20 Santiago Chile, May 2006 Fragblast-8

INTRODUCTION
The principal mission of the Mining Department is to
provide to the processing plant a mineral in optimal
condition for its subsequent treatment, either at the lowest
cost or at the highest possible production rate, depending
on the management philosophy of the mining operation. Of
high importance also are the requirements to minimize the
environmental impact, to ensure a strong community
benefit, and to provide a safe and rewarding working
environment.
To win the mineral, it is usually necessary to remove
large quantities of waste or low-grade material, the
quantities of which are generally much greater than the
quantities of ore being mined and processed. It is
common, in the copper mining industry of Chile and Peru,
to have a stripping ratio in the order of 3/1; this being
larger still in the mining of gold, reaching levels
approaching 20/1. As far as the operations in the pit are
concerned, the primary cost item then becomes the
waste, not the ore, due to the greater quantities and
longer haul distances. It isnt unusual to see the primary
focus directed towards the production of mineral to the
plant, while the extraction of waste attracts insufficient
attention to permit optimization of the total mineral
recovery process. The specific mission of blasting is,
therefore, to pre-condition the rock, either mineral or
waste, for its subsequent treatment in the most
economical way possible for the whole business.
The first step of the comminution process is blasting.

This is nothing more than the application of external

energy for the size reduction of the material. The task
therefore, is to utilize the explosive energy in the most
efficient means, such that all the subsequent processes
can generate the highest possible value to the operation.
In this context, blasting complements the subsequent
crushing and grinding stages of the comminution
process, since breakage occurring in the pit represents
a reduction in work required in the crushers and grinding
circuits.
When we speak of material pre-conditioning for its
subsequent treatment, the first and obvious
beneficiaries of optimized pre-conditioning are the
excavators and trucks. Well fragmented material
promotes high shovel productivity, reduced truck
loading times, reduced maintenance, and reduced wear
rates on bucket teeth and tray bodies. The data is
difficult to procure, but there is strong evidence
(McKenzie, 2005,) that good fragmentation leads to
reduced bucket-fill times (Figure 2), increased bucket
fill factors (Figure 2), and reduced shovel and truck
maintenance costs, and these benefits apply equally to
both ore and waste. The influence of fragmentation is
perhaps a little surprising when the size of the
excavating equipment is considered the data in
Figures 1 and 2 were obtained from P&H 4100A shovels,
and the estimated d80 sizes (sieve size through which
80% of material will pass) for the material being
excavated were estimated to be 150 mm (ore) and 400
mm (waste). Compared with the bucket size of 42 m3,

these blast fragment sizes seem small, but the data

clearly shows a difference in terms of bucket fill times,
bucket fill factors, and truck load times.
The assertion that waste material does not require the
same degree of fragmentation as ore may therefore be
only partly true if finer fragmentation in waste leads to
lower removal costs and higher removal rates, the
justification for finer blasting in waste material may be
easier to make. In the data obtained from this study,
diggability (i.e. the tonnes loaded per bucket divided by
the bucket fill time averaged over the entire blast) is 20
to 25% higher in ore than in waste. If the waste could
be excavated 20 to 25% faster, in line with shovel
performance in ore, what additional VALUE would this
bring to the total operation?
Figure 1: Comparison of bucket fill times for different
materials.
The Impact of Blasting
on the Business of Mining
Carlos Orlandi1 & Cameron McKenzie2
1 Enaex S.A., Chile (corlandi@enaex.cl), chairman organizing committee
Fragblast
2 Blastechnology, Australia (Cameron@blastechnology.com)
Fragblast-8 Santiago Chile, May 2006 21
Figure 2: Reduced bucket fill times and increased bucket
fill factors in ore (powder factor 350 g/t) compared with
waste (powder factor 250 g/t), based on several hundred
truckloads for each blast (after McKenzie, 2005).
Other beneficiaries lie outside the confines of the pit, and
include the primary crusher and even subsequent milling

