PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FRCM LIBRARY

Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations/1987

(
~ UBRAAv
8IIOKANe RiSEAACH CENTER
MCElV!o

: SEP 1 21994
• ~8UREAUOF;' .
I. 315 MON'TOOMEt-. ( ,. 'Ie.
SfIOKAHE. WA 9&207

Borehole (Slurry) Mining of Coal,

Uraniferous Sandstone, Oil Sands,
and Phosphate Ore

By George A. Savanick

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Report of Investigations 9101

B'orehole (Slurry) Mining of Coal,

Uraniferous Sandstone, Oil Sands,
and Phosphate Ore

By George A. Savanick

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary

BUREAU OF MINES
David S. Brown, Acting Director
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data:

Savanick, G. A. (George A.)

Borehole (slurry) mining of coal, uraniferous sandstone, oil sands, and
phosphate ore.
(Report of inves tigations; 9101)

Bibliography: p.39.

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 28.23: 91Ol.

l. Borehole mining. I. Title. II. Series: Report of investigations (United States. Bureau of
Mines) ; 910l.

TN23.U43 [TN278.5] 622 s [622' .2] 86-600222

..
 CONTENTS

Abs tract. • • . . . . . • • . • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . •• . • . . . . . . . • • • 1
Introduction................................................................... 2
Borehole -mining tools.......................................................... 2
Bureau of Mines borehole-mining system......................................... 3
Coal mining.................................................................. 8
Uranium mining............................................................... 9
Oil-sand mining. ••. .•.•••...•..........• •...•..•........•........•........ ••• 11
Phosphate mining............................................................. 16
Backfilling of borehole-rnined cavities ......•.... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Economics of phosphate minin g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Economics of uranium mining.................................................... 32
Economics of oil-sand mining................................................... 34
Summary and conclusions........................................................ 38
Ref erences. • . • • •• • . • •• • • • • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . • • 39
ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Bureau of Mines borehole-mining system.................................... 4
2. Slurry discharge.......................................................... 5
3. Borehole mining tool suspended from crane................................. 5
4. Cutaway view of three-passage swivel...................................... 6
5. Cutaway view of kelly section............................................. 6
6. Mining section............................................................ 6
7. Internal configuration of mining section.................................. 7
8. Cavity produced during borehole mining.................................... 10
9. Survey grid system................................................ ..•.••••• 16
10. Contour map of borehole 1 s i t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Contour map of borehole 2 s i t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Phosphate ore deposited at outlet of mining tool.......................... 19
13. Phosphate production in borehole 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Phosphate production in borehole 2 ••.•••••.•.•••••••••••••••• ~............ 20
15. Phosphate production in borehole 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16. Generalized columnar section showing monitored zones and geologic units... 22
17. Hydrographs of well A3 showing first and second test periods.............. 23
18. Location and generalized configuration of test site ••••.•• / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
19. Borehole cavi ty partially backfilled...................................... 27
20. Schematic of backfilling apparatus........................................ 28
21. Mining cost sensitivity using submerged cutting jet....................... 32
22. Uranium mining: effect of type of ore body on profitability.............. 33
23. Oil-sand mining: return on investment versus cavity radius............... 37
24. Oil-sand mining: return on investment versus ore thickness............... 37
25. Oil-sand mining: return on investment versus overburden thickness........ 37
26. Oil-sand mining: return on investment versus ore grade................... 37
27. Oil-sand mining: return on inves tment versus mining rate................. 38
TABLES
1. Summary of 4-h coal mlnlng test with 520-hp water jet..................... 9
2. Summary of 1979 oil-sand operations, Kern County, CA...................... 12
3. Operating parameters for 1979 oil-sand mining, Kern County, CA............ 12
4. Water sample analyses before and during oil-sand mining................... 13
5. Elevation surverys before, during, and after oil-sand mining.............. 14
6. Water-quality data for well AI............................................ 24
7. Water-quality data for well B l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ii

TABLES--Continued

8. Water-quality data for well .A3............................................ 24

9. I-Jater-quality data for well A4............................................ 25
lU. Water-quality data for well AS............................................ 25
11. Water-quality data for well A6............................................ 25
12. Economic analysis of submerged cutting jet: input parameters............. 29
13. Economic analysis of submerged cutting jet: output parameters............ 31
14. Cost summary for uranium mining........................................... 32
15. Uranium-mining assumptions................................................ 34
16. Basis for mining cost analysis............................................ 35
17. Cost summary for oil-sand mining.......................................... 36
18. Production summary for oil-sand mining.................................... 36

UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

acre/yr acre per year pCi/L picocurie per liter
bbl/st barrel per short ton pct percent

cm centimeter pct/yr percent per year

deg degree rpm revolution per minute
$/bbl dollar per barrel st short ton

$/ft dollar per foot std ft 3 /min standard cubic foot

per minute
ft foot
st/d short ton per day
gal gallon
st/h short ton per hour
gpm gallon per minute
st/yr short ton per year
h hour
thousand barrels
hp horsepower
thousand dollars
in inch
thousand short tons
in/s inch per second
thousand short tons
Ibf/ft 3 pound (force) per per year
cubic foot
vol pct volume percent
lbf/in 2 pound (force) per
square inch wt pct weight percent
mg/L milligram per liter yd 3 /min cubic yard per minute
~g/L microgram per liter yr year

~m/L micrometer per liter

~S/cm microsiemens per

centimeter

J
 BOREHOLE (SLUR RY) MINING OF COAL, URANIF EROUS SANDSTONE,
OIL SANDS, AND PHOSPHATE ORE

By George A. Savanick 1

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews advances in the art of borehole (slurry) mining

made by the Bureau of Mines from 1974 to 1980. The design of a proto-
type borehole-mining tool (BMT) developed by the Bureau of Mines is pre-
sented along with production data, reclamation data, and an application
of the BMT to the mining of coal, uraniferous sandstone, oil sands, and
phosphate ore.
The BMT was first used near Wilkeson, WA, where steeply pitching
metallurgical coal was mined at 8 st/h from a depth of 25 to 75 ft.
Next, 940 st of uraniferous sandstone was mined at 8 st/h from a depth
of 75 to 100 ft in Natrona County, WY. One thousand short tons of oil
sands was mined in Kern County, CA, at the rate of 14 st/h from a depth
of 110 to 150 ft in 1979. Most recently, 1,700 st of phosphate ore was
produced at 25 st/h from deep (230- to 250-ft) deposits in St. Johns
County, FL.
Progressive improvements were made in the borehol e mining technique.
These include the use of the hydrostatic head of a water-filled borehole
for roof support, and the development of methods to survey and backfill
mined-out cavities.

1supe rvisory phy sical sci e ntist, Twin Citie s Res e a r ch Cente r, Bureau of Mine s,
Minneapoli s , MN.
 -
2

INTRODUCTION

Borehole mining, also known as slurry fragmented by the water jet is brought to
mlnlng, is a process in which a tool in- the surface in slurry form and thus is
corporating a water-jet cutting system ideally suited for low-cost pipeline
and a downhole slurry pumping system are transport. Borehole mining is selective
used to mine minerals through a single and can extract deposits that are small
borehole drilled from the surface to the or erratically mineralized, thereby
buried mineralized rock. Water jets from broadening the resource base. This se-
the mining tool erode the ore to form a lectivity allows the ore to be extracted
slurry. The slurry flows into the inlet without disturbing the country rock,
of a pump at the base of the tool. The thereby avoiding dilution and yielding a
material is lifted to the surface in a clean product. Crushing and grinding
form suitable for pipeline transfer to a costs would be minimal since the ore is
mill or processing plant. reduced to grain size by the jet stream.
Borehole mining, as defined by this The slurries would be an ideal feed for
paper, appears to be a likely prospect onsite milling operations. Tailings from
for the near future. It offers a number the processing plant operations could be
of important advantages over conventional pumped into the mined-out caverns to con-
open pit and underground mining methods, trol subsidence and reduce waste disposal
and it can access mineral deposits that problems.
presently are not mined because of tech- This report presents the results of the
nical or economic difficulties. This Bureau of Mines borehole mining research
method can achieve essentially immediate conducted from 1974 to 1980. The report
production because there is no need to first discusses BMT's developed and
drive openings to and in a proved ore tested prior to the development of the
body to prepare it for mining; in con- Bureau of Mines BMT. Then the design of
trast, conventional mining methods re- then ureau oC M1.ne s BMT is described.
quire from 3 to 5 yr before production Results of field experiments follow with
and return on investment can be expected. separate sections on the mining of coal,
The fragmentation and transportation sys- uraniferous sandstone, oil sands, and
tems are incorporated into a . single ma- phosphate ore. The report presents a
chine that is remotely operated from the discussion of reclamation of borehole-
surface by a two- or three-person crew, mined land, including a description of
th~s eliminating health and safety prob- cavity surveying and backfilling methods.
lems inherent to underground mining. The The report concludes with a discussion of
environmental disturbance is minimal and the economics of borehole mining of phos-
short term; no overburden is removed, phate, uranium ore and oil sands.
an subsidence can be avoided. Ore

BOREHOLE-MINING TOOLS

The earliest patent for a tool that Patents on similar BMT's were issued to
used a water jet to fragment rock adja- Aston in 1950 (2), Quick in 1955 (3),
cent to a borehole and a downhole slurry Fly in 1964 (4),- Pfefferle in 1969 (l),
pump to lift the broken ore to the sur- Wennenborg i; 1973 (~), Archibald in
face was issued to Clayton in 1932 (~).7 1974 (l), and Brunelle in 1977 (~).
Fly's apparatus (~) was built and used to
2Underlined numbers in parentheses re- excavate sandstones, limestones, and
fer to items in the list of references at shales to a maximum depth of 350 ft.
the end of this report. Mining rates of 1 yd 3 /min were achieved,

j
 3

and cavities were excavated to a lateral The apparatus described in the Archi-
distance of 30 ft from the borehole. The bald patent was built by Marconaflo, Inc.
apparatus had two sidewall nozzles oper- (lQ), and used to mine uraniferous sand-
ated at 800 lbf/in 2 and 400 gpm to form stones and tar sands on an experimental
the water jets. The slurry was caused to basis. The jet-cutting unit consists of
flow into the intake of a downhole jet a single nozzle and high-pressure piping
pump which hoisted it to the surface. that rides on a vertical rail attached to
The jet pump was operated at about the main body of the device. This rail
800 lbf/in 2 and 500 gpm. Jets were also allows the nozzle to move independently
formed by forcing water through the water of the slurry pump; the nozzle could be
courses of a tricone rock bit attached to slid up and down as well as rotated 180 0
the base of the tool. These jets kept about a vertical axis. The vertical mo-
the slurry in suspension so that it could tion allows cutting to occur at various
be taken into the downhole slurry pump. horizons without lifting or dropping the
This tool used a single, pressurized wa- entire device, and it lets the intake of
ter supply to operate the sidewall jets, the slurry pump to be cleared of block-
the pump, and the tricone jets. ages by the cutting jet. The cutting jet
The apparatus described in the Wennen- is operated at 400 to 500 lbf/in 2 and 150
borg patent was built by FMC Corp. and to 170 gpm.
tested in phosphate ore in eastern North The slurry-pumping system contains a
Carolina. This device uses a high- pump mechanically driven from the surface
volume, low-pressure water jet to slur- and 20-ft-long sections containing a
rify the ore and an eductor to lift the drive shaft and slurry conduits. The de-
slurry to the surface. Its most novel vice operated in a 30-in-diam borehole
aspect is that it provides a method for and produced 30- to 45-pct solids in the
drilling into, as well as mining, a de- slurry. It was tested successfully by
posit of granular ore. All previous mining a uraniferous sandstone from a
BMT's required a predrilled, cased bore- roll - front deposit in the Gas Hills of
hole. The Wennenborg device is designed Wyoming from a depth of 180 ft and by
for mining unconsolidated, easily drilled mining tar sands from a depth of 350 ft
sediments, such as North Carolina in the McKittrick oilfield near
phosphates. Bakersfield, CA.

