You are on page 1of 5

SME Annual Meeting Feb. 27-Mar.

02, 2011, Denver, CO

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.

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO


In this method, the ore fractures and breaks by itself due to the internal stresses and forces. A minimum of drilling and blasting is required for the production operation. The take is divided into large blocks usually with a horizontal and square cross section of more than 1,000 m^2. Each block is undercut completely by a horizontal slot. Gravity forces of millions of tons act on the rock masses and successive fracturing occurs, affecting the entire block. As the rock pressure increases at the bottom of the block, the ore is crushed to a fragmentation that allows removal through draw points or any other type of arrangement. Areas of sufficient size are removed by undercutting so that the mass above will cave naturally. Drawing of the caved ore at the bottom of the ore column causes the caving action to continue upward until all of the ore above the undercut level is broken into sizes suitable for handling. When properly applied, block caving results in a lower mining cost per ton than any other underground method [15]. Block caving in its various forms is applicable to deposits of various shapes and ores of various strengths. Its success is governed by rigid requirements and limitations. In unsuitable deposits or where improperly employed, the loss of ore may exceed that of any other mining method. Good planning, systematic work procedures, careful supervision, and good judgment contribute to its success. This is the only underground mining method which can potentially reach to a production and cost level equal to surface mining methods. However this method has some advantages and disadvantages [14]: Advantages of Block Caving The advantages of block caving are: (1) mining is inexpensive compared to other systems since relatively little drilling, blasting, and timbering are done per ton of ore and the amount of development work per ton is small; (2) centralized production permits efficient supervision resulting in higher man productivity and a good control of safe working conditions; (3) control of ventilation is less complex compared to other mining systems; (4) production can be maintained at a relatively high rate; and (5) the system is suitable to ore bodies of relatively low grade. Disadvantages of Block Caving The disadvantages of block caving are: (1) preparing blocks for caving requires more lime and money than other systems before production is attained; (2) maintaining drifts in the draw area can be costly and will interfere with production; (3) varying production under increased demand for the product requires a long time interval to prepare additional blocks for production; (4) stoppage of ore drawing for a considerable time may result in complete loss of the development openings in the area involved if it is subject to weight concentrations; (5) ore recovery can be low due to adverse conditions, and there is constant danger of losing large amounts of ore if good draw practice is not followed; and (6) the method h inflexible once started- a change to another underground mining method is difficult. RISK ASSESSMENT IN CAVE MINING Risk is a major part of the mining ventures particularly in cave mining. Correct identification and management of such risks decrease project costs and lead to more achievements of the project goals. Hence, the procedure of assessment and management of risks in cave mining, should be considered as an important stage in feasibility study and design of these projects. Risk management, as a part of project management, is a complex and multi step procedure that generally considered as a continuous cycle. Both caving and fragmentation are operations that cannot be predicted or controlled. This may create certain hazards .Unexpected hang-ups of large boulders can cause serious problems that cannot be solved easily, especially in the surrounding material that is already fractured. Feasibility studies for caving mines should always incorporate two components [8]: Emphasis on independent reviews at various stages in the study, for both Pre- and full Feasibility Studies, and Rigorous risk assessment at all stages of investigation, and continuing into operations as a crucial management tool, with well defined triggers, responses, and accountabilities.

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

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO


methods. Due to nature of these techniques, they can be used in evaluating and ranking of risks. One of these methods is the Technique For Order Preference By Similarity To Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), which was used previously in many of researches for evaluating of alternatives based on various criteria. As seen, the evaluating and ranking the risks is very like to a multi criteria decision making problem in which some alternatives(in here risks) should be evaluated and ranked according to some criteria. In this research, the P-I Matrix traditional method and the TOPSIS method are introduced, and then the results of assessment of the risks in cave mining by these methods are investigated. Finally the outcomes are compared and concluded. P-I Matrix Method The P-I Matrix is one of the most common techniques for risk assessment in projects that is being used for long time. In this method, by forming a matrix including two important criteria, probability and impact, the risks will be evaluated. The risk score will be calculated by multiplying the probability with impact. By sorting these numbers, the risks are ranked based on these two important criteria. The results of the P-I Matrix are shown as in Table 4. Table 4. The analysis and ranking results from P-I Matrix. Risk Score Risk Risk Rank 0.81 R28 1 0.81 R13 2 0.81 R10 3 0.63 R6 4 0.63 R3 5 0.63 R22 6 0.63 R20 7 0.63 R12 8 0.49 R30 9 0.49 R18 10 0.49 R14 11 0.49 R11 12 0.45 R4 13 0.45 R23 14 0.45 R16 15 0.35 R7 16 0.35 R31 17 0.35 R21 18 0.35 R2 19 0.35 R19 20 0.35 R15 21 0.35 R1 22 0.27 R5 23 0.27 R32 24 0.27 R26 25 0.27 R17 26 0.21 R9 27 0.15 R8 28 0.15 R29 29 0.15 R24 30 0.05 R25 31 0.03 R27 32 Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) The TOPSIS proposed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) [16], is a multiple criteria method to identify solutions from a finite set of alternatives. The basic principle is that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution. The procedure of TOPSIS can be expressed as follows: At the first step, the decision matrix (D) should be created:

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)

r11 L r1m R= M L L rn1 L rnm

(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)

Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution is:

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

0 , then, clearly, C J [0,1].

