|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 79
4
Resources for
Research and Development
INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In the early 1980s, squeezed between stagnating metal prices and rising
operas ng costs, U.S. mineral and metal producers took a number of steps to
improve their financial outlook. Their focus was on near-term survival,
however, and long-term research and development (R&D) were given very
low priority. Corporate R&D facilities were reduced in size or closed, and
much of the remaining research was redirected at short-term operational
problems and away from long-term or high-risk projects. Expenditures for
mining R&D by the metal industry reflect the cutbacks of expenses over the
past decade. As shown in Table 4-1, expenditures for internal and con-
tracted R&D declined from $133.5 million in 1980 to $22.5 million in
1988. A similar decline is reflected in the number of personnel committed
to the R&D effort.
The U.S. minerals and metals industry includes activities ranging from
exploration and primary mining to the manufacture and sale of consumer
goods. These activities require a correspondingly broad range of R&D.
The points where R&D emphasis is placed at any given time reflect the
needs of particular industry segments or even specific companies. Much of
the R&D of the aluminum industry, for example, focuses on the production
of finished or semifinished goods. Only a small fraction of the approximately
$25Q million spent by the industry on R&D each year goes toward primary
processing. The steel industry, on the other hand, focuses its research
efforts on improving the steel-making process. Of the approximately $100
79
OCR for page 80
80
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
TABLE 4-1 Industry Support of Metal
Mining Research and Development
Year
R&D
Expenditures R&D
($ millions) Personnel
1980 133.5 1,735
1985 23.0
1986 26.0
1987 25.0 —
1988 22.5 365
SOURCE: Expenditure and personnel data for 1980
and 1988 are from T. McNulty, 1989, research and
development in Materials and Society; vol. 13, no.
2, pp. 189-191. Expenditure data for 1985-1987
are from the Bureau of the Census, based on the
annual Survey of Industrial Research and Development
conducted for the National Science Foundation;
information on R&D personnel was not available
from the Bureau of the Census.
million spent annually on R&D (approximately 0.25 percent of sales), about
a quarter goes toward improved iron- and steel-making processes. With a
growing share of the steel production capacity in electric furnaces that process
scrap and the decreasing tendency for primary producers to own their own
ores, there is a decline in the emphasis on industry research for the mining
and processing of iron ore.
The domestic base metals (copper, lead, and zinc) are integrated only
from mining through the production of refined products. At one time the
larger companies were involved in finished products like wire and cable,
brass, paint, and chemicals, but today they have all but disappeared through
divestitures and shifts in markets. The base metal producers now depend on
industry groups such as the International Copper Association (ICA), the
Copper Development Association (CDA), and the International Lead-Zinc
Research Organization (ILZRO) for product research. However, membership
in these groups is not universal and budgets are small, generally on the
order of $2 million to $4 million per year. Company-owned research labo-
ratories have been closed or severely curtailed, and much of the remaining
R&D capability can now be found at operating sites, where it is quite site
specific and problem oriented.
The gold boom enjoyed by the United States during the past decade was
OCR for page 81
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
81
materially assisted by Bureau of Mines research on heap leaching of very
low-grade ores. Most of the Bureau's work was done before the boom
really began, and it has been followed by episodes of intensive R&D by
individual companies directed at problems posed by specific ore deposits.
At the same time, companies that sell goods and services to gold miners
have brought forth a steady stream of innovative products, ranging from
hydraulic shovels to analytical equipment, which have helped the producers
to improve efficiency and lower costs. However, the gold mining industry
overall is probably spending less than $7 million annually on R&D, with
most of that amount devoted to work on only two problems: gold-bearing
refractory sulfide ores and ores containing natural carbonaceous materials.
FEDERAL ROLE IN MINERALS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Several agencies of the federal government provide support for mining
and minerals research and technology development. They are the
· Department of the Interior (DOI)
Bureau of Mines (BOM)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
· National Science Foundation (NSF)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The lead agency, accounting for the great majority of federal research
funding in this field, is the Department of the Interior through its Bureau of
Mines. BOM research programs focus variously on improvements in exploration
and mining technology; minerals and materials science and processing technology;
health, safety, and environmental technology; and ancillary programs such
as methods for improving process management and management technology
(e.g., through the use of computer control). The nature of the research
ranges from fundamental to highly applied, although the emphasis is strongly
toward the applied end. The BOM research is conducted both in-house and
at university laboratories.
The U.S. Geological Survey also maintains programs of research under
its Office of Mineral Resources. This research involves the theoretical and
technical aspects of mineral exploration and resource assessment. It encompasses
both geochemical and geophysical methods for locating and modeling min-
eral deposits in relation to the environments in which they occur. Other
projects support the preparation of resource maps and information systems
that are valuable exploration tools for industry; this research is carried out
OCR for page 82
82
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
through field studies as well as laboratory experimentation. There is some
overlap between the USGS and BOM research in support of exploration and
economic assessment of mineral deposits.
