Abstract
Previous schemes to strip the overburden from a deeply-buried orebody by nuclear explosives have been hampered by various constraints. These are the notions that surface topography should slope in the desired direction to facilitate casting; that the orebody should be stripped all at once, meaning that an unsafe and unnaturally high yield will be detonated; or that the overburden be broken and cast, in a manner akin to conventional blasting, with a series of explosions linked by milli-second delays, such delays being an unproven and, perhaps non-permissible technology; and, finally, that the schemes leave an excessive amount of overburden to be removed by conventional means. It is proposed that deep orebodies, idealized by a 250-ft. thick copper porphyry under 600 feet of cover, be stripped in successive rows, using available row-charge technology. A first row, of greater magnitude than those succeeding, is used to expose the orebody. The second row is placed so as to throw overburden into the void created by the first. All rows are placed so as not to damage the ore. Except for the first row, all rows utilize directed throwing. After a row is detonated, the ore beneath it would be removed by conventional means.
More>>
Saperstein, L W;
Mishra, R
[1]
- Department of Mining, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (United States)
Citation Formats
Saperstein, L W, and Mishra, R.
Overburden stripping from deeply buried orebodies by controlled nuclear explosive casting.
IAEA: N. p.,
1970.
Web.
Saperstein, L W, & Mishra, R.
Overburden stripping from deeply buried orebodies by controlled nuclear explosive casting.
IAEA.
Saperstein, L W, and Mishra, R.
1970.
"Overburden stripping from deeply buried orebodies by controlled nuclear explosive casting."
IAEA.
@misc{etde_20768809,
title = {Overburden stripping from deeply buried orebodies by controlled nuclear explosive casting}
author = {Saperstein, L W, and Mishra, R}
abstractNote = {Previous schemes to strip the overburden from a deeply-buried orebody by nuclear explosives have been hampered by various constraints. These are the notions that surface topography should slope in the desired direction to facilitate casting; that the orebody should be stripped all at once, meaning that an unsafe and unnaturally high yield will be detonated; or that the overburden be broken and cast, in a manner akin to conventional blasting, with a series of explosions linked by milli-second delays, such delays being an unproven and, perhaps non-permissible technology; and, finally, that the schemes leave an excessive amount of overburden to be removed by conventional means. It is proposed that deep orebodies, idealized by a 250-ft. thick copper porphyry under 600 feet of cover, be stripped in successive rows, using available row-charge technology. A first row, of greater magnitude than those succeeding, is used to expose the orebody. The second row is placed so as to throw overburden into the void created by the first. All rows are placed so as not to damage the ore. Except for the first row, all rows utilize directed throwing. After a row is detonated, the ore beneath it would be removed by conventional means. The void thus created would provide space for the successive row to fire into. Further, the additional free-face provided by the void imparts a major direction to the ejecta. Because of the directed nature of the throw, ore removal does not have to proceed directly beneath the row slope. Advantages to this scheme are its adaptability to terrain; its reduction in overburden to be removed by conventional methods; its increased speed in uncovering ore; its reduction of unit costs; audits adaptability to production rates. An example, utilizing the idealized orebody shows that production of ore can begin within a year of project approval versus four or five years for the same orebody developed conventionally; that no more than eight percent of the overburden has to be handled conventionally; and that unit cost for overburden removal is about four cents per ton, which is a two to ten-fold reduction in present-day costs. (author)}
place = {IAEA}
year = {1970}
month = {May}
}
title = {Overburden stripping from deeply buried orebodies by controlled nuclear explosive casting}
author = {Saperstein, L W, and Mishra, R}
abstractNote = {Previous schemes to strip the overburden from a deeply-buried orebody by nuclear explosives have been hampered by various constraints. These are the notions that surface topography should slope in the desired direction to facilitate casting; that the orebody should be stripped all at once, meaning that an unsafe and unnaturally high yield will be detonated; or that the overburden be broken and cast, in a manner akin to conventional blasting, with a series of explosions linked by milli-second delays, such delays being an unproven and, perhaps non-permissible technology; and, finally, that the schemes leave an excessive amount of overburden to be removed by conventional means. It is proposed that deep orebodies, idealized by a 250-ft. thick copper porphyry under 600 feet of cover, be stripped in successive rows, using available row-charge technology. A first row, of greater magnitude than those succeeding, is used to expose the orebody. The second row is placed so as to throw overburden into the void created by the first. All rows are placed so as not to damage the ore. Except for the first row, all rows utilize directed throwing. After a row is detonated, the ore beneath it would be removed by conventional means. The void thus created would provide space for the successive row to fire into. Further, the additional free-face provided by the void imparts a major direction to the ejecta. Because of the directed nature of the throw, ore removal does not have to proceed directly beneath the row slope. Advantages to this scheme are its adaptability to terrain; its reduction in overburden to be removed by conventional methods; its increased speed in uncovering ore; its reduction of unit costs; audits adaptability to production rates. An example, utilizing the idealized orebody shows that production of ore can begin within a year of project approval versus four or five years for the same orebody developed conventionally; that no more than eight percent of the overburden has to be handled conventionally; and that unit cost for overburden removal is about four cents per ton, which is a two to ten-fold reduction in present-day costs. (author)}
place = {IAEA}
year = {1970}
month = {May}
}