Technical Paper

Mineral Economics

A critical examination of the methods

and factors affecting the selection of an
optimum production rate
Lawrence Devon Smith, Kilborn Inc., Toronto, Ontario

KEYWORDS: Mineral economics, Production

rates, Optimum production rates.
Paper reviewed and approved for publication
by the Mineral Economics Society of CIM.

ABSTRACT
The selection of the production rate is one
of the most crucial decisions to be made in the
development of a mineral property. However, it
is not uncommon for the production rate to be
decided arbitrarily, before any technical evaluations begin, and it is often not reconsidered
when better data becomes available. A number
of methods are used in the mineral industry to
select the production rate for a project. There is
general agreement that the size of the ore
reserve has a strong influence on this decision,
but what other factors are involved? Is there a
way to identify an optimum rate? This paper
examines the factors that influence the selection of a production rate from the perspective
of project economics. The NPV maximum value
should be viewed as a failure point. The
two times capital maximum is proposed as a
lower limit. A practical check is suggested to
confirm that a selected rate is in an optimum
range. Production rate assumptions are much
more likely to be reviewed for marginal projects, but they should also be reviewed for
viable projects.

Introduction
The selection of the production rate is one
of the most crucial decisions to be made in the
development of a mineral property. This single
factor will determine the capital costs, operating costs, and mine life, all of which influence
the project economics and the viability of the
project. It is not uncommon for the production
rate to be decided arbitrarily, before any technical evaluations begin, and it is often not
reconsidered when better data becomes available. This frequently results in a mining and
processing facility that is inappropriately sized
for the deposit. As often as not, it is too large,
burdening the owner and the project with costs
that the deposit cannot support. This paper
examines the influence of revenue, reserves,
operating costs, and capital costs on the selection of the production rate.

Rules of Thumb
In the mining industry there is a rule of
thumb for almost every situation. The determination of a production rate is no exception.
These rules can be broadly divided into two
groups: (1) those related to the physical characteristics of the deposit; and (2) those related
to the economic characteristics of the project. A
number of examples are listed below. They are
presented for reference only and should be
used with caution.
Physical Characteristics

L.D. Smith
holds a B.A.Sc. in civil engineering from
the University of Toronto and an M.Eng.
in mining from McGill University. He is
the senior minerals economist for
Kilborn Inc. And has been with the
company since 1974. During that time
he has been involved in the evaluation
of numerous mining projects in Canada
and internationally. He has had the
opportunity to see many of the factors
that influence the assessment and
viability of a resource project in a variety
of corporate and political environments.

48

Taylors Law: t/d = .014 (Reserves) 0.75

For underground and open pit deposits,
with the exception of a few structurally controlled situations (Taylor, 1986).
Zwiagin method: t/a = 390 (Reserves)0.5
For underground coal deposits (Arioglu,
1988).
1000 t/d for every 1000 vertical feet of ore
body.

For underground, narrow vein deposits.

Also, 500 t/d for every 1000 vertical feet;
opinions vary.
1 level per year based on 100 to 150 feet
per level.
For underground, narrow vein deposits.
Economic Characteristics
The cash flow must be sufficient to repay
the capital cost at least twice.
A bankers rule of thumb.
The cash flow should pay the capital back in
two years.
Investors rule of thumb. Also, three-year
payback; opinions vary.
100 000 oz/a minimum production for gold
mines.
From investment bankers. This is the minimum size of operation that they feel they
can sell to the market. They also like to see
at least 1 000 000 ounces in the deposit.
Minimum of seven-year mine life.
This allows sufficient time to develop the
mine properly.
The operating costs should be in the lower
quartile of the industrys cash cost curve.
Unfortunately, we cannot all be in the lower
quartile.
The mine life should not be shorter than the
metal price cycle.
Opinions vary on the length of the metal
price cycles. The real skill is to hit the rising
side of the price cycle when production
begins.
Annual production should not exceed the
market demand.
This is not usually a consideration for precious or base metals, but is often a restraint
for industrial minerals.
The capital cost cannot exceed the owners
financial resources.
There are numerous projects that have selected their production rate based on how much
money the owner could raise or borrow.
Mine out the best parts of the deposit before
the tax holidays and tax losses are gone.
CIM Bulletin Vol. 90, N 1007

Methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate

This is opportunistic, irresponsible, and short

sighted. As a result of this thinking, there are
numerous abandoned operations scattered
across Canada where the owners picked
the eyes out of a deposit to take advantage
of tax laws and thereby destroyed the
deposit for long-term development.
Most of these rules of thumb are rooted in
practical experience and each has earned a following in the industry. However, many contradict and conflict with each other. Nevertheless,
two significant themes stand out:
the importance of reserves, and
the need to repay capital.
The remainder of this paper will examine
the relationship between these factors.
Maximum Value Curve
The mineral industry is unique in a number of characteristics. With respect to the determination of a production rate, three characteristics are significant:
For most metals (particularly base metals
and gold) an individual project will be a
price taker. In most cases the price of the
metal is determined by a global market and
a single project has little effect on the metal

price or the metal supply. As a result, the

production rate for an individual mining
project is not generally limited by supplydemand considerations.
Initial capital investments tend to be very
large and are directly related to the production rate. The owners financial resources
may limit the production rate for this reason. The relationship between capital costs,
operating costs, and production rates is
illustrated in Figure 1. Detailed analyses of
these relationships are found in work by
OHara (1980), OHara and Suboleski
(1992), and the US Bureau of Mines (1987).
There is physical limit to the size of the
reserves for each mineral deposit. As soon
as a production rate is selected the life of
the project is determined. Mathematically
this limit means that for each project there
is a production rate that will yield a maximum economic value.
As a result of these characteristics, there is
a typical maximum value curve associated with
mining projects that plots the DCFROR (discounted cash flow rate of return) or the NPV
(net present value) for a series of production
rates. Two examples showing DCFROR are
shown in Figure 2. Although every project has

its own unique curve, the humped shape with a

steep rising slope and a less steep falling slope
is typical.
For the purposes of illustration in this
paper, a gold CIL (carbon-in-leach) project is
used. The maximum value curves are shown in
Figure 3, which plots the DCFROR and the 10%
NPV for a range of production rates. The ore
reserve is constant at 5 000 000 tonnes. The
maximum values for both the DCFROR and
10% NPV occur at approximately 3700 t/d.
(Cash flows are calculated without debt or
inflation.)
It is important to be familiar with this
characteristic curve for a number of reasons. As
noted earlier, the production rate is often decided arbitrarily very early in the development of a
project. On the basis of this production rate, a
considerable amount of work will be completed in the form of pre-feasibility or feasibility
studies before it is possible to take an economic measure of the project.
If the project satisfies the owners investment criteria, it will likely proceed to the next
phase of development. Because of the time and
effort involved in developing data for alternative cases, it is unlikely that the production rate
will be reassessed for a successful project.

Fig. 1. Typical capital and operating costs curves.

Fig. 2. Maximum value curves for gold CIL and copper flotation projects.

Fig. 3. Maximum value curves for gold CIL project.

Fig. 4. Characteristic maximum value curves for gold CIL project. A project can satisfy a
15% hurdle rate and still be poorly sized.

February 1997

49

Methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate

However, that decision may not reflect the best

investment alternative for the owner. This is
illustrated in Figure 4, where a range of production rates can be seen to satisfy a 15%
DCFROR investment criteria. In this case, the
capital investment required at C is substantially less than at C; C is a better choice. But, with
its higher return, A may be better still.
If the project fails to satisfy the owners
investment criteria, it could be that the production
rate is inappropriate (either too high or too low)
as illustrated by points D and D. Or it may be that
it is impossible for the project to satisfy the
owners investment criteria, as suggested by curve
E-E (the maximum DCFROR is less than 15%).
In order to revise the production rate, it is
necessary to know where a project is located
on its maximum value curve so that appropriate action can be taken. It is also important to
understand how some of the critical project
variables influence the shape of the curve and
the location of the maximum value.

changes in the cut-off grade is not considered. It

will eventually need to be included in the calculation but, in the early stages of an evaluation, an
estimate of its impact can be made based on
how it affects reserves (a lower cut-off grade
means a larger reserve, etc.). Over a narrow
range of production rates the operating cost, and
therefore the cut-off grade, will not change significantly and the analysis will be valid.
Prices
The production rate for the maximum
value appears to increase slightly with increased
metal prices (Fig. 6). Glanville (1987) shows
results that suggest no change with price and
Cavender (1992) suggests the production rate
decreases with increased price. These contradicting results suggest that the effect of price is
project dependent and a generalization cannot
be made. The price effect can be extrapolated to
grade and recovery, assuming that neither causes changes in capital or operating costs.

