Jan 1, 1994

By G. Le Bel

Discussion by G. Le Bel The paper proposes three methods to determine optimum lifetime of a mining project 1. The conclusion is that the three methods arrive at the same optimum production rate (by coincidence). It is also stated that: "The stochastic and option pricing models, in addition to providing a more realistic optimum mine life than the traditional NPV (net present value) calculation, showed that the example project has the potential for substantially higher return. By explicitly considering a project's potential risks, the stochastic or option pricing techniques can more accurately describe its probable investment performance." This discussion is intended to demonstrate that: •It is no coincidence that the three methods arrive at the same optimum production rate. • The stochastic and option pricing models do not provide a more realistic optimum mine life than the traditional NPV calculation. •The potential for a substantially higher return is misrepresented. First, a review of investment decision theory in mining is needed. Net present value is the preferred performance measure because of the flexibility offered when comparing various alternatives. However, it presents the following disadvantages: • The discount rate selection is not straightforward. • The NPV obtained represents a deterministic characterization of the variables included in the cash flow calculations, i.e. a single-point estimate. Discount rate selection The opportunity cost of capital represents the rate of return that would be obtained if the capital was instead invested in other opportunities considered to exist. Such opportunities must be bypassed if the available capital is invested in the project studied 2. If these other opportunities carry risk similar to the project under analysis (for example, if they are other mining projects), there is no need to add incremental [ ] risk factors. On the other hand, if these opportunities are represented by the acquisition of government bonds yielding 7%, a risk premium factor must be included. The types of risks associated with a mining venture are shown in Table 1. Together they represent the "business risk" of being a mining company. The individual project risk is important to investors if it differs substantially from the business risk of the company and that of the other investments in mining ventures that we must pass up to invest in this particular project. A risk premium or discount would then be required. This can be illustrated by the following example. Consider that a company has two investment alternatives: one is the Cavender hypothetical project located in Nevada, and the other is the same project located in a civil war zone of central Europe. The second project requires a risk premium factor on the discount rate. Conversely, a project showing highly uncertain returns that are negatively correlated with the returns of the firm's other assets may decrease the company's corporate risk. Deterministic character of NPV calculation The cash flows used in NPV calculations are obtained from a set of variables. These variables are estimated using one parameter obtained from the engineering studies. Each parameter is thus a single value that is often termed a "realistic" or "best estimate" as opposed to "optimistic" or "pessimistic." However, considering that each variable can assume a range of values between the

Jan 1, 1994

By N. D. Policow, J. S. Orphanos

D.A. Dahlstrom In the paper, a comparison was made between flowsheets using the screen bowl centrifuge and disc filters, respectively, as the primary dewatering device. The authors very effectively show that by raising feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced through reduced viscosity of the water. When a final coal moisture of 10% is required, the net effect of heating the feed is a reduction in thermal requirements because of the lower evaporated load on the dryer. The flowsheet comparison on this, however, was not completely correct. Disc filters do not generally utilize enhanced mechanical dewatering through increased temperature. Horizontal belt filters, through the optimal use of steam heating of the filter cake, have shown significant cost reductions over disc filters where steam is not used. In addition, the authors forgot to mention that there is a certain fraction of the feed that is so fine that it cannot be recovered by the centrifuge economically. That is the function of the filtration device shown in Fig. 4. In subbituminous pipeline coals, this fraction represents more than 10% of the feed. Even after flocculation and belt pressing, the moisture content in the fine fraction is 30%-40. Recent tests on a subbituminous pipeline coal slurry, compared an Eimco-Extractor horizontal belt filter with the screen bowl centrifuge flowsheet shown in Fig. 4. Mechanical dewatering was enhanced through the use of a steam dry zone after the initial dewatering zone. Vacuum pump horsepower was reduced by more than 50% through the use of condensors, and heat recovery was utilized to minimize thermal costs. Thermal drying to 10% moisture by weight was required in both flowsheets. The 0.5 wt% fines in the filtrate were flocculated and recycled to the filter, thus eliminating the belt press and solids mixers. When the three major operating costs (which normally account for 50%-75% of the coal operating costs) of steam, electricity, and flocculants at current prices were calculated, the flowsheets utilizing the Eimco-Extractor had cost savings vs the centrifuge flowsheet of 89¢/t (81o; per st) of surface dry coal. This advantage increases with increasing thermal and electricity prices. I congratulate the authors for the strides made with the screen bowl centrifuge. However, filtration flowsheets continue to be improved and their simplicity and low thermal and electrical requirements should not be so quickly dismissed. ? Reply by N.D. Policow From a technical standpoint, a number of extensive test programs have demonstrated that by raising the feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced whether it be centrifuges or filters performing the separation. Economic constraints usually become the over-riding issue. If an inexpensive source of thermal energy is available, i.e., waste steam, etc., the approach becomes commercially acceptable. For the specific case of coal slurry pipelines, since the dewatering plants will be located close to power generation stations, the preheating approach becomes especially attractive. The cost comparison shown in Fig. 7, which was prepared by a major West Coast engineering firm, contrasted screen bowl centrifuges and disc filters. In both alternatives, a thermal dryer was specified to produce a contract moisture of the final product. Sizing of the thermal dryer on the screen bowl alternative was substantially smaller than that of the filter, since the screen bowl was credited with a four to six percentage point decrease in product moisture compared to the disc. This comparison was made at ambient temperatures and reflected solely the mechanical dewatering capabilities of the two devices. No preheating of the feed was included in this particular comparison. Early generation screen bowl centrifuges operated under the principle of maximum bulk tonnage throughput. Second and third generation machines have followed the trends dictated by the coal industry calling for higher one-pass recoveries than previously demanded. The current generation of high-speed, long-bowl centrifuges permit recoveries of ultrafine solids directly comparable to commercial filter operation. On typical coal preparation plant feeds with nominal 600 E. an X 0 (28 mesh X 0) clean coal, recovery levels in excess of 99% are now obtained. The material that does escape the centrifuge and reports to the main effluent is typically -10 µm, high ash material. We have documented substantial beneficiation effects in screen bowl centrifuge performance with the cake product containing lower ash levels than the feed. On the referenced pipeline, coal tests performed on Western subbituminous coal, we found that the percentage of -10 µm material in the feed was six to eight times greater than normally encountered on eastern Appalachian seams. Our 45-t/h (50-stph) production centrifuge was never set up to maximize recovery. It was used as part of the two-stage dewatering circuit that had been chosen by designers of the proposed pipeline. Recoveries up to 95% were recorded. With field adjustments, that performance could most certainly have been improved. In contrast, manufacturers of the horizontal belt filter provided a small pilot-scale unit that operated on a side stream at the test facility. Numerous combinations of chemical additions were evaluated to determine those that had the best impact on filter performance. Whereas the screen bowl centrifuges operated without chemical addition, producing a dry, fluffy cake, the belt filter required two stages of chemical addition to attain satisfactory performance and high recovery levels. On the two-stage circuit that incorporated a belt press as the secondary