Another agency providing very modest support for mining and minerals
research is the National Science Foundation. Through its Materials Engi-
neering and Processing Program, the NSF funds a small amount of work
(under $700,000 in FY 1988) in extraction, smelting, and solidification
processes. The Division of Materials Research supports a program of research
in metallurgy; however, the program focuses on basic scientific research in
physical rather than extractive metallurgy. NSF research in related topics,
such as tunneling technology, could benefit the mining industry, but the
lack of an infrastructure for the transfer of research results to the mining
industry limits the opportunity to apply research from other fields to the
needs of the mining industry. The NSF was a source of more substantial
funding in the past, but NSF management apparently came to view mining
as a "sunset industry" and moved away from it, judging from its responses
to mining-related proposals in recent years.
The Department of Energy has more than 20 program offices responsible
for aspects of materials research, from basic to applied. In FY 1989, $384
million was spent on materials-related R&D departmentwide, including over
$200 million of DOE's $450 million budget for basic energy sciences the
largest single materials research program in the federal government. How-
ever, little DOE work is relevant to mining and extraction; much of it is
directed at materials science for advanced energy-related materials, and most
of the rest concerns processing and refining electronic materials and specialized
alloys, uranium, and weapons-grade plutonium. Some of the research with
relevance to the present study is connected with the management of nuclear
wastes; some is connected with drilling in hot rock to tap geothermal energy.
DOE programs relevant to this study include development for high-temperature
applications and corrosion-resistant alloys, conducted at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory under sponsorship of the Division of Materials Sciences of the
Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Another program, the Steel Initiative under
the Office of Industrial Programs, was mandated by Congress in support of
the steel industry. It has many facets, including automated process control,
continuous casting, and alternative methods of direct extraction of iron from
iron ore. This program was expanded to include aluminum and copper by
the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness
Act of 1988. The DOE has prepared a research plan that identifies specific
opportunities for research to contribute to the competitiveness of the steel,
aluminum, and copper industries through increased energy efficiency.
The Department of Commerce supports mining and minerals research
through two of its agencies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NIST currently
supports a single project covering the bioactive extraction of metals. Some
OCR for page 83
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
83
of its work on sensors for use in processing is planned to be relevant to
metals processing. NOAA, through its Sea Grant program, sponsors a lim-
ited amount of academic research relating to ocean mining and minerals.
The Department of Defense (DOD) currently sponsors very little research
in the areas covered by this study. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, the Strategic Defense Initiative Office, and the military services
(particularly the U.S. Air Force) conduct research in advanced materials
processing and manufacturing, including physical metallurgy, extrusion, rolling,
and joining. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
sponsors research in many of the same areas. But none of these materials
user agencies (with the possible exception of some scattered research on
excavation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) is involved at all in the
upstream end of materials.
Other federal agencies do not support significant amounts of R&D in this
area, but do provide input into the research programs of the Bureau of
Mines and others. These contributing agencies include the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Several advisory groups participate in the shaping of government policies
with respect to minerals. The National Critical Materials Council (NCMC)
is supposed to advise the President on national materials policies and issues.
The National Strategic Materials and Minerals Program Advisory Commit-
tee has performed a similar function for the Secretary of the Interior. The
Committee on Mining and Mineral Resources Research also advises the
Secretary of the Interior on a number of matters relating to minerals research,
particularly in the Mineral Institutes program. A fourth group, the Committee
on Materials (COMAT), functions under the auspices of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. Through a
subcommittee, the Interagency Materials Group, COMAT attempts to enhance
cooperation and coordination between agencies involved in the support of
materials research. The effectiveness of these advisory groups has been
quite mixed. (The subject of mineral policies, including R&D policies, is
addressed in Chapter 5.)
Research Resources
The overall R&D resources of the federal government in the minerals
and metals field include both the R&D expenditures of the various agencies
and the various federal laboratories, including in-house agency laboratories
and national laboratories, that may devote all or part of their efforts to R&D
in this field. Agency funding of R&D in FY 1989 is presented in Table 4-2.
Only the Bureau of Mines is oriented explicitly toward mining and extrac-
tive metallurgy; it was difficult to obtain exact budget figures for the other
OCR for page 84
84
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
TABLE 4-2 Federal Expenditures for Mining- and Minerals-Related
R&D, 1989 (1989 Appropriation)
Agency/Program
Federal Expenditures
($ thousand)
Bureau of Mines
Health, Safety, and Mining Technology
Minerals and Materials Science
Environmental Technology
Mineral Institutes and Generic Centers
TOTAL
U.S. Geological Survey
Development of Assessment Techniques
Strategic and Critical Minerals
National Mineral Resource Assessment
TOTAL
National Science Foundation
Department of Energy
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Sea Grant Program: Marine Geological Resources
Deep Seabed Mining Research
TOTAL
FEDERAL TOTAL
51,672a
24,643a
1 4,S74a
10,012b
100,901
10,000
3,70oc
9,300C
23,000
669d,e
12,186f
350
571d
7SOa
14,526
1 38,427C
aIncludes Bureau of Mines in-house laboratories ($66.3 million in nine labs) plus
a variety of externally funded projects in industry and universities.
bDoes not include $2.35 million for Respirable Dust Generic Center, budgeted as
a separate line item under Environmental Technology.
