Search Documents

By Y. C. Kim, I. S. Roditis, P. K. Medhi

P. Mousset-Jones I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reference Kwa, B.L., and Mousset-Jones, P., 1986, "Indicator Kriging Applied to a Gold Deposit in Nevada," Proceedings, Symposium on Ore Reserve Estimation Methods, Models, and Reality, CIMM Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May, pp. 185194. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent comparative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging. Reference Lindsey, D.S., 1987, "A Comparative Study: Probability Kriging vs. Ordinary Kriging at the Golden Sunlight Mine," MS Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte, MT, May, 81 pp.

Jan 3, 1988

I found the article most interesting and timely. I consider it imperative that mine case studies like this one are undertaken and published so that the practicing mining engineer and geologist can obtain a better idea of what is the preferred estimation and grade control technique to use, given the site-specific geology, grade distribution, etc. Mining companies, with operating gold mines, need to be encouraged to either initiate such a study in-house or support a research project by financing a graduate student at a local university. The latter method is preferable since it not only provides research support but also an excellent training opportunity for young mining engineers and geologists. Ideally, what is needed is exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and mine production data that can then be used to assess the efficiency of different estimation and grade control methods by comparing the results obtained using the drill/blasthole data with the actual production data. It is hoped that more mining companies will realize that the rewards from this kind of research greatly outweigh the sometimes perceived problem with releasing data to a university. I noticed that the authors used the blasthole data to represent the actual values, the validity of which relies heavily on the two key assumptions with regards to blasthole assays and in-pit ore-waste selection procedures. Could the authors comment in more detail on these assumptions and what criteria they used to check the validity of the assumptions? Since the article was published, have the authors had the opportunity to compare their estimates with the actual production data? It would be interesting to compare other estimation methods with OK and IK. For example, how well did the polygonal method used at the mine compare with the results given in the paper? I would like to mention that B.L. Kwa completed a similar study (Kwa and Mousset-Jones, 1986) using exploration drill-hole, blasthole, and production data from the Alligator Ridge mine in Nevada. The study compared a variety of estimation methods, including IK, and the final results are shown in Fig. 1. The IK method exhibits the smallest difference between estimated and production results and is closely followed by the indicator moving window (Ind MW) method. Reply by Y.C. Kim We do concur with Professor Mousset-Jones with respect to the merit of such case studies performed at a local university. In answer to his request for comment on the validity of the two key assumptions made in our paper, we can only say that these are reasonable assumptions that are very difficult to validate. The assumption of blasthole assays being accurate can be partially validated by a careful analysis of the nugget component of blasthole variograms. The assumption that the in-pit ore-waste selection procedure in use was an effective one can only be validated through comparison between the mine estimates of ounces of gold versus the actual recovered ounces of gold at the mill. Neither one of these two assumptions has been validated to date due to several reasons. For example, the mine went through a change in management since the study. Similarly, no compelling reasons have been presented to perform detailed variogram analysis of the blasthole data. We do, however, believe that the obtained results (i.e., indicator kriging performs better than OK in a highly skewed deposit) will remain the same in relative terms, regardless of how valid these two assumptions may be. The most recent com¬parative study by D. S. Lindsey of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology also shows a similar ranking between ordinary kriging versus probability kriging, which is an extended version of indicator kriging.

Jan 1, 1987

By M. Kalin, C. Steinberg

We have worked on several flooded pits from coal-mining activities in the former East Germany, as well as ones associated with hard- rock mining, including the B-zone pit discussed in the above technical paper. We found the paper to be a useful summary, but, unfortunately, it failed to give an adequate comparison of the physical limnology of the flooded pits, which is an essential component. While the title suggests that the primary focus of the review is physical limnology, it appears that it is essentially pit-lake chemistry being presented. Physical limnology requires that factors such as fetch, latitude, light penetration, relation to ground water table, methods of flooding and the physical shape of the pits be defined. These physical aspects of a pit interact with the chemical and biological processes taking place in it, all of which contribute to the character of a water body. Few of these physical aspects are presented, however. The conclusion that the authors reach suggests that meromixis may be a condition that would serve as an effective containment mechanism for contaminants in a pit. Although this may be desirable, such limnological conditions are not clearly supported by the data presented for any of the pits. These data should be summarized to facilitate comparison between the same structural units of the pit water - the epi- and metalimnion for example. The thermocline depth is a reflection of the physical forces mixing the water body, and pit dimensions affect these forces. Due to the use of different scales in Figs. 2 through 5, it is difficult to determine whether the thermocline is at the expected depth, because the fetch is not given. Moreover, the status of a water body cannot be determined unless measurements cover a period of at least one year, and depth profiles are completed to represent the entire depth of the pit. This shortcoming is most notable in the case of the Berkeley pit, where data are given for depths of only 20 and 35 m (66 and 115 ft), although the pit is reported to be 242 m (794 ft) deep. Limnological data to define the status of the pit water have to be collected at regular intervals, for the same parameters. The authors present temperature measurements for 1-m (3.3-ft) intervals, but fail to use that interval for other parameters, such as dissolved oxygen or, in some cases, for contaminant concentrations. Furthermore, the profiles for the deepest part of the pit display only part of the picture, because pits are rarely conical. Profiles can be considered to represent the status of a water body only after other stations in the pit have been monitored regularly and the consistency is determined. For example, fresh water, which can enter a pit at any depth, would interfere with the proposed meromictic conditions. Similarly, organic material at the bottom of a pit, such as the fish-waste deposited in the Gunnar pit, contribute to oxygen consumption. Oxygen depletion alone is not indicative of meromixis. It is interesting to note that the Dpit arsenic concentrations could possibly be slightly higher than the B-zone pit concentrations at depth, although this is difficult to determine accurately when a log scale is used for the D-pit and not for the B-zone pit. In our investigations, we noted arsenic removal in the B-zone pit bottom water, which was due to the formation of particles that are relegated to the newly forming sediment in the bottom of the pit. Particle-carrying contaminants form due to a combination of geochemical and biological factors and TSS contributed from erosion of the upper parts of the pit walls, whereas the settling out of particles from the water column is controlled by the physical conditions or turn over, for example. during ice cover in the B-zone pit. Although meromictic conditions for flooded pits may be desirable at decommissioning, this would depend largely on the physical conditions of the pit, because, under no circumstances, would this water be of desirable ground-water quality. Under meromictic conditions, acidity, if an environmental issue, may be reduced by microbial acid-neutralizing activity, and several heavy metals may form more or less stable sulphitic compounds. These may stay suspended in the water if conditions are such that they are not relegated to the sediments, i.e., in the absence of turnover. These processes do not take place in meromictic conditions only, but meromixis does require autochthonous and/or allochthonous organic substrate supplies, which are generated under aerobic conditions. Specific limnological (biological, chemical and physical) features of the pit lake under consideration have to be defined, such that water quality parameters can be predicted, and the objectives of the decommissioning activities, environ-