BUREAU OF MINES BOREHOLE-MINING SYSTEM

The Bureau of Mines contracted with slurrifies ores. The slurry is drawn
Flow Industries, Inc., to design, fabri- into the inlet of an eductor and lifted
cate, and test a new and unique BMT in to the surface where it is metered and
1974 (12). The Bureau of Mines BMT has deposited into a slurry discharge tank
an eductor for a downhole slurry pump, (fig. 2). The ore settles in the tank
whereas mechanically driven slurry pumps while the water overflows into a pond,
were used in the Marconaflo equipment. which is the source of water for pumps
It contained separate conduits for the that supply the cutting jet and the
eductor drive water and the cutting jet eductor.
water, whereas the FMC and the Fly sys- The BMT, which is operated while sus-
tems used a single conduit. pended from a crane (fig. 3), is in the
The Bureau's system, shown schematical- form of a 12-in-diam cylinder capped with
ly in figure 1, is composed of the BMT a three-passage swivel. The cylinder is
suspended from a crane in a 16-in-diam composed of a kelly section, a series of
cased borehole. The BMT generates a standard sections, and a mining section.
high-velocity water jet that erodes and
4

Ore pile

. r""~_~-
.,.--- o---..".."",,--..--'--~~----"" ---
Slurry discharge sumps (2)

Culling
nozzle

Borehole cavity

FIGURE 1.-8ureau of Mines borehole-mining system .

The cutaway view of the three-passage long and 12-in in diameter with two 0.75-
swivel is shown in figure 4. The outer in webs welded along its length. The
part is stationary and is supported by a webs key into a rotary turntable, thereby
crane. The swivel core rotates relative transmitting torque to the BMT. This
to the exterior while simultaneously turntable is driven by hydraulic motor
passing the three pressurized streams: and governed by a hydraulic controls and
the water supply to the cutting nozzle, limit switches, which allows for rotary
the drive water to the eductor pump, and speeds of 0 to 20 rpm and for automatic
the slurry output. The swivel is con- oscillation for any interval from 0° to
nected to a kelly section by eight bolts. 360°.
The kelly section is a cylinder 22 ft
 5

FIGURE 2.-Slurry discharge .

FIGURE 3. - Borehole mining tool suspended from crane .

6

Cutt i ng jet wot er in let -,

Jet pump wote r inlet

FIGURE 4.-Cutaway view of three-passage swivel.

CQnd ~i t tor le t PU"'P wot~r

r- CO<ld it f er
coot sl " rry

,-: - - --vL22' - - -- -- -- .

- C<>odu ,t fo r wate r
cw. tlng Jet

FIGURE 5.-Cutaway view of kelly sec ti on.

FIGURE 6.-Minlng section.
The internal configuration of the kelly
section is shown in figure 5. The 12- that provide the length to reach the ore.
in-diam cylinder houses a 4-in-diam slur- The internal configuration of these
ry discharge pipe and a 2-in-diam supply sections is identical to that of the
pipe for the cutting jet. The space kelly section just described.
inside the cylinder not occupied by pipes The BMT is terminated with a mining
is the conduit for the jet-pump drive wa- section 12-in in diam and 6 ft long
ter. The end of the kelly section is (fig. 6). It is composed of jet-cutting
covered by a flange that provides for the and slurry-pumping modules (fig. 7). The
interconnection of the conduits in adja- jet-cutting module contains a flow-turn
cent sections: two circular spaces for and nozzle device maximizes the effective
the jet-cutting and slurry-output pipes, cutting length of the water jet. This
and two kidney-shaped spaces for the device was designed by TRW Defense and
eductor drive water. The kelly section Space System Group under a Bureau of
is connected to a string of standard sec- Mines contract (11). The nozzle profile
tions, each 20 ft long and 12-in in diam, consists of a smooth, transitory curve
 7

Condu i t for cutt ing-jet water

Conduit for j et p ump

feed water
NO ZZ L E SEC T IO N

Jet pu mp d i ffu ser

Je t pu mp mix i ng section Cond uit for jet pump

Conial aug er feed water

MINING SECTION
FIGURE 7.-lnternal configuration of mining section.
 8

from nozzle entrance to the outlet ori- miles south of Wilkeson, WA. This site
fice. Upstream of the nozzle is a short- contained a seam of bituminous coal
turn elbow with flow-splitting plates to 17.75-ft thick, dipping at 42°. Three
guide the flow around the elbow with re- vertical boreholes (two shallow and one
duced flow disturbances. deep) were drilled through the dipping
The slurry-pumping module contains the coal seam and cased to the hanging wall.
educt or (jet pump) and a conical spade. The two shallow boreholes (25 and 35 ft)
The jet pump has a nozzle that generates were used to conduct preliminary tests
the high-velocity water jet. The venturi designed to optimize mining procedures to
effect caused by the discharge of the jet be followed during a 4-h production test
draws slurry into the pump through in the deep (88 ft) borehole. The pre-
screened intake ports. The slurry mixes liminary tests results were as follows:
with the drive water in the throat of the
jet pump and enters a diffuser where it 1. The cutting jet was more efficient
acquires the pressure to lift it to the at cutting coal then the slurry system
surface. The intake ports are screened was at removing the coal from the bore-
to prevent oversize material from block- hole. Thus, the maximum mining rate was
ing the pump. Should the material block limited by the slurry-pumping rate.
the inlet, a fast-acting valve ("back- 2. A cutting radius of 10 ft was at-
flush" valve), is closed in the slurry tainable with the 4,500-lbf/in 2 , 100-gpm
discharge line at the surface, forcing jets.
the jet-pump drive water to flow out the 3. Shale tended to clog the jet pump
pump intake and clear away the blockage. because it breaks into acicular particles
The conical spade, which is bolted to the that lodge between the nozzle and the
base of the mining section, facilitates sidewall of the jet pump.
entry into cuttings that fill the void 4. The tool had to be moved a vertical
caused when the BMT is raised. A 50-gpm dist;.E!l~e g..f LLt_ b~..!ween_ intervals of
water jet issues downward from the center cutting, and the best cutting sequence
of the spade and agitates the cuttings was from the bottom to the top of the
below, thereby helping the spade enter seam. In a commercial mining operation,
the muck pile. a dipping seam would be mined from a
Flow Industries, Inc., had independent- series of vertical boreholes intersecting
ly produced a BMT based on the Bureau of the seam at different depths. Pillars
~ines design, but it has some notable would be left between boreholes so that
design changes. The Bureau and Flow In- the slurry would not run down the dip in-
dustries products are similar in that to the cavity formed earlier.
both are composed of 20-ft lengths of 5. The best traverse rate of the
12.75-in-diam cylinders connected by water jet across the coal face was 4 to
flanges, and the slurry pumps have the 6 in/so
same design. They differ in that the
cutting nozzle of the Flow Industries A production rate test was conducted in
product is controlled independently from the deep borehole, which was lined with
the remainder of the tool, similar to the 16-in steel casing. The parameters of
Marconaflo BMT. This permits water-jet the cutting jet were similar to those
cutting to be performed anywhere along used in the preliminary test except that
the length of the borehole while the pump a single, high--discharge jet
is low in the sump, where the slurry den- (4,500 lbf/in 2 , 200 gpm) was used to in-
sity is highest. crease the effective cutting range to
15 ft. Two methods of measuring the pro-
COAL MINING duction were employed. In one, a density
meter was placed in the slurry output
Flow Industries, under a Bureau of line in s erie s with a flow meter, and the
Mines contract (12), conducted borehole output of the t wo wa s recor ded elec t ron-
mining operations-rn 1975-76 at a site 3 ically. The mi ning rate was obtained by
 9

TABLE 1. - Summary of 4-h coal mining test with 520-hp

water jet

Measurement e rate, st
Slurry density meter •••••• 8.3
Volume collected:
Intermediate pools •••••• 25.2 6.4
Sett pond ••••••••••• 6.3 1.6
Total ••••.••••••••••• 31.5 8.0

int the product of the flow rate The Bureau of Mines cooperated with
and the slurry density measurements. Ro Mountain Energy (RME), at
That value was mUltiplied by the mining its Nine-Mile Lake site, Natrona County,
time rate to obtain the amount of coal WY, in a borehole-mining test. R~1E pre-
produced. The alternative method in- pared the site, drilled a water supply
volved the volume of coal col- well, constructed a and lined it
lected in two portable pools and with , and drilled three 16-
pond into which the slurry in-ID cased boreholes to a depth of
was During this test, 100 ft into the sandstone ore
92,600 gal of slurry was at an av- body. Flow Industries, under contract to
erage rate of 386 gpm. The slurry aver- the Bureau of Mines 13 modified the
8.7 wt pet solids (6.4 vol pct) and tool used for coal at Wilkeson, WA,
had an average ic weight of site and conducted the sandstone
64.0 Ib/ft 3 • operations. A shallow deposit at Nine-
The results of the 4-h production test Mile Lake was chosen for the test because
are summarized in table 1, which shows the s pump is limited to differen-
that both methods of estimating produc- tial lifts of 200 ft. The modifications
tion rate yielded 8 st/h. This rate, included fitt of the BMT with a turn-
with the fact that no mechanical vane-nozzle ensemble to pass
failures of the BMT occurred the 300 gpm at 2,000 Ibf/in 2 , the flow con-
field program, indicates that it is tech- ditions chosen for efficient erosion of
ni feasible to mine coal the sandstone.
from the surface through a borehole. It During mining operations, approximately
was concluded, however, that the 940 st of ore was mined from ths of 75
tion (8 st/h) rate was too low for com- to 100 ft at an average rate of 8 st/h
mercial feasibi from standoff distances as
25 ft. densities from
URANIUM tHNING o to 46 wt with an average of 700
determinations being 7.2 wt pct. The
The successful coal mining tests also showed the fol
led to the application of borehole tech-
nology to mining uraniferous sandstones. 1. The average jet-cutt rate was
Uranium sands are considered to be a about 16 s at 520 hp. The s pump
like prospect for borehole be- normally works at a lower rate because
cause (1) the ore has a high unit value, the tool moves vertical as one piece,
(2) the sandstones can be cut by low- the lift the pump out of the slur-
pressure (1,000- to 3,000-lbf 2) water ry sump during part of the cycle.
jets, and (3) many deposits are shallow, The mining rate could be made equal to
small, irregularly and isolated; the cutting rate if the cutting jet
these its cannot be mined conven- cou}d be moved ly from the
tional methods, but are amenable to the pump.
selective capabilities of the borehole
system.
10

2. The optimum jet-cutting traverse in one of the boreholes at Nine-Mile

rate across the sandstone was between 40 Lake. The white, 2-in-diam PVC pipes in
and 80 in/so the foreground are placed in monitor
3. The jet-cutting rate was propor- holes drilled 10 and 20 ft from the
tional to the horsepower of the cutting center of the borehole. A 1-in-diam
jet. steel pipe 25 ft from the borehole is
shown in the background. This photo-
A photographic survey of the borehole graphic survey showed that roof failure
cavities created in the Teapot sandstone was confined to a 7-ft radius from the
ore body was taken using equipment devel- center of the borehole. Presumably, this
oped for the purpose by the Bureau of indicates that the rock within this ra-
Mines. Figure 8 shows the cavity created dius was damaged during drilling.

