The following paper appeared in the Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006 proceedings published by the Australian

Centre for
Geomechanics.

Copyright 2009. Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved. No part of any ACG
publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form without the prior permission of the ACG.

Note to authors: This version of your work is owned by the ACG.

Authors of the papers and third parties must obtain written permission from the ACG to publish all or part of these papers in future works.
Suitable acknowledgement to the original source of publication must be included.

This material may be used only on the following conditions:

Copies of the material may be saved or printed for personal use only and must not be forwarded or sold to any third party.
Commercial exploitation of the material is prohibited.

For further information:

Ms Rebecca Hitchings Australian Centre For Geomechanics

Communications Manager PO Box 3296 BROADWAY
NEDLANDS WA 6008
bec@acg.uwa.edu.au AUSTRALIA
Ph: +61 8 6488 3300 www.acg.uwa.edu.au
Subsidence Effects Associated With the Block and Sub
Level Caving of Massive Orebodies
R.J. Butcher Dempers & Seymour Pty Ltd, Australia
P.A. Jenkins Dempers & Seymour Pty Ltd, Australia

The use of block cave or sub-level cave mining methods for the extraction of massive low-grade ore bodies
has been the subject of renewed interest and research work in recent years. This is because only cave
methods of underground mining can successfully compete with open pit operations in terms of cost and
tonnage produced. In addition, the capital expenditure associated with setting up a cave mine compares
favourably with that required for successive large waste cut backs to deepen an operating pit. However, if the
impacts of cave zone break back and surface subsidence are not fully appreciated at the feasibility stage then
both block cave and sub level-cave operations can incur significant additional capital expense due to the
damage, destruction and replacement of surface and underground mine infrastructure.

Damage to surface or underground infrastructure will occur at a mature stage of the mine life if they are sited
within the break back zone associated with potential resource extensions and subsequent cave mining
operations. Therefore, this paper details the type of rock mass deformations associated with underground
cave mining, it describes a methodology for determining subsidence/break back zones and gives guidelines
for the sitting of mine shafts and other critical infrastructure to minimise exposure to caving-induced
deformations. The paper extends in detail some of the concepts outlined in Stacey and Terbrugges (2000)
paper on the transition from open pit to underground mining.

1 INTRODUCTION
One of the challenges facing the application block caving (BC) and sub-level caving (SLC) to massive ore
bodies is the assessment of rock mass deformations associated with the caving process and formation of the
cave glory hole at surface. If the different deformation zones are under estimated then this can lead to surface
infrastructure and buildings being sited within the cave break back or subsidence zone. At some of the older
caving operations shafts, declines and surface buildings have historically been situated within the footprint of
the mined orebody and cave glory hole.

Subsidence and break back profiles associated with BC or SLC operations must be realistically estimated if
replacement mine infrastructure costs are to be minimised or eliminated. Therefore, this paper describes the
types of rock mass deformation associated with underground cave mining, gives a methodology for
determining subsidence/break back zones and also preliminary guidelines for the sitting of mine shafts,
excavations and infrastructure for their protection against subsidence and break back effects.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 1

2 IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING SUBSIDENCE ZONES
The potential impacts of misunderstanding or underestimating the zones of surface subsidence or caving
break back are:

Damage or destruction of:

o Shafts and declines,

o surface mine buildings and plant,

o mine roads and railways, and

o other private property or public infrastructure outside the mine lease.

Collapse of surface dumps and tailings dams.

Failure to understand the impact of caving on the groundwater regime, resulting in the need to find
additional ground water resources.

Compensation to local communities due to loss of land and ground water.

Poor corporate image from adverse publicity, legal process and poor community relations.

Stacey and Terbrugge (2000) describe the importance of the correct sitting of underground and surface
infrastructure from the effects of rock mass caving during the pit to underground transitional phase of mine
development. They stress the importance of siting mine infrastructure outside caving deformation zones for
the protection purposes and also illustrate how important a knowledge of subsidence break back zones is to
prevent mine hazards such as dilution, flooding and mud rushes. Experience shows that the surface
infrastructure associated with the open cut mine is normally used for any subsequent underground mining
activities. Thus, it follows that the possible subsidence impacts of later underground mining should be
considered during the site planning stage.

