Advertisement

Natural Resources Research

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 57–63 | Cite as

A Test and Re-Estimation of Taylor’s Empirical Capacity–Reserve Relationship

  • Keith R. Long
Article

Abstract

In 1977, Taylor proposed a constant elasticity model relating capacity choice in mines to reserves. A test of this model using a very large (n = 1,195) dataset confirms its validity but obtains significantly different estimated values for the model coefficients. Capacity is somewhat inelastic with respect to reserves, with an elasticity of 0.65 estimated for open-pit plus block-cave underground mines and 0.56 for all other underground mines. These new estimates should be useful for capacity determinations as scoping studies and as a starting point for feasibility studies. The results are robust over a wide range of deposit types, deposit sizes, and time, consistent with physical constraints on mine capacity that are largely independent of technology.

Keywords

Mine capacity mine planning feasibility studies scoping studies Taylor’s rule Hotelling’s rule 

References

  1. Adelman, M. A., 1993, The economics of petroleum supply; Papers by M.A. Adelman, 1962–1993: MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Cairns, R.D., 2001, Capacity choice and the theory of the mine: Environ. Resour. Econ., v. 18, p. 129–148. doi: 10.1023/A:1011114400536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cairns, Robert D., and Davis, Graham A., 2001, Adelman’s Rule and the petroleum firm: The Energy Journal, v. 22, no. 3, p. 31–54.Google Scholar
  4. Camm, T. W., 1991, Simplified cost models for prefeasibility mineral evaluations: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9298, 35 p.Google Scholar
  5. Cox, D. P., and Singer, D. A., 1986, Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 379 p.Google Scholar
  6. Hotelling, Harold, 1931, The economics of exhaustible resources: Journal of Petroleum Economy, v. 39, no. 2, p. 135–79.Google Scholar
  7. Lasserre, Pierre, 1985, Capacity choice by mines: Canadian Journal of Economics, v. 18, p. 831–842. doi: 10.2307/135094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Long, K. R., Economic life-cycle of porphyry copper mining, in Ores and Orogenisis meeting, proceedings: Arizona Geological Society, Tucson, Arizona (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Long, K. R., and Singer, D. A., 2001, A simplified economic filter for open-pit mining and heap-leach recovery of copper in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 01-00218, 21 p.Google Scholar
  10. McSpadden, G. M., and Schaap, W. A., 1984, A test and comment on Taylor’s rule of mine life: Bull. Proc. Australasian Institution Mines Metall., v. 289, no. 6, p. 217–220.Google Scholar
  11. Sabour, S.A. Abdel, 2002, Mine size optimization using marginal analysis: Resources Policy, v. 28, p. 145–151. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2004.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith, Lawrence Devin, 1997, A critical examination of the methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate: CIM Bulletin, v. 90, p. 48–54.Google Scholar
  13. Taylor, H. K., 1977, Mine valuation and feasibility studies, in Hoskins, J. R., and Green, W. R., eds., Mineral industry costs, 2nd edn: Spokane, Washington, Northwest Mining Association, p. 1–17.Google Scholar
  14. Taylor, H. K., 1986, Rates of working of mines—a simple rule of thumb: Trans. Institution Mining Metall., v. 95, sect. A, p. A203–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations