Principles of Mining: Valuation, Organization and Administration

by Herbert Hoover

MINES TO GREAT DEPTHS.

Case V.	Vertical or horizontal deposits, the only way of reaching which is by a vertical shaft.
Case VI.	Inclined deposits. In such cases the alternatives are a vertical or a compound shaft.

Case I.—Although for logical arrangement tunnel entry has been given first place, to save repetition it is proposed to consider it later. With few exceptions, tunnels are a temporary expedient in the mine, which must sooner or later be opened by a shaft.

Case II. Vertical or Horizontal Deposits.—These require no discussion as to manner of entry. There is no justifiable alternative to a vertical shaft (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.—Cross-sections showing entry to vertical or horizontal deposits. Case II.

Fig. 5.—Cross-section showing alternative shafts to inclined deposit to be worked from surface. Case III.

Case III. Inclined Deposits which are intended to be worked from the Outcrop, or from near It (Fig. 5).—The choice of inclined or vertical shaft is dependent upon relative cost of construction, subsequent operation, and the useful life of the shaft, and these matters are largely governed by the degree of dip. Assuming a shaft of the same size in either alternative, the comparative cost per foot of sinking is dependent largely on the breaking facilities of the rock under the different directions of attack. In this, the angles of the bedding or joint planes to the direction of the shaft outweigh other factors. The shaft which takes the greatest advantage of such lines of breaking weakness will be the cheapest per foot to sink. In South African experience, where inclined shafts are sunk parallel to the bedding planes of hard quartzites, the cost per foot appears to be in favor of the incline. On the other hand, sinking shafts across tight schists seems to be more advantageous than parallel to the bedding planes, and inclines following the dip cost more per foot than vertical shafts.

An inclined shaft requires more footage to reach a given point of depth, and therefore it would entail a greater total expense than a vertical shaft, assuming they cost the same per foot. The excess amount will be represented by the extra length, and this will depend upon the flatness of the dip. With vertical shafts, however, crosscuts to the deposit are necessary. In a comparative view, therefore, the cost of the crosscuts must be included with that of the vertical shaft, as they would be almost wholly saved in an incline following near the ore.

The factor of useful life for the shaft enters in deciding as to the advisability of vertical shafts on inclined deposits, from the fact that at some depth one of two alternatives has to be chosen. The vertical shaft, when it reaches a point below the deposit where the crosscuts are too long (C, Fig. 5), either becomes useless, or must be turned on an incline at the intersection with the ore (B). The first alternative means ultimately a complete loss of the shaft for working purposes. The latter has the disadvantage that the bend interferes slightly with haulage.

The following table will indicate an hypothetical extreme case,—not infrequently met. In it a vertical shaft 1,500 feet in depth is taken as cutting the deposit at the depth of 750 feet, the most favored position so far as aggregate length of crosscuts is concerned. The cost of crosscutting is taken at $20 per foot and that of sinking the vertical shaft at $75 per foot. The incline is assumed for two cases at $75 and $100 per foot respectively. The stoping height upon the ore between levels is counted at 125 feet.

Dip of Deposit from Horizontal	Depth of Vertical Shaft	Length of Incline Required	No. of Crosscuts Required from V Shaft	Total Length of Crosscuts, Feet
80°	1,500	1,522	11	859
70°	1,500	1,595	12	1,911
60°	1,500	1,732	13	3,247
50°	1,500	1,058	15	5,389
40°	1,500	2,334	18	8,038
30°	1,500	3,000	23	16,237
Cost of Crosscuts $20 per Foot	Cost Vertical Shaft $75 per Foot	Total Cost of Vertical and Crosscuts	Cost of Incline $75 per Foot	Cost of Incline $100 per Foot
$17,180	$112,500	$129,680	$114,150	$152,200
38,220	112,500	150,720	118,625	159,500
64,940	112,500	177,440	129,900	172,230
107,780	112,500	220,280	114,850	195,800
178,760	112,500	291,260	175,050	233,400
324,740	112,500	437,240	225,000	300,000

From the above examples it will be seen that the cost of crosscuts put at ordinary level intervals rapidly outruns the extra expense of increased length of inclines. If, however, the conditions are such that crosscuts from a vertical shaft are not necessary at so frequent intervals, then in proportion to the decrease the advantages sway to the vertical shaft. Most situations wherein the crosscuts can be avoided arise in mines worked out in the upper levels and fall under Case IV, that of deep-level projects.