CEstimated ~ 1 ).
~1988 amount.
eNine grants (FY 1988) in extraction, smelting, and solidification processes (in
Materials Engineering and Processing Program).
fDerived from a count of apparently relevant materials R&D projects. (Does not
include the so-called Steel Initiative. Authorizations under the Steel and Aluminum
Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 are $2 million in
1989, $20 million in 1990, and $25 million in 1991.)
OCR for page 85
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
85
agencies that support R&D in this field, but their involvement is so small
that rounded estimates will suffice. Only in the case of DOE are the esti-
mates problematical, and here a conservative estimate was reached by add-
ing the reported budgets of projects that appear relevant. This estimate may
ignore a considerable amount of relevant DOE basic research in surface
chemistry, thermodynamics, interphase and microstructure studies, and reaction
mechanisms.
As noted above, BOM provides the majority of the funding in this area.
Figure 4-1 charts appropriations for the Bureau's research throughout the
1980s. Funding, in current dollars, actually declined by several percentage
points during the period. Although the R&D budget is now trending upward
from the low of 1986, after adjusting for inflation it is still well below the
level of a decade ago. Most of this money is spent in BOM's in-house
laboratories, although BOM is also a major supporter of academic R&D in
this field (see below).
Federal R&D resources also include the extensive federal laboratories,
many of which are equipped for basic and applied research in relevant
areas. BOM's nine in-house Mining and Metallurgy Laboratories, for example,
perform almost half of the research funded by the federal government in
these areas. Table 4-3 lists these laboratories, along with their FY 1989
funding levels and primary areas of specialization. Also relevant to R&D
needs in the minerals and metals industry are some of the national laboratories.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for example, conducts research in metal-
lurgy, metals characterization, and processing theory. A primary focus of
this research program, which totaled between $25 million and $30 million
in FY 1989, is high-temperature alloys such as nickel aluminizes. Argonne
In —
o
. _
. _
-
~n
is
o
_
,~ 50—
~ -
O -
~ _
, ~~ ~ .
_ _
1987 1988
cat u — 1980 ~ 1981
1982
1983
1984 1 1985
YEAR
986
1989
Total Research(1982 dollars) ~3 External Research
~ Internal Research
FIGURE 4-1 Bureau of Mines research budgets, 1980-1989. Source: Bureau of Mines.
OCR for page 86
86
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
TABLE 4-3 Bureau of Mines Mining and Metallurgy Laboratories
Research Center FY 1989 Funding Research Specialties
Albany Research $7,244,000 Minerals characterization; materials
Center science; pyre-, hydrometallurgy; re-
cycling; wear and corrosion; refrac-
tory metals
Denver Research
Center
5,362,000
Pittsburgh Research 24,446,000
Center
Reno Research 3,258,000
Center
Rolla Research
Center
Salt Lake City
Research Center
Spokane Research 5,764,000
Center
Tuscaloosa
Research Center
Twin Cities
Research Center
Underground mine design; theoretical
rock mechanics; prediction and control
of failures/hazards; geomechanical
field data collection; microseismic
monitoring; modeling of rock
Mine explosions; dust and noise control;
subsidence prediction and control; acid
mine drainage prediction and control;
electrical safety; mine automation;
survival and rescue; expert systems
and artificial intelligence; safety;
ventilation
· —
2,923,000
4,627,000
~ectro-, pyro-, ant . nyorometa~urgy;
precious metals; microwave technol-
ogy; rare earths; superalloy scrap
recycling; complex sulfide treatment;
magnets; catalysts; bioleaching
Electro-, hydra-, and pyrometallurgy
Hydrometallurgy; beneficiation; super-
critical fluid solvent systems; waste
treatment; brine chemistry; column
flotation; advanced materials extrac-
tion; in situ mining solution treatment
Rock and soil mechanics; hydrogeology
and geochemistry; mining methods;
waste management; subsidence con-
trol; deep mine design
3,383,000 Beneficiation; hydrometallurgy; miner-
9,275,000
als waste treatment; comminution/
turbomilling; expert systems for
processing
In situ mining technology; blasting and
drilling technology; equipment safety;
seabed mining; mechanical and ther-
mal fragmentation; subsidence; fire
protection; hydrology
SOURCE: Data provided by Bureau of Mines.