until about a 10% discount rate, beyond which

the maximum value production rate does not
change appreciably (Fig. 7). (Glanville ,1987,
noted a similar effect.) In the cash flow, the
impact of the later years is diminished as the
discount rate increases, and beyond about
10%-15% the last years of the project have little impact. This effect, and the investors
requirement for high returns, tends to favour
higher production rates and shorter lives.
The use of the DCFROR as the y-axis,
instead of NPV, avoids this issue altogether and
eliminates the need to select an appropriate discount rate (see Smith, 1995). Also, the DCFROR
maximum value corresponds to the NPV maximum value for discount rates beyond 10%-15%.
In the balance of the paper a 10% NPV is
used to determine the maximum point on the
cash flow curves. This is done so that the NPV
of costs and revenues can be plotted with the
net cash flow on the same graph.
Taxation

Reserves
Discount rates
The production rate for the maximum value
increases with the size of the reserves, as illustrated in Figure 5. In this paper the impact of

The production rate for the maximum

value increases as the discount rate increases

The production rate for the maximum value

does not appear to be significantly affected by
the tax rate. This means that preliminary evaluations can be carried out on a before tax basis.

Fig. 5. Characteristic maximum value curves for gold CIL project for several reserve values.

Fig. 6. Impact of gold selling price on location of maximum value points.

Fig. 7. Impact of discount rate on location of maximum value points.

Fig. 8. Undiscounted component values for the gold CIL project.

50

CIM Bulletin Vol. 90, N 1007

Methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate

What does the maximum value mean?

The meaning and the location of the maximum value are illustrated graphically in Figures
8, 9, and 10.
Cost and Revenue Curves
In Figure 8, the undiscounted values are
plotted for revenue, capital costs, operating
costs, and capital plus operating costs. Note
that the revenue curve is flat, since the value of
gold is the same no matter what the production rate. There is a dip in the capital plus operating cost curve at approximately 2000 t/d.
When this curve is subtracted from the revenue
curve it results in the 0% NPV curve in Figure
7, with a maximum value at 2000 t/d where
the costs are least and the resulting cash flow
is greatest.
In Figure 9, the 10% NPV is plotted for
revenue, capital costs, operating costs, and capital plus operating costs. Note that the revenue
and operating cost curves drop sharply at the
lower production rates. This is because at the
lower rates the project has a longer life and the
later years do not contribute significantly to the
NPV.
The significant relationship in this graph is
the vertical distance between the revenue
curve and the capital plus operating cost curve.
This distance is equal to the before tax cash
flow, being revenue less capital costs less operating costs. It is the same 10% NPV value that
is plotted in Figures 3 and 7.
By examining these curves it can be seen
that the characteristic shape is due to three
effects:
The rapidly rising revenue and operating
cost curves create the steep left side of the
curve. However, the operating cost curve
flattens more quickly than the revenue
curve, leaving an increasing cash flow margin.

The capital costs increase constantly with

increasing production rates, gradually
pinching off the cash flow margin at the
higher rates. This results in the longer right
side tail.
The gap between the revenue and capital
plus operating curves increases to a maximum at A-A then decreases, eventually
becoming negative.
Tangent to the Return Curve
The two curves plotted in Figure 10 offer
an insight into the location of the NPV maximum value. The first curve is the 10% NPV of
the revenue minus operating costs (no capital),
and can be thought of as the return on the
capital investment, the cash that flows from the
project as a consequence of the capital investment. The second curve is the 10% NPV of the
capital cost, plotted so that it is just tangent to
the return curve at point A. This curve can be
shifted vertically because it is the slope of the
curve that is significant here, not the actual values. (Noren, 1971; Wells, 1978)
For production rates below A in Figure 10,
the slope of the return curve is steeper than the
capital cost curve, suggesting that the return is
increasing more rapidly than the capital that is
invested. For production rates above A, the
slope of the return curve is less steep than the
capital cost curve, suggesting that the capital
costs are increasing more rapidly than the
return. The point of tangency occurs at the production rate that has the maximum ability to
provide a return on the capital investment.
When the capital curve is subtracted from the
return curve to give the cash flow curve, point
A corresponds to the NPV maximum value production rate. (The reason for this is that the
capital cost curve is greater than the return
curve on either side of A, therefore subtracting
the capital curve from the return curve (to give
the cash flow curve) will result in the points on
either side of A being reduced to a greater

Fig. 9. 10% NPV of the component values for the gold CIL project.

February 1997

extent than at point A. In other words, point A

will be at the peak of the cash flow curve.)