Jan 1, 1999

By C. F. de Mendonca, T. Kater, R. P. de Souza

The authors are to be commended for finding a material for pellets binding that we were unable to uncover during the investigations that led to US Patent No. 3,748,116, “Method for producing metallic iron powder from iron ore concentrate, ” July 24, 1973, by G.G. Reed, Jr., J.M. Karpinski, and S.V. Fox. This patent concerns a method of processing “super’ ‘-concentrates prepared from magnetite or “blue dust” into molding-grade metallic iron powder for use as a bulk commodity, in contrast to current methods which produce small batches that are custom-blended with additives and/or alloye to customer specifications. The one thing we had not found at that time was an organic binder (mineral-matter-free ) that would allow induration to produce hardened pellets that would survive SL/RN Direct Reduction. Peridur appears to provide this missing link needed for large scale (200 t/a, or 220,460 stpy) single line plant capacity consistent with a low market price to ensure greatly broadened use of metallic iron powder. I hope that industry will adopt this combination so that metallic iron powder usage can fulfill its potential

Jan 9, 1985

By T. N. Moore, E. M. De Souza

J. Dasher Regarding the March 1991 ME technical paper by De Souza and Moore: For more than a decade since my February 1981 article on how to use modern metric, which SME-AIME had decided to do, I have monthly pointed out metric errors to the editors. In part, I do this because there has been no action to allow editors to fix figures and tables or to allow them to require authors to do so. The latest resulting atrocity provokes this discussion of vibrating drill handle units being stated in decibels. Reply by T. Moore We have read the discussion of our paper by Mr. Dasher. Our reaction is one of surprise and incredulity. It would seem that Mr. Dasher takes exception to the use of the decibel scale to present vibration acceleration data, and the use of hertz as the unit for frequency. The basis for his objection to the decibel appears to be that it has no dimensions (which somehow invalidates its use), that it is "non-metric" and, finally, that it is parochial (of limited or narrow scope). His objection to the use of the term hertz is not stated, but we will assume that it stands condemned as "non-metric" and parochial. Obviously we disagree with Mr. Dasher's views and will now outline our reasons. Although the decibel scale originates from transmission line theory and telephone engineering, it is also at present widely used, not only in the fields of electronic engineering and acoustics, but also in the area of vibration. The original definition of the decibel (dB) was based on power ratios: dB = 10 log 10(W/W0) where Wo is a reference power. However, as the power measured across a given impedance is related to the square of the force acting upon this impedance, Z, a more commonly used definition is: [2 dB = 10 logF /Z) = 20 log F/F 10\ F0 2 /Z(0)] where F and F0 are the r.m.s. values of the forces. Now, if the measurements are related to one and the same impedance, the decibel notation in the form of 20log10(X/Xo) may be used as a convenient relative magnitude scale for a variety of quantities. Thus, X may, for instance, be an r.m.s. displacement, velocity or acceleration. It is only required that XD always be a reference quantity of the same type as X. That is, when X represents an acceleration, then X0 represents a reference acceleration. This is the formulation used in our paper. This was not an arbitrary choice on our behalf but reflects standard practice as specified in the International Standard ISO 5349-1986(E) Mechanical Vibration - Guidelines for the Measurement and the Assessment of Human Despite the metric prefix, the decibel is a parochial expression of (l) the logarithmic ratio of the loudness of a sound to what is normally audible or (2) the logarithmic ratio of two power signals in radio or electronics. A decibel is not a unit, much less an SI, unit and has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceleration of drill handles. Stating that m/s2 (acceleration) is decibels is without reason. Whoever reviewed this material should not have allowed publication of figures of dB and H.[ ] Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration. This was clearly stated in the "measurement protocol" section of our paper. This quantity is then referred to as the acceleration level and is expressed in dB. We may have inadvertently caused some confusion when we simply used the term acceleration to refer to acceleration level on our diagrams. At the time, we felt the use of dB or m/s2 would make the context clear to the reader. For any confusion this decision may have engendered, we apologize. Since the decibel expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it certainly has no dimensions. It is, however, common practice to treat "decibel" as a unit as, for example, in the sentence, "The acceleration level measured at the operator's hand was 160 dB." The expression of measured quantities in dimensionless form is not inherently unacceptable. In fact, in many areas of engineering it is standard practice (consider the use of Reynolds Number, Nusselt Number, etc.). The fact that the decibel is a dimensionless quantity makes the question of whether it is a SI unit nonsensical. However, it is valid to insist that the dimensional quantities used to obtain the decibel values be expressed in SI units. A careful reading of our paper will make it clear that the measured acceleration was, in fact, expressed in units of m/s2 as was the reference acceleration (l x 10-6 m/S2). These are the accepted derived SI units for acceleration. See, for example, the standard ASTM E380-89a Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (SI) (The Modernized Metric System). Concerning Mr. Dasher's implication that hertz (Hz) is an unacceptable unit of measure for frequency, we would again refer him to the standard ASTM E380-89a. Here, he will find (section 2.4.2) that hertz is an accepted "special name" for the derived SI units-1. This is in keeping with numerous other international standards including ISO 5349-1986(E) to which we referred in our paper. In conclusion, we agree with Mr. Dasher on the desirability of expressing measurements in modern SI units. But we would remind him that the standards that define the use of these units, and the accepted means of presenting measured data, are in a continual state of refinement. It is, therefore, incumbent upon him to keep abreast of these changes if he wishes to constructively critique the work of others.[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