In this respect, it is important that the potential for resource extension is investigated during the early mine
feasibility studies, with some capital allocation for deep level drilling to be undertaken before infrastructure
siting is finalised. If no consideration is given to this then some of the longer term investment potential of the
project may be compromised at an early stage. In addition, it is important to understand that deep level cut
back capital requirements and/or lower metal prices may force a pit to underground transition earlier than is
originally envisaged. Butcher (2005) states that, as a rule of thumb, pit to underground transition studies
should be considered once the operational depth of the open cut reaches 250 m. Therefore, mine owners
should consider the potential impacts of caving induced subsidence at an early stage.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 2

2.1 Cost of Underestimating Subsidence
The geotechnical risks of cave zone deformation should be considered in terms of the financial impacts to a
mining project. Calder et al. (2000) states the following capital costs associated with the construction of a
large block cave:

Mine surface infrastructure US$ 15.3 Million

Production shaft US$ 48.6 Million

Service Shaft US$ 36.9 Million

Ventilation and Refrigeration US$ 13.6 Million

Total US$ 114.4 Million

In reality there are few greenfields projects where buildings and shafts would be sited close enough to cave
glory holes to cause their destruction. A more likely scenario is that the perimeter of the cave deformational
area in under estimated and that underground excavations and surface buildings are sited on the edge of the
glory hole. However, if it is assumed that there is a 20% probability that mine infrastructure will be
destroyed by cave break back and subsidence then the corporate risk will be in the order of US$ 22.8
Million.

As well as increasing the caving project capital costs, the impact of having to replace infrastructure can also
threaten project viability. Heslop (2000) states that block cave project costs are generally in the US$ 200
Million range but can be up to US$ 1 Billion. Acceptance of a 20% probability of project failure due to cave
zone deformation and infrastructure destruction would result in a corporate risk of between US$ 40 to US$
200 million, which is equivalent to the capital costs associated with two open pit waste cut backs. Also, as
the total mining capital cost associated with a high tonnage sub-level caving operation is generally 30%
greater than for block caving the corporate risk may likewise be 30% greater. The impacts of
underestimating cave break back zones on the local community have to be determined on an individual
project basis, but land and ground water losses can result in high corporate risk exposure.

It is evident from the above discussion that, in order to avoid substantial corporate risk, a thorough
knowledge of cave mining subsidence needs to be applied in the project planning stages.

2.2 Strategic Implications for Open Pit Projects

The history of mining has shown that with increased mill recoveries, better mining techniques and higher
metal prices, many mines become viable beyond their initial planned lifespan. Therefore, subsidence risk
should become a strategic mine design consideration even if it is not anticipated that underground mining
will occur at the time of open pit project conception. However, this has to be balanced with the fact that open
cuts are becoming deeper before underground transition is considered. For example, until the late-1990s
underground operations were commencing once pits were between 250 m to 350 m deep. Today, several pits

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 3

worldwide are being planned to 1,000 m before transition is considered. Although recent evidence and
experience with large low grade block caves indicates that the capital associated with the final cutback of
deep level pits is equal to the capital spent on two large block caves.

The trend to deeper pits adds further uncertainty as it assumes that mining will always be conducted by open
pit means. This adds further emphasis for pit engineers to consider the possibility of an underground mine
and subsidence related infrastructure risks. To do so, three critical questions need to be answered:

With expected metal prices and anticipated reserves, is underground mining possible?

Is it possible to confirm the above with deep level drilling and reasonable assumptions during the pit
planning stages?

If a potential underground mine exists, is it possible to locate infrastructure to serve both

eventualities?

Likewise, it is evident that an understanding of cave induced subsidence and its impacts in terms of the safe
location of mine infrastructure are also important from a strategic perspective. As such, this paper adds
further detail to the open pit underground transitional concepts outlined by Stacey and Terbrugge (2000).