Jan 12, 1983

By H. C. Juvkam-Weld

R. Michael Craig Mr. Juvkam-Wold's article is a timely and much needed presentation of the method of depressurization to reduce ground-water inflow into mine shafts. The article is very informative and discusses the effects of depressurization upon shaft inflows adequately. However, the article omits a discussion of another important benefit of depressurization: the reduction of potential for artesian burst or, as it is also called, floor heave. Confined aquifer systems (artesian aquifers) can contain water under several hunder pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. For example, water levels at elevations of 455 m (1500 ft) or more above the top of the Westwater Canyon member of Reply by H.C. Juvkam-Wold In general, Mr. Craig's comments are useful and accurate regarding the potential benefits of aquifer depressurization. However, two of his points require further explanation since they may lead to a misunderstanding of my paper and its predictions. These refer to his comments regarding failure to account for storativity and to non-artesian conditions. Equation 5 is indeed Darcy's steady state equation. However, as a careful review of the appendix in this paper will reveal, I have used this equation to represent semi-steady state conditions. In other words, steady state conditions are assumed at any instant of time, but conditions may change gradually from

Jan 2, 1983

By R. M. Schuster, F. M. Benavides

Samuel G. Bonasso The article by Benavides and Schuster provides an in-depth study of three transportation alternatives for a four-mine complex in western Kentucky. The examination of aerial tramways was not undertaken as an alternative solution. We feel this is an oversight since industrial ropeways are competitive with both belt conveyance and overland truck hauling. In fact, there are aerial tramway systems, operational today, which are 100 years old and operating with some original components. Maybe unfortunately, there are no fixed rules or guidelines whereby the most cost-effective means of transporting and handling material for a given situation may be selected. Each situation must be evaluated so the variables that influence the selection of the desired alternative can be clearly defined. However, there are in-place industrial ropeway systems that have proven economically feasible over a range of 1.6-50 km (1-31 miles). The more difficult the terrain, the greater the cost efficiency.