By E. L. Fidler, T. E. Finch

Wayne Anderson Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 11, 1982

By A. W. Khair, S. S. Peng

Discussion by J. Parker Gentlemen; Rainy day in Upper Michigan, a good time to catch up on reading. Am doing that, and have a couple of questions concerning the K and P paper on roof problems and supports. I wonder if the authors can enlighten me. The compressive strength of the coal was reported as 4.4 MPa (633 psi) and compressive stresses measured in the coal seam were reported at around 27.6 and 48.2 MPa(4000 and 7000psi ). Can such a soft coal actually contain such a high level of stress? Can it be measured as if the material were elastic, or does the coal behave plastically? Can that stress level be confirmed with hydraulic load cells? And if the coal is so soft, and if it is plastic, why is the stress field not hydrostatic'? The intact roofrock appears to be unusually strong, with compressive strength reported at around 145 MPa (21,000 psi), and some failures were noted as soon as the rock was exposed. Were tests run to find out how that rock responded to the addition of moisture, from sprays or from humid air? Did moisture weaken the rock? Did it cause the rock to expand quickly, thus to induce internal compressive stress? How can the near-vertical cutters, as shown in the photographs, be attributed to primarily horizontal stresses? Did the cutters follow any particular pattern in the development panels, which might be related to a particular stress pattern? For example, did they always appear alongside the stiffest pillar? Or always along the northwest rib? Was there any evidence of the pillars and entries "rotating" under the influence of differential horizontal stresses? How much did the entries and pillars rotate as the longwall face approached and passed? After rooffalls, did the openings assume shapes which would indicate a preferred shape in that stressfield and geology? Did crosscuts always survive without damage, as shown in the sketch?

Jan 1, 1992

By Maurice Grieves

GC. Waterman Mr. Grieves' paper on "Shaft Sinking Today--A Boring Business Tomorrow" in the Dec. 1981 issue of MINING ENGINEERING is an excellent description of recent improvements in speed and costs of shaft sinking. However, shaft boring techniques are not a recent development. In 1935-36, the Idaho Maryland Co. (gold), Grass Valley, CA, bored the vertical 1.5-m-diam Idaho No. 2 ventilation and supply shaft to a depth of 346 m. The equipment was designed and perfected by Branner Newsome and was, I believe, described in "Transactions." Pickands Mather later bored a 1.8-m-diam shaft to a depth of about 305 m using Newsome's design. The Idaho No. 2 shaft cut through hard gabbro, diabase dikes, soft serpentine, very incompetent ankeritized serpentine and a strong fault zone. The completed shaft did not require timber support; the fault zone was cemented. Equipment consisted of a rotating 1.5-m or 3-m core barrel with a slotted bottom which cut a 76-mm kerf. The cutting agent was chilled steel shot introduced into the slot as needed. The driving mechanism and core barrel were lowered into the shaft, the former secured to the wall and the inshaft "engineer" operated the motors which controlled core barrel rpm and advance. After an advance of 1.5-3 m the equipment was lifted out of the shaft, a half(?) stick of powder cut off the drilled core, and it was hoisted to the surface with a cable attached to an eye bolt at the tope of the core. A "shift" consisted of three men: hoistman, equipment operator (down the shaft), and a surface laborer. Advance was variable as equipment and techniques were perfected. Near the end of the job advance was, as I remember, 1.5-3 m per shift. Costs were, as I recall, about $115/m. Up to 4 m cores were lifted out in one piece and swung to the dump by a stiff leg derrick. The Newsome equipment was relatively inexpensive to build and operate and his method should be (more than?) competetive with the methods described by Grieves. W.E. Hawes The author, in mentioning the South African developments of the cactus grab, ignores the parallel development of the Cryderman mucker in this hemisphere. Perhaps a slightly longer history of blind hold drilling would have been in order. Blind shaft boring got a major boost at the Nevada Test Site, as part of the nuclear weapons development, when it was essential to be able to quickly assess depth for weapons testing. One of the early civilian attempts to utilize this technology occurred when Kerr McGee drilled the shaft at the Section 19 Mine at Ambrosia Lake, NM. This twin masted drill rig belonged to a subsidiary of Kerr McGee, not Shaft Drillers. This was a difficult hole, due to bentonitic shales that decomposed. Later advances in drilling fluids eliminated this problem. The Conoco project referred to is not entirely correct, and needs minor amplification: The depth of the development (not pilot) shaft drilled was 684 m, at a diameter of 3.05 m, with a 2.16 m ID hydratatic casing being installed to a depth of 669 m. Conoco Inc., not Challenger, executed the drilling, however Conoco did use Challenger Drilling Company's Rig 14-S. Rig 14-S is unique in that it is specifically designed for shaft drilling, rather than being an oil field rig used for this service. All work was planned and directed by Conoco personnel. Deviation of the aforementioned shaft from vertical was 31 cm. Two smaller shafts (pilot shafts) were drilled with the same rig. These smaller ones were drilled 1.8 m in diameter, to depth of 665 m and cased with .91-m-diam casing, to depth of 650 m to be used as pilot holes for 5.5 m diameter shafts. The total elapsed time for all drilling, casing, cementing, and rig moves was 50 weeks. The constraints mentioned of vertical accuracy, torque, wall collapse, rig set up time, lining time etc., pumping out, etc., may not be as serious as the author implies. First, vertical accuracy: The record achieved by Conoco indicates that with reasonable care, good accuracy can be obtained, primarily by having a fair amount of weight in tension, rather than on the drill bit. Second, the amount of torque that can be applied to the drill stem has been greatly increased by the introduction of larger diameter drill stems, such as the new Hughes rig uses. Third, risk of collapse of shaft walls is minimal with the proper mud program. Basically, the walls are supported by the weight of the mud and it is not removed until some type of casing is installed and grouted in. Here in the real challenge of blind drilling shafts to devise a more economical method of lining bored shafts than using steel casing. The remaining issues were minor at Conoco, provided adequate planning and scheduling takes place. An excellent paper, "Shaft Drilling--Crownpoint Project" by Hassell H. Hunter, presented at the Fifth Uranium Symposium in Albuquerque in Sept. 1981 contains details of this project. A combination of blind boring, with enlargement by either mechanical means (boring machine, or tunneling type shield) or slabbing down, with muck removal through a larger bored shaft would seem to be the future trend in shaft development. The economics, especially for wet conditions, favor this concept over conventional sinking, as has been demonstrated at Kerr McGee --Churchrock, UNC--Churchrock and Conoco at Crownpoint.