3 SURFACE SUBSIDENCE AND CAVE BREAK BACK

DEFORMATION
Rock mass deformation above and around a BC or SLC can be divided into two classes, macro and micro
deformations. Macro ground deformations are large deformations or dislocations within the break back zone
where caving effects are obvious and ground subsidence causes destruction of buildings or infrastructure.
Micro deformations are the smaller scale deformations (tilts and strains) around the cave and within its zone
of influence.

3.1 Macro Deformations or the Glory Hole

Based on experience from a number of caving mines in Australia and Southern Africa, Butcher (2003 &
2005) suggests that:

The ground above the cave footprint will cave and will subside. In this zone any excavations or
surface infrastructure will ultimately be destroyed.

There will be a zone outside the approximately vertical orebody contact that will break back to
produce the subsidence zone as defined by the angle of break of subsidence. However, the presence
of major geological structures may further influence break back.

Outside the break back zones subsidence and caving will not occur but far field movement on major
geological structures may be observed.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 4

This experience and classification of large-scale surface disturbance resulting from cave mining agree with
the observations made by Lupo (1998) after studying caving subsidence at the Kiirunavaara and Henderson
mines, noting the existence of:

A cave zone.

A large scale surface cracking zone.

A continuous surface subsidence zone.

Lupo also describes how chimney caving can occur and a classic example of this type of secondary macro
deformation was the formation of sink holes prior to the Mufulira disaster (Anon, 1971). The continuous
caving zone described by Lupo is equivalent to the zone of micro deformations. Figure 1 illustrates zones of
macro deformation based on modelling conducted by Beck (2005). Figure 2 shows the modification and
further break back of the glory hole caused by the presence of major structures.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 5

 Break back zone

Cave zone

Figure 1 Aerial photograph showing zones of macro deformation around a large SLC
(after Beck, 2005)

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 6

Figure 2 Structural break back around a glory hole (after Stacey & Swart, 2001)

3.2 Micro Deformations

These are the small scale vertical and horizontal ground movements, tilts and strains that occur in the area
between the large surface cracking zone and the undisturbed far-field ground. These deformations can be
considered as mainly tensile in nature. Figure 3 illustrates zones of micro damage based on numerical
modelling conducted by Beck (2005).

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 7

Figure 3 Strain plot showing zone of micro deformations (after Beck, 2005)

It is important not to underestimate the zone of influence of such micro deformation as shafts and other mine
infrastructure can be badly damaged if situated in this zone. Micro deformation can extend up to 250 m from
away from the limit of the zone where surface cracking occurs (Lupo 1998). These observations confirm
experience gained from South African mines, where shafts have to be located 200m to 260 m away from the
edge of the cave glory hole for stability. However these observations would appear to be conservative when
compared to experiences with shaft stability in Australia, which shows that:

Shafts with heavy concrete lining can be positioned 170 m from the cave glory hole and show of no
damage.

Ventilation passes can be positioned 70 m from the glory hole and show signs of minor damage.

Ventilation shafts with heavy concrete linings can survive when situated within the cave break back
cracking zone. These shafts show only signs of minor damage.

Numerical analysis of ventilation passes in such ground conditions have shown that the closest a shaft or
pass can be situated to a cave glory hole is 40m. When shafts are situated closer than 70m from the glory

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 8

hole the ground strains and tilts exceed the recommended values of 1mm/m and 0.2mm/m, respectively
(McKinnon, 1989).

Observations from an Australian nickel mine indicate that mine buildings and other infrastructure can be
positioned in the region of 150m from the glory hole edge and remains intact.

Taking cognisance of the above observations it would be preferable if mine infrastructure was positioned
between 200 m to 260 m from the glory hole crest. Further to this, no major infrastructure should be sited
closer than 150 m from the glory hole crest. Table 1 gives guidelines in terms of excavation siting distances.
It should be noted, however, that these rules are for first pass analysis only and that the glory hole is defined
as the projection of the orebody mining boundary (or cave footprint) to surface, taking note of the plunge.

