Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
The most important objective of the strategic mine planning
process consists in maximising the expected economic
or net present value (Davis and Newman, 2008). This is
achieved by mining and processing the ore reserves, and
the marketing, smelting and refining of the concentrates or
products over the projected mine life. The maximisation of the
expected economic or net present value can be determined by
applying current state-of-the-art cut-off grade optimisation
methodologies (Lane, 1964, 1979, 1988; Rudenno, 1979;
Lane et al, 1984; Dagdelen,1993). These methodologies are
fundamentally based on the spatial distribution of orebody
grades. In addition, account can be made of reasonable static
and dynamic assumptions on some of the modifying factors in
converting mineral resources to ore reserves (eg JORC, 2004;
Napier, 1983; Baird and Satchwell, 2001; Asad, 2005).
1. Executive Geometallurgical Consultant, CAE Mining, Level 23, 333 Ann Street, Brisbane Qld 4000. Email: gts@datamine.co.uk
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
263
G TURNER-SAAD
Geometallurgical
Resources
Mining
Design
Mining
Design
Ore
Reserves
Ore
Reserves
Mining
Sequence
Mining
Sequence
Mining
Production
Mining
Production
Processing
Production
Processing
Production
Smelting
Production
Smelting
Production
Refining
Production
Refining
Production
METHODOLOGY
In this study, the objective of the geometallurgical optimisation
process is to maximise the expected economic value of underground cut-and-fill mining and mineral processing operations.
The estimation of expected economic value throughout
this methodology is based a function of static and dynamic
technical and financial factors over the projected mine life.
The essence of the methodology resides in defining optimum:
Objective function
The objective function consists in maximising the realistic
expected economic or net present value of concentrates
or products of liberated and selected ore minerals whilst
minimising liberated and selected gangue minerals.
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT
Geological constraints
The aim of the geological constraints consists of selecting
orebodies, domains and resource categories in a specific time
period of the projected mine life. Consequently, a variety of
scenarios can be analysed with this group of constraints.
Mining constraints
The mining constrains simultaneously define the stope geometry, reserves, mining sequence and production of ore and
gangue minerals over the projected life of mining operations.
It is performed by constraining the quantity and quality of ore
and gangue minerals.
The mining constraints define the level intervals, stope
dimensions and locations, cut heights, pillar dimensions and
locations for each orebody. The levels, stopes and cuts can be
also selected in a specific time period to assess any particular
mining scenario.
In addition, a number of mining constraints related to the
underground cut-and-fill mining cycle (Hustrulid and Bullock,
2001) were established in the formulation. Furthermore, mine
capacity, level, stope and cut productivities, mineralogical and
textural characteristics, internal and wall dilution and cut-off
of liberated and selected ore minerals are also considered.
The stope geometry is then generated by differential cut-off
of liberated and selected ore and gangue minerals that vary
in both horizontally and vertically directions across levels,
stopes and cuts.
The reserves consist of those blocks included in the mining
production of ore and gangue minerals. The optimal solution
defines the quantity and quality of the diluted and blended
reserves blocks to be mined and processed for each time
period and by orebody, domain, level, stope and cut.
Processing constraints
The quantity and quality of liberated and selected ore and
gangue minerals in concentrates or products is controlled by
a group of constraints based on mineral processing liberation
and selectivity parameters.
The additive and non-additive transfer functions defined
for each domain calculate the quantity and quality of the
concentrates or products according to the mineral processing
capacity.
Normally, a static mineral processing recovery function is
applied to determine the recovered metal content of specific
commodity. However, dynamic mineral processing recovery
transfer functions can be applied in the formulation based on
the geometallurgical characteristics and properties of the ore
minerals in each domain (Bojcevski, 2003). The expected net
smelter return value could then vary significantly depending
Marketing constraints
The quantity of liberated and selected ore and gangue minerals
in concentrates or products are limited by this group of
constraints and based on the market demand or smelters and
refineries short, medium- and long-term sales agreements.