Jan 3, 1983

By R. W. Barbaro, R. V. Ramani, K. V. K. Prasad, P. T. Luckie

Discussion by A. Unal Barbaro et al. (1990) implemented a tedious study aimed at delineating the short-scale spatial variability of sulfur in a coal seam. It is not possible, however, to extend their conclusions to any other coal seam or use their in any other fashion, because the background geology was not presented. Nor were the conclusions accompanied by geological interpretations in the paper. In addition, an unfortunate printing error occurred where the total sulfur (determined by High Temperature Combustion) variogram in Fig.3 was duplicated in Fig. 2 instead of the seam height variogram. A more serious error, however, has been committed in the definition of the variable, seam height. What is defined as seam height by Barbaro et al. (1990) is, in essence, mining height, and is not a regionalized variable that should be studied by geostatistical methods directly. Despite the fact that the variable, seam height, is not defined in the paper explicitly, the following quotation discloses the fallacy: "All roof rock that exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft) from the floor was not taken because the longwall was operated to not mine more than 1.8 in (6 ft) unless the coal seam height exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft)." From this definition, the seam height, and therefore the sampling height, is equal to the actual coal thickness, if the coal thickness is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft). Otherwise, it is equal to the sum of the coal thickness plus the thickness of the roof rock that complements the thickness to 1.8 m (6 ft). In the latter case, the seam height is constant and equal to 1.8 m (6 ft). It is possible to conduct a variogram study on a pool of samples that are realizations of two different variables. But the conclusions derived would not belong to any one of the two variables uniquely and, therefore, do not possess any significance. Geostatistical analysis is irrelevant for the sum of multiple regionalized variables formed by arbitrary selections. In a two-seam setting, for example, the mining height, as defined by the thickness of one seam at one location and the thickness of both seams at another location (due to quality and/or minimum thickness considerations perhaps), should not be used in the calculation of one common variogram. The two seams should be modeled separately. They can then be combined according to the specific purposes of the study. On the other hand, if a constant is added to a regionalized variable (to incorporate dilution perhaps), the variogram of the new variable will not change. Barbaro et al. (1990), surprisingly, does not give any geological interpretation of their results despite the fact that most of them can be explained by the origins of sulfur in a coal seam. The presentation of the results of a geostatistical study with no reference to the geology of the deposit is uninformative. It may also be misleading for the potential users of geostatistics, It is not unusual to find nuggets of pyrite in coal seams. In such cases, pyritic sulfur will probably display a spatial structure for only a very small distance that will appear in the experimental variogram as no spatial correlation. This very well known phenomenon is called the pure nugget effect in geostatistics (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978) and perhaps can explain the lack of correlation found for pyritic sulfur content. The lack of correlation found for the total sulfur content may also be explained in the same way because the total sulfur content is dominated by the pyritic sulfur content in this case study. One should notice, however, that the situation may completely be reversed after cleaning the coal. Not all of the inorganic sulfur should be expected to be in the form of pyrite nuggets in a coal seam. It may also be disseminated in the coal seam and it is expected that it follows a certain spatial structure. However, an existing spatial structure may be masked by including a part of the roof rock, rich in sulfides, into the seam thickness in an arbitrary fashion because areas having a sandstone roof sometimes are known to show a higher sulfur content due to the downward percolation of solutions rich in iron sulfides (Clark, 1979). Plants use sulfur in their growth processes. Much of this sulfur is bound organically during peat accumulation and coal formation (Cecil et al., 1978.) This suggests a spatial structure of some sort for the organic sulfur. However, it is not possible to test this hypothesis because the results obtained by the authors for the organic sulfur content are not given in this paper. For this reason, the conclusion that simple average of the nearby samples would provide the best unbiased estimates is questionable for organic sulfur and is not based on any substantial supporting evidence. It is suspected that no spatial structure was detected and this was due to high sampling and laboratory analysis errors. Before concluding that sulfur variability in the seam at the location of study was random, a more detailed study for the disseminated non-pyritic sulfur should have been conducted, not for the sake of scientific curiosity only, but also due to its utmost importance with regard to coal cleaning and emission control. Pyritic sulfur can be cleaned to a considerable extent, whereas organic sulfur can not, making the emission control strategies highly dependent on the spatial distribution of the organic sulfur (Knudsen, 1981). In the light of these facts, one wonders why Barbaro et al. (1990) did not present the results of their study for the sulfate and organic sulfur content. References Barbaro, R.W.. et al., 1990, "Short-Scale Spatial Variability of Sulfur in a Coal Seam,' Mining Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 1267-1269. Cecil, C.B., et al., 1978, "Geology of Ccontaminants in coal," report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina, 123 pp. Clark, W.J.. 1979, "An interfluve model of the upper Freeport coal Bed in part of western Pennsylvania," unpublished MS thesis, University of South Carolina, 57 pp. Journel, A.G., and [Huijbregls], Ch. J., 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, London, 600 pp. Knudsen, H.P., 1981. "Development of a Conditional simulation model of a coal deposit," unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona, 109 pp.