Jan 1, 1983

By K. Fuenkajorn, S. Serata

Discussion by S. Serata and K. Fuenkajorn Background Results of the above study in the August 1991 issue of Mining Engineering offer valuable lessons in the solution of cutter-roof problems. The original study plan was initiated by the discussion authors to solve the problems using the "stress control method" of mining (Serata 1976, 1982; Serata, Carr and Martin, 1984; Serata and Gardner, 1986; Serata, Gardner and Preston, 1986; Serata, Gardnerand Shrinivasan, 1986; Serata and Kikuchi, 1986; Serata, Preston and Galagoda, 1987) However, the plan and the planner were changed to the arrangement reported in the paper. The change was considered reasonable at the time due to the mine engineers' uncertainties about the stress control method. Consequently, the basic principle of the study was shifted from the original stress control method to the method described in the paper, which will be called the "yield pillar method" for the purposes of this discussion. The paper convinces the reader that the yield pillar method fails to solve the cutter-roof problems. This doesn't mean that the stress control method also fails. Actually the contrary is true, as discussed below. Limitation of the yield pillar method The paper illustrates clearly how poorly the yield pillar method performs in solving the problem. The reason for this failure is the lack of the protective stress envelope needed to stabilize the cutter roof. Unfortunately, the protective envelope cannot be formed properly without utilizing the stress control method of mining. Changing the pillar size does not make much difference in the roof stability. Stress measurement The key issue is how to form the global stress envelope to make the gate entries safe for production. Therefore, measuring the stress condition of the ground around the mine opening is critically important to solving the cutter-roof problem, regardless of the method applied. With regard to the stress measurement, there is a serious question as to the reported stress state of [6 i = -51.7 MPa (-7499 psi), G2 = -44.5 MPa (-6458 psi) and 63 = -30.8 MPa (-4465 psi)]. It is mechanically impossible to have such a stress state at any location in the mine ground since the known initial vertical stress [o,,] is less than or equal to 800 psi. There may be a large stress state in the [61] direction, but that is possible only at the expense of the [63] value. Having the above stress tensors in the mine is simply impossible. The questionable, reported stress values could be attributed to the application of the overcoring method, which tends to produce erroneously large stress values in the extremely nonelastic mine ground. Stress control method The paper should be considered as a major contribution demonstrating the limitation of the yield pillar method. At the same time, the paper does not disprove the stress control method. However, in comparing the paper with stress control studies conducted in other similar failing grounds, the stress control method appears to be able to solve the problem more effectively. Therefore it is advisable that the mine not give up its efforts to solve the problem. [•] References Serata, S., 1976, "Stress control technique - An alternative to roof bolting?," Mining Engineering, May. Serata, S., 1982, "Stress control methods: Quantitative approach to stabilizing mine openings in weak ground," Proceedings, 1st International Conference on Stability in Underground Mining, Vancouver, BC, Aug. 16-18. Serata, S., Carr, F., and Martin, E., 1984, "Stress control method applied to stabilization of underground coal mine openings," Proceedings, 25th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Northwestern University, June, pp. 583-590. Serata, S., and Gardner, B.H., 1986, "Benefits of the stress control method," invited paper, American Mining Congress Coal Convention, Pittsburgh, PA, May 7. Serata, S., Gardner, B.H., and Shrinivasan, K., 1986, "Integrated instrumentation method of stress state, material property and deformation measurement for stress control method of mining," invited paper, 5th Conference on Ground Control in Mining, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, June 11-13. Serata, S., and Kikuchi, S., 1986, "A diametral deformation method for in situ stress and rock property measurement," International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 15-38. Serata, S., Preston, M., and Galagoda, H.M., 1987, "Integration of finite element analysis and field instrumentation for application of the stress control method in underground coal mining," Proceedings, 28th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, AZ, pp. 265-272.

Jan 1, 1993

By A. G. Sciulli, G. P. Ballock, K. K. Wu

Waste disposal underground is the most effective method when viewed from an environmental aspect. As costs of other methods of disposal continue to escalate, the cost effectiveness of underground disposal during the mining cycle becomes increasingly attractive. The use of concrete for sealing abandoned mines has proved to be suspect when associated with a relatively incompetent adjacent strata due to its shrinkage characteristics. Complete failure of the plug has been known to occur in some instances. A more effective, cost competitive seal can be obtained using pneumatically stowed material and incorporating a polyurethane grout, which has greater adhesion characteristics than concrete. Injection of the surrounding strata and of the stowed material helps to ensure an impervious barrier and prevent the plug from moving when subject to high pressure heads. When properly placed, impervious seals cause the old workings to flood, raise the mine pool level, and thus eventually eliminate the potential for oxidation, which is the primary cause of acidity in the water.

