The more “popular” this blog becomes, the greater the number of e-mails I receive that extol products and mines and that ask that I write about them on this blog.   Maybe popular is not the correct description of this blog—maybe I should be precise and say, the greater number of readers, or just simply hits via Google.  Whether it is blog popularity or hits, the fact remains that there has been a correlation between numbers and e-mails requesting a mention. 

I cannot, and will not, write about products simply because I get an e-mail request.  I remain true to the founding principle: write about what interests me and what I hope will interest the reader of this blog.   That said, the other day I received an e-mail alerting me to a website where you can read about a different way of blasting. 

Before I write about the website, let me say why I found it of interest.  The following is from something much longer I wrote a long time ago about blasting: 

My father, a miner, would often bring home a six-inch long, one-inch diameter cardboard tube that when lit would spurt out a bright red flame. He called these chesa-sticks and told us they were used underground to set off the explosives that shattered the rock and liberated the gold-bearing ore. The first time I actually saw rock explode from blasting was on the left bank of the Hendrick Verwoerd dam on the Orange River as the blasters, come down from the Transvaal, carved away the abutment that we would later fill in with concrete to hold back the river’s waters. Even today, I thrill whenever I see the perfect face of a high Colorado roadcut in fine-grained rock with its regular pattern of half blast holes separated by the perfect break of smooth rock between.

That is the memory side of blasting. The tragedy side is death. As reported on the website of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:

Between 1978 and 2000, 106 miners were killed and 1,050 were injured by explosives and breaking agents. In 2001, there were 7 blasting-related injuries and fatalities in the mining industry, compared to 140 in 1978. For the past two decades, most explosives-related injuries and fatalities in surface mines occurred when workers were struck by rock, either because they were too close to the blast or rock was thrown much farther than expected. The second leading cause was blasts that shoot prematurely. In underground mines, most explosive-related fatalities were caused by miners being too close to the blast, followed by explosive fumes poisoning, misfires, and premature blasts. Misfires lead to injuries and fatalities as miners try to shoot explosives that failed to detonate in the original blast. Premature blasts occur without warning while blasters are near the explosive-loaded boreholes; the explosive may be initiated by lightning, the impact of explosives being dropped down a dry borehole, or careless handling of the initiating system (blasting caps).

And so, in a way, this  is a kind of tribute to the memory of the chesa stick and those who died in blasting accidents. The story is that my paternal grandfather died in a mine blast, but I have no way to validate the story.

The website that prompts this blog posting is for NXbursT.  Funny set of upper an lower case lettering, but that is a fashion—although I do not like it. 

These folk make a different type of blast-inducer, described thus on their site:

The NXbursT™ technology is based on a non-detonating chemical compound enclosed in a cartridge, which reacts very quickly when ignited to produce high volumes of harmless gas, mainly consisting of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and steam.  When the cartridge is sealed in a drill hole, the gas generated by the ignition of the propellant enters into the micro-fractures created from the percussive drilling process and into the natural fractures and planes of weakness of the rock to produce a shearing of the rock or concrete often called splitting.

   They extol the product as being particularly useful for secondary blasting.  While the prose is amateurish, and not particularly informative—probably written originally in another European language in which it sound more official, here is part of their description:

The NxbursT™ method for secondary rockbreaking offers surface mines and quarries a safe, low cost, versatile, environmentally sensitive method of secondary breaking, which allows secondary breaking to take place in the pit without having to disrupt the production operation.

I am not expert enough to tell if this is a break-through or mundane.  Let us know if you have experience or opinions on the matter.  In other words, share your thoughts on this one with the industry.  Thanks.

From CostMine is the U.S. Metal & Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages & Benefits 2008 Survey.  Here are some averages for metal and industrial mineral mines in the United States. (the first number is the hourly base wage for small surface mines; the second number is that hourly base wage for large mines.)

• Electrician = 21.46/24.05
• Mechanic = 19.82/22.63
• Driller = 17.45/22.77
• Laborer – 14.75/17.21

To repeat here are comparable wages for small and large coal mines in the U.S.:

• Electrician: = $24.06/25.80
• Mechanic = $21.97/25.9
• Helper = $15.75/22.61
• Laborer = $18.58/21.49

Clearly coal miners are far better paid than surface metal and industrial miner miners. Is the same true for underground metal mines? Here are some numbers, again the first for small mine and the second for large mines:

• Electrician: = $24.38/23.18
• Mechanic = $19.64/21.88
• Miner = $23.56/22.69
• Underground Laborer = $15.67/21.95

    Seems the differences in wages in surface and underground metal mines is not that big, and that coal miners earn more regardless of whether you are in a surface or underground metal mine.
Let us compare wages in the metal mine and industrial mineral mines:(the first for metal mines, the second for industrial minerals mines.)