(SAG or AG mills). Studies have demonstrated the

importance of the creation of micro-fractures in the mineral
in facilitating both crushing and grinding (Nielsen &
Kristiansen, 1996, Eloranta, 2001, Fribla & Orlandi, 2000,
Paley & Kojovic, 2001, Katsabanis et al, 2003) through
decreasing the work index, and likewise in the increased
efficiency of leaching through the increased specific
surface area (Fribla et al, 2001).
PRODUCTION CHAIN V VALUE CHAIN
The Mining Process, when considered in its full context,
consists of many separate stages or sub-processes such
as drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, crushing, grinding,
flotation, etc. These sub-processes make up the Production
Chain, and each one of the stages of a chain is needed for
the creation of the final product. Each one of these stages
must contribute VALUE to the business. Optimization
has to consider the value and profitability of the total
business, and not a focus on each operating unit in an
individualized way. This realization leads us to the Value
Chain, and requires a greater knowledge of how the various
sub-processes react to various changes in the nature of the
material being processed. It also requires that we define
and quantify Value, consistent with the strategic objectives
of the business and in terms of dollars, at every stage in the
Production Chain. Each stage of the process must be
optimized not for itself, but rather to maximize its
contribution of value to the Global Process.
Generally in the mining industry, the objective of
Operational Management is oriented towards the
maximization of value, coinciding with maximization of

production capacity, based on the optimization of the

resources available. It is in the moment of defining the Mine
Plan when it is possible to revise and integrate the external
parameters with the direct production process. From this
point of view, all that we produce in the various stages of the
Production Chain are the intermediate products, whose
optimum characteristics and properties must be defined in a
clear and quantitative form. To achieve this, the Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) must be defined. These must
allow measurement of the grade of success achieved in the
defined objectives for each stage, identifying the deviations
and learning from the errors and defects to achieve
consistency in the final product. The application of rigorous
methods and up-to-date technologies is an absolute
necessity for the success of these objectives, in particular for
the transfer and the analysis of the information.
We can summarize in the following way:
An optimized management of the Global Mining
Process The processing plant must tend towards a
maximization of value creation for the business,
allowing a continuous improvement of productivity
and a permanent reduction of operating costs,
through the application of state of the art level
worldwide mining practices.
The necessity of a Global Management Model,
integrating technical information and process
economics, that considers from the Engineering design
and appropriate equipment selection, to the Planning
and Operation activities of the mine.
Definition of an Integrated Mining Plan, that considers all

the unit production processes, from Drill and Blast to the

Processing Plant or in the case of waste material, the
appropriate dump location.
Incorporation of Current Technical Designs and the
definition of Indices and Metrics of the Process
Performance Evaluation, under the focus of creating
value.
Analysis of Parameters and Criteria of Planning and
Operation with modern methodologies such as: Risk
Analysis, Failure Mode Analysis, etc.
Use of modern Information Technology, considering the
installation of expert systems, with the ability of
performance prediction, process control and reduction of
the variation of the key aspects
Permanent Benchmarking
THE OBJECTIVES OF CONVENTIONAL BLASTING
Cost control...minimize unit costs.
The traditional focus of blasting has been the
minimization of costs immediately related to the process,
including drilling and explosives/accessories. Summarized,
this means:
Produce a workable muckpile.
Control environmental impacts.
Minimize blasting cost.
Avoid collateral damage.
Under this style of blast management, the bottom line
is/was to minimize the budget without causing operational
disruptions such as boulders for the shovels, fly-rock, toxic
gases and excessive over-break. This style of
management was perhaps appropriate before we had

available the on-line monitoring systems (e.g. Dispatch)