NPV Maximum value as a failure

point
This NPV maximum value point would
seem to provide a straightforward solution to
the optimum production rate determination.
However, caution is urged. The NPV maximum
value gives a very short mine life. A similar concern has also been expressed by Taylor (1986,
1996), that the over sizing of a project imposes a great risk of failure, with less time to
recover from a bad start. Shorter lives also have
maximum environmental disturbances and
minimum local social advantages.
In the authors opinion, the NPV maximum value point should be viewed as an upper
limit for the possible range of production rates,
rather than an optimum rate. It is the point at
which the project begins to fail economically; where the return begins to diminish relative
to the investment. The shape of the curve is
reminiscent of plots of structural loading tests
where a column or beam takes more and more
load until it fails and begins to lose its load
bearing capacity. With this analogy in mind, it
may be appropriate to apply a safety factor to
the NPV maximum value production rate. This
would keep the rate below the maximum, to
the left of the peak on the rising side of the
curve, where it is always possible to increase
production later.
But how far down the curve should one
go? The bankers rule of thumb, to be able to
repay the capital twice, provides some guidance.

Two times capital curve

Financial institutions will insist on certain
coverage ratios for their loans, and the two
times factor will generally ensure that these are

Fig. 10. The NPV maximum value for the cash flow curve occurs at point A where the
capital cost curve is tangent to the return curve. Both are discounted at 10%.

51

Methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate

met (The cash flow must be sufficient to repay

the capital cost at least twice.). If a project is
viable there is a wide range of production rates
that will satisfy the two times rule. This is shown
by points F and F in Figure 11, where the capital cost curve is plotted with the undiscounted
cash flow curve. (Both curves are undiscounted
since the two times capital criteria is based on
the actual cash flow. However, coverage ratios
are often based on discounted values). Since the
capital is already repaid once in the cash flow
curve, the points where the cash flow curve is
above the capital cost curve denote those production rates where the cash flow can repay the
capital at least twice. If the cash flow curve never
exceeds the capital cost curve, the capital cannot
be repaid twice.
As with the capital and return curves
noted earlier, the capital cost curve can be
shifted vertically so that it is just tangent to the
cash flow curve at point B (Fig. 12). For production rates below B, the slope of the cash
flow curve is steeper than the capital cost
curve, suggesting that the cash flows ability to
repay capital is increasing more rapidly than
the capital invested. For production rates above
B the slope of the cash flow curve is less steep

than the capital cost curve, suggesting a

decreasing ability, but not necessarily an inability, to repay the capital twice. At the point of
tangency the cash flow is most efficient at
repaying the capital cost twice. When the capital curve is subtracted from the cash flow curve,
point B corresponds to a two times capital
maximum value production rate as shown in
Figure 13. This point is plotted for several
reserve values in Figure 14.

An optimum range
Having two maximum values is confusing.
What do they mean? How do they help? The
two curves are plotted in Figure 15 for comparison. Note that the vertical axes are different. It is only the points where the maximum
values occur on the production rate axis that
are important.
In the authors opinion, the NPV maximum value is the upper extreme of the production rate possibilities, a point at which the project begins to fail economically. Since the
two times capital maximum value is always less
than the cash flow maximum, then the

DCFROR or NPV (whichever is being used) will

increase from the two times capital maximum
value production rate to the NPV maximum
value production rate. Therefore, the two points
represent the lower and upper limits on a range
of likely production rates.
Figures 16 and 17 plot the maximum
value points for both the cash flow NPV curve
(Fig. 5) and the two times capital curve (Fig.
14) which have been fitted to exponential
curves and plotted along side the values from
Taylors Law for both the production rate (Fig.
16) and the mine life (Fig. 17). The data points
that are indicated are from Figures 5 and 14.
Recognizing that this regression analysis
is based on only one gold CIL project, it is interesting to see the similarity between the two
times capital curve and the Taylors Law curve.
Note in Figure 17 the extremely short life projected by the NPV maximum value and how it
does not change significantly over a wide range
of reserves. This pattern is consistent with the
authors experience on other projects. The NPV
maximum value does not appear to offer an
appropriate solution to the production rate
question. On the other hand, the two times
capital maximum value offers a lower produc-

Fig. 11. The two times capital criteria may be satisfied by a number of production rates.

Fig. 12. A maximum value of the two times capital curve occurs at point B where the
capital cost curve is tangent to the undiscounted cash flow curve.

Fig. 13. Two times capital curve (undiscounted) with a maximum value at point B.

Fig. 14. Two times capital curves for gold CIL project for several reserve values.