There can be no doubt that vertical shafts are cheaper to operate than inclines: the length of haul from a given depth is less; much higher rope speed is possible, and thus the haulage hours are less for the same output; the wear and tear on ropes, tracks, or guides is not so great, and pumping is more economical where the Cornish order of pump is used. On the other hand, with a vertical shaft must be included the cost of operating crosscuts. On mines where the volume of ore does not warrant mechanical haulage, the cost of tramming through the extra distance involved is an expense which outweighs any extra operating outlay in the inclined shaft itself. Even with mechanical haulage in crosscuts, it is doubtful if there is anything in favor of the vertical shaft on this score.

Fig. 6.—Cross-section showing auxiliary vertical outlet.

In deposits of very flat dips, under 30°, the case arises where the length of incline is so great that the saving on haulage through direct lift warrants a vertical shaft as an auxiliary outlet in addition to the incline (Fig. 6). In such a combination the crosscut question is eliminated. The mine is worked above and below the intersection by incline, and the vertical shaft becomes simply a more economical exit and an alternative to secure increased output. The North Star mine at Grass Valley is an illustration in point. Such a positive instance borders again on Case IV, deep-level projects.

In conclusion, it is the writer's belief that where mines are to be worked from near the surface, coincidentally with sinking, and where, therefore, crosscuts from a vertical shaft would need to be installed frequently, inclines are warranted in all dips under 75° and over 30°. Beyond 75° the best alternative is often undeterminable. In the range under 30° and over 15°, although inclines are primarily necessary for actual delivery of ore from levels, they can often be justifiably supplemented by a vertical shaft as a relief to a long haul. In dips of less than 15°, as in those over 75°, the advantages again trend strongly in favor of the vertical shaft. There arise, however, in mountainous countries, topographic conditions such as the dip of deposits into the mountain, which preclude any alternative on an incline at any angled dip.

Case IV. Inclined Deposits which must be attacked in Depth (Fig. 7).—There are two principal conditions in which such properties exist: first, mines being operated, or having been previously worked, whose method of entry must be revised; second, those whose ore-bodies to be attacked do not outcrop within the property.

The first situation may occur in mines of inadequate shaft capacity or wrong location; in mines abandoned and resurrected; in mines where a vertical shaft has reached its limit of useful extensions, having passed the place of economical crosscutting; or in mines in flat deposits with inclines whose haul has become too long to be economical. Three alternatives present themselves in such cases: a new incline from the surface (A B F, Fig. 7), or a vertical shaft combined with incline extension (C D F), or a simple vertical shaft (H G). A comparison can be first made between the simple incline and the combined shaft. The construction of an incline from the surface to the ore-body will be more costly than a combined shaft, for until the horizon of the ore is reached (at D) no crosscuts are required in the vertical section, while the incline must be of greater length to reach the same horizon. The case arises, however, where inclines can be sunk through old stopes, and thus more cheaply constructed than vertical shafts through solid rock; and also the case of mountainous topographic conditions mentioned above.

Fig. 7.—Cross-section of inclined deposit which must be attacked in depth.