Table 1 General guidelines for the siting of infrastructure

Excavation type Siting distance

Shafts and main declines >200 m to 260 m from crest of the glory hole

Mine plant and buildings >200 m to 260 m from crest of the glory hole

U/G main infrastructure >70 m from ore body footprint,

unless undercut by orebody contact at lower level

Orebody access drives 10 m to 50 m from orebody contact

4 UNDERGROUND DAMAGE ZONES

Underground rock mass damage zones around a caving ore body can also be considered to consist of near
and far field components.

4.1 Near-field Cave Footprint Damage Zones

This is the zone of damage that occurs around the around the orebody contact or the cave footprint and the
extent of damage is some times known as the stand-off distance. The stand-off distance varies from 30 m to
50 m from the ore body contact in MRMR Class 4 and 3 ore bodies. Underground damage in this zone varies
from total drift collapse to small falls from the drift back. The magnitude of damage varies according to drift
structure and, in general, drift collapse occurs when blocky ground conditions or significant shear zones or
faults are present. It is good practice to document the break back angle from the end of the stand-off distance.

Drift collapse in the near-field is normally caused by relaxation of the rock mass towards the cave in this
area. A comparison of the stand-off distance with geotechnical conditions, as measured for two different
mines in South Africa and Western Australia, is given in Table 2.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 9

Table 2 Stand-off distances for near-field underground damage zones

Location Stand-off MRMR k Ratio (horizontal to vertical

Distance Class virgin stress ratio)

Large BC mine -
South Africa 20 m 30 m 3 0.5 1.0

Large SLC mine - Northern

Goldfields, WA 30 m 50 m 3-4 2.0

Observations from the Premier mine in South Africa during the late 1990s (Bartlett, 1997) show that stress
reductions of in the region of 1 MPa could cause falls of ground in the stand-off distance area. This stress
reduction or rock mass relaxation normally occurs with cave propagation. Determination of the stand-off
distance should only be done by underground observational measurement. However, numerical modelling
using some form of failure strength criterion can give a reasonable indication of the stand-off distance.

4.2 Far-field Cave Footprint Damage Zones

Experience from both Southern Africa and Australia (Butcher, 2003) has shown that damage is not only
confined to within 50 m of the ore body contact. Damage due to caving-related deformations can be
observed up to 250 m from the cave. This damage is normally associated with movements on geological
structures. Geological structures along which deformation can be expected to be seen include:

Shear zones orientated parallel to the orebody.

Faults that cross the orebody.

Dykes that intersect the orebody.

Damage is normally seen around such structures well before cave propagation occurs and the damage can
take the following forms:

Minor footwall lifting.

Small rock falls due to rock mass ravelling.

Scaling of tunnel sidewalls.

Support bulging.

It is generally good practice to increase support measures in such areas and support systems must have high
areal coverage.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 10

5 METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSIDENCE AND
CAVE BREAK BACK ZONES
The following methodology has been based on the experiences of Butcher (2003) and Brown (2003) and is
based on three main principles:

Determination of the glory hole by empirical means and structural assessment.

Confirmation of the macro deformation zone by numerical modelling.

Determination of zones of micro deformation by numerical modelling.

The process of determining these different zones of deformation is outlined in the following sub-sections.

5.1 Macro Deformations or Glory Hole

1. Project to surface to surface the outline of the ore body contacts form the different geological plans,
ensuring that any orebody plunge is accounted for. It is assumed that this area contained within the
contact boundaries will cave.

2. Use empirical, deterministic and structural methods to determine the break back zone around the
glory hole rim, as discussed below.