Jan 11, 1986

By V. Miller

C. Hertzler The difference of means of milling characteristics by rock and ore type is tested in a statistical manner in the paper. The null hypothesis being tested is that the sample means of two different populations are equal. It is assumed that the null hypothesis is true when performing the test. Because of this, acceptance of this hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the sample means of the two different populations are equal (or there is no significant difference between the sample means), not that the samples come from the same population, as the author asserts. Rejection of the null hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the sample means of the two different populations are not equal. A P value for this test is reported in Table 2 and is incorrectly identified as the probability that the two samples came from different populations. Actually, what was recorded was 100(1 - p) where p is the usual p-value. The usual p-value measures, on a scale of zero to one, the extent to which the data agree with the null hypothesis. It is the probability of observing a value of the test statistic (Z score) that is at least as contradictory to the null hypothesis as the one computed from the sample data (McClave and Dietrich II, 1982). The author makes no mention of the fact that were these tests to be conducted together, the chances of determining that the null hypothesis is not true when it is really true are increased considerably (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980). This is a multiple comparisons problem and should be dealt with accordingly. The usual methods involve adjusting the level of the individual tests. Table 2 reports an incorrect 100(1 - p) value in the comparison of concentrate grades for other rock types with .30 to .69 % Cu vs other rock types with .70 + % Cu; 86 % should be 98.6 %. Although the article can be criticized for poor data presentation and discussion of that data, the point the author makes regarding the use of these statistics in the ore reserve estimation process is well taken. It does not appear that inaccuracies in the statistical interpretations have hindered that usefulness. References McClave, J.T., and Dietrich, II, F.H., 1982, "Statistics," Dellen Publishing Co., San Francisco and Santa Clara, CA, 766 p. Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G., 1980, "Statistical Methods," The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 561 p. Reply by V. Miller After reading Ms. Hertzler's comments, it appears that the differences noted were basically semantics. If the paper is ever presented at a math symposium, some changes will be needed. When deciding the best way to present the data to mining engineers and geologists, I decided that presenting the probability that the two sample groupings came from different populations (reverse to the Null hypothesis) was easier and would require less verbage to explain. Hence, the 100(1 - p) difference which was noted. Ideally, I would have preferred to give the recovery and concentrate grades, then comment which ones had significant differences. Unfortunately, Kennecott Corp. did not grant permission to publish the ore body's actual recoveries and concentrate grades. The conclusion is that there was, as expected, a relationship between the ore's geologic properties and the metallurgical properties, and by determining this relationship, the overall mineral model was greatly improved.

Jan 8, 1984

By M. R. Yalamanchili, J. D. Miller

Discussion by M.R. Yalamanchili and J.D. Miller The authors, M. S. Celik et al., should be recognized for their efforts to describe the flotation behavior of boron minerals. In the case of borax and other soluble salt minerals, analysis of the flotation chemistry has been difficult because of the high ionic strengths associated with these soluble salt systems. However, considerable progress has been made in this area, and recently a surface charge/collector colloid adsorption model was proposed by Miller and his coworkers to explain the collector adsorption phenomena observed in soluble salt flotation systems (Milleret al, 1992; Yalamanchili et al., 1993; Miller and Yalamanchili, 1994; Yalamanchili and Miller, 1994a: Yalamanchili and Miller, 1994b). In this work, the sign of the surface charge of alkali halides in their saturated brines was established on the basis of nonequilibrium electrophoretic mobility measurements by laser-Doppler electrophoresis (Miller et al., 1992). Generally, these results are what would be expected from the simplified lattice-ionhydration theory. This electrokinetic information coupled with the stability and prevalence of collector colloids in such soluble salt flotation systems indicates that the selective flotation of alkali halides is due to the adsorption of oppositely charged collector colloids by heterocoagulation. Experimental flotation/bubble attachment results for 21 different alkali halides (Yalamanchili et al., 1993; Yalamanchili and Miller, I994b) confirmed that the flotation response of soluble salt minerals with weak electrolyte collectors can best be explained by the adsorption of oppositely charged collector colloids rather than by the adsorption collector ions and/or neutral molecular dipoles as originally suggested by many researchers (Fuerstenau and Fuerstenau, 1957; Schubert, 1967; Roman et al., 1968). In addition, the flotation of certain alkali oxyanions (Pizarro et al., 1993) and double salts such as schoenite and kainite can be explained by the same collector colloid adsorption mechanism (Miller and Yalamanchili, 1994). The borax flotation results reported by Celik et al. need to be examined in terms of the above mentioned surface charge/ collector colloid adsorption model. Unfortunately, the authors seem to be unaware of this recent work that nicely describes soluble salt flotation with weak electrolyte type collectors such as amines and carboxylates. In view of our past work, the flotation characteristics of borax were of particular interest, and, in this regard, the results of dodecyl amine flotation of borax reported by Celik et al. have been examined in further detail in the light of experimental results from our laboratory. In our research, a vacuum flotation technique was used to study the flotation response of borax (Na2B407.10H20), which has a solubility of 39 g/L at 25 °C) with dodecyl amine hydrochloride as collector. These chemicals were purchased from Eastman Kodak and used as received. Saturated solutions of borax at desired pH values were prepared by continuously stirring the salt solutions over a period of about 10 hrs. It should be mentioned that the conditioning time to achieve equilibrium is an important variable and can significantly change the flotation response of some soluble salts (Yalamanchili et al., 1993). Collector was added to the saturated borax solutions containing about one gram of 100x 150 mesh borax particles, and conditioning was done for about 20 minutes prior to flotation. The borax flotation recoveries from saturated brine are presented in Fig. 1 as a function of collector addition at the natural pH of 9.3, as reported both by Celik et al. and as measured in our laboratory. In addition, the region of precipitation for the dodecyl amine hydroborate is included in Fig. 1. It can be seen in Fig. 1 that the flotation response curves are separated by about one order of magnitude in R12NH3CI collector addition. The flotation results of Celik et al. show that the maximum borax recoveries can be obtained below the solubility limit of the dodecyl amine hydroborate collector. However, in our experiments borax flotation seems to occur only after the precipitation of the dodecyl amine hydroborate collector as might be expected from the collector colloid adsorption model (Yalamanchili et al., 1993) if borax were negatively charged. Further analysis by nonequilibrium and equilibrium electrophoretic mobility measurements for borax indicates that borax is negatively charged at the natural pH of 9.3, as discussed below. The reliability of the nonequilibrium electrophoretic measurements has been demonstrated previously for alkali halides and alkali oxyanions (Miller et al., 1992; Miller and Yalamanchili, 1994). The equilibrium and nonequlibrium electrophoretic measurements for borax were found to be consistent and are presented in Table 1. These results provide clear evidence that borax carries a negative surface charge in its saturated brine (pH 9.3), and the sign of the surface charge of borax reverses and becomes positive if the pH is reduced to 8.6. The equilibrium between borax and its saturated brine can be described by the following reaction: [2Na2B407.1OH2O-4Na++B407=+HB4O7 +OH+19H20] It appears that the oxyanions of the borax lattice provide

Jan 1, 1995

By E. J. Garrison

Discussion by E.J. Garrison A.C. Noble presents a clear and concise summary of the factors pertinent to a competent reserve evaluation of a mineral occurrence. However, I believe that he confuses the difference between a resource and a reserve. By definition, a reserve estimate includes all known economic, legal, mining, metallurgical and environmental factors impacting the recovery of the product(s) found in the deposit. A resource estimate, however, is an estimate of what is there - what is available for exploitation and should not include economic and other considerations. Only after defining the resource, its extent, location, physical and chemical properties, can an intelligent selection process begin of the extraction and processing technologies most appropriate to the circumstances encountered. The early and almost certainly inappropriate application of these often cookbook choices has probably lead many companies to walk away from good properties. (How many mines have been found in others rejects?) An example of the process is the early selection of metallurgical samples, after encouraging values are found in a few holes or surface samples, in an attempt to determine the economics of the prospect. Unfortunately, the sampler does not know how representative of the occurrence the sample is because he does not know what the deposit looks like. As a consequence, the property becomes saddled with a bad metallurgical sample that is often inappropriately used in evaluating the deposit which it does not represent. Reply by A.C. Noble E.J. Garrison asserts that I confuse the difference between a resource and an ore reserve. In fact, this paper was motivated by the observation that resources and reserves are almost universally confused throughout the industry. While Garrison is concerned that too-early consideration of engineering, metallurgical and economic factors will result in dropping properties too soon, some issues that must be considered include: •The purpose of exploration is to discover ore reserves, not to discover resources. •Ore reserves are always smaller than resources. • Decisions on exploration expenditures must be made based on the expectation of the quantity of ore reserves that will ultimately be defined. Noble's Fig. 2 can be used to give guidance as to when it is appropriate to begin reserve calculations. When exploration enters the "flat" portion of the curve, representative samples can be selected for metallurgical studies and appropriate mining methods chosen. It is at this stage that we know enough about the deposit to make intelligent choices of representative samples and recognize constraints on mining caused by the deposits shape, environment and physical properties. Once the appropriate technologies have been chosen, then their cost can be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Early entry of economic and process factors gives the false appearance of reserve status to the resource estimation. It would be more informative and less subject to abuse and misunderstanding if resource calculations were made at a number of cutoff grades. The cutoff grades should be chosen to cover the range of grades found in practice in existing operations of similar type. This would emphasize the open nature of resource estimates and encourage creative evaluation of mining and process technologies. It does not preclude the use of economic, environmental and recovery technology factors in deciding the advisability of continuing exploration expenditures, but would highlight their speculative nature. It is thus hoped that decisions on the future of the deposit would not be made on the presumed suitability of a given technology but on the actually known reality. I agree that resource estimates should be reported as a range of cutoff grades. Since reporting at a cutoff implies application of underlying economics (even by analogy to similar properties), however, it should be clearly stated that resources do not consider economic, mining or cost factors, and that ore reserves will be substantially less. The dilemma of the explorationist is that until the continuity and limits of ore-grade mineralization have been established, it is difficult to make quantitative estimates of either resources or ore reserves. Further industry discussion is needed regarding standards for disclosing early exploration information in such a way as to fairly represent the potential of an exploration property.