OCR for page 87
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
87
National Laboratory conducts research in support of the downstream pro-
cessing of materials to meet specialized needs of the laboratory. This work
amounts to about $1 million to $2 million per year in electrochemistry and
other specialized processing techniques. Argonne also supports the DOE
Steel Initiative through research in continuous casting and chill casting
using magnetic confinement. Similarly, Los Alamos National Laboratory
conducts some research in hot-rock boring that has relevance for in situ
fragmentation and solution mining; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
performs some $3 million/year in Bureau of Mines research; and other laboratories,
such as Pacific Northwest Laboratory, carry out small amounts of research
in this field.
Taken together the national laboratories are a resource of great potential,
now only partially tapped, for the performance of research that could improve
mining, extraction, and metals processing technologies and their use in industry.
That resource includes state-of-the-art facilities, people, and experience in
working with a variety of governmental agencies and industry. The DOE
Work-for-Others Order requires permission to exceed 20 percent of the
work at a DOE laboratory being done for a sponsor other than DOE; however,
the work must be consistent with the laboratory's mission. Work for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is outside this guideline. Other federal
laboratories, in particular those of the DOD and NASA, offer a similar
potential; however, these laboratories (such as the Air Force Materials Laboratory
and the NASA Lewis Research Center) do not appear to be involved in any
such research at present.
ACADEMIC RESEARCH RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES
U.S. preeminence in most technological fields has traditionally rested on
the base of research conducted at colleges and universities. In most engineering
fields, both basic and applied academic research have been important stimulants
to progress in industry. Academic R&D capabilities are also important for
the infusion of state-of-the-art concepts into engineering education, whose
graduates bring new ideas and approaches into industrial practice. In the
mining-related fields, however, the connection between academic R&D and
industrial practice has been poor. There are serious questions about both
the relevance of university research in these fields and the ability of the
industry to assimilate and apply the research results.
Academic Capabilities
The limited infrastructure for industrial R&D in this field is matched by
limitations in academic capabilities. Measures of the strength of the academic
OCR for page 88
88
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
research infrastructure include the number of university programs and the
number of faculty teaching in those programs. Table 4-4 shows the number
of academic programs and faculty members in six disciplines that directly
support the minerals and metals industry. In formulating the totals some
informed judgment was necessary to estimate the content of programs and
overlaps between them. This was particularly difficult to do in the case of
metallurgical engineering, because the subdiscipline of primary interest,
extractive metallurgy, is often not distinguished from physical metallurgy
within most program descriptions. The distribution of academic programs
by institution is shown in Table 4-5. Several conclusions can be drawn
from the information in these tables:
· There are far more programs and faculty devoted to exploration (geo-
logical and geophysical engineering) and mining (42 programs and 275
faculty members) than to extractive metallurgy and mineral processing (15
programs and 52 faculty members). The latter numbers appear inadequate
to meet the nation's needs across all the metals subindustries.
· The average number of faculty members per program (5.5) is small.
Many are not tenured. It is difficult to attract high-quality students and
funding, or to conduct coherent and stable programs of research, within
such a limited group. As a result, the faculties overall tend to fall below the
"critical mass" needed to maintain secure programs. This helps to explain
why very few of the programs in these disciplines represent full depart-
ments.
· In terms of geographic distribution the great majority of the programs
are located in the Midwest and West, near the regions with metal mining
and processing operations. This means that many high-quality prospective
engineering students from the East no longer come in contact with programs
in mining and metals processing.
TABLE 4-4 Academic Programs and Faculty by Fields, 1989
Field
Programs Faculty
Geological engineering
Geophysical engineering
(Extractive) metallurgical engineering 9
Mineral processing engineering
Mining engineering
Mineral economics
TOTALS
19
6
20
6
150
17
30
22
108
20
63 347
SOURCE: E. Ashworth, J. Schanz, personal communications, 1989.
OCR for page 89
89
U:
C)
._
_ ~
~ o
Cal ~
~ o
2 ~
._
._ ._
~ ~4
._ ,_
._ _
_
—
Ce Ct
so ~
X ~
LI] 2
o
._
._
Cal
-
,D
U.
._
a:
Cal
~4
a:
._
a:
._
~4
cd CQ
C) ~
._ o
2 ~
Ct
Cal
._ ._
Cal ~
;^ au
A:
._
o
a:
~4
- o
o
_
U.
Cal
so
on
o
so
._
Ct
¢
U)
c:
.°
rat
rat
;^ C)
;^ . -
U.