which now allow us to measure and track in real time the
instantaneous performance of almost every piece of
machinery in the mine.
Often the Drill and Blast responsibilities in a mine are
assigned to engineers recently graduated from
university, and from this convenient position they can
learn how the mine operates. It has been considered
unnecessary to know why or how the rock is broken, or
how to achieve a product which has been specifically
tailored to suit the next step in the Process Chain. That
is, it often appears unimportant that the young blasting
engineer cater to the needs of his down-stream
customers. The sole interest is to minimize the cost of
the Unit Operation. Likewise, it hasnt been considered
that the blast is a client of the drilling, and that the
quality of the blasting is frequently controlled more by
the quality of drilling than by the quality of the
explosives. How many mines in our countries (Latin
America) have a quantitative quality control program
for drilling? How many mines yield, in an appropriate
form, the geo-technical information of the rock, for
further knowledge of the rock to be fragmented?
THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF BLASTING
Fragmentation...in accordance with
Global Process Performance.
If we consider blasting as an element in the Value Chain,
we must define (or decide between the different clients and
providers of the process) what is the value of the product,
and how can that value be increased by changing how the

blasting is conducted.
Fundamentally, the objective of blasting is to break rock,
thereby rendering it amenable to excavation and removal.
Excluding maintenance issues, the cost to run an excavator
is more or less constant, on a per-hour basis, with costs
controlled by capital depreciation, labor, servicing, and
energy costs. But the cost per tonne of material excavated
will also depend on how many tonnes of material can be
excavated per hour of operation, and it is here that the
efficiency and intensity of blasting affects the Value of the
process.
Figure 3: Cost minimization curve v Value maximization
curve, as a function of the intensity of blasting (powder
factor), after McKenzie, 2005.
Rather than striving to achieve the cheapest tonne
broken, one can focus on the tonne that is the most
economical, or the fastest tonne (i.e. the tonne of material
that is most quickly loaded, most quickly hauled, most
quickly crushed and most quickly passes through the
grinding circuit), Figure 3. This will be the tonne that
complies with all the requirements of the Global Process,
since it will produce higher productivity for the same capital
expenditure. The qualities of this tonne of broken rock will
be different for waste and for mineral, and as we are
seeing, for different types of mineral as well. A process
model combining blasting, loading, hauling and crushing
operations (Figure 3) highlights two important issues.
Firstly, the average powder factor required to maximize
Value is significantly higher than that required to minimize
costs. Secondly, the slope of both curves is steeper before

the turning points than after, highlighting that the penalties

associated with under-blasting are greater than those
associated with over-blasting. But how many mine
operators and mine managers prefer to err on the side of
over-blasting than on the side of under-blasting?
After only a preliminary analysis, it is clear that delivering
the optimum feed to the grinding mills requires close liaison
and communication between blasting engineers and
primary crusher operators. Figure 4 shows the effect of the
primary crusher on changing the size distribution of blasted
material presented to the SAG mill for a soft ore, and a hard
ore. Significant size reduction (and value adding) occurs
with hard ore, but little size reduction (and value adding)
occurs in the crusher when processing soft ore. Blasting
may be the only opportunity to effectively pre-condition soft
ores, whereas the crusher can complement the blasting for
hard ores. It becomes immediately apparent that blasting
and crushing need to be coordinated, and it may be
difficult for a crusher to simultaneously process two
completely different ore types.
Today, it is possible through the use of size distribution
measurement tools based on digital images (WipFrag, Split,
FragScan), to assess the blast on a quantitative basis, as
opposed to the traditional qualitative and subjective evaluations.
Figure 4: Effect of the primary crusher on soft ore (left) and
hard ore(right).
THE PRINCIPAL BLASTING CONSTRAINT
Control of Slopes... for the guarantee of safety
and the viability of the Project
Fragmentation and breakage are the obvious, and designed