From an operating point of view, the bend in combined shafts (at D) gives rise to a good deal of wear and tear on ropes and gear. The possible speed of winding through a combined shaft is, however, greater than a simple incline, for although haulage speed through the incline section (D F) and around the bend of the combined shaft is about the same as throughout a simple incline (A F), the speed can be accelerated in the vertical portion (D C) above that feasible did the incline extend to the surface. There is therefore an advantage in this regard in the combined shaft. The net advantages of the combined over the inclined shaft depend on the comparative length of the two alternative routes from the intersection (D) to the surface. Certainly it is not advisable to sink a combined shaft to cut a deposit at 300 feet in depth if a simple incline can be had to the surface. On the other hand, a combined shaft cutting the deposit at 1,000 feet will be more advisable than a simple incline 2,000 feet long to reach the same point. The matter is one for direct calculation in each special case. In general, there are few instances of really deep-level projects where a complete incline from the surface is warranted.

In most situations of this sort, and in all of the second type (where the outcrop is outside the property), actual choice usually lies between combined shafts (C D F) and entire vertical shafts (H G). The difference between a combined shaft and a direct vertical shaft can be reduced to a comparison of the combined shaft below the point of intersection (D) with that portion of a vertical shaft which would cover the same horizon. The question then becomes identical with that of inclined versus verticals, as stated in Case III, with the offsetting disadvantage of the bend in the combined shaft. If it is desired to reach production at the earliest date, the lower section of a simple vertical shaft must have crosscuts to reach the ore lying above the horizon of its intersection (E). If production does not press, the ore above the intersection (EB) can be worked by rises from the horizon of intersection (E). In the use of rises, however, there follow the difficulties of ventilation and lowering the ore down to the shaft, which brings expenses to much the same thing as operating through crosscuts.

The advantages of combined over simple vertical shafts are earlier production, saving of either rises or crosscuts, and the ultimate utility of the shaft to any depth. The disadvantages are the cost of the extra length of the inclined section, slower winding, and greater wear and tear within the inclined section and especially around the bend. All these factors are of variable import, depending upon the dip. On very steep dips,—over 70°,—the net result is in favor of the simple vertical shaft. On other dips it is in favor of the combined shaft.

Cases V and VI. Mines to be worked to Great Depths,—over 3,000 Feet.—In Case V, with vertical or horizontal deposits, there is obviously no desirable alternative to vertical shafts.

In Case VI, with inclined deposits, there are the alternatives of a combined or of a simple vertical shaft. A vertical shaft in locations (H, Fig. 7) such as would not necessitate extension in depth by an incline, would, as in Case IV, compel either crosscuts to the ore or inclines up from the horizon of intersection (E). Apart from delay in coming to production and the consequent loss of interest on capital, the ventilation problems with this arrangement would be appalling. Moreover, the combined shaft, entering the deposit near its shallowest point, offers the possibility of a separate haulage system on the inclined and on the vertical sections, and such separate haulage is usually advisable at great depths. In such instances, the output to be handled is large, for no mine of small output is likely to be contemplated at such depth. Several moderate-sized inclines from the horizon of intersection have been suggested (EF, DG, CH, Fig. 8) to feed a large primary shaft (AB), which thus becomes the trunk road. This program would cheapen lateral haulage underground, as mechanical traction can be used in the main level, (EC), and horizontal haulage costs can be reduced on the lower levels. Moreover, separate winding engines on the two sections increase the capacity, for the effect is that of two trains instead of one running on a single track.

Shaft Location.—Although the prime purpose in locating a shaft is obviously to gain access to the largest volume of ore within the shortest haulage distance, other conditions also enter, such as the character of the surface and the rock to be intersected, the time involved before reaching production, and capital cost. As shafts must bear two relations to a deposit,—one as to the dip and the other as to the strike,—they may be considered from these aspects. Vertical shafts must be on the hanging-wall side of the outcrop if the deposit dips at all. In any event, the shaft should be far enough away to be out of the reach of creeps. An inclined shaft may be sunk either on the vein, in which case a pillar of ore must be left to support the shaft; or, instead, it may be sunk a short distance in the footwall, and where necessary the excavation above can be supported by filling. Following the ore has the advantage of prospecting in sinking, and in many cases the softness of the ground in the region of the vein warrants this procedure. It has, however, the disadvantage that a pillar of ore is locked up until the shaft is ready for abandonment. Moreover, as veins or lodes are seldom of even dip, an inclined shaft, to have value as a prospecting opening, or to take advantage of breaking possibilities in the lode, will usually be crooked, and an incline irregular in detail adds greatly to the cost of winding and maintenance. These twin disadvantages usually warrant a straight incline in the footwall. Inclines are not necessarily of the same dip throughout, but for reasonably economical haulage change of angle must take place gradually.

