Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Optimising combined open pit and

underground strategic plan


B. Roberts1, T. Elkington*2, K. van Olden3 and M. Maulen4
This paper examines the case of a large open pit that is being planned at the site of an existing
underground mine. Strategic planning work is undertaken to investigate the project value
associated with an expansion of underground operations in conjunction with the proposed pit.
Previous analysis by mine planners has determined that any depletion of the available open pit
resource that changes the optimum pushback sequence will have a significant negative impact
on overall project value. As a result, the main objective of this case study is to determine a
strategic plan capable of yielding the optimum economic value for a combined underground
open pit operation.
To investigate the viability of an underground expansion, a system to identify the stope resource
that would add value to a combined operation if mined ahead of the pit is required. The main
solution to this problem is the use of a resource model variable that defines the blocks which have
greater discounted value if mined by stoping rather than by the open pit. From this potential
underground resource, a series of mineable stope shells are generated at various cut-offs. This
stope reserve data formed the input to an optimisation process used to optimise the underground
mining plan, at a conceptual level, for various project configurations. Then, a dynamic
programming mathematical program is used to evaluate the optimum value of a combined open
pit and underground operation. The results generated in the case study presented herein provide
a clear focus and direction for the next level of detailed mine design and planning.
Keywords: Optimisation, Open pit, Underground, Transition, Strategy

This paper is part of a special issue on Strategic Mine Planning

Introduction challenge is faced by a growing number of operations


throughout Australia and around the world and has not
There has been much work completed detailing the been addressed in the literature.
optimisation of open pit (Lerchs and Grossman, 1965; The deposit examined in this paper is currently being
Whittle, 1999; Lane, 1988; King, 2001, 2011; Caccetta mined by a well established open stoping operation. An
and Hill, 2003; Stone et al, 2007; Whittle, 2010; Dimi- open pit mine is being planned to the south of existing
trakopoulos, 2011) and underground mines (Alford, 1995; operations in order to take advantage of a large increase
Brazil et al, 2004; Elkington et al., 2009; Alford and Hall, in the resource discovered from exploration drilling.
2009) in isolation. However, there is considerably less Previous work has established that the existing stoping
literature concerning the combination of open pit and areas will be mined by the open pit at some time in the
underground operations, even though the occurrence of future. However, due to the projected long life of
these transition problems increases as open pits get deeper. the open pit mine there is an opportunity to expand the
Luxford (1997) discussed some of the issues involved in the underground operation from the existing North Area
transition from open pit to underground. Keane (2010) into the South Area in conjunction with open pit
described an approach using a commercially available mining. The advantages of expanding the underground
software tool for optimising an open pit subject to a mine are numerous. First, this would allow for extrac-
possible underground operation. However, the case of tion of high grade material ahead of the open pit. This
an open pit mine in conjunction with an existing high strategy decreases the impact of discounting on this
production underground operation is more complex. This high-grade material and maximises cash flow and metal
production earlier in the project when there is more
1
certainty regarding prices and demand. Additionally,
Superintendent Mine Optimisation, BHP Billiton
2
Snowden Mining Industry Consultants
underground ore, either direct from the mine or from
3
Mine Planning (Continental Africa), AngloGold Ashanti stockpiles, can be used to support periods where the pit
4
BHP Billiton may not be able to fill the available processing capacity.
*Corresponding author, email telkington@snowdengroup.com Underground operations can also access areas of the