outcomes of blasting. But breakage is not restricted to the zone

of rock in front of a blasthole. The same process which causes
fragmentation also causes damage behind the last row of
blastholes, and this can impact on the stability of pit walls, and
the safety of personnel and equipment working in the pit. Even
single bench rock falls and failures can cause equipment
damage, or injury and death to workers.
Using practical engineering tools and models, it is
possible to quantify the negative impact of the blast, and in
doing so quantify the success of the blast in terms of
geotechnical stability and safety. Today there exists a wide
range of instruments that permit the accurate assessment
of changes in rock quality and slope stability, thereby
allowing confirmation of, or adjustment to, the slope design
criteria or Risk Assessment programs.
Figure 5: Excellent quality smooth walls in Chilean copper
mine, in heavily structured material.
22 Santiago Chile, May 2006 Fragblast-8
Fragblast-8 Santiago Chile, May 2006 23
Figure 5 highlights what we believe is a false paradigm in
porphyry copper type mines, typical in this part of the world.
There are two primary factors explaining the commonly heard
adage in this mine it isnt possible to have clean walls and
half barrels..... The first is a lack of understanding about the
technical issues controlling the effectiveness of smooth wall
blasting. The second is an absence of a Value Model which
quantifies the benefits of clean and stable walls, and which
permits a clear decision on appropriate expenditure to
achieve the required results. How do we calculate the VALUE
of clean safe walls with minimal deterioration of in-situ rock

strength? When cleaner walls allow steeper walls, the value

is easy to calculate and the dollar figure is large, so this
catches the eye of most managers. When cleaner walls mean
safer conditions, it is much more difficult to attach a dollar
value so we dont usually try, and we generally focus instead
on finding ways to produce final walls at minimal cost, which
meet the approval of regulatory bodies. Once a decision is
made as regards design slope angle, we quickly forget the
assumptions of minimal disturbance to rock strength which
are inherent in the pit slope design calculations, and almost
never conduct measurements to confirm those assumptions.
What is the VALUE of reducing the probability of failure by
30%, when pit slope angle has already been decided? What
operations even MEASURE the degree and extent of damage
induced in pit walls?
Most smooth wall blast design philosophies address vibration
control, with the implicit assertion that reducing vibration levels
in the pit walls will reduce the extent of blast-induced fracturing,
and the probability of block dislodgement (e.g. wedge failures,
planar failures). Many articles have been written demonstrating
the effectiveness of vibration reduction in the control of damage,
suggesting that this is an area worthy of attention and
measurement as a means of Quality Assurance. There is
tantalizing evidence that we can quite easily detect fresh
fracturing and fracture dilation occurring at any point behind
blasts (McKenzie & Holley, 2004) and in this manner quantify the
shape of damage profiles and estimate critical vibration levels
which initiate either fresh fracturing or fracture dilation. This then
permits 3 dimensional modeling of vibration in the zone behind
blasts, incorporating the effects of pattern geometry, explosive

distribution, delay timing, delay accuracy and initiation

sequence, from which damage probability curves (i.e. the
probability of exceeding critical vibration levels) can be
established for any proposed smooth wall blast design (Figure
6). This appears to be a powerful tool which permits a very
comprehensive comparison to be made between various wall
blasting options as regards the effectiveness of vibration control
and the degree and extent of likely damage. But the basis for
selection of the most appropriate design remains that of cost,
because we are unable to determine the different VALUES that
the various options bring to the Global Process. The cost factor
may be overriding safety!
Figure 6: Probability of damage as a function of distance
behind back row of blastholes, for 2 different smooth wall
blast designs (model results).
IMPACT OF A BLAST: SUMMARY
In Mineral:
The Explosive provides the most economic energy for the
fragmentation of the rock
The blast is the most efficient stage of the Comminution
Process, from both the technical and economical points
of view (in value contribution)
Blasting philosophies should be matched to rock
characteristics. Finer is not always better, and modeling
has advanced to a stage where it can provide very clear
directions for identifying optimum rock-specific blasting
strategies.
There is now compelling evidence that more intensive
blasting improves processes such as leaching, not only
by producing finer material, but also through the