Fig. 8.—Longitudinal section showing shaft arrangement proposed for very deep inclined deposits.

In the case of deep-level projects on inclined deposits, demanding combined or vertical shafts, the first desideratum is to locate the vertical section as far from the outcrop as possible, and thus secure the most ore above the horizon of intersection. This, however, as stated before, would involve the cost of crosscuts or rises and would cause delay in production, together with the accumulation of capital charges. How important the increment of interest on capital may become during the period of opening the mine may be demonstrated by a concrete case. For instance, the capital of a company or the cost of the property is, say, $1,000,000, and where opening the mine for production requires four years, the aggregate sum of accumulated compound interest at 5% (and most operators want more from a mining investment) would be $216,000. Under such circumstances, if a year or two can be saved in getting to production by entering the property at a higher horizon, the difference in accumulated interest will more than repay the infinitesimal extra cost of winding through a combined shaft of somewhat increased length in the inclined section.

The unknown character of the ore in depth is always a sound reason for reaching it as quickly and as cheaply as possible. In result, such shafts are usually best located when the vertical section enters the upper portion of the deposit.

The objective in location with regard to the strike of the ore-bodies is obviously to have an equal length of lateral ore-haul in every direction from the shaft. It is easier to specify than to achieve this, for in all speculative deposits ore-shoots are found to pursue curious vagaries as they go down. Ore-bodies do not reoccur with the same locus as in the upper levels, and generally the chances to go wrong are more numerous than those to go right.

Number of Shafts.—The problem of whether the mine is to be opened by one or by two shafts of course influences location. In metal mines under Cases II and III (outcrop properties) the ore output requirements are seldom beyond the capacity of one shaft. Ventilation and escape-ways are usually easily managed through the old stopes. Under such circumstances, the conditions warranting a second shaft are the length of underground haul and isolation of ore-bodies or veins. Lateral haulage underground is necessarily disintegrated by the various levels, and usually has to be done by hand. By shortening this distance of tramming and by consolidation of the material from all levels at the surface, where mechanical haulage can be installed, a second shaft is often justified. There is therefore an economic limitation to the radius of a single shaft, regardless of the ability of the shaft to handle the total output.

Other questions also often arise which are of equal importance to haulage costs. Separate ore-shoots or ore-bodies or parallel deposits necessitate, if worked from one shaft, constant levels through unpayable ground and extra haul as well, or ore-bodies may dip away from the original shaft along the strike of the deposit and a long haulage through dead levels must follow. For instance, levels and crosscuts cost roughly one-quarter as much per foot as shafts. Therefore four levels in barren ground, to reach a parallel vein or isolated ore-body 1,000 feet away, would pay for a shaft 1,000 feet deep. At a depth of 1,000 feet, at least six levels might be necessary. The tramming of ore by hand through such a distance would cost about double the amount to hoist it through a shaft and transport it mechanically to the dressing plant at surface. The aggregate cost and operation of barren levels therefore soon pays for a second shaft. If two or more shafts are in question, they must obviously be set so as to best divide the work.

Under Cases IV, V, and VI,—that is, deep-level projects,—ventilation and escape become most important considerations. Even where the volume of ore is within the capacity of a single shaft, another usually becomes a necessity for these reasons. Their location is affected not only by the locus of the ore, but, as said, by the time required to reach it. Where two shafts are to be sunk to inclined deposits, it is usual to set one so as to intersect the deposit at a lower point than the other. Production can be started from the shallower, before the second is entirely ready. The ore above the horizon of intersection of the deeper shaft is thus accessible from the shallower shaft, and the difficulty of long rises or crosscuts from that deepest shaft does not arise.