5.2 Glory Hole Break Back Determination

1. Use Karzulovics break back definition chart, Figure 4, to determine the break back angle and hence
the lateral extent of break back around the mining footprint. Alternatively the subsidence
determination graphs compiled by Flores and Karzulovic (2004) can be used. However, the latter
work is not yet public domain as this work was conducted for the International Caving Study Stage
II. It should be noted that break back angles tend to vary with depth, rock mass quality, muck pile
confinement and orebody width. Also, Laubschers (2000) method can used to determine the true
angle of break by assuming a fracture zone related to the rock quality (MRMR), with fracture zones
of 20 m to 40 m being considered applicable for most rock masses. As a general rule of thumb and
for first pass consideration for steeply inclined orebodies, break back angles tend to vary from 50 to
85. However, for the more shallow dipping orebodies, break back angles as flat as 45 have been
recorded. Therefore, as a very conservative rule of thumb, 45 should be considered as the break
back angle.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 11

Figure 4 Karzulovics break back definition chart (after Brown, 2003)

2. In cases where an open cut mine exists above the cave, the top of the glory hole is modified by the
presence of the open pit. The designed pit slope retards or modifies the formation of the glory hole
and this subsidence induced slope angle can be estimated from Haines and Terbrugges (1991) slope
angle design chart, see Figure 5. When using this method is used to predict subsidence modified pit
slope angles, low MRMR joint condition ratings and stress adjustments have to be used. This is to
attempt to model the effects of slope rock mass shear strength reduction during caving. As a rule of
thumb, the caving subsidence process tends to reduce overall slope angles by 2 to 4. This is due to
a reduction in rock mass cohesion attributed to slope ravelling. From the authors experience it has
been seen that MRMR stress adjustments as low as 60% have to be applied to pit slopes in such
situations.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 12

Figure 5 Slope angle design chart (after Haines & Terbrugge, 1991)

3. Use industrial experience to determine the reasonableness of the empirical subsidence and break
back predictions.

4. Check empirical and experiential predictions by using either Hoeks (1974) or Brown & Fergusons
(1979) methods to establish the cave break back angle. These methods predict subsidence by taking
cognisance of rock mass shear strength.

5. Conduct geological structural surveys and modify predicted subsidence and cave break back zones
according to the presence of faults, shear zones and other major structures. In this respect the need to
carry out deterministic analysis using kinematic methods is highlighted.

When determining subsidence and break back zones for a greenfields project it may be prudent to predict
break back from one block lower than the proposed block cave extraction level. This ensures that mine
infrastructure is not threatened by any future lower cave development and is known as the one block lower
rule for break back determination.

5.3 Micro Deformations

Once the glory hole has been defined it is necessary to confirm its shape and predict the surrounding micro
deformation zones of tilt and strain. Since this is a complex problem involving time, mining geometry, rock
mass properties and field stresses, it has to be done using sophisticated numerical modelling packages. It

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 13

should be realised that such work cannot be undertaken by empirical means and that the previous mentioned
assessments act as input data for the more sophisticated numerical analysis.

The following methodology is advocated for the prediction of micro deformations around the cave damaged
zone and the subsequent assessment of mine infrastructure stability:

1. Conduct preliminary numerical analyses to scope zones of micro deformation. 2D or 3D elastic

models (e.g. MINSIM, PHASES, NFOLD and MAP3-D) can be used for this purpose. These
analyses should only be used for scoping level studies because experience has shown that elastic
models tend to overestimate ground strain and tilts. This is attributed to the fact that the ground
strain relief normally associated with the opening of geological structures around a caving mining
can not be modelled using elastic programmes. This step is used to understand the magnitude and
sensitivity of the problem and determine if additional geotechnical investigations are required. This
stage also goes some way to confirm the empirical/structural glory hole predictions.

2. When the scoping exercise has been completed, determine the zones of micro deformation and the
magnitudes of ground strains and tilts using sophisticated 2D or 3D non-linear numerical modelling
programmes (e.g. FLAC, UDEC, 3-DEC and ABACUS). This is necessary because the micro
deformation zone surrounding the glory hole fracture zone is considered to be a zone of plastic
deformation. These methods will also confirm the size of the glory hole.

3. Assess the stability of mine surface infrastructure by comparing the results of the modelling with
empirical design guidelines, McKinnon (1989), Wagner and Schumann (1985) and the Subsidence
Engineers Handbook (NCB, 1975). Wagner and Schumann (1985) show the limits of acceptable
surface damage to be ground strains in the order of <0.5 mm/m and tilts of < 2.5 mm/m. During this
assessment it is important to liaise with civil and mechanical engineers as experience has shown that
foundations and mine mechanical services have a low tolerance to subsidence induced damage.