C'0 — ~ . _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;^
~ . - - -
.,, m ~ ~, O ~ ~o ^._ ,;
C ~ ° ~ _ O · ~, ° e ~ ~ ~ ° ~ >, ~ — (, C
· _ C~ ~ C ~ (~. <~_ q_ _ ~ —. ~
O O O Ct: O ~ ~ 0 0 E_ 0 0 0 0 S 0 C°.) Cd cO, 0
X ~ X
·_ ·_ ·_ ·_ ·_ ·_ ·_ _ ·_ _ _ ~ t~ — 0.) ._ C) —
~ ~ ~ ~ ce ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 5- ~ ~ 2 ~
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·— ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~
;~ ~ ~ >~1 ~ 0 ~ .;> .> ~ .> .> .;> ~ C~ .> 3 ~ 3 ._
C: ~ ~ ~ c: o o ~ c: ·— ~ ~ ~ ° ~ <) ~V ~
4) 4) ~ ~ ~ V V 4) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ Z Z ~
OCR for page 90
9o
A
· -
o
of
. -
- ~
~ o
~ o
~ - c-)
2 LI)
.
._
._ ._
._ ~
2 ~
· _
—
Ce Ct
~ V
X ~
~ 2
_ . _
.= o
2 ~
Ce to
C) ~
._ ._
Cal
~ .=
o
o
-
o
U)
~ o
~ .~
~ c:
i_
o
Cal
to ~
~ ~ To
~ ~ ~ ~ I< at
~ o ,C
At, 2 · U. o~ . ~ u, ;,,
·;> O ~ A< ~ ~ ups ~ ~ ID
~ 3
A ~ C ~ ,= ~ V 1 ~ ~ _ D D _
C~
C)
~ ._
._ U:
~ ._
._
04 0
-
._
- o
O
O
.
· _`
_
4_
c: ~
s" =,
Ct
-0
00
~0
.-
3
~o
C~
C~
Ct
~:
C~
Cd
~4
o
Cq
o
~:
C~
. .
C~
o
~ ~S
~ _
C~ ._
~ 3
P~ ~
~ Ct
Cd ~
C~
Ct
s~
~o
o
4—
o
~4
._
._
-
Cd
._
2
Ct
s~
~o
._
Ct
s~
o
C~
Cd
h~
Ct
~:
C)
~Q
. ~
o
C~
¢
~ . ~
C~
o
C~ o
~:
Ct
~ V)
Ct
U.
'e
o
-
=,
c~
=: ~
~ -
· - u,
c:
~D ~
o o
c~ ~
~ -
O4 ~
~ a'
.=
2 't
o ~
C~
._
2
o
4—
C)
._
:-
-
-
~4
~:
._
._
C)
Ct
Ct
Cq ._
U,
Cq
C)
o
-
o
C)
-
~:
._
2
~ C~
E~
Cd
~ s°-
'd Q,
c:
o ~
Cd
2 ~
U:
-
2
s~
~o
;^
a~
._
o
. .
V)
L~
V
o
V)
OCR for page 91
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
91
These numbers do not reflect the changes in academic programs over
time, particularly the significant decrease in undergraduate programs. Of
26 such programs in 1980, only 20 remain, and 5 of the programs were lost
just since 1986. Of the remaining 20 programs, 3 or 4 are in jeopardy
because of critically low enrollments and lack of financial support. The
Pennsylvania State University, for example, had only one freshman mining
engineering student in the spring of 1989; the Colorado School of Mines
had 8; Columbia University (designated as a Mineral Institute) had none.
To maintain accreditation an engineering program must have at least 4
faculty members devoted to undergraduate teaching. Accreditation is granted
by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and is a crucial
determinant of program quality in the eyes of most employers, prospective
students, and university administrators. With low enrollment some schools
have had to combine departments or programs, and the declining number of
faculty members may threaten accreditation, which would further endanger
the remaining university programs.
More importantly, declining enrollments and limited research funds have
forced most academic investigators either to focus on their established do-
mains, producing small advances in conventional areas, or to switch their
focus to new areas outside the minerals and metals industry where greater
funding is available. Both responses have reduced the research results
available to the mining industry and further increased the separation between
academe and industry.
The U.S. minerals and metals industry has benefited greatly from aca-
demic research in the past. In rock mechanics, for example, fundamental
studies on the failure modes of materials led to useful applications in mine
design and excavation equipment design. Research in geologic modeling
has advanced exploration technology, and in mineral processing industrial
applications have resulted from fundamental work at universities on comminution,
minerals beneficiation, electrochemistry, solvent extraction and ion exchange,
and thermodynamics. Computer science applications have led to a wealth
of technology for operations research, modeling, and mine design, and mineral
economics research has greatly improved the forecasting of supply and de-
mand, commodity prices, and other business factors. In the health and
safety area, academic research has led to important advances in respirable
dust control technology and electromechanical technology in the mine; in
the environmental area, academic research has led to substantial advances
in mine hydrology, acid mine drainage, sediment control, and vegetation/
revegetation. In recent years, however, academic research in the mining
and minerals field has tended to be more scientific and theoretical in nature,
with less attention to practical engineering contributions. Such contributions
are essential if university-developed knowledge and technology are to con-
tribute to the competitiveness of the U.S. industry.