FIGURE B.-Cavity produced during borehole mining.

 11

OIL-SAND MINING at the base of the mining tool because

were from the
The possibi of mining oil in the pump by a screen over the inlet.
383 known shallow oilfields 14 in the BMT was unable to penetrate this pile
United States has become a matter of in- of rocks. Mining had to be terminated in
terest because of the energy crisis of each borehole when the Ie got so
the 1970's_ Oil could be produced from that the could not be lowered below
these shallow fields by surface the (110 ft). The addition of a
methods. However, open t mining of oil crusher to the tool would prevent
sands could be to meet with the rocks from obstruct the BMT.
environmental objections including the The water used was sampled before min-
following: (1) disruption of the sur- ing and on seven occasions while it
face, (2) increased air pollution from was in progress. Table 4 summarizes
volatile rbons uncovered in the these It appears that no s
open pit, (3) accumulation of waste rock nificant chemical occurred, but
piles, (4) accumulation of tai the data are inconclusive.
(5) damage to groundwater quality, and It is difficult to draw any conclusions
(6) surface water pollution. the dissolution of solids be-
Borehole offers an alternative cause of chemical variations introduced
method for the oil sands with min- by adding makeup water the
imal disturbance to the environment be- process. The source water was
cause no overburden is removed, no waste waste brine oil wells and
rock piles are ,tail can be could be to vary with the number
backfilled into the borehole cavity, no and type of oil recovery operation
surface streams are polluted because a occurring.
closed-loop water system is , and In order to monitor the escape
surface subsidence can be avoided by of water from the mining ope two
backfilling the mined cavities. Borehole monitoring wells were drilled 50 ft in
appears to be more on the direction of flow (south-
an environmental basis than does surface east) of the boreholes. These wells were
drilled to intersect potential aquifer
In 1979, the Bureau of Mines and Flow sands at depths of 150 and 550 ft. Both
Industries demonstrated the technical, sands were above the local
economic, and environmental feasibility level. Periodic sampling of these dry
of hydraulic bore-hole mining of shallow wells indicated that no water entered
oil sands (~). Flow Industries per- these sands the process.
formed this work on a site in Kern From this, it is inferred that no mining
County, near Taft, CA, in the Midway Sun- water radial from the mining
set Oil Field. This test demonstrated although it may have percolated
that the borehole beneath the cavity. Vertical
environm.en.ta.ll ion is def be-
mining oil sands. The experiment mea- cause the mining cavity, although 110 to
sured rate with the en- 150-ft was above the water table.
vironmental impacts. could have been checked
Mining was conducted from July 25 to wells which were
August 24, 1979. During the operation, the
994 st of oil sands was extracted from ment for such was not
two holes. The mining rate ranged from 0 available.
to 45 st/h 2) with an overall av- Ground subsidence is possible in bore-
erage 14 Typical operating param- hole operations. To evaluate it,
listed in table 3. A range of a series of surveys collected information
when the parameter varied on in elevation at the
site. were performed to obtain
One major complication was encountered baseline elevations before mining,
the The borehole be- during the ect, and 30 days after the
came filled with rocks that accumulated mining stopped.
12

Table 2. - Summary of oil-sand mining operations, Kern County, CA

(Duration: 70.05 h; production: 993.50 st; average mining rate: 14.2 st/h)
Time, Sand in Hining Depth, Time -, Sand in Mining Depth,
Date, 1979 h tank, st Tankrate, ft Date, 1979 h tank, st Tank rate, ft
st/h st/h
July 24 I , J 3.0 0 1 0 NAp Aug. 1]L •• 1.0 37.71 13 26.9 125-135
July 25 1 •• 1. 25 26.24 1 21. 0 150 Aug. 17 2 •• 1.25 36.00 14 28.8 135
July 26 1 •• 2.35 40.95 2 17.4 123-135 Aug. 17 2 •• 1.25 34.92 15 27.9 130
July 26 1 •• 2.75 34.97 3 12.7 121-122 Aug. 17 2 •• 1. 25 32.76 16 26.2 130
July 27 1 •• 2.5 40.58 4 16.2 118-121 Aug. 17 2 •• 1.1 38.10 17 34.6 124
July 27 1 •• 2.0 46.50 5 23.2 117-119 Aug. 17 2 ,3 1.2 NA NA NA 132
July 27 1 ,3 1. 25 NA NA NA 118 Aug. 18 2 •• .75 41. 83 18 21.5 126
July 27 1 •• 1.5 44.00 6 16.0 114 Aug. 18 2 •• 2.25 41. 39 19 18.4 129
July 27 1 •• 1.5 NA NA NA 113 Aug. 18 2 ,3 2.25 NA NA NA 124-126
Aug. 13 2 •• 2.1 34.37 7 9.5 110-145 Aug. 22 2 ,3 3.5 NA NA NA 106-120
Aug. 13 2 •• 2.2 NA NA NA 126-145 Aug. 23 1 •• 1.0 48.25 20 6.3 105-112
Aug. 14 2 •. 3.0 39.90 8 7.7 130-140 Aug. 23 1 •• 1.0 44.64 21 44.6 116
Aug. 14 2 ,3 4.3 39.84 9 9.3 138-140 Aug. 23 1 •• 1.25 44.54 22 35.6 110-115
Aug. 14 2 •. 2.2 NA NA NA 122-132 Aug. 23 1 •• 1.5 38.41 23 25.6 114
Aug. 15 2 •. 6.75 42.16 10 4.7 108-140 Aug. 23 1 ,3 1.0 NA NA NA 112
Aug. 2
15 •. 1.7 NA NA NA 135-136 Aug. 24 1 •• 1.5 40.35 24 16.1 112-113
Aug. 16 2 .• 1.0 39.10 11 14.5 140 Aug. 24 1 •• 2.5 34.38 25 13.8 112-115
Aug. 16 2 •• 2.75 42.00 12 15.3 135-140 Sept. 5 1 ,4 Pond 7.00 NAp NA NAp
Aug. 16 2 ,3 .40 NA NA NA 140 Sept. 52 •• Pond 8.00 NAp NA NAp
NA Not ava11able. NAp Not applicable.
lBorehole 1. 2Borehole 2.
3Production data not given because tanks were measured only when full.
4Sand in pond estimated by measuring deltas after water removed.
5Equipment malfunction.

TABLE 3. - Operating parameters for oil-sand mining, Kern County, CA

Typi~L _ ~l!!l~
value
Cutting jet:
Pressure ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• lbf/in 2 •• 400 100-2,500
Flow rate •••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••• gpm •• 300 100-500
Hydraulic power ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• hp •• 50 10- 700
Nozzle diameter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• in •• 0.62 0.62-0.75
Line diameter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• in •• 1.70 NAp
Rotation rate •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• rpm •• 10 4-15
Traverse rate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• in/s •• 60 2-120
Vertical cutting increment •••••••••••••••• in •• 2 NAp
Angle of cutting arc ••••••••••••••••••••• deg •• 180 0-360
Depth ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ft •• 130 110- 150
Jet pump:
Pressure ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 bf /i n 2 •• 1,000 450-1,500
Flow rate •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• gpm •• 500 350-650
Agitation jet flow rate •••••••••••••••••• gpm •• 90 60-110
Hydraulic power ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• hp •• 300 100-600
Nozzle diameter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• in •• 0.70 NAp
Agitation jet diameter •••••••••••••••••••• in .• 188 NAp
Throat diameter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• in •• 2.50 2.5-2.9
Nozzle line diameter, effective ••••••••••• in •• 2.5 NAp
Secondary flow:
Rate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• gpm •• 400 300-600
Solids •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• wt pct •• 15 0- 35
Specific gravity •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1.1 1.0-1.3
Slurry flow:
Rate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• gpm •• 800 600-1,100
Line diameter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• in •• 3.75 NAp
Solids ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• wt pct •• 7 0- 18
Specific gravity ••••••••••••••••••••.•••.••••• 1. 05 1. 0-1. 15
Mining rate ............................ st/h •• 15 0- 45
NAp Not app11cable.
 TABLE 4. - Water sample analyses before and during oil-sand mining

Sample date, 1979 7/26 8/7 8/13 8/17 8/18 8/20 8/22 8/24
Cations, mg/L:
Arsenic .......................•..... <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
Barium .•..•••••...••......•••....... <1.0 <1.0 3.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cadmi urn ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• <0.01 0.02 ND 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Calcium ••.•..••....•..••.....••..•.. 42 2.8 1,740 35 35 39 57 56
Chromium •••••••••..•••••••..•••••••. 0.05 <0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chromium, hexavalent •••••••••••••••• <0.01 ND ND <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Copper •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.01 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 <0.01
Ir on .•.••..•.•••••••••••••..•...••.. 0.06 0.58 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.16
Lead •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• <0.01 <0.01 ND <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Magnesium •.•...•.•........•.....••.. 18 2.4 0.03 22 25 25 42 73
Manganese ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.06
Mercury ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.0002 ND <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Potassium .............••.•........•. 55 147 101 62 62 66 64 62
Seleni urn •.•.••••.....•.•..•........• <0.01 ND ND <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sodium •.•...•..........•.•....•..... 1,590 3,250 350 1,750 1,750 1,790 1,750 1,685
Z i ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02
Anions, mg/L:
Bicarbonate ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,088 925.1 0 876.6 913 1,124.3 1,008.0 984
Carbonate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 644.1 54.5 139.7 124.4 0 0 0
Chloride •.•.•.....•..•.•......•..... 1,897.7 3,600.2 3,168.3 2,028.4 2,067.4 2,124.0 2,109.8 2,102.8
Floride •.....•...........•.•........ 2.6 1.0 0.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8
Phosphate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30.0 ND ND 1.2 1.5 1.7 0.8 0.9
Sulf ate ..................•.......••. 145 330 59 153 163 190 390 380
Color 1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 250 300 2 200 250 200 150 150
Electrical conductivity ••••••• m~S/cm •• 6,820 11,780 9,890 6,590 5,650 7,540 7,772 7,540
Hardness 2 •••.•.•...............•...... 179.2 16.9 <4,353.6 178.1 178.1 200.5 315.5 440.5
MBAS 3 •.....•••.......................• 0.5 ND ND 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7
Odor threshold 4 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 5 2 5 5 5 4 4
pH •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8.0 9.4 11.6 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1
Total dissolved solids •••••••••• mg/L •• 4,315 8,449 5,534 4,711 4,683 4,851 4,906 4,861
Total organic carbon •••••••••••• mg/L •• 13.8 ND ND 123.2 145.2 189.2 167.2 171.6
Turbidi ty 5•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8.4 1,000 3,000 700 700 600 2,400 2, ~OO
ND Not determ1ned, 1nsuff1c1ent sample to conduct analys1s.
lColor units. 2Milligrams per liter of CaC0 3 •
~ethylene blue active substance reported as milligrams per liter of linear alkylate sulfonate.
4Dilution to least perceptible odor.
5Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). .......
w
14

The top of an oil well casing was used average land subsidence of one-quarter to
as a datum with an assumed elevation of three-eighths of an inch occurred as a
100 ft. The project site (fig. 9) was result of the mining. This subsidence
sUJdivided into a grid, and the relative increased with time and decreased with
elevation of each of the grid points was distance from the center of the
measured weekly. Table 5 shows that an boreholes.