CHAPTER VIII.

Development of Mines (Continued).

SHAPE AND SIZE OF SHAFTS; SPEED OF SINKING; TUNNELS.

Shape of Shafts.—Shafts may be round or rectangular.[*] Round vertical shafts are largely applied to coal-mines, and some engineers have advocated their usefulness to the mining of the metals under discussion. Their great advantages lie in their structural strength, in the large amount of free space for ventilation, and in the fact that if walled with stone, brick, concrete, or steel, they can be made water-tight so as to prevent inflow from water-bearing strata, even when under great pressure. The round walled shafts have a longer life than timbered shafts. All these advantages pertain much more to mining coal or iron than metals, for unsound, wet ground is often the accompaniment of coal-measures, and seldom troubles metal-mines. Ventilation requirements are also much greater in coal-mines. From a metal-miner's standpoint, round shafts are comparatively much more expensive than the rectangular timbered type.[**] For a larger area must be excavated for the same useful space, and if support is needed, satisfactory walling, which of necessity must be brick, stone, concrete, or steel, cannot be cheaply accomplished under the conditions prevailing in most metal regions. Although such shafts would have a longer life, the duration of timbered shafts is sufficient for most metal mines. It follows that, as timber is the cheapest and all things considered the most advantageous means of shaft support for the comparatively temporary character of metal mines, to get the strains applied to the timbers in the best manner, and to use the minimum amount of it consistent with security, and to lose the least working space, the shaft must be constructed on rectangular lines.

[Footnote *: Octagonal shafts were sunk in Mexico in former times. At each face of the octagon was a whim run by mules, and hauling leather buckets.]

[Footnote **: The economic situation is rapidly arising in a number of localities that steel beams can be usefully used instead of timber. The same arguments apply to this type of support that apply to timber.]

The variations in timbered shaft design arise from the possible arrangement of compartments. Many combinations can be imagined, of which Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are examples.

The arrangement of compartments shown in Figures 9, 10, 11, and 13 gives the greatest strength. It permits timbering to the best advantage, and avoids the danger underground involved in crossing one compartment to reach another. It is therefore generally adopted. Any other arrangement would obviously be impossible in inclined or combined shafts.

Size of Shafts.—In considering the size of shafts to be installed, many factors are involved. They are in the main:—

a.	Amount of ore to be handled.
b.	Winding plant.
c.	Vehicle of transport.
d.	Depth.
e.	Number of men to be worked underground.
f.	Amount of water.
g.	Ventilation.
h.	Character of the ground.
i.	Capital outlay.
j.	Operating expense.

It is not to be assumed that these factors have been stated in the order of relative importance. More or less emphasis will be attached to particular factors by different engineers, and under different circumstances. It is not possible to suggest any arbitrary standard for calculating their relative weight, and they are so interdependent as to preclude separate discussion. The usual result is a compromise between the demands of all.

Certain factors, however, dictate a minimum position, which may be considered as a datum from which to start consideration.

First, a winding engine, in order to work with any economy, must be balanced, that is, a descending empty skip or cage must assist in pulling up a loaded one. Therefore, except in mines of very small output, at least two compartments must be made for hoisting purposes. Water has to be pumped from most mines, escape-ways are necessary, together with room for wires and air-pipes, so that at least one more compartment must be provided for these objects. We have thus three compartments as a sound minimum for any shaft where more than trivial output is required.

Second, there is a certain minimum size of shaft excavation below which there is very little economy in actual rock-breaking.[*] In too confined a space, holes cannot be placed to advantage for the blast, men cannot get round expeditiously, and spoil cannot be handled readily. The writer's own experience leads him to believe that, in so far as rock-breaking is concerned, to sink a shaft fourteen to sixteen feet long by six to seven feet wide outside the timbers, is as cheap as to drive any smaller size within the realm of consideration, and is more rapid. This size of excavation permits of three compartments, each about four to five feet inside the timbers.

