Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preprint 11-057
RISK ASSESSMENT IN BLOCK CAVE MINING K. Oraee, Univ. of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK M. H. Basiri, Tarbiat Modares Univ., Tehran, Iran M. H. Sajidan, Tarbiat Modares Univ., Tehran, Iran M. Hayati, Tarbiat Modares Univ., Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT Mining Ventures are considered as high risk projects and therefore managing the risks is inevitable. Risk assessment is an important part of the complex process of risk management, hence applying appropriated and practical methods for ranking the risks associated with projects, can help to perform a better risk management. In this research the applicability of using Techniques for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method for risk ranking in an underground mine, extracting by block caving method, was studied. Via this method, the risk associated with reserve estimation ranked as the first while in conventional method (P-I Matrix method) located in the sixteenth. Also there were significant differences in ranks of the other risks. Considering the more criteria, with different weights, in comparison with conventional methods, the results comprised from TOPSIS method are more reliable. By implementing this method risks are ranked better and more realistic and consequently then will be managed more efficient. Keywords: TOPSIS Block Cave Mining, Risk Management, Risk Ranking, INTRODUCTION The risks associated with mining are complex and varied that are mainly caused due to uncertainties from insufficient information about the ground conditions, fluctuations in mineral markets, high volume of investment, environmental impacts, and complexities in design, planning and operation. In mining, the dominant source of risk is the ore body itself [1]), and an efficient mining is effectively about managing risk [2]. In the project feasibility study, the risks should be identified and, in some extent, quantified. It is suggested that when the feasibility study is being conducted, the various core risks, as a part of the evaluation process, must be considered for selecting the mining method and establishing the viability of the project [3]. The sources of risks in mining projects were studied and categorized in two general types. The problems (risks) related to the geological input data comprise %66 and % 44 belongs to those that are not related [4]. Generally, the risk resources in mining projects can be divided into internal and external risks [5-8]: Internal risks are mainly referred to the project. In mining projects, the internal sources of risk and uncertainty are dictated by the deposit itself. The internal sources in a mining project are related, for example, to grade distribution, ground conditions, workforce, management/operating team, equipment and infrastructure. External risks are determined by outside considerations, such as business or market requirements. The external sources include market prices, environmental conditions, political/country risk, community relations, industrial relations, stakeholder issues, legislation and government policy.
However, so many of these risks must be and can be recognized and controlled. Therefore identifying and managing of such risks should be considered as an accepted issue for mining companies through the mining project life cycle. Design for caving methods of mining remains one of the most significant challenges in mining geomechanics and engineering , particularly in green-field sites [9], and this challenges are some of main causes of risks in these projects. In time and proper management of such risks can minimize the probability of destructive incidents that might strike the goals of a project PMBOK defines project risk as an uncertain event or condition that, if occurs, has a positive or a negative effect on at least one project objective, such as time, cost, scope, or quality [10]. Risk management is one of the most important issues in project management [11], and is an organized process for identification, assessment and respond to the risks involved in a project [12]. The risk characters which referred in this paper include any incident or consequence that can have a negative effect on caving project objectives. It is presented that the risks are affecting the whole parts of mining projects that necessitate the evaluation and management of these risks. CAVE MINING METHODS Caving mining methods that are based on a planned caving of rock above and/or at times surrounding the material being mined can be classified in three broad categories: long-wall mining , sublevel caving, and block caving. Each requires a relatively large, regular, and predictable ore body. As a rule, the effect of mining results in some form of impact or change on the surface [13]. Generally, caving methods are based on the principle of fracturing the ore and the rocks around it, under more or less controlled conditions. These methods are applicable in many types of ore bodies, in dimension and grades. Two concerns, waste dilution and ore loss; are the disadvantages that cannot always be accepted. Some of the ore therefore inevitably remains in the caved area (ore loss) and cannot be recovered. Dilution is therefore another inevitable occurrence in the method. Block Caving Method Block caving is a general term that refers to a mass mining system where the extraction of the ore depends largely on the action of gravity. By removing a thin horizontal layer at the mining level of the ore column, using standard mining methods, the vertical support of the ore column above is removed and the ore then caves by gravity. As broken ore is removed from the mining level of the ore column, the ore above continues to break and cave by gravity[14]. Block caving is a distinct caving method, applied mostly to large and massive ore bodies. Inherent to the method is low cost and high production capability but generally, it is a high initial investment and high risk method.