Jan 1, 1995

By J. H. Tu

The technical paper correctly points out that the kriging variance is not a good measure of the uncertainty of the estimated (i.e., kriged) value of individual blocks. The authors claim that their proposed jack-knife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from m the original sample set and then taking the average of the rekriged estimates, not only gives good block estimates, but the resulting jackknife kriging standard deviation is a useful indicator of the "true uncertainty associated with block estimates." However, they immediately abandon the idea of using the block-by-block standard deviations, reasoning that these standard deviations are not independent and that there is no easy way to utilize them. There may be another reason for not using them. The jackknife standard deviations for individual blocks given in their example are mostly in the range of 0.004 to 0.005 oz/st (0.14 to 0.17 g/t) with only one block having a high value of 0.012 oz/st (0.41 g/ t). These individual block standard deviations are as low as the jackknife standard deviation for the mean grade of the entire shape, i.e., 0.0041 oz/st (0.14 g/t). Do they represent the "true uncertainty" .of the individual block estimates? Could the authors explain this? In a global shape consisting of a large number of blocks, any given sample will affect the kriged estimate of only those few blocks within its vicinity. This is the rationale for the authors' selective rekriging, making the jackknife algorithm more efficient. On second thought, why not do away with jackknifing altogether? Just cumulate and normalize, if necessary, the kriging weights of each sample used during the ordinary block kriging process, and then compute the global variance from these kriging weights and their respective sample grades? After all, isn't the global mean grade nothing but the weighted average of the samples used in the estimation? Reply by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester The jackknife is one of the many tools in a practitioner's toolbox to solve estimation problems. The strengths of the technique lies in its simplicity, i.e., it uses the concept of mean and standard deviation and the fact that it can be easily combined with other tools, in this case kriging. Because the jackknife kriging (JK) estimate is also the mean of the pseudovalues, the JK standard deviation is attractive just as the standard deviation of the mean explains the variability of the data. The difference is that the pseudovalue calculation in jackknife kriging uses the ordinary kriging (OK) weighting scheme instead of simple arithmetic averaging. The data used to illustrate the jackknife technique in the paper con¬sist of high values that are roughly three times the low values. The resulting JK estimate of the block grades show that the highest estimate is roughly twice the grade of the lowest estimate. The contrast between the low and the high estimate is more evident in the JK estimate than in the OK estimate, even though the mean grades of the blocks for the two estimates are very similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we are concentrating more on the need for a more realistic measure of uncertainty, or precision, for the estimate. Unlike its OK counterpart, the JK standard deviation of the blocks clearly reflects the original data variation. The highest JK standard deviation of the blocks is three times its lowest value. This follows our intuition that, when the samples used to estimate a block is more variable, the resulting estimation variance (or standard deviation) should be higher than the case where the samples are more uniformly valued. However, block-by-block standard deviation or variance is of little practical value in reserve estimation and classification, as well as in mine planning. One is usually more interested in quantifying not the variance of the individual block estimate, but the uncertainties associated with a much larger dimension, such as the minable reserve. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to find a simple way to obtain a single estimation variance or standard deviation associated with the reserve grade estimate. The discussion by J.H. Tu did not mention how one would obtain the global variance from the OK weights and the sample grades. As a technique that offers a data value-based measure of uncertainty for its estimate, the "leave-one-out" jackknife fills this need nicely through the block kriging shortcut approach described in the paper. Note: The first column and the last two columns of Table 3 in the paper should have contained a single number each, namely, an OK estimate of 0.0317, a JK estimate of 0.0333 and a JK standard deviation of 0.0041 oz/st, respectively, for the shape, as are obvious from the text.

Jan 1, 1997

By D. G. Krige

Discussion by D.G. Krige I read the paper "The jackknife approach" with interest. There appears to be a widespread misunderstanding of the kriging variance as a measure of the error variance of the kriged grade estimate of an ore block. Virtually all mineral deposits display skew frequency distributions and are subject to the well-known proportional effect. Thus, it is usual to find in an ore body, when subdivided a really into subpopulations, that the variances of the grades (or the total sills of the variograms) for the subpopulations will be correlated with the corresponding mean grades (usually linearly with the squares of the mean grades). Thus, the variogram will be station. When this feature is evident, the relative variograms for the subpopulations (i.e., with variogram values divided by the relevant mean squared) will be similar, or they could even be accepted at an averaged model for the whole ore body with stationarity. Using this approach, the kriging variance will reflect the relative error variance that is to be multiplied by the kriged block grade estimate squared to yield the usual kriging variance for purposes of confidential limits. The objection that the kriging variance does not take into account the local grades used for a block valuation then falls away. In the example given by the authors, the global mean grade is not recorded. But the global variance, taken at the value of the total sill, is 0.005, whereas the variance of the 11 values used in the example is 0.000152. The two variances differ by a factor of nearly six. If the relative variogram approach is applicable in this case, the need for a jackknife technique will fall away. Also note that, for skew distributions, the confidence limits for ore-block estimates will be skew as well, and symmetrical normal limits will not apply. RepIy by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester There are a few interesting ways to utilize the block-by-block kriging variance that the authors have encountered. One of them is to classify a particular block into a proven-probable reserve or a possible-resource category, using a somewhat subjectively determined kriging variance value. Here, the kriging variance still represents the drilling density, i.e., data configuration more than the data values. Professor Krige mentions another ingenious approach through the use of relative variograms. This will yield a block kriging variance that takes into account local (block) grade, as he correctly points out, for purposes of confidence limits. However, we are more interested in quantifying the uncertainties associated with grade estimation in a much larger scale than a block. e.g., for a mining phase or the minable reserve. The jackknife, through the block kriging shortcut, provides a simple solution to obtain a single estimation variance for a general shape. The authors' main reference discusses different ways to handle skewed distributions typical in mineral resource estimation, e.g., the weighted jackknife approach or data transformation. Also, as with any technique, we can always improve our estimate by subdividing into smaller populations that are geologically and statistically separate domains. As we have mentioned; the jackknife is but a tool in our collection of tools to solve estimation problems. The jackknife's appeals are its simplicity and versatility. It is handy when no other solution is available, or when the available solution is not practical. It is used with other methods, not to replace them altogether. ?