[Footnote *: Notes on the cost of shafts in various regions which have been personally collected show a remarkable decrease in the cost per cubic foot of material excavated with increased size of shaft. Variations in skill, in economic conditions, and in method of accounting make data regarding different shafts of doubtful value, but the following are of interest:—

In Australia, eight shafts between 10 and 11 feet long by 4 to 5 feet wide cost an average of $1.20 per cubic foot of material excavated. Six shafts 13 to 14 feet long by 4 to 5 feet wide cost an average of $0.95 per cubic foot; seven shafts 14 to 16 feet long and 5 to 7 feet wide cost an average of $0.82 per cubic foot. In South Africa, eleven shafts 18 to 19 feet long by 7 to 8 feet wide cost an average of $0.82 per cubic foot; five shafts 21 to 25 feet long by 8 feet wide, cost $0.74; and seven shafts 28 feet by 8 feet cost $0.60 per cubic foot.]

The cost of timber, it is true, is a factor of the size of shaft, but the labor of timbering does not increase in the same ratio. In any event, the cost of timber is only about 15% of the actual shaft cost, even in localities of extremely high prices.

Third, three reasons are rapidly making the self-dumping skip the almost universal shaft-vehicle, instead of the old cage for cars. First, there is a great economy in labor for loading into and discharging from a shaft; second, there is more rapid despatch and discharge and therefore a larger number of possible trips; third, shaft-haulage is then independent of delays in arrival of cars at stations, while tramming can be done at any time and shaft-haulage can be concentrated into certain hours. Cages to carry mine cars and handle the same load as a skip must either be big enough to take two cars, which compels a much larger shaft than is necessary with skips, or they must be double-decked, which renders loading arrangements underground costly to install and expensive to work. For all these reasons, cages can be justified only on metal mines of such small tonnage that time is no consideration and where the saving of men is not to be effected. In compartments of the minimum size mentioned above (four to five feet either way) a skip with a capacity of from two to five tons can be installed, although from two to three tons is the present rule. Lighter loads than this involve more trips, and thus less hourly capacity, and, on the other hand, heavier loads require more costly engines. This matter is further discussed under "Haulage Appliances."

We have therefore as the economic minimum a shaft of three compartments (Fig. 9), each four to five feet square. When the maximum tonnage is wanted from such a shaft at the least operating cost, it should be equipped with loading bins and skips.

The output capacity of shafts of this size and equipment will depend in a major degree upon the engine employed, and in a less degree upon the hauling depth. The reason why depth is a subsidiary factor is that the rapidity with which a load can be drawn is not wholly a factor of depth. The time consumed in hoisting is partially expended in loading, in acceleration and retardation of the engine, and in discharge of the load. These factors are constant for any depth, and extra distance is therefore accomplished at full speed of the engine.

Vertical shafts will, other things being equal, have greater capacity than inclines, as winding will be much faster and length of haul less for same depth. Since engines have, however, a great tractive ability on inclines, by an increase in the size of skip it is usually possible partially to equalize matters. Therefore the size of inclines for the same output need not differ materially from vertical shafts.

The maximum capacity of a shaft whose equipment is of the character and size given above, will, as stated, decrease somewhat with extension in depth of the haulage horizon. At 500 feet, such a shaft if vertical could produce 70 to 80 tons per hour comfortably with an engine whose winding speed was 700 feet per minute. As men and material other than ore have to be handled in and out of the mine, and shaft-sinking has to be attended to, the winding engine cannot be employed all the time on ore. Twelve hours of actual daily ore-winding are all that can be expected without auxiliary help. This represents a capacity from such a depth of 800 to 1,000 tons per day. A similar shaft, under ordinary working conditions, with an engine speed of 2,000 feet per minute, should from, say, 3,000 feet have a capacity of about 400 to 600 tons daily.