TABLE 5. - Elevation surveys before, during, and after oil-sand mining, feet

(Bench mark: 100.00 ft)

Survey 7/23/79 1 7/30/79 8/6/79 8/13/79 8/20/79 8/26/79 9/24/79 2 Elevation

point change
A5 •••••.•• 86.22 86.18 86.18 86.19 86.19 86.17 86.14 0.08
Al O••••••• 86.28 86.23 86.22 86.23 86.22 86.20 86.18 .10
A15 ••••••• 86.38 86.35 86.35 86.35 86.37 86.35 86.32 .06
A2 O.•••••• 86.40 86.39 86.39 86.39 86.41 86.40 86.37 .03

B5 •••.•••• 86.05 86.05 86.05 86.05 86.07 86.05 86.03 .02

Bl O•••••.• 86.14 86.14 86.14 86.14 86.15 86.13 86.10 .04
B15 ••••••. 86.09 86.10 86.09 86.10 86.11 86.08 86.06 .03
B2 O••••••• 86.13 86.14 86.15 86.16 385.94 85.91 85.90 .04
B2 5 ••.•••• 85.88 386.15 86.15 86.16 86.18 86.16 86.14 .01
B50 •••.••• 85.73 85.70 ND 386.11 86.13 86.12 86.10 .01
B75 ••••••• 87.25 ND ND 387.50 87.51 87.50 87.48 .02

C5 •••••••• 86.31 ND 86.30 86.25 86.27 86.25 86.23 .08

C10 ••••.•• 86.27 86.26 86.27 86.28 86.30 86.27 86.25 .02
C15 ••••••• 86.32 86.31 86.33 86.34 86.36 86.33 86.32 .00
C20 •.•.••• 86.30 86.30 86.32 86.32 86.34 86.32 86.30 .00
86.47 86.45 4 .01
C2 5 ••••••• 86.44 86.44 86.45 86.46 86.48
C50 •••.••• 86.76 86.76 86.76 86.77 86.80 86.77 86.76 .00
88.19 4 .01
C75 ••••••• 88.18 88.18 88.19 86.20 88.22 88.20

D5 •.••••.• 86.48 86.23 86.23 86.24 86.25 86.21 86.19 .29

D1O••••••• 86.50 ND 86.49 86.49 86.51 86.49 86.47 .03
D15 ••••••• 86.58 86.57 86.57 86.58 86.60 86.58 86.56 .02
D20 ••••••• 86.54 86.54 86.54 86.55 86.57 86.55 86.53 .01
D25 ••••••• 86.56 86.55 86.55 86.56 86.58 86.56 86.54 .02
D50 ••••••• 86.63 86.62 86.62 86.63 86.66 ND 86.62 .01
D75 •.••••• 86.93 86.98 86.97 386.89 86.92 86.91 86.89 .00

E5 .••••••• ND ND ND 386.41 86.39 ND 86.34 .07

E1 O•••••.• ND ND ND 386.59 86.59 ND 86.55 .04
E15 ••••••• 86.50 86.50 86.50 86.51 86.52 86.50 86.47 .03
E20 ••••••• 86.53 86.48 86.53 86.54 86.54 86.52 86.50 .03
E2 5 ••••••• 86.61 86.60 86.61 86.62 86.63 86.61 86.58 .03
E50 ••••••• 86.75 86.72 86.71 86.76 86.78 86.76 86.74 .01
87.04 87.07 4 .04
E75 ••••••• 87.03 87.02 87.03 87.05 87.06
See footnotes at end of table.
 15

TABLE 5. - Elevation surveys before, during, and after oil-sand mining, feet - -Con.

(Bench mark: 100.00 ft)

Survey 7/23/79' 7/30/79 8/6/79 8/13/79 8/20/79 8/26/79 9/24/79 2 Elevation

point change
F 5 •••••••• 86.27 86.28 86.29 86.30 385.73 85.70 85.69 0.04
FlO ••..••• 86.15 86.17 86.17 86.1~ 86.20 86.18 85.17 44.02
F 15 ••••••• 86.21 86.22 86.23 86.24 86.26 86.23 86.27 4 .06
F2 O••••••• 86.57 86.58 86.58 86.61 86.63 86.59 86.57 .00
F2 5 •••..•. 86.69 386.49 86.48 86.49 86.51 86.49 86.48 .01

G5 •••••••• ND 86.16 86.17 86.18 385.97 85.95 85.94 .03

G1O•••.••• 86.32 86.32 86.34 86.35 86.36 86.35 86.33 4 .01
G15 ••...•• 86.59 86.59 86.60 86.66 86.63 86.60 86.59 .00
G20 ••••••• 86.64 86.64 86.65 87.12 86.68 86.65 86.64 .00
G25 ••..••• 87.09 87.10 88.10 88.73 87.14 87.10 87.11 4 .02
G50 ••••.•• 88.69 88.70 88.71 88.73 88.75 88.72 88.71 4 .02
G7 5 ••••••• 91.99 92.00 92.01 92.02 92.05 92.06 92.01 4 .02

H5 •••••••• ND 386.20 86.20 86.20 86.24 86.21 86.20 .00

HI O••••••• 86.26 386.24 86.23 86.24 86.27 86.24 86.23 .01
H15 ••••••• 86.49 86.50 86.52 86.53 86.55 86.52 86.51 4 .02
H20 ••••••• 86.63 86.64 86.66 86.67 86.69 86.66 86.05 .58
H25 ••••••• 86.68 86.69 86.71 86.72 86.74 86.71 86.70 4 .02
H5 O••••••• 88.40 88.40 88.41 88.43 88.45 88.42 88.41 4.01
H85 ••••••• 90.15 90.15 90.16 90.17 90.19 90.17 90.15 .00

IS •••.•••• ND 386.04 86.04 86.05 86.07 86.04 86.03 .01

II O•••.••• ND 385.89 85.09 85.89 85.92 85.88 85.88 .01
I 15 ••..••• 86.34 86.30 86.29 86.30 86.32 86.30 86.28 .06
I20 ••..••• 86.35 86.36 86.36 86.36 86.39 86.36 86.35 .00
I2 5 ••••••• 86.40 86.41 86.41 86.41 86.44 86.41 86.40 .00

J 5 •••••••• 86.11 86.14 86.15 86.16 86.19 86.15 86.10 .01

J 1 O••••••• 86.07 86.08 86.09 86.16 86.19 86.09 86.06 .01
J 15 ••••••• 86.18 386.11 86.13 86.16 86.19 86.11 86.10 .01
J20 ••••.•• 86.20 86.23 86.23 86.16 86.19 ND 86.22 4 .02
J25 ••••••• 86.21 86.20 86.21 86.16 86.19 86.21 86.19 .02
ND Not determined.
'Baseline survey conducted prior to initiation of mining.
2Survey conducted 30 days after completion of mining.
3New hub set (station from which elevations taken).
4Net gain in elevation.
 16

c G

N
Borehole I

T
A If------{

/
LEGEND
- - - A Survey
o 15 30

Scole, fl

rank)J H

D
FIGURE g.-Survey grid system .

Contour maps of the subsidence around because the ore-bearing zone is deep
the two boreholes are given in figures 10 (250 ft) and is in an environmentally
and i1. The distinct depressions shown sensitive setting. The Bureau of Mines
in the south portion of figure 10 are im- and Flow Industries, in cooperation with
prints of the outrigger of the crane that the Agrico Mining Co., conducted borehole
suspended the mining tool in the hole. phosphate mining tests in St. Johns
This field test showed that borehole County, near St. Augustine, FL (16).
oil-sand mining is technically feasible Agrico provided the mining site and Site
and that the environmental impacts are services; the Bureau of Mines, through a
minimal. contract with Flow Industries, provided
the mining equipment and the field test
PHOSPHATE MINING crew. The purpose of the test was to
determine if phosphate ore can be mined
St. Johns County in Northwest Florida economically in an environmentally com-
contains vast untapped deposits of high- patable manner with the Bureau of Mines
grade phosphate that are not amenable borehole mining system.
to conventional surface mining methods
 17

LEGEND
Contour Interval{ - 0.01 It

O~iiiiiiiiiiiil5~~IO
Scale, ft

FIGURE 10.-Conlou r map of borehole 1 sile.

18

.01

0'
l(.

LEGEND
line 0.01 ft
Contour interval { _
__-
_
line 0.05 ft
o 5 10

Scale, ft

+.04
E
FIGURE 11.-Contour map of borehole 2 site.
 19

FIGURE 12.-Phosphate are deposited at outlet of mining tool

 20

60
..c Jetting
-
"-
I I)
50
in air
w
r- 40
«
a::
30 Roof
<.9 / - - - - Jet tin gun d er wa t er --+-+-~'t--+--------'\---------1 failed
Z
20
-z~
4-17 i4-18~ 4-21----1--
10

o 5 10 15 20 25
OPE RA TI NG TIME, h
FIGURE 13.-Phosphate product ion In borehole 1.

Between April and August 1980, 1,700 st 60

of phosphate ore was produced (fig. 12)
from three boreholes that ranged from 232 .c 50 Roof failed
"-
to 253-ft deep. Mining in the first hole u;
was conducted to determine the feasibili- .40 Jellin9. in air
.w
ty of mining with the borehole filled I-

with water. This borehole yielded 860 st ~ 30

at an average rate of 36 st/h while cut- (9
z 20
ting with a submerged jet (fig. 13) in a Z
360 0 arc. The specifications for water- ~

jet mining in borehole 1 were as

follows:
OPERATING TIME, days
Parameter Specifi cations
FIGURE 14.-Phosphate production in borehole 2.

Cutting-jet pressure
lbf /in 2 •• 500-2,000 When the water was pumped from the cav-
Cutting-jet flow rate ity, the roof failed, indicating that the
gpm •• 500-750 water pressure had supported the roof.
Cutting-jet diam •••• in •• 0.475 and 0.966 However, this experiment indicated that
Jet pump pressure borehole phosphate mining in a submerged
lbf/in 2 •• 700-1,500 mode is technically feasible.
Jet pump flow rate Attempts to mine in an air-filled cav-
gpm •• 400-700 ity were made in borehole 2 (fig. 14),
Jet pump nozzle diam where mining was confined to a 30 0 arc
in •• 0.68 and 0.80 and a 330 0 pillar supported the roof.
Jet pump throat diam However, a roof failure occurred after
in •• 2.00 and 2.25 300 st of ore had been produced. From
Turntable speed •••• rpm •• 2-15 this test, it was concluded that (1) the
Mining arc ••••••••• deg •• 360 roof rock did not have sufficient
Mining depth •••••••• ft .. 232-253 strength to permit mining in an air
Vertical increment •• in •• 2-6 environment, and (2) any future mining
 21