OCR for page 92
92
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
Research Centers and Institutions
The Bureau of Mines, like other mission agencies, supports research at
universities on topics relevant to its mission. Under its Mineral Institutes
Program, BOM sponsors a number of State Mining and Mineral Resources
Research Institutes (referred to as Mineral Institutes) and Generic Mineral
Technology Centers (GMTCs). Currently there are 32 Mineral Institutes
located in 32 states (see Table 4-61. Each institute functions as an administrative
mechanism for the distribution of funds to academic departments for research
in the mineral sciences and engineering. The overall budget of the program,
which includes both Mineral Institutes and GMTCs, was $10 million in
1989.
BOM makes allotment grants to the institutes based on a 2-for-1 match-
ing of nonfederal (usually state) funds with federal funds. In 1988 the grant
was the same $138,000 for each institute, for a total of $4.4 million. All
the universities achieved the necessary matching amounts. About $1.5 mil-
lion of the allotment grant funding was used to support 269 graduate stu-
dents (in full or in part) and 99 undergraduate scholarships; additional allotments
supported 187 research miniprojects.
In addition to allotment grants, research grants are also made to six
GMTCs covering major aspects of the minerals industry. The GMTCs are
located at universities with Mineral Institutes and are intended to facilitate
TABLE 4-6 Bureau of Mines Mineral Institutes
1. University of Alabama
2. University of Alaska, Fairbanks
3. University of Arizona
4. University of California, Berkeley
Colorado School of Mines
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Idaho 21.
8. Southern Illinois University 22.
9. Purdue University 23.
10. Iowa State University 24.
11. University of Kentucky 25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
12. Louisiana State University
13. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
14. Michigan Technological
University
15. University of Minnesota
16. University of Mississippi
17. University of Missouri, Rolla
18. Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology
19. University of Nevada, Reno
20. New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology
Columbia University
University of North Dakota
Ohio State University
University of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania State University
South Dakota School of Mines
University of Texas
University of Utah
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
30. University of Washington
31. West Virginia University
32. University of Wyoming
OCR for page 93
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
93
government-industry-university cooperation and research in each generic
area. Each GMTC has a lead institution to coordinate research, provide for
seminars, and operate a reference center that disseminates research results.
A number of affiliate institutions (all Mineral Institutes) are associated with
each GMTC. Table 4-7 lists the six GMTCs, their focus areas, and the lead
institutions. In 1989, 93 separate research projects were supported by the
GMTCs. Budgets of the centers average about $1 million each, for a total
of $7.95 million in 1989. Of this amount, the Respirable Dust Center, at
Pennsylvania State University, has $2.35 million budgeted as a separate line
item. The other five GMTCs shared some $5.2 million in funding in 1989,
with an additional $400,000 used for administrative purposes for a total of
$5.6 million. The independent Mined Lands Reclamation Center, with the
University of West Virginia as the lead institution, resembles the GMTCs in
structure but is not part of the Mineral Institutes/GMTC program; its $1.5
million funding is included under the Bureau of Mines's Environmental
Technology program area.
Research in undersea minerals is conducted under the National Sea Grant
TABLE 4-7 Bureau of Mines Generic Mineral Technology Centers
Mine Systems Design and Ground Control
Lead institution: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Covers conditions from permafrost to tropics; fuels, nonmetallics, metals,
brines, and open pit and underground mines
Comminution
Lead institution: University of Utah
Crushing and grinding
Mineral Industry Waste Treatment and Recovery
Lead institution: University of Nevada, Reno
Fumes, dusts, liquid and solid wastes
Pyrometallurgy
Lead institution: University of Missouri, Rolla
Applies high temperatures to mineral processes such as smelting, refining, and
alloying
Respirable Dust
Lead institution: Pennsylvania State University
Concerned with particles causing diseases
Marine Mineral Technology
Lead institution: University of Mississipp:
Manganese and phosphate crust mining; sampling and measurement
SOURCE: Information provided by Bureau of Mines.
OCR for page 94
94
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
College Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Twelve Sea Grant institutions conduct research in areas relevant to mining
and minerals, such as undersea minerals characterization and surveys. As
with the Mineral Institutes program, the administration has recommended
that funding for the Sea Grant program be ended, but the funds have been
restored by Congress. NOAA also has a Deep Seabed Mining Research
Program that conducts mainly environmental research related to mining of
nodules on the ocean floor. Federal research funding in these two programs
totals about $1.3 million.
The U.S. Geological Survey sponsors a program of State Water Resources
Research Institutes at universities. This program resembles the Mineral
Institutes program in its structure and operation. Some of these institutes
address problems relevant to mineral resources, such as acid mine drainage
and the uses of water in mining operations.
ISSUES AFFECTING FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Industrial Issues
In the minerals and metals industry, where profit margins are generally
low, uncertainties over the costs and effectiveness of new technology are
potent barriers to support of R&D and the implementation of new technology.