The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
Received 10 December 2012; accepted 18 March 2013
94 DOI 10.1179/1743286313Y.0000000038 Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2
Roberts et al. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan

orebody that cannot be mined economically by the open


pit. Finally, an advantage is gained through the under-
ground mine being already well established. The basic
infrastructure, equipment, skilled workforce and opera-
tional systems are already in place.
Conversely, there are disadvantages of an under-
ground expansion into the South Area. Firstly, the
orebody will be mined by the open pit at some stage in
the project life. Hence, ore blocks mined from under-
ground will incur both an underground mining cost and
an open pit mining cost. The underground mining cost is
significantly higher than the open pit cost. Secondly,
surface mining through underground workings incurs a
mining cost and productivity penalty. The risk and
health, safety and environmental issues associated with
mining though voids or backfill must also be effectively
managed. In zones of the pit where underground mining
has taken place, slope angles must be modified resulting
in some waste stripping being brought forward in the
schedule. Finally, there is a substantial amount of
development and additional infrastructure required for
an underground mine expansion into the South Area.
These operations would add to the risk profile of the
project.
This paper explains how these issues were resolved at 1 Blasor shells (plan view) forming optimum open pit
a strategic level. In the following sections, firstly the mining sequence
method used and related steps are outlined; then pit
optimisation, underground optimisation (subject to the (iii) combined open pit and underground optimisa-
pit optimisation results) and then the combined open pit tion: the open pit and underground sequences
and underground integration is detailed. This is followed are integrated into an overall project schedule to
by a discussion of the limitations of the approach and determine a combined actual value.
opportunities for improvement. This paper describes one iteration of the above process.
It is clear that the key assumption that the depletion of
Method the pit with prior underground extraction does not affect
the optimal pit staging must be tested and resolved. This
The optimisation process used for this problem is opportunity will be the subject of further work.
iterative. At this stage, there is no single tool that can
simultaneously optimise an open pit and underground
mine plan. The characteristics of the problem for the
Open pit optimisation
subject operation are that the open pit and underground The standalone open pit is optimised using a combination
operations are each competing for the same resource. of the Blasor pit optimisation tool and the COMET cut-
The open pit will eventual extract each block regardless off grade and schedule optimiser (King, 2001; Wooller,
of whether it is mined and filled as part of the 2007). Blasor (Stone et al., 2007) originated as a tool for
underground operation. Previous work by the mine completing pit optimisation of multiple complex iron ore
planning team demonstrated that any underground deposits. The tool has since been successfully applied to
mining that affects the optimum pushback sequence other types of project, such as base metal deposits. Blasor
will result in a significant loss in overall project value. A uses a mixed integer programming formulation (MIP) to
key realisation is that the open pit sequence should be produce an optimised pushback sequence. The MIP
fixed and the underground expansion optimised around operates on aggregations of blocks to generate an optimal
it. The basic problem is to determine the material that extraction sequence that honours specified constraints,
can be mined from underground, ahead of the open pit including defined slope angles. These aggregations are too
advance, and add value to a combined operation. For small to form practical pushbacks, so another algorithm
this paper it is considered that the overall value of the is applied to generate pushback designs (termed Shells)
project is equal to the value of the open pit as a stand- of a more suitable size. The key strength of this tool is its
alone consideration, plus the value of the underground ability to optimise under blending constraints and to
plan, minus the value lost through depleting under- incorporate discounting. For this project, the Blasor
ground resources from the open pit plan. output (in the form of an optimum mining sequence) is
In general a three step process is followed: exported to a software tool called COMET for optimisa-
(i) open pit optimisation, wherein an optimal open tion of the mining schedule. Figure 1 illustrates the Blasor
pit only sequence and schedule is determined Shells used for subsequent work. COMET (King, 2001;
(ii) Underground with pit optimisation: use the Wooller, 2007) is a dynamic programming approach to
schedule to determine the discounted value of cut-off and schedule optimisation based on a given set of
each block being mined from the open pit. This pushback designs and was used for scheduling because it
value was deducted from the potential under- was the project-mandated tool designated for use in this
ground mining value and the underground is process. At the time of the project, COMET simulta-
optimised on the net objective neously analyses multiple mining and processing policies

Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2 95


Roberts et al. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan

and site specific constraints to identify the optimum


ra {hug {mug v
mining and processing strategies that will maximise net UGDVa ~ uy { (2)
present value (NPV). COMET allowed greater control (1zd) (1zd)oy
over pushback sequencing and a higher level of flexibility  
and detail for modelling the ore processing configuration. ra {hop
OPDVa ~max ,0 (3)
Output from COMET was used to code the optimum (1zd)oy
open pit only schedule into the resource model. The parameters used in equations (2) and (3) are defined
in Table 2. Note that open pit mining is not included in
the open pit discounted value. This is because the open
Underground with pit optimisation pit mining blocks have already been committed for
Block ranking extraction. The decision is whether the block is worth
more to mine and process from underground or from
The existing underground mine and proposed open pit open pit. An unknown in equation (2) is the timing of
are competing for the same resource. Consequently, the underground mining which is required in order to
extraction of each block incurs an opportunity cost determine its UGDV and hence it is IV. Obtaining this
associated with the alternative mining option. As stated data would require the underground to already have
previously, earlier investigations had established that a been scheduled, creating a circular problem. In order to
change in the open pit pushback sequence to accommo- circumvent this circular problem, an undiscounted
date an underground mining option results in a sig- underground value, UGV0, is used to calculate the
nificant loss of overall project value. Therefore, each value measure, IV0 (i.e. the incremental value assuming
block mined from underground must carry an opportu- underground extraction in year 0). In the presence of
nity cost corresponding to the value lost from the open constant parameters, this measure represents the max-
pit. When optimising a schedule for a single mining imum possible UGDV and IV for each block. Any block
operation the value ranking of a block for mining is with a positive IV0 value is a potential candidate for
determined by variables such as the net value per tonne, extraction by stoping. However, having a positive IV0
net mill return or net smelter return. In this project, does not guarantee that a block will add value if taken
however, the ranking variable must include the opportu- by the underground operation. The later the block is
nity cost represented by open pit mining. If the taken in the underground mine schedule, the lower the
discounted value of a block is greater when mined by UGDV will become due to the effect of discounting.
open pit then it should not be extracted from under- There will come a point in time (before a block is taken
ground. Therefore, in order to rank blocks correctly for by the open pit) when the OPDV of a block exceeds its
an optimised underground-with-pit strategy a measure of UGDV, at which time the IV of that block will become
incremental value (IV) was developed. When consider- negative. The use of IV0 as a ranking measure allowed
ing a single block, the discounted value that the block all potentially value-adding underground mining blocks
adds to the overall operation, its IV will be equal to the to be identified. The higher the IV0, the more likely the
discounted value when mined by the underground mine, block will add value to the operation being extracted
minus the discounted value of the block if it were to be from underground. The differences between OPDV, IV0
mined by the open pit (equation (1)), and UGV0 for a section of the orebody are shown in
IVa ~UGDVa {OPDVa (1) Figure 2. The open pit is revealed to have more potential
ore than the underground operation due to a lower cut-
The variables used in equation (1) are defined in Table 1. off grade. However, much of this material has very low
The methodology for calculating OPDV and UGDV discounted value due to the long mine life. The high
is shown in equations (2) and (3) below. All price and value blocks are concentrated in the upper levels of the
cost parameters applied are assumed to be constant over south end of the orebody. The UGV0 and IV0 of blocks
the life of the mine in the north end of the orebody are very similar due to

Table 1 Optimisation parameter denitions for IV calculation

Element Description

IVa The discounted incremental value per tonne of block a


UGDVauy The discounted value of block a (per tonne) being extracted by the underground operation in year uy
OPDVaoy The discounted value of block a (per tonne) being extracted by the open pit operation in year oy
uy The year in which the block is extracted by the underground operation
oy The year in which the block is extracted by the open pit operation

Table 2 Optimisation parameter denitions for UGDV and OPDV calculation

Element Description

ra The net revenue (per tonne) of block a


hug The processing cost (per tonne) of ore for the underground operation, including all fixed costs
hop The processing cost (per tonne) of ore for the open pit operation, including additional ore mining cost compared to waste
mug The mining cost (per tonne) of mining material via the underground operation
v The cost associated with avoiding the underground mine workings (per tonne)
(1zd)uy The discounting factor for year uy at the discount rate d (%)
(1zd)op The discounting factor for year op at the discount rate d (%)