Smelting constraints
This group of constraints restricts the quality of liberated and
selected ore minerals in concentrates. These constraints also
limit the production capacity of the smelter.
Refining constraints
The refining constraints group controls the quality of liberated
and selected ore minerals in concentrates or products. In
addition, this group of constraints limits the production
capacity of the refinery.
Environmental constraints
The main purpose of this group of constraints consists
limits the quality of liberated and selected gangue or deleterious minerals abundance in waste materials, tailings
and concentrates or products, that in some way have an
environmental impact.
Financial constraints
This group of constraints controls the mining, processing,
marketing, smelting, refining and environmental fixed
and variable operating costs for each time period over the
projected mine life.
APPLICATION
A case study was considered to demonstrate the capability of
integrating the cut-off of liberated and selected ore minerals
and the joint cut-and-fill mining and mineral processing
optimisations. The assessment of the integrated optimisation
was performed throughout the definition of several scenarios.
Each scenario included the combinations of static and
dynamic modifying factors over the projected mine life.
The geologic setting of the case study consists of several
mesothermal and pyrometasomatic replacement orebodies in
a thick limestone sequence. The mineralisation is composed
of mainly massive galena and sphalerite with amounts
of chalcopyrite associated with pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite,
silicates, sulfates and carbonates.
Two structural and geometric types of orebodies have been
identified within the project:
1. a gently dipping sheet, and
2. steeply plunging chimneys.
The sheet orebodies comprise a combination of silicates
and sulfides, whilst the chimneys are dominated by sulfides
with or without silicates. One of the irregular sheet orebodies
was used as the case study, which represents a metasomatic
replacement system. A long-section model of the orebody is
shown in Figure 2.
A geometallurgical multivariate resource model of
the orebody was previously generated and accessed as
fundamental to the optimisation process. The resource
model comprised the spatial variability of mineralogical and
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
265
G TURNER-SAAD
geological constraints:
static orebody and domains; and
static measured and indicated mineral resources;
mining constraints:
static limits of level intervals;
static limits of stope dimensions and locations;
static limits of cut heights;
static limits of pillar dimensions and locations;
static limits of levels, stopes and cuts dilution rates;
static limits of levels, stopes and cuts productivities; and
static limits of ore and waste production capacities;
Abundance [%]
Association [%]
Liberation [%]
FIG 3 - The galena abundance (per cent), association (per cent), particle size (microns) and liberation (per cent) spatial models of the case study orebody.
266
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT
Throughput [tph]
FIG 4 - The feed size F80 (mm), product size P80 (microns), throughput (t/h) and energy consumption (kWh/t) spatial models of the case study orebody.
processing constraints:
static limits of ore production capacity;
static limits of ore minerals abundance;
dynamic limits of liberation or comminution
properties; and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties;
marketing constraints:
static limits of marketing costs;
static limits of shipping costs; and
static limits of treatment costs;
smelting constraints:
static limits of concentrates production capacity; and
dynamic limits of ore minerals abundance.
refining constraints:
static limits of products production capacity; and
dynamic limits of ore minerals abundance.
environmental constraints:
static limits of deleterious minerals abundances in
waste;
static limits of deleterious minerals abundances in
tailings; and
static limits of deleterious minerals abundances in
concentrates or products;
financial constraints:
static limits of mining, processing, smelting and
refining fixed and variable operating costs;
static limits of discount rate; and
dynamic limits of metal prices.
The geological, mining, marketing, smelting, refining,
environmental and financial constraints of scenarios 2, 3
and 4 were similar to scenario 1. The only difference was in the
processing constraints and specifically in defining the static
processing constraints:
static limits production capacity of ore,
static limits of ore minerals abundance,
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
energy consumption (kWh/t),
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
throughput (t/h), and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties.
Scenario 4:
processing constraints:
static limits production capacity of ore,
static limits of ore minerals abundance,
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
energy consumption (kWh/t),
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
throughput (t/h),
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
product size P80 (microns), and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties.