Jan 1, 1997

By R. J. Sweigard, R. V. Ramani

G.F. Learning The paper by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard is a wonderful description of the labyrinthine web that has been spun about the mining industry by energetic bureaucrats and politicians over the past 50 years. The remedy for the problem, however, is not more of the same, but less. That may be difficult for the industry to achieve, for it is not a technical solution but a political one. And the current fervor for more detailed planning at all levels of government and private enterprise has become deeply ingrained. The authors recommend the provision of more information about mining and mineral resources to "macro" (i.e., government) land use planners. They apparently overlook, however, the already strong tendency on the part of most government land use planners to consider themselves omniscient. Thus, giving them more information about the technical problems of mining will only make them want to get more and more involved in the "micro" (private, site specific) mine development and production plans of the individual mining firm. In fact, this has already happened at all levels of jurisdiction from municipal to federal government. Examples are legion. The most effective way to ameliorate the adverse impacts of government land use planning on existing and potential mining operations is to: (1) introduce greater flexibility in the definition of land use zones by local and state governments; (2) adopt realistic and relevant ambient environmental performance standards in governing relationships between mineral land uses and concurrent or subsequent nonmining land uses; (3) allow greater leeway for economic considerations in land use decisions in contrast to the explicit legalistic approach now in vogue; (4) recognize that all minerals are not the same and that sand and gravel mining should not be treated the same as underground metal mining, coal stripping, oil field production, or in situ leaching; and (5) eliminate the notion that mining operators should be responsible for determining in detail the use of land by subsequent owners of mined land. This last bit of conventional ethic really makes no more sense than requiring the builders of every shopping center or government office complex to provide detailed plans for the use of that land when its use for shopping or government is ended. Did the builder of Ebbetts Field plan for Brooklyn after the Dodgers went to Los Angeles? Should the developer of the Bingham Pit plan for suburban Salt Lake City after the copper mining goes to Chile? The nation's mining industry must address these questions before further bankrupting itself to provide more data to planners and spending thousands of dollars per acre to create land that when reclaimed is worth only a few hundred dollars per acre. Reply by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard We thank Mr. Leaming for his valuable contribution. His views on the problems of land use planning and mineral resources are most welcome additions to our paper. As the title indicates, our paper was more concerned with the impacts of land use planning on mineral resource conservation than with the details of the planning process. On the whole, his five recommendations would be helpful for mineral resource conservation. However, we would suggest that the argument he presents for his final recommendation does not address the differences between mining as a land use and commercial or institutional uses. We believe that this difference is the crux of the issue. We share Mr. Leaming's desire to ameliorate the adverse impacts of land use planning. Possibly the most detrimental impact is the loss of mineral resources. Any development, whether mineral or community, that does not give proper consideration to other resources can result in permanent loss or sterilization of resources. With proper planning, some of these losses can be avoided. As our paper indicated, one factor that limits the consideration of mineral resources, and ultimately leads to their sterilization, is the generally inadequate levels of resource characterization and understanding of the unique nature of mineral resources and mining operations. The last point raised by Mr. Leaming is also important. In terms of reclamation and land use planning in mining districts, we certainly do not advocate spending more than what the results are worth. The main thrust of the paper was to explore the avenues for conserving the mineral resources so that, at some appropriate time, the issue of mining and reclamation can still be addressed.