increased generation of micro-fractures which further

increase the available surface area for the chemical
reactions to occur.
Compelling evidence of the powerful leveraging effect of
optimized blasting on loading, hauling, crushing,
grinding, and maintenance costs, the benefits from which
are likely to far outweigh the additional costs.
In Waste:
In the majority of the mine sites, more waste material is
moved than mineral, and a proportionally large fraction of
mining costs are associated with waste removal.
Better blasting in waste allows increased loading rates,
reduced hauling costs, a faster exposure of ore, and a
greater resource allocation to ore handling.
We should consider the impact of the fragmentation and
muckpile swell on the costs of equipment maintenance.
There are certain psychological effects as well: A shovel
operator will take more time to load a truck if the size of
the material can potentially damage the truck if loaded
too quickly, that is letting the material drop without great
care for the truck tray, so that fragmentation may also
affect the bucket discharge time, not just the bucket fill
time.
There will be a limit as regards fragmentation in waste
if blasted too fine, the additional blasting costs are not
recovered by reduced load and haul costs.
The cost/benefit curves suggest that the risks associated
with under-blasting are significantly greater than the risks
associated with over-blasting.
In the Safety and Viability of the Mining Project:

 With carefully controlled smooth blasting, it is possible to

maximize pit slope angles, minimizing the effective strip
ratio and improving the economic parameters of the
investment.
With effective smooth blasting it is possible to obtain
clean and safe walls for both personnel and equipment,
minimizing the risk of injury/damage.
The probability of wall failure can be reduced by more
effective smooth wall blasting, though the VALUE of the
reduced probability can not yet be translated into a dollar
figure.
The impact of the blast in creating value remains clear if
we define this Unit Operation (Orlandi 2001) in the
Corporate Mission as: ...Pre-conditioning of the rock for its
subsequent treatment..... In this way, we must clearly
identify the subsequent processes in the Production Chain
for the material that we are going to blast, establishing
indicators of specific achievement for both the waste and
the ore. It isnt the Drill and Blast Engineer who determines
the characteristics that the blast product (that is the
resulting muckpile) must have, but rather his/her
customers.
The optimum fragment size distribution will be different
for the mineral that goes to the plant, and for the waste that
goes to the dumps. The size distribution required for the
mineral will be also dependent on the type of processing,
and/or the crushing and grinding equipment, and must be
established for each respective customer, for each different
mineral type and grade.
For the ore, it is relatively clear how to define the optimum

product size distribution, even though few operations have

prepared this specification. However the definition of
optimum waste characteristics to optimize excavation and
transport, has not been clear in practice, in spite of the
larger quantity of waste that usually is moved in open cut
mining. This says we know more about what the Mill
Customer expects than we know about what the
Shovel/Truck Customer expects. The relationship between
muckpile characteristics and shovel productivity remains
largely unexplored.
OPPORTUNITY
To maximize the benefits that the blast can contribute to
the production chain, adding value to the blast product
The opportunities to maximize benefits to the Global
Operation by more effective blasting must be embraced by
those responsible for the Management of the Business.
They must report to the owners or shareholders on the
contribution of this process to total value, rather than on the
technical or economic result of the unit process. It is their
responsibility to develop the mathematical-functional model
of the process, with the appropriate performance indicators
that demonstrate the success (additional value) of the
optimum balance.
The principal direct impacts of a blast are shown as
follows:
The blast adds value if:
It allows an increase in the Processing Capacity of the
Mill, the value of which exceeds the associated additional
costs (increased profitability of recovery).
- high crusher productivity;

- high mill throughput;

- low maintenance costs;
The pit wall design slopes are achieved.
Operational safety is enhanced.
The Blast reduces value if:
It causes a decrease in the Processing Capacity of the
Mill, the value of which exceeds the associated cost
savings (decreased profitability of recovery).
- reduced crusher productivity;
- reduced mill throughput;
- high maintenance and repair costs;
The pit wall design slopes are not achieved.
Operational safety is reduced.
Environmental impact is increased.
THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY
The primary tool used to estimate the likely outcome from
a blast has traditionally been the simple powder factor
(quantity of explosive per tonne or cubic meter of material).
Combined with years of hard-earned experience and
consistent geology, this simple parameter frequently
provided quite reliable predictions of blasting outcomes.
Today, it is rare to find consistent geology, and in many
operations rare to find blasting engineers with more than a
few years of experience. Further, we are expected today to
have a much greater degree of control over costs and
machinery performance. Despite this, the humble powder
factor still carries an inordinate weight in many operations,
in which management cling to inherited paradigms such as
a powder factors greater than 0.6 kg/m3 is simply wasting
money. In many operations, a strong management focus