96 Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2


Roberts et al. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan

the low OPDV in this area. The key difference between year. The extraction year is the governing factor which
UGV0 and IV0 is in the south end of the mine where the determines at what time the IV value of a block becomes
pit commences. Hence, the IV0 parameter biases negative. This grouping allows those blocks that had a
towards high grade blocks mined late in the open pit negative IV due to the year of underground extraction to
mine life. be omitted from the optimal outline.
Stope optimisation Development activities
The process of creating mining outlines from the IV0 In order to optimise the schedule, it is necessary to
resource model is conducted using Snowdens Stopesizor provide development parameters for each ventilation
software (Myers et al., 2007). Stopesizor modifies a district. Because the development designs cannot be
geological block model to identify the optimum mining finalised until after the analysis had generated a final
outline for a range of cut-off values (usually grade- stoping inventory, it was decided to use conceptual
based). This stope resource generation is achieved by designs to generate indicative parameters in the form
constructing selective mining blocks (SMBs), where the of
SMB represents a minimum practical mining geometry.
Y~Az(BzC) X (4)
Each SMB comprises a contiguous group of resource
blocks that honour minimum dimension, bearing and where Y is total development metres, A is fixed capital
dip constraints for each axis. Stopesizor has the development metres (development required to access the
flexibility to optimise mining outlines for a variety of highest IV0 cut-off stope in a ventilation district), B is
underground mining methods by allowing the user to variable capital development (metres per tonne of stope
specify minimum practical mining shapes and orienta- ore), C is variable operating development (metres per
tions. Mining capacity constraints and the effect of tonne of stope ore), and X is stoping ore tonnes. The
discounting mean that not all of this material can be fixed capital development is further subdivided into two
mined from the underground mine in an optimum categories: common capital development and access
combined underground and open pit operation. capital development. Common capital development is
However, the analysis does indicate that there is development required by more than one ventilation
potential to increase the overall value of the operation district. Access capital development is development
by mining a significant amount of South Area ore from required to access the highest IV0-cut-off stope in a
underground. ventilation district. Framing the development require-
ments in this manner allows the development require-
Production activities ments for each ventilation district to be estimated and
The basic underground production unit is the Ventilation adjusted during the schedule optimisation process.
district, for which production and development con- Common capital development is identified and appro-
straints are well understood. This project included the priate dependencies are imposed to account for the
design of conceptual development layouts for the South shared nature of this development.
Area and the creation of suitable new ventilation districts
for an underground-with-pit scenario. In order to reduce Underground optimisation technique
the optimisation problem to a manageable size for efficient Schedule optimisation is conducted using Snowdens
computation, stope blocks are accumulated into a series of Evaluator software package. Evaluator is a high level
groups or bins. It is assumed that within each group, the strategic scheduler based on a MIP formulation solved
contained blocks are to be depleted at the same rate. In by a CPLEX engine (ILOG CPLEX, 2007). The
order to produce the best possible approximation of a scheduler optimises the timing and cut-off grade for
block by block optimisation, each group contains blocks both stoping and development activities. MIP involves
with similar properties. The blocks are grouped according determining the optimal value of a series of decision
to ventilation district, IV0 outline, and the year in which variables which reflect the mathematical model gener-
the blocks were planned to be extracted by the open pit. ated. In this optimisation, there was a decision variable
The tonnage and grade for each group is determined by for each activity in each period (except where explicitly
summing the tonnages and weight-averaging the grades of stated otherwise by the user). The output for each
the contained resource blocks. Each ventilation district is decision variable reflects the portion of each activity that
a distinct geometric zone; hence, grouping blocks by this is completed in a period.
property means that they may be able to be practically Each decision variable is assigned an IV value. For
extracted at the same rate, due to the location of production activities, the IV of the decision variable is
development and mining equipment. equal to the UGDV minus the OPDV. Note the
The stope optimisation process generates a series of application of the discounted underground value, accord-
nested mining outlines at IV0 cut-offs between $0/t and ing to the period being examined, rather than the
$100/t, at $10/t intervals. The number of tonnes added to undiscounted (IV0) value is used to generate the stope
the outline at each interval was substantial. As such, it is shapes. The OPDV is applied as an opportunity cost, or
assumed that material within each of the intervals can be additional mining cost, to the underground operation. For
grouped together. Material contained within the highest development activity decision variables, the IV is the cost
IV0 interval can be mined first, followed by the next of development for that activity. Framing the problem in
highest IV0 interval and so on. Geotechnical sequencing this manner ensures that the optimisation process will seek
constraints are not considered in this high level study, to maximise the overall discounted incremental value of
but will need to be incorporated in subsequent studies in the underground operation. In addition to those variables
order to verify their impact on the optimal solution. In described above, there are a number of other decision
addition to being grouped by ventilation district, blocks variables included in the formulation used to implement
are also grouped by their planned open pit extraction fixed costs and ensure that dependent activities are treated

Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2 97


Roberts et al. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan

2 Representation of resource (looking West) for a OPDV.0, b UGV0.0 and c IV0.0

correctly. The decision variables associated with sequen- the various cases and the underground optimisation
cing are binary variables, meaning that they must be either results.
0 or 1. The second aspect of the optimisation involved The base case UG1 provides a reference. An interest-
applying capacity and sequencing constraints. The main ing outcome from this case is that no blocks within the
constraints applied in this optimisation were total mining 30 year pit shell are included in the optimal mining
capacity, mining capacity in each ventilation district, total outline. This result indicates that underground mining
processing capacity, total lateral development capacity, within these limits will not add value to a combined
lateral development capacity in each ventilation district, operation, and that perhaps the value added for mining
reserve constraints (i.e. to ensure that production activities underground ahead of the open pit might only be
were completed to a maximum of 100% and did not applicable for operations with a very long life. Figure 3
exceed reserve) and sequencing constraints. The formula- illustrates the optimum schedule for case UG1 (the base
tion is entered into the CPLEX MIP solver, which case) and indicates the general direction for strategic
generates a solution that maximises the project incre- planning. The complete results show the mine area (and
mental value whilst honouring all imposed constraints. ventilation district) production rates and average grades
Each optimisation is solved to within 0?5% optimality, that should be targeted in each respective period in order
which means that whilst there may be a better solution to maximise value. The results reinforce that a declining
available, at most it would return an incremental value cut-off policy should be followed whenever possible.
0?5% greater than that of the solution provided. For the Analysis of the blocks mined for each case also yields
purposes of this study, the selected level of optimality is important results. The block model output can be used
deemed to be sufficient. to identify the period in which blocks/stopes are mined.
This data can be used to generate data for more detailed
Underground cases and results sequencing and scheduling.
Eight feasible cases of underground alternatives for UG2 considers quarantining all the open pit resources
optimisation were identified for the purpose of investigat- mined in the first 40 years. This is found to reduce
ing the influence of production rate, variable mining cost incremental value by 5%. UG3 to UG5 tested alternative
and pit shell exclusion on value. Table 3 summarises production rates on the basis of known mining and

Table 3 Summary of results for the underground with pit optimisation scenarios

Production Pit shell Variable mining Total reserve


Case*UG1 is rate (% of with no cost (% of Mine life (% mined (% of Av grade mined Value relative
base case base case) stoping/ base case) of base case) base case) (% of base case) to base case*/%

UG1* 100 30 year 100 100 100 100 100


UG2 100 40 year 100 100 100 96 95
UG3 113 30 year 100 100 110 97 104
UG4 133 30 year 100 98 118 96 109
UG5 168 30 year 100 98 134 93 117
UG6 100 30 year 153 100 99 100 93
UG7 100 30 year 206 90 89 104 87
UG8 100 30 year 312 80 79 108 74