Jan 4, 1985

By J. L. Weeks

Discussion by J.L. Weeks Discussion I wish to comment on Kissell and Sacks's paper "Inaccuracy of area sampling for measuring the dust exposure of mining machine operators in coal mines." It is well established in industrial hygiene that area sampling is not an accurate measure of personal exposure. To measure personal exposure, one must use a personal sampler. Kissell and Sacks, using data from coal mining, reached the same conclusion. This is the right answer but it is the wrong question. This issue arises because the machine-mounted respirable dust continuous monitor (MMRDCM) is being considered to monitor coal-miners' exposure to respirable dust. This device may be mounted on a continuous mining machine, and it would take a modified area sample. I refer to it as "modified" because a mining machine is not really a fixed location, as is the typical area sample. The concern with whether this machine would provide an accurate estimate of the machine-operator's exposure, however, overlooks important features of the MMRDCM. Specifically, it displays dust concentration as it occurs and at the place where it is needed, not 10 days later, as is the case with the current system. Used in this way, it allows for timely intervention to control exposure to dust and it leads to greater first-hand knowledge of specific conditions and mining practices that result in excess exposure. If one knows the dust level is excessive at the time the dust is being generated, it is possible to use known and effective methods of dust control to reduce exposure. By measuring again, one can determine whether control methods have worked. This is a generic procedure followed in any industrial process: measure, adjust and measure again. It leads to more effective and more efficient dust control and is preferred to taking a sample, waiting 10 days for the results and then trying to apply that information to a situation that no longer exists. The MMRDCM also records the dust level automatically, and it runs continuously, making it harder to tamper with. Dust monitoring in underground coal mines has been corrupted by some operators having submitted fraudulent samples (and being convicted on criminal charges because of it), weakening the credibility of the current system. The MMRDCM is, in part, a response to this corruption, and an effort to focus attention on dust levels and dust controls rather than on the perpetrators of fraud. Use of the MMRDCM is an evolutionary change from the current system. With the current system, one takes a personal sample of exposure of the "designated occupation" (DO, defined at 30 CFR 70.2 (f)), the occupation regularly exposed to the highest level of dust on a section. Typically, on sections using continuous mining machines, this is the mining-machine operator. The rationale behind DO sampling rests on some of the findings that Kissell and Sacks report. They reviewed several studies that showed that dust concentration varies with location on a mining section and that there is a concentration gradient with the highest concentration occurring closest to the face. The logic behind DO sampling strategy is that if the dust concentration at the place where it is highest is below the exposure limit, then concentration elsewhere on the section is also below the limit. In this way, one will have achieved the objective or keeping dust concentration below the exposure limit for all miners on the section by measuring the exposure of only one miner. The

Jan 1, 2003

By G. Chi, M. C. Fuerstenau, R. C. Bradt, A. Ghosh

Technical Papers, Mining Engineering Vol. 49, No. 12, pp. 70-75, Discussion by McIvor, R. and Fink, R. P. We must challenge what we consider to be dubious statements in the above-mentioned article. Much of what is reported was published elsewhere over a year ago (i.e., in their reference: Chi, G., Fuerstenau, M.C., Brandt, R.C. and Ghosh, A., 1996, "Improved comminution efficiency through controlled blasting during mining," International Journal of Min¬eral Processing, Vol. 47, p. 93). There is nothing unusual or significant about a 10% or more difference in grindability between two materials of apparently similar origin and other attributes (such as chemical assays, hardness and specific gravity). Consider also that: • the materials came from different locations in the pit; • only two sets of four blastholes were considered per blast: • spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was also altered; • only two pairs of data were collected; • the impact of sampling error and bias, • both of which could be significant in this case; and • normal experimental error in parameter measurement and calculation. It is clearly inappropriate to draw any conclusions with regard to cause-and-effect relationships without first presenting a thorough error analysis. A substantial number of randomly selected test and control areas might provide meaningful statistical evidence of the claimed effect of the variables being studied. Even that appears doubtful, however, because Figures 3 and 4 show about as much variation in crushing energy for the two "regular" conditions vs. regular and altered conditions. On a separate, but also important issue, broad experience with autogenous/semiautogenous milling has shown that smaller or weaker feed material results in reduced tonnage. ? Reply Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of Messrs. Mclvor ant Fink. The points raised are addressed in the order of presentation. As the commenters noted, there are parallels between this article and a previous manuscript. The reason for these complementary articles is that the audiences for the two publications are different, although there is obviously some overlap. We believe that the different audiences each profit from the technical aspects of the two manuscripts. We are not in agreement that a grindability difference of 10% is insignificant. The laboratory work is corroborated by data obtained at plant scale, which confirms that an increase in throughput of the same magnitude (between 5% and 10%) is achieved when the blasting pattern is modified, i.e., reduced from 9 to 8 m (29.5 to 26.2 ft). This increase in throughput translates into substantial power savings for ore grinding. No differences in appearance in the rock were noted between the two adjacent areas. Rock in both areas belonged to the same rock mass/block, which was quite homogeneous and without geological features in between that could create drastic differences in comminution characteristics. Given the resources, we would have sampled from all of the holes. Additional data would certainly have been desirable, as would have been additional funding to expand the study. Their comment, "spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was also altered," is not clear. Figure 1 does not show the initiation sequence. Without the initiation sequence, we do not understand how the commenters concluded that spatial orientation with respect to the face and other blastholes was altered. The commenters may be trying to make the point that the four-hole configurations with respect to the original bench face are not exactly the same. In fragmenting the

Jan 1, 1999