is directed towards ensuring that the powder factor for each

blast lies below an almost-arbitrary budget limit prepared
without prior consultation with the rock.
The potential for, and expectation of, more precise
control over blasting outcomes has spawned
technological innovation in blasting to the point where the
availability of increasingly sophisticated technologies
obliges a more profound characterization of the material
to be blasted, as well as quantitative assessment of
blasting outcomes. A rock mass is naturally a nonhomogeneous
and anisotropic medium, and its physical
and mechanical properties usually vary throughout an
ore-body, significantly influencing blasting results in
different geological domains. The use of appropriate tools
is therefore required in order to quantitatively describe the
relevant parameters of the rock that is to be submitted to
the energetic and dynamic charge detonation. A reliable
and comprehensive blasting index of the rock is
needed, that is subject to current state of the art
investigations in Blasting Engineering. Drilling provides an
obvious opportunity to capture crucial information about
the rock and its response during blasting, with the
promise of allowing adjustment of the energy distribution
during blasthole charging, though the goal continues to
elude us.
To extract the maximum benefit from the use of electronic
initiation, for example, requires knowledge of what is being
called the Mechanical-Acoustic Model that considers
non-traditional parameters in our blast design
deliberations such as:

1.Average size of the insitu blocks and their distribution or

dispersion;
2. Orientation of the discontinuities
3.Acoustic impedance of the material
The principal tools at our disposal to vary and tailor the
results of blasting to match client specifications or
expectations are:
Adjusting Powder Factors
Adjusting the Distribution of the Charges
Optimization of the Explosive Confinement:
- Stemming Reinforcement
- Aggregate (crushed material, gravel)
Use of Variable Energy Explosives
- Aluminum
- Nitroparaffins (Comsol, NP-SERA)
- High VOD Explosives
- Oxygenation
- Variable density
- Micro-spheres
- Hybrids
- Diluents
- Air decks
Exploitation of the Dynamics of the Blasting Process
- Initiation (timing, direction, sequence)
- Systems of Precise Initiation
Computer models for Design, Analysis and Blast
Simulation, such as QED Plus from Austin Powder,
widely used in Chile, and JKSimBlast, from the Australian
Institute, JKRMC.
THE PRODUCTION CHAIN... IS A PROCESS

OF TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY
An economic focus on the Mining Production Chain
shows us that this is a Process of Energy Transformation,
applied as a process of pre-conditioning via the reduction
24 Santiago Chile, May 2006 Fragblast-8
Fragblast-8 Santiago Chile, May 2006 25
of material size and incorporation of micro-fractures, for its
later physical and chemical treatment. That is to say, its
transformation into a commercial product.
The sources of energy are basically explosives, and
electricity either generated in thermo-electric plants
(petroleum, carbon, natural gas) or bought from public
networks. The understanding of the Energy Balance of the
global process is a powerful management tool. Various
publications show that the proportion of the cost of energy
necessary to induce a change of similar proportions
through explosives, in the mine, crusher and grinder is in
the order of 1 / (4-6) / (8-12), for a wide range of types of
rock and industrial equipment.
This indicates that the blast is the most efficient step in
the comminution process. In any case, we need to know
more, however we cant import the knowledge or
experience from other environments, other rock, other
equipment, and other circumstances. We need to generate
it from our own mines and situations.
In an established operation it isnt easy to determine the
optimum relations between the different unit operations. In
spite of the existence of specialized instrumentation and
platforms of communication for gathering on-line, real time
performance data from equipment, we frequently give little