In summary, the objectives of the four scenarios consisted of
assessing the impact of relaxing and constraining the energy
consumption (kWh/t), throughput (t/h) and product size P80
(microns).
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
267
G TURNER-SAAD
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
Ore:Material Ratio
PDF [%]
CDF [%]
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Product:Material Ratio
3.0
Abundance [%]
Probability Density Function
FIG 5 - The dynamic probability density function (per cent) and cumulative
distribution function (per cent) of the galena abundance (per cent) of each
time period over the projected mine life.
The quantity (t) quality (per cent) cut-off of liberated and
selected ore minerals (per cent) plot in Figure 6, also confirm
that the resource model was updated dynamically in each time
period. This means that the quantity and quality of the galena
is decreasing in every time period and subsequently the cutoff of liberated and selected ore minerals as well.
Liberated and Selected Galena
Quality [%]
Quantity [t]
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
Product:Ore Ratio
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
Material
FIG 6 - The dynamic quantity (t) (material) - quality (per cent) (average of
galena abundance) - cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per cent) of
each time period over the projected mine life.
268
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
Mine Production
CONCLUSIONS
Concentrator Production
Refinery Production
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
Mine Profit
Concentrator Profit
Refinery Profit
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cut-Off [%]
Mine Value
Concentrator Value
Refinery Value
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FIG 8 - The dynamic mine, concentrator and refinery productions (t) (top),
profits ($) (middle) and present value ($) (bottom) by cut-off of liberated and
selected galena (per cent) for each time period over the projected mine life.
REFERENCES
10
15
20
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
10
15
20
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
FIG 9 - The dynamic optimum cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per cent) (left) and average of galena abundance (per cent) (right)
over the projected mine life.
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
269
G TURNER-SAAD
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
10
15
20
10
Ore [t]
Product [t]
Profit [$]
Material [t]
Ore [t]
Scenario 3
10
Ore [t]
20
Product [t]
Profit [$]
Scenario 4
15
20
10
15
15
20
Product [t]
Profit [$]
Material [t]
Ore [t]
Product [t]
Profit [$]
FIG 10 - The dynamic material (t), ore (t), concentrate or product (t) productions and profits ($) over the projected mine life.
10
15
20
10
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
15
20
Scenario 1
Scenario 4
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
10
15
20
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
FIG 11 - The energy consumption (kWh/t) (top), throughput (t/h) (middle) and product size P80 (microns) (bottom) of the liberation process over the projected mine life.
270
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
FIG 12 - The stope geometries and mining sequences of a cut-and-fill mining over the projected mine life.
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
FIG 13 - The spatial distribution of the cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per cent) of a cut-and-fill mining over the projected mine life.
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
271
G TURNER-SAAD
Asad, M W A, 2005. Cut-off grade optimization algorithm for open
pit mining operations with consideration of dynamic metal price
and cost escalation during mine life, in Proceedings APCOM
2005, Tucson, Arizona, pp 273-277 (A A Balkema Publishers).
Ataee-pour, M and Baafi, E Y, 1998. Implementation of a heuristic
algorithm to optimise stope limits with excel modules, in
Proceedings APCOM 1998, Kalgoorlie, pp 161-164.
Baird, B K and Satchwell, P C, 2001. Application of economic
parameters and cutoffs during and after pit optimization, Mining
Engineering, 53(2):33-40.
Bojcevski, D, 2003. Metallurgical Characterisation of George
Fisher Mesotextures and Microtextures, 369 p (The University of
Queensland: Brisbane).
Dagdelen, K, 1993. An NPV maximization algorithm for open
pit mine design, in Proceedings APCOM XXIV Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry,
pp 257-263 (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Petroleum: Montreal).
Davis, G A and Newman, A M, 2008. Modern strategic mine
planning, in Proceedings 2008 Australian Mining Technology
Conference, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, pp 1-13.
Fourer, R, Gay, D M and Kernigham, B W, 1993. AMP A Modelling
Language for Mathematical Programming, 351 p (Boyd &
Fraser Publishing Company, International Thomson Publishing:
Danvers).
272
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011