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)

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO


Table 5. The analysis and ranking results from TOPSIS. CJ Index Risk Rank 0.941137 R28 1 0.934634 R20 2 0.918441 R16 3 0.79924 R6 4 0.789187 R14 5 0.789187 R18 6 0.726279 R30 7 0.715789 R3 8 0.71557 R1 9 0.71557 R15 10 0.711049 R13 11 0.70956 R10 12 0.702602 R4 13 0.61958 R31 14 0.619438 R12 15 0.617683 R21 16 0.617485 R11 17 0.551165 R2 18 0.548631 R7 19 0.545777 R19 20 0.529025 R22 21 0.479345 R5 22 0.455604 R23 23 0.39753 R32 24 0.390578 R9 25 0.287015 R17 26 0.286908 R8 27 0.284938 R26 28 0.274358 R29 29 0.219533 R24 30 0.178915 R27 31 0.042396 R25 32 The results and comparisons of both methods are presented in Table 6. According to the results, there are significant differences among the risk ranks obtained from the two methods. These differences can be explained from two points of view: In TOPSIS method four criteria are applied. Out of these the manageability and uncertainty, are used in P-I Matrix method. For this, the analysis with TOPSIS method considers more criteria and also the possibility of allocating different weights to these criteria, is more accurate and more reliable The differences in the results and ranks may refer to the risk score in these methods. The risk score in P-I Matrix method is calculated with multiplying the probability by the impact, while the risk scorer in TOPSIS are calculated from a more complex and accurate procefures. Table 6. Comparisons of the results of both methods. Risk TOPSIS Method P - I Matrix Method R1 9 22 R2 18 19 R3 8 5 R4 13 13 R5 22 23 R6 4 4 R7 19 16 R8 27 28 R9 25 27 R10 12 3 R11 17 12 R12 15 8 R13 11 2 R14 5 11 R15 10 21 R16 3 15 R17 26 26 R18 6 10 R19 20 20 R20 2 7 R21 16 18 R22 21 6 R23 23 14 R24 30 30 R25 32 31 R26 28 25 R27 31 32 R28 1 1 R29 29 29 R30 7 9 R31 14 17 R32 24 24 CONCLUSIONS Mining projects due to various parameters and sources of uncertainty in whole of their life cycle are always considered as high risk projects. Cave mining projects, in spite of low cost operations, are counted as the risky projects. In time and proper identification, assessment and then management of risks in these projects leads to decrease the danger of losing sources (capital, time, human,), increases the chance of a successful operation and hence will extend the application of such projects. In this research, by preparing a questioner, the major risks of caving methods were identified and then the judgments of experts about these risks were collected based on four criteria, probability, impact, manageability and uncertainty. Afterwards, the risks were evaluated and ranked using P-I Matrix and TOPSIS methods. In conventional P-I Matrix method, only two criteria, probability and impact, were included in the analysis but in TOPSIS method, besides of these criteria, another two criteria, manageability and uncertainty, were applied. As the result, in addition of using more criteria for the risk evaluation by TOPSIS, different weights allocated to these criteria based on experts judgments, and, in comparison with P-I Matrix method, the results are more accurate and more realistic. Therefore the risk are ranked better and managed more efficient by using TOPSIS method. Finally, TOPSIS can be considered as a suitable and

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.

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO


efficient managerial decision-making tool for risk assessment in block cave mining projects. REFERENCES 1. Snowden, D.V., Glacken, I. And Nopp, M.A., (2002),Dealing With Demands Of Technical Variability And Uncertainty Along The Mine Value Chain, In Proceedings, Value Tracking Symposium. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, p. 93-100. Dominy S.C., Nopp M.A. And Annels A.E., (2002), Errors And Uncertainty In Mineral Resource And Ore Reserve Estimation: The Importance Of Getting It Right, Explor. Mining Geol., Vol. 11, Nos. 1-4, Pp. 7798. Hebblewhite B K, (2003), Management of geotechnical risks in mining projects, school of mining engineering, the University of New South Wales, Australia. Berry M., (2007), Effective Geology is Still the Key Link to Success in the Mining Chain, AMC Internal Paper. Kazakidis V.N. and Scoble M., (2002), Planning for flexibility in underground mine production systems, Technical paper, SME Publications. Dunbar, W.S., Dessureault, S., and Scoble, M., (1998), Modeling of flexible mining systems, 100th Annual General Meeting, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Montreal, Quebec, 8 pp. Smith, L.D., (1995), Discount rates and risk assessment in mineral project evaluation, Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Bulletin, 88, No. 989, pp. 34-43. Krantz D. and Scott T., (1992), Hard-rock mining: Method selection summary, Chapter 21.3, SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Second Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1850-1853. Struthers M A, (2004)., Feasibility studies for caving operationsThe "State of the Art", in Proceedings Massmin, Santiago Chile, 22-25 August2004, pp 71-74.

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.

Copyright 2011 by SME

You might also like