While successful implementation of a new technology may be anticipated to
increase the profitability of a firm by a limited amount, the potential costs
(e.g., the impact of delays as technologies are debugged, the possibility that
a technology fails to meet its performance specifications, and the cost of
modifying systems to deal with unanticipated problems) may be viewed as a
threat not only to the firm's profit margin but also to its competitiveness or
even its survival. As a result, incremental technological advances are com-
mon, but firms do not put a high priority on the development of major new
mining or processing technologies.
In times when they are capital rich, mining companies have secured new
deposits rather than invest in the development of new technology. Such a
strategy ensures that the benefits of success (i.e., the discovery of a valuable
new deposit) are captured by the firm, unlike a technological advantage that
may eventually be acquired by competitors, but the difficulty, cost, and
high failure rate of exploration for new high-grade deposits limits the value
of this approach, particularly in the United States and other industrialized
countries that have already-been heavily explored.
It is easiest to introduce major new technologies when an industry is new
and rapidly expanding and when investment capital is readily available.
Considering these factors, domestic mining and metals firms have been at a
disadvantage relative to mining operations in developing countries. However,
OCR for page 95
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
95
under the pressure of depressed metal prices and new environmental restric-
tions, the domestic industry did make a rapid and widespread adoption of
hydrometallurgical technology. While driven by financial and regulatory
pressures, the speed of the shift was due in part to the demonstration that
the technology was effective and dependable and that it could be implemented
with little risk.
Even the success of the adoption of hydrometallurgy by the copper in-
dustry reveals a problem in industry R&D. The solvent extraction/elec-
trowinning technology that the industry adopted was based on research that
was conducted for the processing of uranium. While there are many problems
that are common to broad segments of the mining and metals industry, there
is no industrywide effort to deal with them. In this industry there is no
advanced industry research center (equivalent to Bell Laboratories or IBM
Research Laboratories) that can afford to remain committed to substantial
programs of research over a long period. Nor is there a consortium such as
the Electric Power Research Institute or Gas Research Institute to conduct
industrywide R&D. In fact, much of the innovative research for the miner-
als industry is done by companies that are not directly involved in mining
and metallurgy but rather in sensors and automatic process controls. As a
result, the minerals and metals industry does not have a dependable source
of technology to meet its future needs.
Weaknesses and Limitations of Academic Research
The limited funding for the Mineral Institutes program, distributed across
many institutions, results in a large number of small uncoordinated projects.
The research projects funded through the Mineral Institutes program repre-
sent an average of less than three projects at each institute and far less than
$30,000 per project. With such small projects, research tends to focus on
incremental contributions rather than on revolutionary opportunities to im-
prove technology.
In general, academic research in some of the disciplines may not address
the immediate problems of the mining and metals industry. For example,
some research in geological and geophysical engineering focuses on areas
such as earthquake prediction and underground nuclear waste storage that
are not central to the needs of the minerals and metals industry. Because of
the dwindling number of programs and faculty and limited research funding,
the technological pipeline is emptying. As the research base declines, it
will become more difficult to reestablish vigorous programs of research
relevant to the needs of the industry. An even more fundamental problem,
however, is the lack of an adequate base in the geophysical and geochemical
sciences relevant to mining and extraction technology. This work has sim-
ply not been done. For example, with most of the major equipment used in
OCR for page 96
96
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
rock fragmentation having been developed 100 to 150 years ago, it is possible
that new basic science (i.e., increased understanding of fracture mechanisms)
could disclose an entirely different approach to fragmentation.
Bureau of Mines-Supported Programs
The university research programs supported by the Bureau of Mines also
show some serious problems. Projects conducted through the Mineral Institutes
are not subject to peer review (although peer review is instituted on occasion),
and the institutes themselves are reviewed against criteria that are specified
in the authorizing act but that are not technical in nature (the emphasis is on
"eligibility" for the program, and all existing institutes appear routinely to
pass the review). The committee has the impression that the geographical
and political distribution of institutes and program funds may be the most
important consideration in allocating them. The administration has not
supported the Mineral Institutes program and has deleted the program from
its budget request for the past several years, on the grounds that "this program
is no longer an appropriate use of federal funds." Congress has consistently
restored funding for the program.
The funding for this program is hardly substantial. Indeed, at $138,000
per school it is distributed so thinly that it has only a minor impact on
research. Most engineering programs today require $50,000 to $60,000 to
support one graduate student, so at best each Mineral Institute may support
two or three full-time equivalent fellowships through federal funds. As a
result, many of the 269 graduate students, equivalent to an average of 8.4
per institute, must be supported by matching state and industry funds. Since
there were 858 graduate students enrolled in mining- and minerals-related
disciplines in 1988, funding by the Bureau of Mines provides at least partial
support for 31 percent of the total. Thus, the program's effect is probably
greater on education than on research, which may provide a partial justification
for its continuation.