It is desirable to inquire at what stages the size of shaft should logically be enlarged in order to attain greater capacity. A considerable measure of increase can be obtained by relieving the main hoisting engine of all or part of its collateral duties. Where the pumping machinery is not elaborate, it is often possible to get a small single winding compartment into the gangway without materially increasing the size of the shaft if the haulage compartments be made somewhat narrower (Fig. 10). Such a compartment would be operated by an auxiliary engine for sinking, handling tools and material, and assisting in handling men. If this arrangement can be effected, the productive time of the main engine can be expanded to about twenty hours with an addition of about two-thirds to the output.

Where the exigencies of pump and gangway require more than two and one-half feet of shaft length, the next stage of expansion becomes four full-sized compartments (Fig. 11). By thus enlarging the auxiliary winding space, some assistance may be given to ore-haulage in case of necessity. The mine whose output demands such haulage provisions can usually stand another foot of width to the shaft, so that the dimensions come to about 21 feet to 22 feet by 7 feet to 8 feet outside the timbers. Such a shaft, with three- to four-ton skips and an appropriate engine, will handle up to 250 tons per hour from a depth of 1,000 feet.

The next logical step in advance is the shaft of five compartments with four full-sized haulage ways (Fig. 13), each of greater size than in the above instance. In this case, the auxiliary engine becomes a balanced one, and can be employed part of the time upon ore-haulage. Such a shaft will be about 26 feet to 28 feet long by 8 feet wide outside the timbers, when provision is made for one gangway. The capacity of such shafts can be up to 4,000 tons a day, depending on the depth and engine. When very large quantities of water are to be dealt with and rod-driven pumps to be used, two pumping compartments are sometimes necessary, but other forms of pumps do not require more than one compartment,—an additional reason for their use.

For depths greater than 3,000 feet, other factors come into play. Ventilation questions become of more import. The mechanical problems on engines and ropes become involved, and their sum-effect is to demand much increased size and a greater number of compartments. The shafts at Johannesburg intended as outlets for workings 5,000 feet deep are as much as 46 feet by 9 feet outside timbers.

It is not purposed to go into details as to sinking methods or timbering. While important matters, they would unduly prolong this discussion. Besides, a multitude of treatises exist on these subjects and cover all the minutiæ of such work.

Speed of Sinking.—Mines may be divided into two cases,—those being developed only, and those being operated as well as developed. In the former, the entrance into production is usually dependent upon the speed at which the shaft is sunk. Until the mine is earning profits, there is a loss of interest on the capital involved, which, in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred, warrants any reasonable extra expenditure to induce more rapid progress. In the case of mines in operation, the volume of ore available to treatment or valuation is generally dependent to a great degree upon the rapidity of the extension of workings in depth. It will be demonstrated later that, both from a financial and a technical standpoint, the maximum development is the right one and that unremitting extension in depth is not only justifiable but necessary.

Speed under special conditions or over short periods has a more romantic than practical interest, outside of its value as a stimulant to emulation. The thing that counts is the speed which can be maintained over the year. Rapidity of sinking depends mainly on:—

a.	Whether the shaft is or is not in use for operating the mine.
b.	The breaking character of the rock.
c.	The amount of water.

The delays incident to general carrying of ore and men are such that the use of the main haulage engine for shaft-sinking is practically impossible, except on mines with small tonnage output. Even with a separate winch or auxiliary winding-engine, delays are unavoidable in a working shaft, especially as it usually has more water to contend with than one not in use for operating the mine. The writer's own impression is that an average of 40 feet per month is the maximum possibility for year in and out sinking under such conditions. In fact, few going mines manage more than 400 feet a year. In cases of clean shaft-sinking, where every energy is bent to speed, 150 feet per month have been averaged for many months. Special cases have occurred where as much as 213 feet have been achieved in a single month. With ordinary conditions, 1,200 feet in a year is very good work. Rock awkward to break, and water especially, lowers the rate of progress very materially. Further reference to speed will be found in the chapter on "Drilling Methods."