would require that the cavity be filled dec r ease, i n di c ati n g that th e s u bme r ge d
with water. jet had reached its maximum effective r a -
A third borehole tested an "air- dius. At this point, the ai r -sh i eld was
shielding concept" designed to combine activated, and an additional 137 st was
the need to have flooded conditions and mined at the rate of 25 st/h . The cavity
the advantages of mining in air. Under radius was about 18 ft, and no roof fail-
this concept, the water jet was in a ure had occurred when the mining stoppedo
shroud of compressed air; this allowed This experiment indicated that phosphate
cutting at longer standoff distances can be mined effectively in a flooded
while retaining the roof support and in- cavity and that air shielding substan-
creased pumping capability gained by tially increases water jet effectiveness
working under a hydrostatic head of while operating underwater.
water. The water-jet specifications for To monitor the effects of the mining
mining in borehole 3 were as follows: operation on the groundwater resources of
the area, the U.S. Geological Surve y de-
Specifi - signed and implemented a hydrologic data
Parameters cations collection network. Six monitoring
wells were constructed at various depths
Cutting-jet pressure above and below the phosphate zone (fig.
Ibf/in 2 •• 1,000-1,900 16). Water-level measurements and wate r -
Cutting-jet flow rate •• gpm •• 423-499 quality samples were collected befo r e , at
Cu tting-j et diam •••••••• i n •• 1. 00 periodic intervals during, and after the
Air-shield pressure mining operation. Continuous-pressure
Ibf/in 2 •• 250 recorders were installed in the wellheads
Air-shield flow rate of the two artesian wells to measure the
ft 3 /min •• 150 std water levels in the Floridan aquifer, be-
Air-shield nozzle opening low the phosphate zone, and in aquifers
in •• 0.030 immediately above the phosphate zone .
Jet pump pressure •• lbf/in 2 •• 490-1,000 The recorder in the artesian well abo ve
Jet pump flow rate ••••• gpm •• 432-491 the phosphate zone registered very la r ge
Jet pump nozzle diam •••• in •• 0.70 and sudden drops in pressure (f ig. 17)
Jet pump throat diam •••• in •• 2.00 when the roof failures occurred in bore-
Turntable speed •••••••• rpm •• 1.8 holes 1 and 2 when mining in ai r was
Mi ning arc ••••••••••••• deg •• 360 attempted. 3 No such pressure cha n ges
Mining depth •••••••••••• ft •• 235-249 were noted in the well of the Flo r idan
Vertical increment •••••• in •• 2-6 aquifer, indicating that no break occur-
red between the mining zone and the Flo r -
A total of 430 st was mined in this idan aquifer during the mining
borehole without actuating'the air shield operations.
in order to establish the baseline solids Water quality analyses were pe r fo~med
production (fig. 15). On August 30, the on samples taken at biweekly inte~vals
solids content of the slurry began to from the monitoring well network.
Analyses were perfo r med fo r majo r
Slart
60 air - shielded
culling jet 3In eigure 17, "NGVD of 1929" refers to
~ 50
~ 40 J+------Jettlng under waler
"National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929," which was derived from general
:i« 30 adjustments of the first-order level nets
It:

'"
of the united States and Canada. (It was
z 20
z formerly called "mean sea level . ") The
::1 1 0 / - - - - S - 2 7 - - + / - S - 2 S - t - - S - 2 9 - - + - S - 3 0 -
datum was derived from the average sea
o 10 15 20 25 level during many years at 26 tide sta-
OPERATING TIME. hours
tions along the Atlantic and Pacific
FIGURE 1S.-Phosphate production In borehole 3. Coasts and the Gulf of Mexico.
22

A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A I Geologic Unit
o ~~~~~~~~~------------------~---------------.
~ ':. ', .> :: .:'. ;·i. ). ~~. ~ ~'. .. ':~ ' I
. . ,.
'. .';

. .. . .:':>:'>':. '.:" ... ",.'. : . V Zone moni tored by

50 j\~'.i ': l :i, :'".:
Surficial deposits
):3 .':{' well A6 (surficial aquifer)
'~ . . . · -;-'i-";"'.I.!-~ · H .'· 1.0., ' ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--I

-
~
~
:·A;..;,:;,...·
~ : -=- ' '':''''''.-'

~: :~":-;-:- :~ ~'. ':'.~ / ~..:: i ~

- - - r \ --;-, ..,.-
~ .~,
'"-

~
- .··
';,-..: ·'-:'·.V Zone moni tored by
..:..,, ··.;- · .. "'well AS

"-------------1

:J 100 ~' , -" ·....:..·:.:r·:.:,.·"-"' ~. ;....l

I-
« ~~ ~.~~:. ~.~ ~,·:'· t~; 2
o
w
. . ......:...,' 1-' - -. - .:......,. . .;-
I-- '- .. ....:.. ~ " .f-:'~ '. '-'-"':;'
~
.,....,.. .....:....: ' - :.......... ..,~ .. ~
~

, 7: -:-,.--': ~ ~ . '7"7.: -;:-'. V Zone mon i tored by

<.)
«
lJ...
a:: 150 I-=--- ' ~ : ~ .....!.. • .:.. . .. +-.~ ;....:.....:.~ well A4
:J I'·::-:-. · :-·~
""::,",, ;""T'.....,.... - . - ,
. . . .'7-:~-r.>
........ . ' - - - - - - - - - -.. . . . . . .
-"'7 Hawthorn
(f) ........... - ' - ; - --:- ~. ~' . I-,~

o
z !-~r~~~. :
"::....... ' - ........ :-' .:.....~.. ":I-.'~
;- ',3~~~ ~~ Formation
(Confining bed)
« L....! :~:_: ............ '.-:' .....; ....: . : - •
......J 200 I'· / • •~ ; • • • . .,
.///0/.// /./0/
;: .. ./ • /0 / • Zone mon i tored by
o 1/ /0/ /./ / / /.
well A3
......J
W
•~
... ~,
.. ..
. -" -:. . . . . ' ....:... _.. .:....z: .
.. . -T'.. .. ~_ ....... . .. . .....:.,
.. ... :....:.
Mining zone
CD
monitored by well
A2

r I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
Zone monitored by
300 f-,-.L.....,--1J....1..,........,..1-,-1...........L.1-,-........
1+--T-i well AI Ocala
I I I
I I I J I I Limestone
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I Floridan aquifer
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
350 LL-I~~I~I __L-I~I__L-I~I~__________________~________________~

LEGEND

EJ
. .
,. •

~
p

.
. ..

,
~ Sand Phosphate

~
- - Clay
~ Limestone
B "'"
,..... ........
,,-.....
""' Shell ~ Dolomite

FIGURE 16.-Generalized columnar section showing monitored zones and geologic units.
 23

39

2 d test
37

--
! st test

en 35
N
en
I.J..
o
~ 33
(!)
z
o
~

w 31
>
~
<t
...J
W
0:: 29
...J
w
>
W
...J
0:: 27
w
~
<t
3:
25
Lowest measurement -49.5 ff

23
February Marcb April May June July
FIGURE 17.-Hydrographs of well A3 showing first and second test periods.

dissolved constituents, dissolved urani- occurred in the mining zone 40 ft from

um, and radium-226 (tables 6-11). the borehole at well A2. Changes in
During the three mining tests, changes alkalinity, calcium content, degree of
in water quality occurred only in the hardness, and strontium content occurred
zone being mined and in the zone moni- in the zone monitored by well A4. These
tored by well A4 (fig. 18). The water- changes were probably not related to the
quality changes in the mining zone were mining operation because the changes were
the result of the mixing of the formation detected after the mining operation had
water with the water jet used to fragment ended, and they were not accompanied by
and slurrify the ore. The quality of the water-level changes, which might have
water in the water jet differed suggested a relationship with the mining.
significantly from the quality of the No significant changes in water quality
original formation water. These changes occurred in any of the other monitored
were noted only in samples taken from the zones above and below the mining zone.
mining borehole. No changes in quality
 24

TABLE 6. - Water-quality data for well Al

Samp le da te, 1980 2/12 4/28 5/12 5/30 6/11 6/27 7/11 7/27 11/10
Alkalinity ••••••••• mg/L as CaC0 3 •• 150 150 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Hardness ••••• total mg/L as CaC03" 320 330 310 310 320 330 320 330 310
Calcium, dissolved •••••••••• mg/L •• 75 76 71 70 72 75 71 75 69
Magnesium, dissolved •••••••• mg/L •• 31 35 32 32 33 34 34 34 32
Sodium, dissolved ••••••••••• mg/L •• 55 62 61 61 63 64 67 64 61
Potassium, dissolved •••••••• mg/L •• 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.0
Chloride, dissolved •••••••• mg/L •• 110 110 NA 110 110 120 110 120 110
Sulfate, dissolved •••••••••• mg/L •• 160 160 170 160 160 150 170 150 160
Fluoride, dissolved ••••••••• mg/L •• 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0
Silica, dissolved ••••••••••• mg/L •• 27 28 26 26 27 27 27 27 27
Iron, dissolved ••••••••••••• ~m/L •• 0 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strontium, dissolved •••••••• ~g/L •• 3,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,900
Radiochemical analyses:
Uranium, dissolved ••• ~g/L as U•• 0.02 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.05
Radium-226 by RN ••••••••• pCi/L •• 0.46 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.58
NA Not available. NAp Not appl~cable.

TABLE 7. - Water- quality data for well Bl

Sample date, 1980 2/12 5/12 5/30 6/11 6/27 7/11 7/27 11/10 1
Alkali nity •••••••••••••• mg /L as CaC03" 180 NA NA NA NA NA NA 140
Hardness •••••••••• total mg/L as CaC0 3 •• 250 260 270 280 280 280 280 230
Calcium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 54 56 60 60 61 61 61 50
Magnesium, dissolved ••••••••••••• mg/L •• 27 29 30 31 32 31 32 26
Sodium, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 54 53 50 52 53 47 53 61
Potassium, dissolved ••••••••••••• mg/L •• 6.8 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.5
Chloride, dissolved •••••••••••••• mg/L •• 38 54 55 54 71 55 71 39
Sulfate, dissolved ••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 150 170 160 170 160 160 160 150
Fluoride, dissolved •••••••••••••• mg/L •• 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3
Silica, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 48 45 44 43 44 43 44 49
Iron dissolved ••••••••••••••••••• ~m/L •• 120 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strontium, dissolved ••••••••••••• ~g/L •• 2,300 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,200
Radiochemical analyses:
Uranium, dissolved •••••••• ~g/L as U•• 1.2 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.30
Radium-226 by RN •••••••••••••• pCi/L •• 2.2 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 3.1
NA Not ava~lable. NAp Not applicable.
lS amp l e taken from well A2, which was finished in phosphate zone.

TABLE 8. - Water-quality data for well A3

.-
Sample date, 1980 5/2 5/12 5/30 6/11 6/27 7/11 7/27 11/10
Alkalinity •••••••••• mg/L as CaC03" NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 180
Hardness •••••• total mg/L as CaC0 3 •• 160 160 170 170 180 170 180 150
Calcium, dissolved ••••••••••• mg/L •• 32 32 33 33 35 33 35 30
Magnesium, dissolved ••••••••• mg/L •• 20 20 21 22 22 21 22 19
Sodium, dissolved •••••••••••• mg/L •• 50 49 51 56 56 49 56 50
Potassium, dissolved ••••••••• mg/L •• 7.0 6.8 NA 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.2 7. 1
Chloride, dissolved •••••••••• mg/L •• 25 26 23 24 32 24 32 33
Sulfate, dissolved ••••••••••• mg/L •• 51 54 58 61 59 62 59 61
Fluoride, dissolved •••••••••• mg/L •• 1.5 1. 7 1.8 1. 7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8
Silica, dissolved •••••••••••• mg/L •• 63 62 63 64 65 63 65 63
Iron dissolved ••••••••••••••• ~m/L •• 90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strontium, dissolved ••••••••• ~g/L •• NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,200
Radiochemical analyses:
Uranium dissolved ••••• ~g/L as U•• 0.40 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.30
Radium-226 by RN •••••••••• pCi/L •• 4.8 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 4.3
NA Not ava~lable. NAp Not applicable.
 25

TABLE 9. - Water-quality data for well A4

Sample date, 1980 2/12 4/28 5/12 6/11 6/27 7/11 7/27 11/10
Alkalinity •••••••••••••••• mg/L as CaC0 3 •• 200 170 NA NA NA NA NA 93
Hardness ••••••••••• total mg/L as CaC03' • 150 140 150 L40 150 130 150 73
Calcium, dissolved ••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 34 30 31 29 31 27 31 14
Magnesium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 16 16 17 16 17 16 17 11
Sodium, dissolved •••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 21 24 26 27 26 24 26 24
Potassium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0
Chloride, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 15 14 15 14 NA 14 24 14
Sulfate, dissolved ••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 1.8 NA 2.0 2.7 NA 0.7 0.6 1.6
Fluoride, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8
Silica, dissolved •••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 28 NA 21 12 NA NA 6.4 6.9
Iron dissolved ••••••••••••••••••••• ~m/L •• 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strontium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• ~g/L •• 720 NA NA NA NA NA NA 140
Radiochemi cal analyses:
Uranium dissolved ••••••.•••• ~g/L as U•. 0.01 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.03
Radium-·226 by RN •••••••••••••••• pCi/L •• 0.39 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp O. 11
NA Not available. NAp Not applicable.