98 Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2


Roberts et al. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan

3 Optimum schedule for case UG1

infrastructure constraints. A key feature of the project is that the underground schedules were feasible. In this
that the underground operation uses the processing stage of the project, COMET is being used to determine
facilities constructed for the open pit. The underground the optimum combined open pit and underground
operation, therefore does not incur any capital cost for schedule from the twin inputs of optimum underground
the ore processing plant and any economies of scale are schedule and optimum pushback sequence. COMET
limited. While increases in the production rate did used a more conventional block value ranking variable
increase value, the benefit would need to be considered as the problem of competition between underground
in the context of the plant capacity displaced from the and open pit has now been resolved; the variable chosen
open pit at high production rates. UG6 to UG8 tests the is net return per mill hour. The optimisation process
cost sensitivity and indicates that a small change in considered four different underground cases in combi-
variable mining cost does not greatly impact the total nation with the pit. These cases were compared with the
reserve mined and mine life. Thus, discounting is the current approved business case, which entailed stoping
main driving force for strategy. of the North Area for a small expansion into the South
Area, but with a steadily declining production rate over
time as the resource became depleted.
Combined open pit and underground
optimisation Final economic results
Objective of combined schedule optimisation COMET generated the mining and processing schedules
The work described above is aimed at optimising an that yielded the maximum discounted value (NPV)
under the given constraints. Figure 4 gives the relative
underground operation around the fixed open pit
schedule. A further modelling stage using COMET was results for the total five cases. The term current case
refers to the project schedule for which the underground
required to:
and open pit operations have not been subject to the
(i) determine the relative value of alternative under-
combined optimisation exercise described by this paper.
groundpit combinations. For example, deple-
The best value is yielded by Case UG1. Figure 5
tion of ore from the pit schedule may significantly
shows how this additional value is achieved. The key
reduce value
points included increases in early metal production
(ii) allow the COMET optimiser to choose whether to
(period A) due to the declining cut-off grade strategy of
fill pit feed shortfalls from the open pit stockpile
the underground mine during the open pit ramps-up
or from the underground mine
period and the ability of the expanded underground
(iii) indicate optimum life for the underground
operation to provide material of the required quality to
operation
make up for shortfalls in the production schedule, i.e. to
(iv) determine the processing destinations for under-
ground ore.

COMET modelling
A COMET model is constructed to model the current
proposed ore processing configuration, stockpiles, oper-
ating costs, capital costs and operational constraints.
The open pit mine is represented as a set of pushback
block models and each underground case as a dummy
open pit pushback. Blocks mined in each underground
option are excluded for the resource available to the
open pit. For the final optimisation run, COMET is set
up so that if all underground material available in a
particular period has to be mined, COMET can then
choose whether to process the ore in that period or 4 Comparison of relative value for undergroundopen pit
stockpile it for later processing. This approach ensures combinations

Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2 99


Roberts et al. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan

6 Analysis of underground mine life


5 Total copper production schedule
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. The
top up the available product capacity, when the open pit paper was publishing in the 2009 AusIMM Project
is unable to provide it (period B). Evaluation proceedings (ISBN 978 1 920806 98 9) and
has been subsequently revised for publication in Mining
Analysis of underground mine life Technology.
Analysis of the underground production profiles from the
three COMET runs enables the identification of the likely References
optimum life of the underground operation. Figure 6
shows a mining schedule for UG Case 1 against a Alford, C. 1995. Optimisation in Underground Mine Design. In,
Proceedings, APCOM XXV, 213218, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
representative chart of the underground material mined Alford, C. and Hall, B. 2009. Stope optimisation tools for selection of
and processed by Comet. The diagram indicates that optimum cut-off grade in underground mine design, Proc.Project
there is a period after which open pit ore is the preferred Evaluation 2009, 137144, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
source for process plant feed. After this time it may be Brazil, M., Lee, D., Rubinstein, J., Thomas, D., Weng, J. and
Wormald, N. 2007. Optimisation in the design of underground
more practical to consider closure of the underground
mine access, Orebody modelling and strategic mine planning,
operation. AusIMM Spectrum Series v. 14, 2nd edn, 141144.
Caccetta, L. and Hill, S. 2003. An application of branch and cut to
open pit mine scheduling, J. Global Opt., 27, (23), 349365.
Conclusions ILOG CPLEX. 2007. v.10, ILOG Inc, http://www.ilog.com/products/
The problem of optimising a simultaneously producing cplex/
Dimitrakopoulos, R. 2011. Stochastic optimization for strategic mine
open pit and underground mine plan is a very complex planning: a decade of developments, J. Min. Sci., 84, (2), 138150.
one. Given the current technology, an iterative approach Elkington, T., Durham, R. and Myers, P. 2010. Optimising value for an
was adopted in attempts to determine the optimal solution. underground project configuration, in Orebody modelling and
Some of the key results of this study are as follows. strategic mine planning, AusIMM Spectrum Series v. 14, 241248.
1. Underground expansion into the South Area can Keane, S. 2010. Optimisation improvements in whittle using stope
optimisation software, Proc. Mine Planning and Equipement
add considerable value. Selection 2010, Fremantle, Western Australia, 121128.
2. Increases in NPV are achieved by mining high grade King, B. 2001. Optimal mine scheduling, in Mineral resource and ore
underground ore earlier in the project and by reserve estimation The AusIMM guide to good practice, (ed. A.
making up potential shortfalls in open pit ore Edwards), 451458, Melbourne, The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy.
production. King, B. 2011. Optimal mining practice in strategic planning, J. Min.
3. The underground operation should employ a Sci., 47, (2), 247253.
declining cut-off strategy in order to maximise value. Lane, K. 1988. The economic definition of ore: cut-off grades in theory
4. No stoping should take place within the 30 year pit and practice, London, Mining Journal Books.
limits. Lerchs, H. and Grossman, I. 1965. Optimum design of open pit mines,
Trans. CIM, 68, 1724.
5. The underground optimiser gives planners a guide- Luxford, J. 1997. Surface to underground making the transition,
line for the production rate in each mine area in any Proc. Mindev 97 Conf., 7987, Sydney, NWS.
given period and what the target average grade Myers, P., Standing, C., Collier, P. and Noppe, M. 2007. Assessing
should be. underground mining potential at Ernest Henry Mine using
conditional simulation and stope optimisation, Orebody model-
6. Value could be improved by repeating the process ling and strategic mine planning, AusIMM Spectrum Series v. 14,
with knowledge of how the quality of material 2nd edn, 191200.
produced by the underground operation should be Stone, P., Froyland, G., Menabde, M., Law, B., Pasyar, R. and
scheduled in order to better complement the open Monkhouse, P. 2007. Blasor blended iron ore mine planning
pit schedule. optimisation at Yandi, Orebody modelling and strategic mine
planning, AusIMM Spectrum Series v. 14, 2nd edn, 133136.
7. Analysis of the results indicated a suitable time for Whittle, J. 1999. A decade of open pit mine planning and optimisation
closing the underground mine in favour of an open the craft of turning algorithms into packages. Proceedings
pit only operation. APCOM99 Computer Applications in the Minerals Industries
28th Int Symp., 1524. Colorado School of Mines, Golden Co.
Whittle, G. 2010. Enterprise optimisation. Proc. Mine Planning and
Acknowledgements Equipement Selection 2010, Fremantle, Western Australia, 105117.
Wooller, R. 2007. Optimising multiple operating policies for exploiting
The authors would like to thank BHP Billiton for complex resource - an overview of the COMET scheduler,
granting permission to publish this paper. This paper Orebody modelling and strategic mine planning, AusIMM
has been reproduced with the kind permission of the The Spectrum Series v. 14, 2nd edn, 309316.

100 Mining Technology 2013 VOL 122 NO 2

Вам также может понравиться