Jan 1, 1992

By Stephen Semeniuk

Discussion by Stephen Semeniuk Discussion As a valuator and SME member, I view Ross D. Lawrence's position as based on unproven and faulty assumptions made with regard to the pragmatic evidence presented in his paper. Moreover, his call for the inclusion of all mineral resources in discounted cash flow valuations is redundant, if not irrelevant, as there are procedures that already take all classes of mineralization into consideration for valuation purposes. In my experience as a valuator, I find that Canadian securities regulators are more than accommodating in allowing any valuations of mineral properties to be based on cash flow calculations. In other business areas, the same regulators usually reject discounted cash flow valuations of projects or businesses with no operating history. Instead, the regulators prefer valuations to be based on other transactions tested in the marketplace. Valuations based on actual market transactions are less subjective than discounted cash flow calculations and/or the capitalization of arbitrary, untested or undemonstrated earnings projections. In the mining and minerals sector, such projections may be made by persons not qualified to make such projections. In support of this statement, I direct readers to the article "Valuation of mineral properties which do not contain exploitable reserves" by Lionel C. Kilburn, which appeared in the August 1990 issue of the CIM Bulletin. To quote from the article: "Value of a mineral property depends basically upon metal prices, recoverable grades, mining and metallurgical practices, commodity supply and demand, and political-economic conditions, all of which vary with time. Five fields of expertise influence the value of a mineral property: •geological engineering, •commodity markets, •financial markets, •stock markets and •mineral property markets. The skills of geologists and engineers properly apply to the first field of expertise. Knowledge and consideration of the other four fields is important, but such advice is more properly sought from marketing experts, economists and stockbrokers." Securities regulators have created no hardship for valuators by excluding unsubstantiated resources in discounted cash flow valuations. In the field of engineering, best design practices apply. A margin of safety is built into the design criteria for any new equipment or structure that will exceed normally expected load levels and stresses, even though such considerations imply higher front end costs. In accounting, the comparable operating principle is conservatism. It explains why, for balancesheet presentation purposes, inventory is stated at cost or market, whichever is the lowest value. Similarly, when the engineering or geoscience-based valuator plays in the field of finance, the rules of accounting and applied economics apply. Regulators in their skepticism of income-based valuations are in tune with similar views already expressed in mining literature. To quote H. Van Tingley, in Mining Magazine, July 1996: "... the DCF method has inherent dangers when applied to undeveloped resources. Firstly, it presents an often-undeserved aura of accuracy. A DCF value is no more accurate than the least accurate of the assumptions incorporated into the calculation - and assumptions

Jan 1, 2003

By E. Arioglu

Discussion by E. Arioglu Y. Luo and S.S. Peng are to be congratulated for their outstanding paper providing new results from surface subsidence monitoring over longwall panels under different conditions. This writer found the authors' paper very interesting. In reference to this paper, the following contributions are offered: • In the paper, the maximum possible subsidence [(ASmax)] induced by chain pillar convergence has been related to a parameter (h/1- p) by linear regression. (Notations are expressed in this discussion's Fig. 1 (b).) It is a well-known fact that in a goaf the roof lowers onto broken material that gradually compacts. Then the physical behavior of goat may closely follow the compaction characteristics of broken materials. In light of this assumption, a mathematical means (Fig. 1(a)) of defining the expected compaction (i.e. surface subsidence) represents an exponential expression between [ASmax/m vs. h/1-p]. This is based on Luo and Peng's field observations from the Appalachian, Illinois and Alabama coal fields. (The coefficient of regression "r" under consideration was computed to be 0.883). • According to Wardell's (1969) findings for board and pillar mining, the maximum possible subsidence can be expressed in terms of maximum pillar loading (depth, ratio of extraction) and the height-to-width ratio of the pillars left. Using Luo and Peng's 1991 results, this writer discovered a regression equation between the above-mentioned factors. As displayed in Fig. 1(b), the functional expression approximates as closely as possible the observed subsidence data. It may be noted here that Wardell's approach (1969) can be successfully utilized for longwall panels having chain pillars. Reference Wardell, K., 1969, "Ground surface and control," Mining Congress Journal, January, pp. 1-7.