TABLE 10. - Water-quality data for well A5

Sample date, 1980 2/12 4/28 5/12 6/11 6/27 7/11 7/27 11/10
Alkalinity •••••••••••••••• mg/L as CaC03" NA 190 NA NA NA NA NA 210
Hardness •••••••••••• total mg/L as CaC0 3 •• 190 170 180 170 180 180 180 180
Calcium, dissolved ••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 60 54 55 53 57 57 57 55
Magnesium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 9.6 9.7 10 10 10 10 10 9.8
Sodium, dissolved •••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 11 12 13 14 13 12 13 11
Potassium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.9 3. 1 3.2 3. 1 3. 1
Chloride, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 14 13 14 13 20 14 20 16
Sulfate, dissolved ••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 0.4 0 NA NA 0.3 1. 1 0.3 1.6
Fluoride, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Silica, dissolved •••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• NA 12 29 22 15 12 15 NA
Iron dissolved ••••••••••••••••••••• ~m/L •• 50 NA 10 NA NA NA NA NA
Strontium, dissolved ••••••••••••••• ~g/L •• 650 NA NA NA NA NA NA 620
Radiochemical analyses:
Uranium dissolved ••••••••••• ~g/L as U•• 0.02 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.05
Radium-226 by RN •••••••••••••••• pGi/L •• 0.36 NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp NAp 0.25
NA Not available. NAp Not applicable.

TABLE 11. - Water-quality data for well A6

Sample date, 1980 2/12 5/12 6/11

Alkalinity ••••••••••••••••• mg/L as CaC0 3 •• 230 NA NA
Hardness ••••••••••••• total mg/L as CaC03" 220 220 220
Calcium, dissolved •••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 83 82 82
Magnesium, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 2.7 2.9 3.0
Sodium, dissolved ••••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 13 14 15
Potassium, dissolved •••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 0.7 0.6 0.4
Chloride, dissolved ••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 22 22 22
Sulfate, dissolved ••••••.••••••••••• mg/L •• 0.4 0.8 0.2
Fluoride, dissolved ••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• O. 1 0.2 0.1
Silica, dissolved ••••••••••••••••••• mg/L •• 25 25 25
Iron dissolved •••••••••••••••••••••• ~m/L •• 60 NA NA
Strontium, dissolved •••••••••••••••• ~g/L •• 510 NA NA
Radiochemical analyses:
Uranium dissolved •••••••••••• ~g/L as U•• 0.26 NAp NAp
Radium-226 by RN ••••••••••••••••• pCi/L •• O. 19 NAp NAp
NA Not available. NAp Not applicable.
26

FLORIDA

o 5 10

Scale, miles
Slurry pond 2

LEGEND
o AI Groundwater
monitor well N
~BI Mi ning well
6CI Cavity well
Slurry
pond I

o 10 20

Scale, ft

FIGURE 18.-Location and generalized configuration of test site.

 27

BACKFILLING OF BOREHOLE-MINED CAVITIES

Surface subsidence and the presence of that technique. Figure 19 shows the cav-
tailings piles are the major potential ity half filled with backfilled sand.
adverse environmental impacts of borehole A 1 wt pct cement-sand mixture was in-
mining operations, Methods of mitigating troduced into a 4-in-ID pipe through a
these impacts have been investigated un- hopper, upstream of the centrifugal slur-
der a contract (17) with Flow Industries. ry pump (fig. 20). The outlet pipe from
Flow IndustrieS-tested three methods of the pump is connected via a loose
backfilling the cavities at the Nine-Mile victaulic coupling (which acted as a
Lake site with the sand produced during swivel) to a similar pipe terminated by a
previous borehole uranium mining opera- 4-in 10 elbow in the borehole. Slu~ry
tions. The project consisted of in- was injected at the rate of 350 gpm
tervals of backfilling followed by photo- through 4-in (10.2-cm) pipe rotating un-
graphic surveys to determine the der water in the cavity. Sand was back-
distribution of backfill in the hole. filled at the rate of 16 st/h.
The backfilling methods investigated in- Analysis of cores taken from the back-
cluded bulk dumping down the borehole, filled cavity after 6 months indicated
slurry jetting in air, and slurry jetting that adding 1 wt pct of cement to the
under water. Slurry jetting under water backfill did not increase the stability
was found to be the most effective of the backfill material. It is esti-
method. More than 90 pct of the sand mated that a 5 wt pct mix would be
removed from the cavity was returned by required.

FIGURE 19.-Borehole cavity partially backfilled.

 28

Slurry discharge sumps

Dirt covered with plastic

Pond

Turn table

FIGURE 20.- Schematic of backfilling apparatus.

ECONOMICS OF PHOSPHATE MINING

Production costs for borehole phosphate The parameters used in the mining
mining were estimated based on a hypo- cost analysis are listed in table 12.
thetical mining system operating at the Ore-body characteristics are based on the
Florida test site. No cost analyses were phosphate bed mined during the study.
made of the case when the cavity was The maximum radius of the underwater cav-
pumped free of water because this case ity is based on the use of a more power-
was found to be impractical. The cost ful unit than that used for the tests.
analyses were performed for a submerged The angle of repose refers to the slope
cutting jet in a flooded cavity. It is angle of loose ore on the floor of the
assumed that the mining company owns the cavity that cannot be recovered. The
mineral rights to the site, but not the drilling cost is based on using a small
surface rights, thus there are land costs drilling rig that produces only a
during mining.
 29

TABLE 12. - Economic analysis of submerged cutting jet: input parameters

Ore-body characteristics:
Cavity radius •....•••....•.••.•.....•••.•.•••••.•...••••••••.•.••• ft •• 30
Cavity separation ••..•••.•...•..••••••..•••.......•.•••...•••••••• ft .• 10
Ore thickness •••••••...••.••••.•••.•..•..•••••••••..•.•••.••••••.• ft •• 20
Ore depth ••..••••••••••••••••.....••.•......••.•••...••.•.•••••.•• ft .. 250
Ore grade •.•••.••.•••.•••.•••••• units of product per short ton mined .• 0.45
Ore density •••••••••..•...••••.•.......•••••.••••••••••••.••. lbf/ft 3 •• 88
Angle of repose ••.•••••.••••.••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••..... deg .• 3
Drilling cost per foot •.••••.••••••••••..•••....•.••..••••.•.......•.. $5.00
Capital costs, based on 20-yr mine life:
Working capitaL ••••••••••.••.•••••.•.. pct of annual operat i ng costs .• 20
Borehole mining system cost per unit .•.••.....•...••••...••••.•.••••.• $700,000
Miscellaneous mining equipment per unit •••.••••••••••••.•...•....•.••• $40,000
Process ing plant cos t to produce wet rock conc .•••••••••...••...•..••. $33,000,000
Miscellaneous capital costs •••••••••••••••••.••••••••..•...•••••••••.• $2,500,000
Operation data:
Mine capacity ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.• st/d •. 10,000
Average mining rate per unit ••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• st/h •. 50
Daily utilization ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••..•••••••.••••••••• h •• 24
Annual utilization •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••.•.••.•.••.• days .• '330
Time needed to change boreholes ••••••••.•..•••••...•••••••••••••.•. h •. 4
Mining unit availability time •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• pct •. 90
Annual site preparation cost •••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••...••. $300,000
Maintenance supplies, annual cost per unit •••••••••••••.••.•••.•.•••.• $30,000
Annual health and safety cost ••••••••••••..•••...•..•.••••.••••.•••••. $190,000
Power, annual cost per unit ••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••.• $600,000
Transportation cost per short ton mined •••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.• $0.18
Plant operating cost per short ton mined ••.••••••.••.••••••••••••..••. $0.62
Waste disposal and reclamation cost per short ton mined •.••.••••••••.. $0.82
Mining labor:
Operating labor cost per unit-hour ••••••••••••.•.•...•••••••••••.•••.. $12.00
Ratio, support labor to operating labor •••••••••••••••••••••••••• pct •• 80
Ratio, maintenance labor to operating labor ••••••••••••••••••.•.. pct.. 25
Ratio, supervisory labor to direct labor •.•••••••••••••••••••.•.• pct •. 20
Payroll benefits ••••••••••••• percent of direct and supervisory labor •. 30
Payroll overhead •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• do •• 40
Financial data:
Product value per unit of product' •• • • ••• • •• • •••••••••••••••••.••••••• $30.00
Local taxes and insurance •••••••••••••••••••• percent of capital cost •• 2
Extraction tax rate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• percent ot revenue •• 5.57
Income tax •••••••••••••••••••••• percent of taxable income--depletion •• 46
Depletion allowance •••••••••••••••••••••••• percent of depletion base •. 14
Cost of capital (interest rate) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• pct/yr •• 15

'68 pct BPL rock; Engineering and Mining Journal, July 1981.
 30

12-in-diam hole for an 8-in-diam sub- straight-line ation cost yields a

merged mining tool. cost of $1.3 of product ($0.62/st
The miscellaneous mi in- mined). The cost of backfilling waste
eludes the support in- rock into the borehole cavity is $1.50/st
stalling casing in the boreholes. The backfilled ($0. t mined).
process plant cost is based Mining labor costs are based on one op-
cost estimate for a 4-millon-st erator per unit at $1 labor
to wet-rock concentrate at consists of one emp two units of
to $100 million. If the direct support at Maintenance
of the beneficiation plant is assumed to labor consists per five
be ional to its are ty, then mi units. are provided
a smaller with a capacity of 1.485 at a ratio of one supervisor per six
million st (10,000 st/d) could be direct-labor employees.
estimated to cost approximately $33 mil- Product value is based on 68 pet bone
lion, based on the ratio 1.485/4 of lime (BPL) at t of
assuming a $90 million cost The Florida severance tax of
ant (90,000,000 x t of product was converted to
,000,000). Miscellaneous pet on revenue at a product value of
costs include a bulldozer or grader for t.
site and reclamation, health The parameters listed in table 12
and a $2 million were and resulted in the data
maintenance and replacement shown in table 13. The tables show that
parts. the borehole phosphate mining in the sub-
Under costs, the average min- mode is economically attractive.
ing rate for each unit is based on The dollar values given in table 13 are
doubling the 2 rate demonstrated in 1981 dollars.
during the test program. This increased An study was per-
mining rate is cted based on a formed on four parameters around the
factor-of-three increase in cutting-jet baseline case for submerged mi
power and the doubled slurry flow rate These parameters are mini ng I,mi teas t ,
that is expected from a production phos- average rate, maximum cavity ra-
mining unit relative to the Bureau dius, and cost. The results are
of Mines BMT's used in this study. BMT summarized 21. It can be seen
availability is based on an estimated that the cost is insensitive to
lO-pct downtime for maintenance and a the mining system unit cost. However,
factor to account for time the average mi rate, maximum cavity
spent changing boreholes. Site prepara- radius, and dril cost are all impor-
tion costs used include payments to land tant parameters;
surface owner of $1,000 per acre re- is especially
when surface are owned by the sensitivity
company) and the cost of oper- it is cost-effective
reparation system that (1) has a
costs to ing rate and (2) is
costs of $O.l8/st-mile of ore a larger radius
The plant operating costs smaller bore-hole diameter
are estimated at $2.50/st of in- ddl costs.
Subtracting the
 31

