Executive Summary
Global Mining and Manufacturer’s Corporate Agendas
Understanding the current base and precious metal mining industry is something that many people think they know. Mining is conducted in underground and surface mines, what more is there to know.
Understanding there are two types of mining, would it be ‘historically’ plausible to think that global mining machinery manufacturers could restrict underground mining in order to increase the number of high sales value surface mining operations worldwide?
It is a serious thought to think, considering that there are only really three dominating underground base and precious metal mining machinery manufacturers globally.
My name is Brendon Butler and I have spent over seven years researching this very topic. It has seen me into jobs and self-funded research that has allowed me access to all relevant areas of research. I have spoken with regional manufacturer managers, mining contractor general managers, mine managers, project managers, many internationally experienced underground mining operators, manufacturer distributers, etc. In all of the interactions undertaken, not one person has said or implied that this topic is indeed incorrect. Many have said it does hold merit.
If many industry members each understand that, there are fundamental inefficiencies in the mining industry. Then how has the underground mining industry still been allowed to be restricted, and who may have supported it? Legitimate questions to be asked and answered.
The complexities of this topic need to be understood in a global scale. If you restrict underground mining (where most high value ore is located) then you essentially lock that supply away. This in turn increases the value of the metals globally (over many decades) thus increasing the number of surface mining operations using large efficient mining equipment.
High commodity prices would benefit the manufacturers that make the underground mining equipment, the surface mining equipment and the exploration mining equipment. However, because this may have been slowly played out over many decades, it will have also increased the margins made by mining companies on the value of metals sold.
It is an extraordinarily powerful concept that could only be proved by calling the practice out or getting the protagonists to prove it is not true.
This task is now upon us all. This publication contains years of research on how to prove, call out, fix, and improve mining.

Written by, Brendon Butler.


Publication link below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109637671/Interference-Anomalies 

Don't understand what you are on about, don't understand the relevence to British mining history, your link doesn't work on my computer, WTF is this all about?? :devil:

---

Try cutting and pasting it in to your browser.

Works fine on mine.

Same relevance as Sirus Potash project


Interesting concept Brendon.

I thought various companies in India and China were trying to get in on the act (sales of mining eqpt) ..their stuff maybe dodgy now, but in future ? Who knows?
What I don't know is how well the main manufacturers have all the technology safeguarded with various patents...

---

firstly you need to read the publication.

As for the patents, it does not really matter.

let me knowyour thoughts after you have read it.

Brendon

My Comments were based on initial page, but yes will try to read all 200 pages soon...As I work for a company that buys this stuff I may send the link on to others.......Thanks for putting it here

---

Watch this 46 seconds to boost the global economy on youtube

As an ex-geophysicist (oil & gas/geothermal energy sources/mining exploration) professional translator and proofreader, I detect a trace of disappointment/anger/frustration in the tonality of the entire document.

Interesting take on tracks as an alternative to wheels.

Big problem here: caterpillar tracks are at an enormous disadvantage when there's lots of dust, loose rubble and sharp-edged rocks around - a fact that's been know at least since the use of tanks and tracked vehicles in the Western Desert in WWII.

The complexity and number of parts per track unit compared with a wheel/tyre unit is significantly greater and significantly more susceptible to wear, need for maintenance, lubrication and is susceptible to problems like blockage and track-throwing.

Ever tried changing/repairing a track link or walking a thrown track back on? Takes quite a bit longer than replacing a tyre or complete wheel! With a track unit at each "corner", you are just asking for trouble

What about the power supply? Are you suggesting that the overhead HT-cables are extended each time the face moves forward (big time factor being ignored here)? (BTW: you can get some lovely sparks between a collector and the cable - additional fire/safety risks!).

The only safe power supply solution here could be induction (or batteries - much too heavy!).

BTW: on page 101 you are back with an FWD concept - what happened to the tracks?

Can see your point in quite a number of aspects, but the whole thing is much too emotional for a technical treatise.

Good work all the same.

Provocative Mining Publication.

I am very sorry to say that the standard of written English leaves much to be desired.

Clarity my man. Clarity.

To be honest,the clarity is plain to a practical Mining person,
Brendon does raise a few points that make total sense,no point in driving a heading of colossal proportion,if a smaller heading with appropriate machinery will suffice,there is less waste to handle,
And if a better ventilation system is in use,the quicker the smoke and fumes from firing clears,and work can progress.

Regarding batteries being to heavy,they seemed to be the source of power on most underground loco`s,surely that is food for thought.

I get the point, but if the chap wants to be taken seriously, he has to up his game.

It doesn't read like it has been written by someone who has read so much that good grammar, punctuation and clear thinking come as second nature. It doesn't appear learned.

Don't shoot the messenger. If it was a college report, he'd be told to do it again, or failed.

I get the point, but if the chap wants to be taken seriously, he has to up his game.

It doesn't read like it has been written by someone who has read so much that good grammar, punctuation and clear thinking come as second nature. It doesn't appear learned.

Don't shoot the messenger. If it was a college report, he'd be told to do it again, or failed.

I fully agree,he needs to up is game,

I first read his report on a New Mining Forum,Connect Mining,don`t bother,unless your looking for a specialist job abroad,its full of recreutment agencies and blogs,and suggested he post here,beings some of you Cornish boys have an interest in Crofty working,also Coal Pro Boards and of course the Welshcoalmines forum,sadly he has`nt posted on our forum,so i am having thoughts that he does`nt want constructive critisism,and his report reads as a mere blog,but he does have a few good points,and its a shame to have it rubbished ,without a proper construtive debate,but if he does`nt engage in a debate,then its a mere blog,and will go no where.

Regarding the grammer,punctuation and not appearing learned,apparently in his report he mentions working on headings for a while,does`nt say how long a period,but looking at his Youtube video,he does`nt have the appearance of someone who has worked underground for long.
But that aside,he has some good points on a practical side,and can always get one of you Uni Grads to re-write his paper for a few pints of that good Cornish Ale,lol.