Jan 1, 1993

By A. M. Radigan, W. G. Prast

M.S. Azun The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also, I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitilize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondant government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 2, 1984

By J. C. Wynn

J.R. Hillebrand From the abstract, "A realistic ore deposition model to serve as a conceptual framework." Further, on page 246, "The first area of study was the Josephine peridotite, now identified as an ophiolite terrane, located in northern California and south-western Oregon (Fig. 3). Here, it was felt that we could test the models shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and, if successful, expand the model and test it in other chromite districts in the US and around the world." My comments refer only to chromite deposits in Europe and the Middle East. First, I question that may chromite deposits occur in the idealized ophiolite section shown in Fig. 1. Second, although some podiform deposits (referring to morphology) have been important (Guleman, Turkey, for example), the stratiform deposits are of greater importance in tonnage and frequently grade. Examples include Nada, Yugoslavia; Bulqiza, Albania; Xerolivado, Greece; Saranovsk, Russia; and Abdasht, Iran. Reply by J.C. Wynn Mr. Hillebrand raises two issues that deserve a serious response. One issue is basically subjective and the other is ultimately political. First, the question of where (and how many) podiform chromite deposits are found in the idealized ophiolite section of Dickey (1975). The Dickey model is still perhaps somewhat controversial (Panayoutou, 1980), but our experience in the Josephine ophiolite of northern California (Wynn, 1980; and Albers, 1983) shows that the model works well there. Virtually all the chromite is found in dunite lenses in the tectonite peridotite (harzburgite). Since there are few complete ophiolites exposed in the world, the model will probably never satisfy everyone. The degree of acceptance is a function of any individual's subjective experience. Second, it is well known that stratiform chromite contributes more than 95% of the chromite reserves presently known in the world, and it could be reasonably argued that there is no point in exploring for or exploiting podiform deposits further. The title of the paper, however, was in part 'strategic minerals geophysical research'; chromite is considered a strategic and critical mineral of the US and many other industrialized nations. Stratiform deposits in South Africa and Zimbabwe account for most of the chromite reserves in the world. Unfortunately, experience in modern times with substantial price fluctuations and even resource cartels dictates the wisdom of identifying and maintaining a national chromite reserve, irrespective of the cost. An improved exploration methodology is an essential element in this strategic objective. References Albers, J.P., 1983, "Geological and Geophysical Studies of Chromite Deposits in the Josephine peridotite, California and Oregon," US Geological Survey Bulletin 1546 A-D, 118 pp. Dickey, J.S. Jr., 1975, "A Hypothesis of Origin for Podiform Chromite Deposits," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 39, pp. 1061.1074. Panayiotou, 1980, Proceedings, International Ophiolite Symposium, Cyprus, 1979, 781 pp. Wynn, J.C., 1980, "Exploration Geophysical Methods and Strategies, and Their use to Locate and Assess Small Mineral Deposits," Chapter 12 of Meyer and Carmen, eds., The Future of Small Scale Mining, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 75-83.

Jan 12, 1983

By Erich U. Petersen

Discussion by Erich U. Petersen Harbuck et al. (1990) present results of research on sulfuric acid leaching of a germanium-gallium ore and shed considerable insight on possible extraction methods for gallium and germanium. However, the presentation does not give sufficient details to evaluate the research, so some of the conclusions may not be as applicable as stated. The objective of this communication is to indicate that relevant and easily obtainable geological and technical information was omitted. Consequently, on this basis, alternative explanations for some of the data are possible. Discussed below are the omission of: • pertinent geological, mineralogical and geochemical literature; • details regarding the determination of germanium concentration in quartz by electron microprobe; and • details on the calculation of the amount of germanium locked in quartz. "These topics are important since the determination of the amount and locus of "unrecoverable, locked germanium" may have an important impact on the economics and methods of germanium extraction and the directions of future research. Harbuck et al. state that "A key to increasing germanium extraction is understanding the mineralogy of the ore." However, only two studies are cited that in some manner describe the mineralogy of the ores. In addition, both of these studies were very preliminary, of limited scope and examined very few

Jan 1, 1993

By A. F. Agnew

Discussion by A.E Agnew Strachan's paper summarizes a wealth of data on water-storage dam "incidents" published by USCOLD and ASCE in 1988, together with a review of tailings-dam incidents published by USCOLD in 1994. The data is summarized by text and 11 histograms. The histograms present a useful compilation of these data, although the patterns within the histogram blocks did not survive the Mining Engineering printing process - so their usefulness is impaired. Unfortunately, the text discussion is too cursory and does not highlight the significant relationships among the various causes of the incidents. Four paragraphs of text and Fig. 1 were devoted to water-storage dams, but the discussion is too sketchy, and Fig. 1 is unclear. Important statistics that could be uncovered are: •the total number of dam incidents tabulated were 500+, •earth embankments constituted 73% of those in operation and •incidents related to earth embankments were 75%, of which dam failures accounted for 24%, major repairs accounted for 42% and accidents accounted for 34%. Strachan concluded that "the majority of the dam failures are associated with overtopping (p. 49), and that the majority of incidents are associated with spillway and other facility structures" - although this is difficult to discern from Fig. 1. Confusion regarding Strachan's use of the terms "dam failures" and "incidents" is compounded by his use of "failures" and "accidents" in one paragraph of his Introduction section followed by his use of "incidents" in the next paragraph. Getting to the meat of Strachan's important paper, the tailings-dam incident survey (USCOLD, 1994), the connection between Figs 2 through 11 seems obscure. First, in the four paragraphs of introductory material, one learns that "incidents consisted of failures, accidents, seepage and other incidents of performance that did not meet design criteria" (p. 50). One does learn the helpful caveat that "structures not related to mill tailings were not included in the review" - so that the Buffalo Creek (West Virginia in 1972) and Aberfan (Wales in 1966) coal-mine failures, together with the ongoing metal-mine remediation work at Summitville (Colorado) do not muddy the waters of his paper. The all-too-brief discussion of the data shown in Figs. 3 through 11 (185 dams in USCOLD plus 26 dams in UNEP) reveals the following: •Figure 3: 57% of the incidents (failures and accidents) occurred with dams less than 20-m (66-ft) in height. •Figure 4: 63% of the incidents were due to failures alone (subset of Fig. 3). •Figure 5: Active dams had 82% of the accidents and 93% of the failures. •Figure 6: Types of dams (upstream, water-retention, downstream, centerline and "unknown") separated according to incidents. •Figure 7: Breaks out the incidents in Fig. 6 by failures, accidents and ground water. •Figure 8: Breaks out incidents by type (overtopping, slope stability, earthquake, foundation, seepage, structural, erosion, mine subsidence and "unknown"). •Figure 9: Separates Fig. 8 data into active and inactive dams. •Figure 10: Separates Fig. 9 data into failures and accidents. •Figure 11: Same as Fig. 8, but broken out by tailings-dam type (Fig. 6). Figures 6 and 7 show that most of the failures are associated with upstream or "unknown" types. Figure 9 shows that the leading causes of incidents for active dams