TABLE 13. - Economics analysis of submerged cutting jet: output parameters

Ore-body characteristics:
Recovery ••••.••••••.••••••••••.•.•••.....•• pct of ore body extracted •• 63.14
Ore-body requirements .••..•••••••.•••.•.••.••...•••..••.•.•.. •. st/yr •• 5,226,540
Ore-body area required •••.•••••••••••.•.••••..•..••..••••••• acres/yr •• 136.35
are recovery per borehole ....•••.••.••••.••.•..•..••••••.•.•.•• st/yr .• 2,357.74
Effective availability of mining units •••••.•...••..•.••...•.•.•. pct •• 82.96
Uni ts required ................ :. , ....•................................. 10
Effective mining rate per unit ..•••••••..•••.••••••.•..••.••..•. st/h •• 50.22
Boreholes required per year •.•.•..•.•.•.•••..••..••....•.•••••...••••• 1,399.65
Capital costs:
Mining units . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,000,000
Miscellaneous mining equipment •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• $400,000
Total equipment and facilities .••••••..•.••.....•.•.••••...••.•.•...•• $42,900,000
Annual operating costs:
Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,889,520
Operating labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $950,400
Sup po r t 1 a bo r •.•••••••..••••.•••.......•.•.•.••••••.•....•.••.•.•••... $760,320
Maintenance labor ••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••.• $237,600
Supervisory labor •••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••.•••••••••.••••• $389,660
Total payroll •••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•• $2,337,980
Pay roll be ne fit s ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••. $701,400
Payroll overhead •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...•••••••••••••••••• $935,190
Powe r . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,000,000
Maintenance supplies .•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••• $300,000
Equipment operation •••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• $18,000,090
Annual income tax data:
Gross revenue ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••.••.••• $44,549,990
Taxes and insurance ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.••• $858,000
Ext raction taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,481,430
Cost of working capital ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.••••• $675,000
Operating income ••••.••••••••••.••.••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••. $22,535,460
Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,145,000
Taxable income before depletion allowance ..••••........••.•......•..•. $20,390,460
Depletion allowance ••.•••••••••••••••••••.••••..•••••••••••..•.••••••• $6,237,000
Taxable income after depletion allowance ...•••••......•.••••...•...... $14,153,470
Income tax •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• $6,510,590
Return on investment:
Working capital, first year •••••••••••••••.••.••••....•..••••.••••..•• $4,500,020
Total investment, first year ••••.•..•••••.•.•..••••.•.••...•••••.•...• $47,400,020
Net cash flow per year •••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.••.•• $16,024,870
Rate of return on investment ..••.....•••••••••.••.•••.••.••....•• pct •. 33.71
Overall unit costs to produce 1,485,000 units of product:
Capital cost of mining equipment ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••• $7,400,000
Mining cost per unit of product .•..••••....•••••••••...••.....•..••.•. $8.98
Total cost per unit of product •.•••.••..•...••••.•..•..••••....•.....• $20.65
Profit after taxes per unit of product .•••••.....•.•....•.•••..•..•... $9.35
 37.

15

~
-<II
"-
10
t-
en
0
u
(!)
z 5
z
;:!;

o 50 100 0 20 40 10 30 50 0 1,000 2,000

MINING RATE, stlh DRILLING, $/ft CAVITY RADIUS, ft MINING SYSTEM
COST,10 3 $

FIGURE 21.-Mining cost sensitivity using submerged cutting jet.

ECONOMICS O~ URANIUM MINING

Three sets or uranium ore-body charac- is unconsolidated sand in a thick (20-ft)

teristics are analyzed. The pessimistic seam near the surface (150 ft). The ini-
case is a hard sandstone in a thin tial capital investment and the operating
(10-ft), deep (400-ft) seam. The most costs of the borehole mining systems for
likely case is a soft sandstone of inter- the three types of bodies are summarized
mediate (15-ft) thickness and intermedi- in table 14.
ate (300-ft) depth. The optimistic case

TABLE 14. - Cost summary for uranium mining

Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic

Initial capital investment, 10 3 $:
Mi 11 ••.•••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14,000 14,000 14,000
Borehole mining units •••••••••••••••••••••• 3,000 6,000 10,500
Exploration ••••••.•.•••.••••••.•••••••••••• 2,500 2,500 2,500
Reservoirs and water supply ••••••••••.••••• 101 101 101
Slurry and water lines ••.•••••••••.• , •••••• 8 16 28
Miscellaneous ••••..•••••••••••.•••••••••••• 250 250 250
Total •••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••••••.• 19,859 22,867 27,379
Operatlng costs, $/st:
La b 0 r •.•••••••••••.••••••••••.•••••.••••••• 1. 30 2.60 4.54
Payroll benefits ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .39 .78 1. 36
Payroll overhead ••••.•••.•••••••••••••••••• .52 1. 04 1. 82
Fu e 1 .•.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••.• .44 .87 1. 53
Drilling ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .76 3.15 12.74
Mill lng •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 8.00 8.00 8.00
Trailings disposal ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1. 52 1.52 1. 52
Maintenance supplies ••••••••••••••••••••••• .45 .91 1.59
Tax and insurance •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1. 21 1. 39 1. 66
Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2.00 2.00 2.00
Miscellaneous operating supplies ••••••••••• .76 .76 .76
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.35 23.02 37.52
 33

The number of mining units required for The return on investment is shown in
mining of sand, soft sandstone, or hard figure 22 as a function of ore grade for
sandstone (two, four, and seven, respec- the three ore-body types. The gross rev
tively) has an important effect on total enue is based on $40/st of U3 0 8 , royalty
investment and labor operating costs. payments of 7 pct of the gross revenue
The number of boreholes drilled per year have been deducted, and a straight-line
(45, 98, and 286, respectively) and the depreciation schedule has been assumed.
depth of the boreholes have a significant A depreciation allowance has been
effect on operating costs. deducted from the taxable income. The

100

Optimistic

80

60

U
a.
--- ---
ci 40
0
a::
lJ...
u
0

20

-20
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 .07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
ORE GRADE, pct

FIGURE 22.-Uranium mining: effect of type of are body on profitability.

34

TABLE 15. - Uranium mining assumptions

Optimistic Most likely Pessir.1istic

Cavity radius ••.•••••••.•••• ft • • 45 35 25
Mining arc •••••••••.••••••. deg •• 270 270 360
Ore thickness •••••.••••••••• ft •• 20 15 10
Ore depth •• • ••••••.••.••••• • ft •• 150 300 400
Drilling cost per f 00 t ••.•..•••• $25 $25 $35
Mining rate, nominaL •••.• st/h •• 40 20 10

amount is based on one of the following, table 15: the radius of a co~plete bore-
whichever is lesser: (1) 22 pct of hole cavity, the shape of the ca vity, ore
the gross revenue minus royalty, or seam thickness, ore seam rlepth be low the
(2) 50 pct of the taxa hie income before surface, estimated rlrilling costs, and
depl etion allowance. Income tax of the mining rate. Estimated drilling
46 pct of the taxable income after deple- costs and mining rate vary because of
tion allowance and the initial working rock hardness. Depletion allowance of
capital of 25 pct of the annual gross 22 pct of the g ross revenue minus royalty
revenue have been included. The net cash applies above the dashed line in figure
flow is the operatin g income less (1) in- 22, whereas a depletion allowance of
c 0 me t a x , ( 2) w0 r kin g cap i t a 1 (f irs t yea r 50 pct of the taxable income before
only), and (3) initial capital investment depletion allowance applies below the
(first year only). line.
The six operating parameters affected
by the type of ore body are shown in

ECONOMICS OF OIL-SAND MINING

A detailed list of parameters used in selling price adjusted to give a dis-

the mining cost analysis is given in ta- counted cash flow-rate of return (DCFROR)
ble 16. Parameters relevant to the Bu- of 20 pct. The next three colu mns are
reau of Mines tool used at the Taft, CA, results for the hypothetical tool at th e
test site are ore thickness (25 ft), mining rates (20, 40, and 100 st/h) with
overbearing thickness (125 ft), and aver- the selling price adjusted to give a
age mining rate (14 st/h). Another anal- DCFROR of 20 pct.
ysis is performed for a hypothetical Table 18 summarizes differences between
borehole mining system. This system will the Bureau and the hypothetical systems.
have a faster average mining rate (20, The number of mining units and the numb e r
40, or 100 st/h) than the Bureau of Mines of boreholes drilled per year affect
system (14 st/h) and will be used at a operating costs.
site having an ore thickness of 200 ft Figures 23-27 illustrate the sensitivi-
and an overburden thickness of 200 ft. ty of DCFROR to various mining parameters
The initial capital investment and including cavity radius, ore thickness,
operating cost of the two borehole mining overburden thickness, ore grade, and av-
systems are summarized in table 17. The erage mining rate. The figures are based
second column shows the results for the on the most likely hypothetical case with
Bureau of Mines tool (14 st/h) with the the selling price set at $25/bbl, and
 35

TABLE 16. - Basis for mining cost analysis

Bureau of Mines Hypothetical tool

tool
Ore body:
Cavity radius ........ . ...... ... . . .... ..... . ft .• 25 25
Cavity separation •...•••.••••••••••...•..•. ft • • 10 10
Ore thickness •••••••••••••.••••••.••••••••• ft •. 25 200
Overburden thickness •• • • •• • ••• ••• • •• •• • ••• • ft • • 125 200
Ore recovery ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• bbl/st •. 0.50 0.50
Ore body width •••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• ft •• 2,000 2,000
Ore density • •••••••••••••••••••••••.•• lbf/ft 3 •• 11 8 118
Mining arc ••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•••• deg •. 360 360
Drilling cost per foot ••••••••..•.•••••••••.••• $25 $25
Capital cost data:
Exploration cost ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Capital depreciation period •.•••••••..••••• yr .• 10 10
Working capital •••••••••••••••••••••••.••• pct •• 25 25
Mining system cost per unit •••••••••••••••••••• $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Slurry and water lines per unit •••••••••••••••• $15,000 $15,000
Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30,000,000 $30,000,000
Miscellaneous capital costs •••••••••••••••••••• $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Operation:
Mine capacity •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• st/d •• 10,000 10,000
Av. mining rate per unit ••••••••••••.•••• st/h •. 14 20, 40 or 100
Daily utilization ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• h •• 24 24
Annual utilization ••••••••••••••••••••••• days •• 330 330
Mining unit availability time ••••••••••••• pct •• 60 60
Reservoirs and water supply, cost per year ••••• $400,000 $400,000
Annual maintenance supplies per unit ••••••••••• $150,000 $150,000
Misc. operating supplies per year •••••••••••••• $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Annual fuel costs per unit •••••••••••••••.••••• $100,000 $100,000
Transportation per short ton ••••••••••••••.•••• $0.40 $0.40
Plant operation per short ton •••••••••••••••••• $3.50 $3.50
Tailings disposal per short ton •••••••••••••••• $1. 50 $1. 50
Mining labor (excl. plant and drilling):
Operating labor per unit per hour' ••••••••••••• $18.00 $18.00
Support labor ••••••••••••••••• pct opera labor •• 25 25
Maintenance labor •••••••••••••••••••••••••• do •• 25 25
Supervisory labor •••••••••••••• pct dire labor •• 20 20
Payroll benefits •••••••••••••• pct total labor •• 30 30
Payrolloverhead ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• do •• 40 40
Finance:
Local taxes and insurance •••• pct capital cost •• 2 2
Royalty payments •••••••••••• pct gross revenue •• 7 7
Income tax ••••••••••••••••• pct taxable income •• 46 46
Depletion allowance •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0

'Based on an average of 1.5 workers per unit.