• Electrician: = $25.07/21.91
• Mechanic = $24.10/20.46
• Driller = $23.24/18.31
• Laborer = $18.4/14.92

   A big difference between metal mines and industrial minerals mines. These numbers also point out the problem of averaging wages in metal and industrial mineral mines—they are different animals. For these number show that metal mine miners are better paid than coal mine miners—maybe? Certainly true for precious metal mine miners. Let us summarize the numbers for the famous electrician:

• Precious metal mine = $26.40
• Copper Mine = $22.63
• Other metal Mine = $24.96
• Industrial mineral surface mine = $21.91
• Industrial mineral underground mine = $24.67
• Surface coal mine = $25.63
• Underground coal mine = $23.55
• Limestone mine = $21.60
• Aggregate quarry = $16.97

Looks like the choice is a precious metal (gold) mine or a surface coal mine. Not a big difference, but enough to pay for a new GM truck.

    I notice that the total cost of benefits as a percentage of wages in 36.5 % for small metal mines and 40.51% for large metal mines. Miners at union mines get a benefits package that is about 40 to 47 percent of their base wage. Miners at non-union mines get benefits of between 31 and 37 % of their wages.

    As we noted before, the issue is how much everybody else gets paid. So I pick at random a silver, lead, and zinc mine in Idaho. Here are some of their wages:

• Hoistman – Double Drum = $15.91
• Miner = $14.41
• Truck Driver = $ 14.03
• Mill Leadman = $16.56
• Crusher Operator = $13.49
• Master Electrician = $18.64
• Mechanic, Apprentice Class 2 = $14.03
• Janitor = $13.49

This must be one of those non-union places in a nice part of Idaho. Which left me wondering where all those high-paid electricians are. An unscientific survey shows they come from Texas, Utah, and Washington. Oh and some of those Californian quarries. 

A system set up on the false premise that all people are equally good and honest is sure to fail–for the facts of the matter are that we are not all equally good and honest.  A system that works has to account for stupid, incompetent, and wicked behaviour by some people, some of the time. 

These arrogant reflections are prompted by a report that Marathon Mining has been suspended for dumping uranium exploration waste in a wilderness area of South Australia.  Now that is stupid, incompetent, and downright wicked. 

The report does not tell us if this silly act is the result of one lazy driller, a crew of incompetent rednecks, or the institutionalized wickedness of Marathon.  Or a lapse of the industry and the regulators. 

The usual dumb pronouncements are made by those in positions of authority–one sometimes wonders if the ability to sprout those idiotic platitudes is a pre-requisite for elevation to high position.  Here are some [I edit for context.]:

South Australia Premier Mike Rann:  “We welcome and encourage the interest of mining companies in developing and exploring the natural resources of our state but today’s decision sends a clear message.  This is a remote part of our state but it is not the wild west.”

Marathon Resources:  We acknowledged the “error of judgment” in the manner in which it disposed of exploration material, but we maintain there is no significant environmental or health risk to visitors or wildlife.”

Greens MP Mark Parnell:  ”It is time for the government to rule out, once and for all, any mining in the Arkaroola sanctuary. We need to draw a line in the sand.  Some parts of our state are just too precious to mine – Mt Gee is clearly one of those.”

Minister for Mineral Resources Paul Holloway: “The incident at Mt Gee is a blot on the otherwise rich history of mining exploration in SA.  I am very disappointed in the conduct of Marathon Resources.”

Consider: the most vigorous rebuke is to compare Australia to the old cowboy country of Hollywood.  The most vigorous apology is to deny risk to visitors.  And to tut, tut about disappointment. 

Maybe the system did work here: seems the silliness was soon discovered and cleaned up. 

But I would have thought that a more honest assessment of what actually happened would have been in everybody’s interests.  I get the impression that everybody is in denial and is sweeping more toxic waste beneath the rug.  Why can’t someone say:  “The system is broken, the people running the rules are incompetent, a wicked fellow jumped into the breach, and we were asleep at the wheel.  But no matter, we will fire the incompetent, sanction the evil, and fix the system.” 