Jan 1, 2003

By J. D. Miller, R. J. Smith

Earl C. Herkenhoff Publication of the article "The Flotation Behavior of Digested Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands" by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller has confirmed and again spotlighted a most significant and important development in the field of tar sand and heavy oil mining. This is the ability to recover 95 % of the bitumen in dry tar sands by a hot water process. The initial investigation by Miller and Sepulveda in early 1978, "Separation of Bitumen from Dry Tar Sands," was the first blockbuter. It is disappointing that there has been so little scientific and industry ackowledgement that the authors laid to rest the long entrenched belief that the sand grains had to be "water wetted" for a hot water process to be applicable. Dr. Miller and his researchers at the University of Utah used slightly different mineral dressing terminology in describing their process but it is essentially the old, established technique of high solids attrition scrubbing at elevated temperatures with a conditioner or modifier, followed by dilution and froth flotation. Similar techniques were described in detail for other nonmetallic minerals in the mid-1940s by Stuart Falconer of American Cyanamid Co. The authors used a 15-minute "scrub" period (or in their terminology "digester step") at 73% solids and 95°C (203°F) in a 0.3 m solution of sodium carbonate -about 4 kg/t (8 lb per st) of tar sand. Flotation was at 10% solids. Obviously, the scrub is an expensive step with respect to energy input but the high recovery of bitumen appears to justify it. Two basic questions then arise: • What are the effects of shorter scrubbing time, lower temperature, and less sodium carbonate? • Would a two-stage approach be advantageous? That is, could you get the major proportion of the bitumen with a mild scrub and apply the high power and temperature only to the refractory portion? These variables should be evaluated. Apparently, all results were only for rougher flotation. What would the grade and recovery of bitumen be if multiple cleaner flotation steps were employed? We must concede that a 60-62% grade of bitumen leaves considerable room for upgrading. Finally, it should be noted by all executives who approve funds for heavy oil recovery schemes, most of which are variations of in-situ methods, that mining can yield a 95% recovery of bitumen. That is correct, 95%. Imagine what that does to the total barrels recovered from a heavy oil resource compared with the scrawny 30-35% maximum recovery we are getting now. The conclusion-let's mine heavy oil and tar sands. Reply by R.J. Smith and J.D. Miller We, too, share Mr. Herkenhoff s enthusiasm for the mining of tar sands-heavy oil and continue the development of related processing technology. Specifically, it will be noted that by appropriate control of bitumen viscosity in the feed (probably the most important variable for successful separation) the recovery can be accomplished at low digestion temperature and low addition of alkali. A 91 t/d (100 stpd) pilot plant based on our technology is now being operated by Enercor in Salt Lake City (Hatfield, Oblad, and Miller, 1982). In these same pilot facilities, rougher concentrates containing more than 80% bitumen on a dry basis are being produced from Asphalt Ridge Feed. However, the processing of certain other tar sands results in incomplete digestion of bitumen/sand aggregates as discussed elsewhere (Miller and Misra, 1982). Such undigested aggregates are shown in Fig. 1. In this regard, it is intended that a recycle stream will be installed in the pilot plant to provide for redigestion of middling products. Further details regarding surface chemistry aspects of this tar sand technology have recently been published (Misra, Aguilar, and Miller, 1981). References Hatfield, K.E., Oblad, A.G., and Miller, J.D., 1982, "Pilot Plant Recovery of Bitumen from Oil Wet Tar Sands," Processing, Second International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Caracas, Venezuela, Feb. 7-17. Hatfield, K.E., Oblad, A.G., and Miller, J.D., 1982, "Pilot Plant Processing of Oil-Wet Tar Sands," Symposium, Rocky Mountain Fuel Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 18-19. Miller, J.D. and Misra, M. 1982, "Hot Water Process Development for Utah Tar Sands," Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, April, pp. 27-49. Misra, M., Aguilar, R., and Miller, J.D., 1981, "Surface Chemistry Features in the Hot Water Processing of Utah Tar Sand, Proceedings, "Symposium of Separation Science and Technology for Energy Applications," Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 5-8.