The GMTCs present a somewhat stronger picture. The mining industry
in general sees them as pursuing more immediately relevant research than
do the Mineral Institutes. But there are obvious gaps in coverage; for
example, there are no GMTCs covering hydrometallurgy, mining technology,
or fine particle processing. Research review is also a problem. The Department
of the Interior's Committee on Mining and Mineral Resources Research
(CMMRR) a committee mandated by Congress to advise the Secretary of
the Interior on the implementation of the Mineral Institutes program has
evaluated the five original GMTCs every year since they were established
in 1984; however, these reviews have been based on reports submitted by
the GMTCs, without systematic or rigorous site visits, and the evaluating
committee has routinely recommended continuation of all five with equal
OCR for page 97
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
97
priority. Because the GMTCs represent a considerable and concentrated
investment of scarce federal research funds in this area, review of their
programs deserves more careful attention.
Cross-Cutting Issues
To be effective, R&D must draw on both the theoretical strengths of the
academic community and the practical knowledge of the industry. Government
also has an integral role in promoting R&D on specific matters of public
concern and broader interests of international competitiveness and national
security. Two issues of importance to the future of minerals and metals
R&D cut across the boundaries between industry, academe, and government:
transfer of technology and development of a base of trained personnel for
the research and operational needs of the industry.
Technology Transfer
A healthy situation in a technology-based field is for university research-
ers to expand the fundamental science base in a systematic way while per-
forming a limited amount of research with an applied focus. Research
results are communicated to industrial laboratories through frequent and
substantive technical contacts between academic researchers and their industry
counterparts, who then carry the process forward with advanced R&D of
competitive processes and products.
This pattern is not evident in the minerals and metals field. With so few
academic programs and faculty and so little research funding, academic
research as a whole offers little of interest to industry. At the same time the
industrial R&D infrastructure is now far too weak to provide a cadre of
researchers who could interact effectively with faculty on a nationwide
basis. Where such a gap exists between academic research and its industrial
application, the technology often cannot be transferred. In many cases, for
example, the technology requires large-scale, expensive, proof-of-principle
experiments that lend themselves well to neither university research nor
industrial plants. In addition, both academic research programs and poten-
tial industry users of academic research are scattered at dozens of indepen-
dent sites with limited communication. This technology-transfer gap be-
tween universities and industry is a major barrier to the improvement of
competitiveness through technology in the minerals and metals industry.
Human Resource issues
Another factor affecting the current and future competitiveness of the
minerals and metals industry is the availability of qualified engineers, especially
OCR for page 98
98
COMPETITIVENESS OF THE U.S. MINERALS AND METALS INDUSTRY
700
600
in
a,
i_
500
a, 400
a)
._
LL
~ 300
._
._
200
100
~~. ~
-
, . .. .
Estimated Entry-level
| Job Market
\ ~
\
by/
/ ASH Predicted
\ Graduates
\~;
V777"
72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Academic Year (78 represents 1978-79)
FIGURE 4-2 Mining engineering graduates and estimated job market, 1972-1990.
Source: Information provided by E. Ashford, South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology.
recent graduates who could bring new technological capabilities to bear on
exploration, mining, and extraction operations. The supply of engineering
graduates in relevant disciplines has shrunk drastically over the past decade.
The decrease in the number of academic programs, described earlier, is a
reaction to this drop in student enrollments.
Perhaps the most serious decline has been seen in mining engineering.
In 1978 there were 3,117 undergraduate students enrolled in mining engineering
nationwide, of whom 850 were freshmen; in 1988 there were 560 undergraduates,
OCR for page 99
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
99
with 142 freshmen. In 1981, 702 B.S. degrees in mining engineering were
conferred; in 1988 the number was 141, and only 100 students nationwide
are expected to graduate with B.S. degrees in mining engineering in 1990.
As a case in point, for the first time since its program began, there were no
mining engineering graduates at the University of Idaho in May 1988 (Soci-
ety of Mining Engineering, 1989~.
Figure 4-2 compares the number of mining engineering graduates and the
number of entry-level jobs since 1972. It appears that a turnaround has just
begun in mining engineering enrollments, but the increase is not yet re-
flected in the number of graduates, and, given attrition rates and the current
low output of B.S. mining engineers, the supply of graduates is projected to
fall short of industry demand for the predictable future. Anecdotal reports
suggest that mining companies were more aggressive than ever in recruiting
1989 graduates, even utilizing headhunters in some cases. As entry-level
salaries become more attractive (reported as $33,000 for mining engineers
at many companies in 1989), most B.S. graduates leave for industry and few
enter graduate school to train for careers in research and education.
REFERENCE
Society of Mining Engineering.
Minerals Schools.
1989. Minerals Program Data. SME Guide to
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mineral institutes