 36

TABLE 17. - Cost summary for oil-sand mining

Hypothetical tool
Bureau of Low Most High
Mines tool mining likely mining
rate rate
Initial capital cost items, 10 3 $:
Separation plant.................. 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Borehole mining units (number).... 75,000(50) 52,500(35) 27,000(18) 10,500(7)
Working capital................... 27,638 21,450 15,676 11.963
Exploration....................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Slurry and water lines............ 750 525 270 105
Miscellaneous ••••••••••••••••••••• ~~5~,~0~0~0~__~~~52'~0~0~0~__~~52'~0~0~0~__~~52'~0~0~0___
Total capital cost •.••••.•••••• F=1=4=0~,=3=8=8=====F=1~1~1~,=4~7=5~===F=7=9~,=9=4=5=====F=5~9~,=5=6=8===
Operating cost items, $/bbl:
Reservoirs and site preparation ••• .24 .24 .24 .24
Drilling ••••••.••.••••.••••••••••• 2.93 .91 .91 .91
Mining:
Payroll......................... 7.78 5.44 2.80 1.09
Payroll benefits................ 2.33 1.63 .84 .33
Payroll overhead................ 3.11 2.18 1.12 .43
Fuel............................ 3.03 2.12 1.09 .42
Maintenance supplies............ 4.55 3.18 1.64 .64
Misc. operating supplies........ .73 .73 .73 .73
Ore transportation................ .80 .80 .80 .80
Separation plant.................. 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Tail i ngs di s p os a 1. • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • •• f------;:;~3...:...~0~0--+----,~3:;..:.:...;0:-;0~--+-----;:;~3...:..• ..;:.
0-::-0_ _-+-~3:-:.:...;0~0:;-_
Total direct cost.............. 35.50 27.23 20.17 15.59
Indirect cost items, $bbl:
Local taxes and insurance......... 1.37 1.09 .78 .58
Royalty payments.................. 4.69 3.64 2.66 2.03
Federal income tax................ 8.56 6.71 4.83 3.64
Deprecitation ••.•••••••••••••••••• 8.51 6.76 4.84 3.61
Total indirect cost •••••••••••• r-~2~3~.~1~3~--~--~1~8~.~2~0~--~~1~3~.~1~1----~~9...:...~8~6~--
Pro~it after taxes (for DCFROR of
20 pet), $/bbl..................... 8.37 6.57 4.72 3.55
F========F========F=======~~~==
Total (~elling price) •••••••••• 67.00 52.00 38.00 29.00

TABLE 18. - Production summary for oil-sand mining

Bureau of Mines Hypothetical

tool too1 1
Recovery ••••••••••••••••••••••• percent ore in place •• 55 55
Ore-body requirements •••••••••••••••••••••• l0 3 st/yr •• 6,050 6,050
Ore--body length required •••••••••••••••••••••• ft/yr •• 2,051 256
Ore per borehole ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• st •• 2,896 23,169
Boreholes requi red per year •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,139 142
Annual production •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10 3 bbl •• 1,650 1,650
1Data shown are the same for all mining rates.
 37

30 , - - - - -----,1----------,----------.------- - ,

20

;'
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
;'
,/

KEY
20 ......
- - - 0 .50 bbl/sl
---- .J .

- ----
10 r- -
- - - 0 .75 bbl /s l
U
Q.

~
0 KE Y
0:
"- 10 - - - 0 .50 bbl /s l
u
0 - - - 0 .75 bbl lsI
0 -
u
Co
",-
0 Of-
'"-"
u
0

-10
-10
v----
-2 0 - 20 I L J I
10 20 30 40 50 50 100 150 200 250 300
CAVITY RADIUS, II OR E TH ICKN ESS, II

FIGURE 23.-0il-sand mining : return on investment versus FIGURE 24.-0il-sand mining: return on investment versu s
cavity radius. ore thickness.

20 I
---------- -----------------

100
10

U 80
Co KE Y
0:- - - - 0 .50 bbl/ sl
0 60
- - - 0 .75 bbl/sl
'"
"-
u U
Q.
0
40
~
0 0
a:
"-
u 20
0

-20

-IOL-_ _ _ _ _ _- L_ __ __ __ ~ ______ ~

-4 0
100 200 300 40 0 0 .25 0. 50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50
OVERBURDEN THICKNESS , II ORE GRADE, bbl /st

FIGURE 25.-0ll-sand mining : return on Investment versus FIGURE 26.-0il-sand mining : return on investment versus
overburden thickness. ore grade.
 38

2 o ,-------,-------~------_.------_.------~
each figure includes curves for two ore
/
/ grades. It is shown that the sensitivity
/ results do not vary with grade and that
I
10 I good rate of return values are possible
I
I with moderate improvements in ore grade.
/ A circle on the 0.50-bbl/st curve shows
~ /
~ / the baseline data point, the condition
0
0
a: / chosen for the cost analysis in table 15.
LL
U / This analysis shows that there is insen-
0
I KEY
I - - 0 .50 bbl / Sl
sitivity to cavity radius over 30 ft
-10 I - - - 0.70 bbl / sl (fig. 23), ore thickness over 100 ft
I (fig. 24), and overburden thickness under
I 400 ft (fig. 25). Ore grade (fig. 26)
I
I has a large effect on the economics, as
-200L-----1~~-L----4~0~----~6~
0 ------~8~0------~100 does the mining rate (fig. 27). If an
MINING RATE , sl/h ore body exists with a grade higher than
FIGURE 27 .-0il.-sand mining : return on investment versus 0.75 bbl/st, it could be mined very pro-
mining rate. fitably at 40 st/h or more.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has reviewed research in small size and the irregularity of these
borehole (slurry) mining conducted by the deposits make them ideal candidates for
Bureau of Mines from 1975 to 1980. This borehole mining because of the high areal
research has successfully demofistrated selectivity of the borehole mining
the technical feasibility of the remote method.
extraction of coal, oil sands, uranium The borehole ftlining field tests of oil
ore, and phosphates as a slurry through a sands and coal demonstrated the technical
borehole. It has also shown that bore- feasibility of the remote extraction of
hole mining can be performed so that the these commodities through boreholes, but
associated environmental impact is the rates at which these fuels were pro-
mi nimal. duced were too low for commercial vi-
Borehole mining of phosphates was the ability. The test demonstrated the need
mo~t successful of the field trials. The for developing borehole mining equipment
pr~ductivity was higher than that of the that will allow higher productivity.
other commodities because of the lack of Backfilling of borehole-mined cavities
induration of the phosphate ore, and be- by horizontal, underwater jetting of
cause of the high-positive suction head slurry into the cavities was proven to be
on the slurry pump owing to the fact that feasible. Backfilling is likely to be an
mining took place with the borehole attractive method to prevent subsidence
filled with water. in those cases where a suitable supply of
The Agrico Mining Co. plans to conduct granular fill is available. Disruption
further testing in St. Johns County with to the environment would be minimal un-
the aim of ultimately conducting com- less fill would have to be obtained from
mercial mining of the deep phosphate de- a borrow pit.
posits of northeast Florida. Environmental monitoring for groundwa-
Borehole mining fulfills the need for a ter pollution and subsidence conducted
method to mine "incremental" uranium ore. during these mining tests indicated the
Incremental ore refers to those small, virtual absence of both phenomena. This
irregular, high-grade uranium ore bodies indicates that borehole mining may be an
that, although adjacent to working open attractive candidate for mining environ-
pits, cannot be mined from these pits be- mentally sensitive areas.
cause of engineering limitations. The
 39

REFERENCES

1. Clayton, E. E. Process and Appa- Study (contract J0255024, TRW). Bu[v!ines

ratus for Mining. U.S. Pat. 1,851,565, OFR 33-77,1976, 104 pp.; NTIS PB 26 4-
Mar. 29, 1932. 138/ AS.
2. Aston, C. P. T. Jet Mining and 12. Cheung, J. B., G. H. Hurlburt ,
Excavation. U.S. Pat. 2,518,591, 1. E. Scott, and S, Do Veenhuizen .
Aug. 15, 1950. Application of a Hydraulic Borehole Min-
3. Quick, T. E. Method and Apparatus ing Apparatus to the Remote Extraction of
for Hydraulic Reaming of Oil Wells. U.S. Coal. Interim Report (contract H0252007,
Pat. 2,720,381, Oct. 11, 1955. Flow Industries). BuMines OFR 117-81 ,
4. Fly, A. B. Hydraulic Jet Under- 1976, 87 pp.
Reaming Process. U.S. Pat. 3,155,177, 13. Archibald, IV. R. Field Test of
No v" 3, 1 964. Hydraulic Borehole Mining Systems in
5. Pfefferle, G. H. Apparatus for Shallow Uranium Sands (contract H0272010 ,
and Method of Mining a Subterranean Flow Industries). BuMines OFR 136-80 ,
Ore Deposit. U.S. Pat. 3,439,953, 1978, 217 pp.; NTIS FB 81-128969.
Apr. 22,1969. 14. Herkenhoff, E. C. When Are \~e Go-
6. Wenneborg, W. Z. Method for Sub- ing To Mine Oil? Eng. and Min. J . , v -
terranean Drilling and Mining. U.S. Pat. 173, No.6, 1972, pp. 132-138.
°,
3 , 7 3 5 9 3 , Ma y 1, 1 9 73 •
7. Archibald, W. R. Underground Min-
15. Knoke, G. S., and W. R. Archibald ,
Borehole Mining: An Environmentally Com-
ing System. U.S. Pat. 3,797,590, patible Method for Mining Oil Sands (con-
Mar. 19, 1974. tract J0295064, Flow Industries). Bu-
8. Bruenelle, P. R. Subterranean Mines OFR 50-81, 1980, 114 pp.; NTIS
Drilling and Slurry Mining. U.S. Pat. PB 81-214 231.
4,059,166, Nov. 22, 1977. 16. Scott, L. E. Borehole Mining of
9. Fly, A. B. Subsurface Hydraulic Phosphate Ores (contract J0205038, Fl ow
Mining Through Small Diameter Boreholes. Industries). BuMines OFR 138-82, 1981 ,
Paper in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Hydrau- 217 pp.; NTIS PB 82-257841.
lic Transport of Solids in Pipes. Brit. 17. Marvin, M. H., G. S. Knoke, and
Hydrodyn. Res. Assoc., Bedford, England, W. R. Archibald. Backfilling of Cavities
1970, pp. Bl-l to Bl-6. Produced in Borehole Mining Operations
10. Anderson, A. K. Marconaflo (contract J0285037, Flow Industries ).
Systems - State-of-the-Art. Ch. in Min- BuMines OFR 4-81, 1979, 85 pp.; NTIS
ing Yea rbook. CO Mi n. As soc., 1 9 7 6 , PB 81-171308.
pp. 165-173.
11. Lohn, P. D., and D. A. Brent. Im-
proved Mineral Excavation Nozzle Design

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OfFICE : 1987·605-017 /60066 INT.-BU.OF MINES,PGH. : PA . 2851-7