Jan 11, 1982

By Stephen Semeniuk

Working with junior mining companies as a valuer, my experience with regulators is that simplicity works and the sales comparison method is the way to go. What I like about Mr. Ellis?s approach (as in his Table 7) is the integration of commodity prices with the timing of acquisitions and the implication of price changes in gold on the adjustment of individual project valuations. However, the sample gold-related appraisals in Ellis?s paper are pre-2008 transactions and readers should be made aware of the current market for such projects. Before moving on, to be noted is that the effective date of the Las Brisas appraisal (Ellis?s sample Appraisal 3) is Feb. 10, 2006; given that the subject value of Transaction 9, Choco 10 in Ellis?s Table 6 was listed as $353 million for a 95% interest in the con-cession, I am uncomfortable accepting that the acquisition was suddenly worth the adjusted value of $1,205 million (as given in Ellis?s Table 7). In some cases, illiquidity discounts can apply, and commodity-wise, in the one-month period between the acquisition in January 2006 and the adjustment to the Las Brisas conditions as of February 10, 2006, the indicated gold price change was only 41 cents/g ($12.60/oz); i.e., from $17.50/g to $17.91/g ($544.40/oz to $557/oz).

Jan 1, 2012

By S. G. Malghan

W.H. Moyer In reference to the section “Excess pyrite, ” the author discusses difficulties in separating chalcopyrite from pyrite. A technique does exist, and has been used commercially, for the flotation, separation, and recovery, if desired, of both chalcopyrite and pyrite. The method was described in Mining Engineering, March 1966, “An Improved Flotation Method for Cornwall Sulfides. ” While it was not used on a porphyry copper ore, it was used on a chalcopyrite - pyrite-containing ore and might well have application. Both sulfides, chalcopyrite and pyrite, were floated simultaneously using xanthate as a collector and MIBC frother to produce a cleaned sulfide product. This concentrate was then thickened and conditioned at high solids with aeration and lime to a pH above 12.0 for a period of 1.5 to 2 hr. A supplemental suppressant, such as cyanide, could be used if necessary to sharpen the subsequent separation; however, it was not required at Cornwall. The conditioned sulfides were floated with two stages of cleaning to produce a highgrade chalcopyrite froth product and a pyrite sink product barren in copper. The separation at Cornwall gave a 28.6q. Cu grade chalcopyrite product and a pyrite analyzing 0.0670 Cu. A desliming step on the raw ore initially used at Cornwall for a period of time was later discontinued. Advantages to be found in using a strong sulfide collector, such as a xanthate, is the rapid flotation it induces and, generally, an ability to float at a coarser grind. A following regrind circuit could be used to give maximum liberation and produce a clean sulfide concentration. The “differential” separation is concerned primarily with grade and with assuring a barren pyrite for maximum recovery.

Jan 11, 1986

By Dan Plazak

Discussion by Dan Plazak The authors are to be congratulated for presenting a simple and practical tool for quick estimates of ground water flow rates. At the risk of detracting from the simplicity of the method, I would like to suggest a slight refinement to the equation as presented. As the authors noted, the Jacob-Lohman equation (1952) assumes confined-aquifer conditions. To use confined-aquifer equations in water-table aquifers, Jacob (1963) presented a correction to convert water-table aquifer drawdowns [Ahw] to equivalent confined aquifer drawdowns [Ah,: 2] [Ah Ah = Ah - w(1) Cw 2H where: Ah, = Drawdown in confined aquifer: Ahw = Drawdown in water-table aquifer and H = Original saturated thickness of aquifer] Substituting the above in equation ( I) of Hanna. Azrag and Atkinson [4nT Ah - 2H ) Qj2.25 T t(2) 1 nr2 S W] Since the above expression predicts lower pump rates, it causes the Jacob-Lohman equation to agree more closely with appropriate analytical and numerical models. Figure 1, adapted from Fig. 5 of Hanna. Azrag and Atkinson, illustrates the closer agreement of the modified equation to their numerical model, as reflected in Qm/QJL ratios closer to unity. The agreement improves particularly as drawdown [Ah] becomes large in relation to aquifer thickness H. An additional advantage of the modified equation is that Hanna, Azrag and Atkinson's correction factor C is much more stable as pit depth increases. Assuming, as did Hanna, Azrag and Atkinson, that their numerical model is an accurate predictor, it is clear that the modification incorporated in equation (2) improves the accuracy of preliminary estimates of ground water flow to a pit.[ ] References Jacob, C.E and Lohman. S. W.. 1952, "Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer." Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Vol, 33, No. 4. pp. 559-569. Jacob. C. E.. 1963, `Determining the permeability of water-table aquifers,' USGS Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, pp. 245-271

Jan 1, 1995

S.L. Barua and Y.C. Kim M. Armstrong's paper is very interesting and can be regarded as a pioneering work of applying geostatistics on washed coal. The density levels used in her study are uniformly spaced, which facilitated curve fitting through a proper experimental design. Most of the existing coal washing plants in the US, however, gather washability data at non-uniform intervals which, in turn, affects the goodness of curve fitting. We would like to emphasize the importance of having a proper experimental design, if a similar geostatistical application is to be conducted on washed coal. We, at the University of Arizona, tried the variogram on recovery (Kim, Barua, and Baafi, 1982, SME preprint 82-143) which showed a similar pattern as Fig. 4 of Armstrong's paper. In both cases, the first experimental variogram value is invariably and inexplicably higher than the second variogram value. Although Armstrong ignores the first point because of "small number of sample points," we did not do so because there were 17 sample pairs. As a consequence, we concluded that the obtained experimental variogram was unsatisfactory and that further research is warranted. In other words, this disagreement in variogram interpretation between M. Armstrong and the University of Arizona begs the question whether the experimental variogram of Fig. 4 truly reflects the spatial correlation in washed coal, assuming there is such a correlation. Finally, we wish that Armstrong could have done a similar study on clean sulfur, which is a vital interest to the coal mines in the US. Her implied remark on sulfur in the concluding section of the paper may turn out to be incorrect because our experimental variograms on clean sulfur at different density levels were even less satisfactory than those on recovery.

Jan 1, 1985