Pointers to success for young, able, and ambitious mining engineers, and a few tips for over-sixities like myself who still plan to contribute to mining for a decade or so:  Seek out and listen to the young professors and professionals.  Here are summaries of presentations at the SME that prove mining will florish as they implement their new ideas and approaches.

Sean Dessureault at the University of Arizona in Tucson approaches data mining of mining data with a new perspective.  I am impressed, although a little scared, by his bold proposition that his ideas will change mine planning and management practices – but only once the old codgers like me yield to his students and their operations research and strategic mine planning techniques.  (He did not quite put it that forcefully – I paraphrase from my own perspective. In fact he kind of conceeded that we seniors are a source of ideas about redesigning business processses when faced with technology shifts, and that young professors are good for making bold statements and starting step-improvements.)  Here is the (edited) abstract of his paper to give you some idea of what he does:

This paper reviews and critiques long-held managerial assumptions that dominate mine management and engineering decision making.  It is submitted that these long-held beliefs should be abandoned now that detailed, objective information is available. The managerial practices that dominate the annual budgeting process and its use as a performance management and goal setting tool are questioned.  Case studies are described where data from multiple sources are integrated using data mining techniques.  We propose alternative and better ways forward.

Bold words and bold proposals, but you must believe in them when you listen to him speak.  Contact him if you think you can use his ideas to improve things at your mine.   Or go to this link and buy the book. 

From the University of Kentucky, new ideas swirl around Braden Lusk whose research stretches from blasting through mine operations to public relations.  His lively presentation told of modifying blasting practices in quarries adjacent to poor and rich neighborhoods in order to reduce the “felt” or “experienced” impact of the blast on the rich versus the poor.  In addition he told us how different socio-economic classes perceive the magnitude of a blast.  It seems it all depends on the word you use.  If you quantify the blast via decibels, PSI, or energy units, you get a different response.  Most people respond positively to descriptions of how big the blast will be if you use PSI.  Seems most people have cars with tires that need pumping, and the PSI from most blasts is much lower than tire pressures. 

Watch the future of these professors.  But my nominee for the most likely to succeed is N. Grieco who is with AMEC in Ontario.  Her presentation was confident and intelligent.  Here is an edited version of her paper’s abstract:

Optimizing stope design is an intrinsic element of underground mine planning where optimal design must integrate multiple technial considerations.  Orebody uncertainty is a critical factor that affects the forecasted efficiency of alternative stope layouts.  This paper describes a new probabilistic, mixed integer computer code (stope model) that you may use to optimize stope design.  When you use the model you may include consideration of the size, location, and number of stopes, and which also take into acocunt the grade of the ore and predefined levels of acceptable risk.