Tunnel Entry.—The alternative of entry to a mine by tunnel is usually not a question of topography altogether, but, like everything else in mining science, has to be tempered to meet the capital available and the expenditure warranted by the value showing.

In the initial prospecting of a mine, tunnels are occasionally overdone by prospectors. Often more would be proved by a few inclines. As the pioneer has to rely upon his right arm for hoisting and drainage, the tunnel offers great temptations, even when it is long and gains but little depth. At a more advanced stage of development, the saving of capital outlay on hoisting and pumping equipment, at a time when capital is costly to secure, is often sufficient justification for a tunnel entry. But at the stage where the future working of ore below a tunnel-level must be contemplated, other factors enter. For ore below tunnel-level a shaft becomes necessary, and in cases where a tunnel enters a few hundred feet below the outcrop the shaft should very often extend to the surface, because internal shafts, winding from tunnel-level, require large excavations to make room for the transfer of ore and for winding gear. The latter must be operated by transmitted power, either that of steam, water, electricity, or air. Where power has to be generated on the mine, the saving by the use of direct steam, generated at the winding gear, is very considerable. Moreover, the cost of haulage through a shaft for the extra distance from tunnel-level to the surface is often less than the cost of transferring the ore and removing it through the tunnel. The load once on the winding-engine, the consumption of power is small for the extra distance, and the saving of labor is of consequence. On the other hand, where drainage problems arise, they usually outweigh all other considerations, for whatever the horizon entered by tunnel, the distance from that level to the surface means a saving of water-pumpage against so much head. The accumulation of such constant expense justifies a proportioned capital outlay. In other words, the saving of this extra pumping will annually redeem the cost of a certain amount of tunnel, even though it be used for drainage only.

In order to emphasize the rapidity with which such a saving of constant expense will justify capital outlay, one may tabulate the result of calculations showing the length of tunnel warranted with various hypothetical factors of quantity of water and height of lift eliminated from pumping. In these computations, power is taken at the low rate of $60 per horsepower-year, the cost of tunneling at an average figure of $20 per foot, and the time on the basis of a ten-year life for the mine.

Feet of Water Lift Avoided	100,000 Gallons per Diem	200,000 Gallons per Diem	300,000 Gallons per Diem	500,000 Gallons per Diem	1,000,000 Gallons per Diem
100	600	1,200	1,800	3,000	6,000
200	1,200	2,400	3,600	6,000	12,000
300	1,800	3,600	5,400	9,000	18,000
500	3,000	6,000	9,000	15,000	30,000
1,000	6,000	12,000	18,000	30,000	60,000

The size of tunnels where ore-extraction is involved depends upon the daily tonnage output required, and the length of haul. The smallest size that can be economically driven and managed is about 6-1/2 feet by 6 feet inside the timbers. Such a tunnel, with single track for a length of 1,000 feet, with one turn-out, permits handling up to 500 tons a day with men and animals. If the distance be longer or the tonnage greater, a double track is required, which necessitates a tunnel at least 8 feet wide by 6-1/2 feet to 7 feet high, inside the timbers.

There are tunnel projects of a much more impressive order than those designed to operate upper levels of mines; that is, long crosscut tunnels designed to drain and operate mines at very considerable depths, such as the Sutro tunnel at Virginia City. The advantage of these tunnels is very great, especially for drainage, and they must be constructed of large size and equipped with appliances for mechanical haulage.

CHAPTER IX.

Development of Mines (Concluded).

SUBSIDIARY DEVELOPMENT;—STATIONS; CROSSCUTS; LEVELS; INTERVAL BETWEEN LEVELS; PROTECTION OF LEVELS; WINZES AND RISES. DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROSPECTING STAGE; DRILLING.