As the first step in risk management process, the risks should be investigated and recognized. For this, by interviewing with relevant experts, the major risks that generally are subjected to cave mining were identified and listed. Some of the major risks that were identified in this stage are presented in Table 1. Table 1. The major risks identified in caving methods. No. Risk 1. Geotechnical 3. Rock burst 5. Seismic 7. Flooding 9. Illness 11. Environmental 13. Supporting system selection 15. Draw point blockage 17. Fires 19. Spontaneous combustion 21. Mud rush 23. Ground water 25. Collisions 27. Supplies cost 29. Delays in supplies 31. Inaccurate Planning No. Risk 2. Collapse 4. Over break 6. Fall from height 8. Toxic gas emission 10. Surface subsidence 12. Design (chute, levels,) height of
14. Dilution 16. Operation stoppage 18. Ore cohesion 20. Windblast 22. Roof fall 24. Machinery down time 26. Earthquakes 28. Reserves estimation 30. Technical problems 32. Lack of skilled labor
After identification of the risks of cave mining, the experts were requested to evaluate these risks according to four criteria, probability, uncertainty, effect and manageability based on a qualitative scale from very low to very much. The criteria used in evaluating with a short description and the allocated weights are shown in Table 2. Table 2. The applied criteria, description and weights. Criterion Manageability Impact Uncertainty Probability The enterprise ability for Risk The risk The forecasting the negative assessment evaluator risks impact on uncertainties expectation Description occurrence, the project that evaluator of risk abilities of objectives is faced with occurrence management and response 0.341 0.061 0.091 0.507 Weight The scale used for collecting the expert judgments is shown in Table 3. Table 3. The scale for collecting the expert judgments. Scale Very Low Low Medium High E D C B Parameter 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 Value Very High A 0.9
There are several approaches has been developed for quantitative assessment of uncertain variables. In recent years, it is a considerable extension in applying the multi criteria decision making
x11 L x1m D= M L L x n1 L x nm
Then the normalized decision matrix is calculated using Eq. 2 and denoted by R
= (rij ) n m
rij =
xi j
x
i =1
i = 1,..., n , j = 1,..., m
2 ij
(2)
(3)
If W is the criteria weighting matrix, then the weighted normalized decision matrix R can be calculated by Eq. 5.
w1 W = M 0
L 0 w2 L L L wn
(4)
V= W R
(5)
Since V components values are in the range [0, 1], the positive and negative ideal solutions can be calculated using Eqs.6 and 7. To calculate the separation measures, N-dimensional Euclidean distance is used. The separation of each alternative from the ideal solution is given as:
S+ j =
(v
n i =1
ij
vi+
j = 1,..., n
(6)
S j =
(v
n i =1
ij
vi
j = 1,..., n
(7)
To calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution, the + relative closeness of the alternative Aj with respect to A is defined as
Cj =
Since
SJ 0
Sj
+
Sj + Sj
+
j = 1,..., n
(8)
and S J
In this way, the alternatives are ranked according to their relative closeness to the ideal solution. The higher the CJ, the better is the alternative Aj. The best alternative is the one with the greatest relative closeness among the alternatives. The results from TOPSIS method is shown in Table 5. The risks of reserve estimation, supporting system selection and subsidence are the most important risks in block caving from the P-I Matrix method while in the TOPSIS, regarding the four applied criteria, the risk related to reserve estimation is still the first in rank, and the risk of windblast and operation stoppage are seated in the next ranks respectively.
D = ( xij ) nm
(1)
Therefore, the P-I Matrix method, due to using only two criteria, probability and impa, is more simple and understandable. However it cannot include whatever the management is faced in design and execution. The TOPSIS method, with a more flexibility in applying different criteria, overcomes this deficiency and hence its results are more applicable and realistic for managers. After identification and assessment of risks, a program for risk management are codified, which is a complex and time consuming process. For example, the risks relevant to reserve estimation can be decreased, by using more accurate estimation methods, more skilled estimators, and increasing the geological studies before operation. The risk associated with windblast can be controlled and decreased by a more detailed geomechanical studies and continuous controlling the stress conditions in the region via utilizing real-time monitoring systems and anticipating discretionary actions.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), (2000) ed. Chapter 11, Project Management Institute. 11. Turner J.R., (1999), The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Improving the processes for achieving strategic objectives. London: McGraw-Hill. 12. Pritchard C. L., (2001), Risk Management Concepts and Guidance (2nd Edition). Virginia: ESI International. 13. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Underground Mining: Caving Methods, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. Littleton, Colorado (1992), 2nd Edition, Vol. 2, Section 20., Chapter 20.0, pp. 1779-1780. 14. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. Littleton, Colorado (1992), 2nd Edition, Vol 2, Section 20, Underground Mining: Caving Methods, Chapter 20.3, Block Caving, pp. 1815-1836. 15. Tobie, R.L. and Julin, D.E., (1982), "Block caving", in: Underground mining methods handbook, Editor: Hustrulid, W.A., Sec. 4, Chap. 1, PP 967- 972. 16. Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple attribute decision makingmethods and applications, a state-of-the-art survey. New York: Springer-Verlag.