52

CIM Bulletin Vol. 90, N 1007

Methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate

tion rate and therefore a lower return. The best

solution will probably lay between the two values, but not outside them.
While it was not the intention of this
paper to attempt to prove or disprove Taylors
Law, it is interesting to see how Taylors Law
strikes a middle ground between the two maximum value curves for this example. The production rate from Taylors Law appears to provide a reasonable starting point for a project
evaluation.

Get to Know Your Project

The purpose of this paper has been to
describe a number of characteristics that define
the economic dynamics of a mining project relative to production rate. It provides a set of
graphic and analytical tools that allow an
owner to become familiar with a project and
determine an appropriate production rate.
Typically, an owner will be confronted with
the problem illustrated in Figure 18. Having
selected a single production rate early in the
projects life, the results of a pre-feasibility or
feasibility study give only one point on the

curve. But is this point on the rising side of the

characteristic hump, ideally situated between
the two maximum values shown in Figure 15, or
is it on the falling side of the curve, with an
acceptable DCFROR but too high in capital and
well beyond its peak performance?
The answer is to calculate the cash flow
for a number of production rates and use these
values to plot the two curves for the maximums
shown in Figure 15. The steps to do this are:
Using the capital and operating costs for
the known case, calculate costs for higher
and lower production rates. This can be
done by using the exponents suggested in
the work by OHara or the USBM, or by
using detailed estimates, projecting fixed
costs as constant and variable costs as
increasing proportionally with the production rate.
Estimate revenues from grade, recovery,
and price.
Calculate a cash flow for each production
rate. A base case with no debt and no inflation is suggested. Taxes can be excluded in
the early stages. Plot the DCFROR or the
10% NPV of the total cash flow. There
should be a maximum value in this curve.

Calculate the two times capital values.

These will be equal to the cash flow less the
capital cost. There should be a maximum
value in this curve.
The two maximum value points will indicate a range of production rates between the
point of maximum ability to repay capital and
the point of maximum ability to provide a
return on investment. If the projects production rate does not fall within this range, the
reason should be investigated. Below this
range, the project may not be performing at its
full potential. Above this range, the production
rate is likely too high.

Conclusion
The selection of the production rate is one
of the most crucial decisions to be made in the
development of a mineral property, but it is
often determined arbitrarily before any technical
evaluations begin, and is frequently not reconsidered when better data becomes available.
In this regard, the significance of scoping
studies and pre-feasibility studies cannot be
over stressed. These studies are relatively inex-

Fig. 15. Cash flow NPV and two times capital maximum value curves. Each shows a
maximum value. These define an optimum range for production rates.

Fig. 16. Taylors Law and maximum value regression curves for cash flow NPV and two
times capital show the relationship between reserves and production rate.

Fig. 17. Taylors Law and maximum value regression curves for cash flow NPV and two
times capital show the relationship between reserves and mine life.

Fig. 18. When a study shows only one point for a project, it is not possible to determine
whether the production rate is well located on the rising side of the curve, or badly
located on the falling side.

February 1997

53

Methods and factors affecting the selection of an optimum production rate

pensive and can narrow the range of likely production rates in preparation for the more expensive (and often irreversible) feasibility study.
It is possible to develop a characteristic NPV
maximum value curve and a two times capital
maximum value curve at any stage of a project.
The two maximum value points will indicate a
range of production rates between the point of
maximum ability to provide a return on investment
and point of maximum ability to repay capital.
The NPV maximum value should be considered to be the point at which the project
begins to fail economically. This value is
associated with extremely short mine lives.
The two times capital maximum value
identifies the point beyond which increases in
capital costs do not result in significant increases in cash flow, NPV, or DCFROR.
The production rate decision is much more
likely to be reviewed for marginal projects
because the owner will seek ways to improve
the return. However, this review is just as important for a viable project where the improvements
may mean substantial increases in return.

Appendix A Further Research

Rigorous Proofs
The solutions offered in this paper are
largely empirical, based on graphical solutions
and project experience. It would be useful to
confirm the conclusions with mathematical
proofs, in particular the location and the precise interpretation of the peaks in the cash flow
NPV and two times capital curves.
Maximum Value Curve Exponents and Factors
The authors regression curve for the maximum value points for the production rate versus reserves in Figure 5 has the equation:
t/d = 1429 + .027(Reserves)0.7854
The authors regression curve for the maximum value points for the production rate versus reserves for the copper project in Figure 2
has the equation:
t/d = .0813(Reserves)0.73
The authors regression curve for the maximum value points for the two times capital
production rate versus reserves in Figure 14
has the equation:
t/d = .00464(Reserves)0.79
Taylors Law has the equation:
t/d = .014(Reserves)0.75
The exponents are similar in all of these
equations. Is this is a coincidence or is there a

54

consistent relationship that transcends individual projects?