6 CONCLUSIONS
The history of mining has shown that with increased mill recoveries, better mining techniques and higher
metal prices, many mines become viable beyond their initial planned lifespan. Therefore, subsidence risks
become a strategic mine design consideration even if it is not anticipated that underground mining will occur
at the time of open pit project conception. In this respect, misunderstanding or under estimation of zones of
rock mass deformation around a caving operation can have serious implication in terms of future project
viability. As such, it is necessary to estimate with reasonable accuracy the areas where cave break and
subsidence will occur in order to reduce project risks. The evidence given in this paper shows that this can be
easily achieved by the application of a few simple rules and a good geotechnical engineering process that can
be applied at any project stage.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge permission of Dempers & Seymour Pty Ltd to publish this paper and the
support and contributions of Dr David Beck of Beck-Arndt Engineering in the compilation of this paper.

REFERENCES
Anon (1971) The Mufulira Disaster, Final Report, Republic of Zambia.
Bartlett, P.J. (1997) Planning a mechanized Block Cave with coarse fragmentation in Kimberlite, PHD Thesis,
University of Pretoria.
Beck, D. (2005) Personal communication.
Brown, E.T. (2003) Block caving Geomechanics, The international Caving Study Stage1 1997-2001, JKMRC,
University of Queensland 2003.
Brown, E.T. and Ferguson, G.A. (1979) Progressive hangingwall caving at Gaths mine Rhodesia, Trans. Instn. Min.
Metall., Sect. A: Min. Industry, 88: A92-105.
Butcher, R.J. (2003) Cave Mining Geomechanics, course notes, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth.
Butcher, R.J. (2005) Cave Mining Geomechanics, course notes, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth.
Calder, K., Townsend, P. and Russell, F. (2000) Palabora Underground Mine Project, Massmin 2000, Australian
Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, pp. 219 227. Brisbane.
Haines, A. and Terbrugge, P.J. (1991) Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass classification
systems, 7th Int Congr Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Aachen, Germany.
Heslop, T.G. (2000) Block Caving - Controllable Risk and Fatal Flaws, Massmin 2000, Australian Institute of Mining
& Metallurgy, pp. 437 1457, Brisbane.
Hoek, E. (1974) Progressive caving induced by mining on an inclined ore body, Trans. Instn. Min. Metall, Vol. 83,
A133-9.
Calder, K., Townsend, P. and Russell, F. (2000) The Palabora Underground Mine Project, Proc. MASSMIN, Australian
Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, pp. 219-227, Brisbane.
Flores, G. and Karzulovic, A. (2004) Subsidence Guidelines, prepared for International Caving Study, Stage II,
JKMRC: Brisbane.
Laubscher, D.H. (2000) Block Caving Manual, prepared for International Caving Study, JKMRC and Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc: Brisbane.
Lupo, J.F. (1998) Large-scale surface disturbance resulting from underground mass mining, Inst. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. Vol. 35:4-5, paper no 25.
McKinnon, S.D. (1989) Protection of deep vertical shaft systems, Phd Thesis, University of the Witwaterand.
NCB (1975) Subsidence Engineers Handbook, 2nd edition (rev), National Coal Board Mining Dept, London.
Stacey, T.R. and Terbrugge, P.J. (2000) Open pit to underground - Transition and interaction, Proc. MASSMIN,
Australian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, pp. 97-105, Brisbane.
Stacey, T.R. and Swart, A. (2001) Practical rock engineering practice for shallow and opencast mines, SIMRAC, Safety
in Mines Research Advisory Committee, South Africa, Report OTH602.
Wagner, H. and Schumann, E.H.R. (1985) The effects of total coal seam extraction on the surface and surface
structures, Chamber of Mines of South Africa Research Organisation, Report No. 20/85 to the Strata Control
Advisory Committee, Coal Mining Research Controlling Council.

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 15

Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining 2006, Section 35, Page 16