I suspect that honesty would cast a mirror on many and deprive the Greens of an opportunity to attack.  But then mining deserves to be attacked when it fails to spotlight and control the stupid, incompetent, and evil that inevitably find their way into its ranks. 

The story could be that of a modern Vancouver mining junior: find an ore body, struggle to get it started, get interrupted by accidents and local politics, have the majors go after you and your find, and ultimately sell for a fortune to retire to a mansion in British Properties. 

Except in this case it is not a gold deposit in Costa Rica but oil in California at the turn of the 1900s.  The movie is based on a book by Upton Sinclair, who no doubt was attacking private enterprise, business, capitalism, and the like when he wrote the book.  The movie cannot get away from Sinclair’s original intent of attacking the practices of the resource development industries.  The movie makers try, however, to add in a bit of 20th century human interest  by focusing on the kid, the priest, and a pseudo-brother.  But the movie still reeks heavily of the unsavory practices of juniors stretching their abilities to develop a find and make a buck.  Even though his community relations is excellent.

We all like Hamlet because he is a contradictory character trying to find himself in a sea of deceit and death.  Much as I admired the movies’ miner/oil developer’s success in the face of the odds, I was appalled by the practices he needed to implement to succeed.  He is no Hamlet; just a flawed human being who uses others to his end.  In one small scene, we learn he is motivated by hatred, plain and simple.  No grand notions of sustainable development here.   As my companion pointed out, he is mad. But that is flimsy stuff to base a movie on; particularly if you cannot decide to tell the story of one human, or to attack the practices of the resource development industries. 

In the end the movie succeeds because of great acting, great scenes, and a bloody story of flawed humans–at least we come away feeling “we are better than they are.”  It succeeds for the same reason that good opera succeeds: tell of the folly of gods and kings and queens.  We all like to see that those above us are more flawed that we are, even if luck or skill or madness makes then richer or more powerful.  And ultimately we glory in the downfall of the wicked, be they priest or miner. 

Twenty-three years of data compiled by the Health & Safety Committee focuses attention on the most common causes of exploration accidents. The following observations reflect this experience and are provided for the benefit of present and future exploration personnel.

• Travel-related accidents produce the majority of fatalities with almost 90% resulting from helicopter, canoe and vehicle-related accidents. In terms of miles travelled, canoe-related fatalities are so abnormally high that this mode of transportation for exploration personnel should be discouraged or critically evaluated before being undertaken.

• With improved road access to many exploration areas, there is a greater potential for vehicle accidents; however, both fixed-wing and rotary-wing transportation will continue as essential means of transportation for exploration personnel.

• Although unsubstantiated, there is evidence that early exploration personnel suffered fewer lost workday accidents and fatalities because of their self-reliance. Development of this attribute, which could be life-saving, should be encouraged in all personnel.

• Not surprisingly, almost 50% of lost workdays are caused by slips and falls. These data are consistent with mountaineering accidents in Canada and the United States and are a direct reflection of the amount of time personnel are exposed to traversing rough terrain.These statistics are unlikely to change significantly with time, but can be reduced by individuals paying greater attention to ability and fatigue limitations, steep terrain, proper footwear, and the many hazards that can be expected.

• Back-related injuries, which appear to be on an increase, are the third highest cause of lost workday accidents. Most of these accidents are caused by improper lifting or pushing of heavy objects and directly reflect carelessness by the victim who could, as a consequence, suffer a lifelong back problem.

• As a means of maintaining an adequate focus on safety procedures, even the smallest projects should plan safety meetings at least once a week during the field season.

This is an excellent volume; it should be in every backpack and should be read again and again.  I disagree, however, with the conclusion “plan safety meetings at least once a week during the field season.”  I believe it should read: “Hold a safety meeting every day before the start of work.” 

Costly and irritating as it may be to hold a tailgate safety meeting every day before work, I know, on the basis of personal experience, that this is a necessary and absolute part of a safe work site.  At such meetings the participants should discuss what will be done that day and ask the questions:

1. Is the work approach safe
2. What can be done to improve work practices to enhance work safety
3. What did we learn yesterday that points us to a safer way of working.

These and many other simple questions, invariably lead to more and more insightful questions, answers, and practices.  Never forget controlling incidents is the cheapest and easiest way of eliminating workplace deaths.  I vaguely recall that for every ten incidents there is an accident, for every ten accidents there is a death.  Hence eliminate incidents and eliminate workplace death.  I write more on this topic at this link.  Good workplace safety habits!