The multiplier factors (i.e., 0.027, 0.0813,
0.00464, 0.014) seem to vary considerably.
What are the variables that influence the magnitude of the multiplier factors?
These curves are all a function of reserves
alone. What is the impact on these curves of
changes in the significant project variables,
including capital costs, operating costs, metal
prices, stripping ratios, infrastructure, etc?

References
ARIOGLU, E., 1988. Examination of empirical formulae for predicting optimum mine output.
Technical note. Transactions of the Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy (Section A: Mining
Industry), Vol. 97, January, A54-55.
CAVENDER, B., 1992. Determination of optimum
lifetime of a mining project using discounted
cash flow and option pricing techniques. Mining
Engineering, October, p. 1262-1268.
GLANVILLE, R., 1987. The valuation of mining properties (with a case study of a computer-assisted
application of the discounted cash flow (DCF)
valuation method). United Nations Interregional
Seminar on the Applications of Electronic Data
Processing Methods in Mineral Exploration and
Development, Sudbury.

NOREN, N.E., 1971. Mine development some

decision problems and optimization models. CIM
Special Volume No. 12, Decision Making in the
Mineral Industry.
OHARA, T. ALAN, 1980. Quick guides to the evaluation of orebodies. CIM Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 814,
February, p. 87-99.
OHARA, T. ALAN, and SUBOLESKI, S.C., 1992. Costs
and cost estimation. SME Mining Engineering
Handbook, 2nd Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 6.3.
SME, Littleton, Colorado.
SMITH, L.D., 1995. Discount rates and risk assessment in mineral project evaluations. CIM
Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 989, p. 34-43, and
Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, (Section A: Mining industry), Vol.
103, Sept.-Dec. 1994, p. A137-154.
TAYLOR, H.K., 1986. Rates of working of mines a
simple rule of thumb. Technical note. Transactions
of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
(Section A: Mining Industry), Vol. 95, October, p.
A203-204.
TAYLOR, H.K., 1996. Personal correspondence.
USBM Information Circulars 9142 and 9143, 1987.
Bureau of Mines Cost Estimating System
Handbook (in two parts). 1. Surface and underground mining. 2. Mineral processing, US
Department of the Interior.
WELLS, H.M., 1978. Optimization of mining engineering design in mineral valuation. Mining
Engineering, December, p. 1676-1684.

NEWS BRIE F

OTTAWA 97

he Joint Annual Meeting of the

Geological Association of Canada
(GAC) and the Minealogical Association
of Canada (MAC) will be held in Ottawa,
May 19-21, 1997, and will be hosted by
the Geological Survey of Canada with
contributions from the Canadian
Museum of Nature.
This outstanding opportunity to participate in discussions on new earth science developments also marks the 50th
Anniversary of the Geological Association of Canada, at the site of its first
annual meeting. An extensive technical
program with related pre- and post-conference field trips, short courses and
workshops will form the core of the conference, whereas social events, including
anniversary celebrations, will provide its
lighter side.
The Plenary Session of Ottawa 97 will
showcase exciting new research in global
earth, atmosphere and ocean science, followed by the GAC presidential address at
a meeting of all conference participants.
Technical program contributions will be

divided equally between oral and poster

presentations. Oral sessions will focus on
a broad range of symposia and special
sessions, whereas posters will be organized into general sessions, special sessions, and symposia.
Abstracts are welcome from November 1, 1996 to January 15, 1997 for
oral or poster presentations. Electronic
abstract submission via the Ottawa 97
web site or e-mail address is encouraged,
although regular mail submission of abstracts on diskettes is also welcomed. Abstracts may be submitted in either French
or English and will be accepted or rejected as submitted. Ottawa 97 web site is
http://www.NRCan.gc.ca/~Ottawa97; follow instructions at the web site for e-mail
submission. For guidelines for submission of abstracts and enquiries, contact:
Ottawa 97, Geological Survey of Canada,
Room 757, 601 Booth Street, Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0E8; Tel.: (613) 947-7649;
Fax: (613) 947-7650.
Ottawa 97 will include special programs and field trips for K-12 teachers
sponsored by the Canadian Geoscience
Education Network.

CIM Bulletin Vol. 90, N 1007