priority to the task of transforming this data into useful

information for the Management Team.
The work methodology that can assist us to advance in
the understanding of our Global Process, and the impact of
each one of our own activities in incorporating value is
based on Groups of Continuous Improvement. In this
respect, there have been various successful experiences in
Chile, that have assisted the respective mining companies
to be leaders on a world level in the mining of copper.
The authors are sure that there doesnt exist an
appropriate way to incorporate technologies of the latest
generation for the improvement of our business, without
previously assuring that we have the resources to extract
the benefits of the new technology. Why purchase a new
on-line data system, if we dont have the resources,
commitment, or tools to utilize the new information? We
should be able to anticipate the benefits to the Value Chain
and the Improvement Cycle, and clearly define the
requirements for the new technologies and support
systems.
THE IMPROVEMENT CYCLE
In the administration of a Continuous Improvement Group
in a mine, where it is assumed the blast is the process
initiator, it is fundamental to highlight the idea of
negotiating the objectives expected of the blast between
its different clients. These departments are principally:
Planning, Geology, Geo-technic, Operations and Plant. The
requirements of these clients are sometimes conflicting, but
we must search for the optimum for the global operation,
not that of the client with the most power or influence in the

organizational structure.
For example, the demand for meters drilled will not
guarantee a good location of the hole, the precision of its
angle or its correct depth. There seems to be little
awareness of the importance of Quality Control in drilling in
achieving the expected result of a blast, and many
operations immediately focus on the explosive as the
guilty party when results are unfavorable. It is very
common to observe that the factor having the greatest
impact on blasting results is the quality of the design
implementation and drill plan rather than the explosive itself
(type of explosive, powder factor).
In an analogous form, the success of slope control is
frequently related to the inefficiencies of the Production
Equipment. Stop the extraction because the shovel
reached the designed bench line, even if it can easily
remove more material? Carry out buffer blasts or presplitting
in small diameters even if the available
equipment has larger diameters and is more efficient? A
short term decision, such as complying with the daily
extraction goals, can sometimes prevail over the longer
term interests, such as the slope quality and its impact on
the bottom line of the Statement of Results of the
company.
This, although it may be a trivial problem, is a complex
situation. A change that can seem technically obvious is
often in reality impractical if it wasnt foreseen and
addressed appropriately in the Mining Plan. It isnt always
possible to acquire or contract additional equipment,
such as drills with a smaller diameter, loaders to clean the

walls or backhoes to clean the crests. There also exist

contract type restrictions such as the productivity
bonuses of the equipment operators, which generally
dont consider work quality indexes, but rather only
production volume. These are, in short, perverse
incentives that can have complex negative impacts on the
optimization of the business.
Generally speaking, there is limited knowledge in the
mining industry of the physical fundamentals of the daily
phenomena that we confront. Few professionals make
decisions with regard to knowing or referring to themes
such as wave propagation or fracture theory. There is a
tendency to regard specific experiences as representing
inexplicable departures from the universal concepts of
physics, without considering the characteristics of each
case. In our mine things are different... is the excuse in
many cases, to evade the responsibility of investigating
and understanding the problem.
It is clear that it is not always possible in practical terms
to apply sophisticated concepts as useful tools to the
management of a business. However, on the other side,
neither is it possible to bend the Laws of Mother Nature.
The way that we see, in the short term at least, is to
establish cause and effect relations between the
parameters that we have the capacity of measuring and
adjusting in the operation and relate these to the measured
and predicted results. The current information systems and
data administration systems should have the capacity to
allow a complex analysis of the variables of the mining
process as a whole. Importantly, we must learn to use the

data we are constantly gathering (e.g. Dispatch High

Precision Data), and to transform the data into information
upon which decisions can be made by use of Process
Models. The application of statistical tools, together with the
ability of computational simulation should allow the
integration of the majority of the unit operations into a
complex but useful network.
Today we have the use of innumerable support tools,
instruments and software, to model our process and the
power to incorporate these sophisticated procedures of
analysis and control, with support systems of the latest
information technology (Risk Analysis, Failure Mode
Analysis, Tendencies/Trends Analysis of Active Parameters
of the Process, Systems for Fragmentation Assessment
through Photo-analysis, Registry Systems of Equipment
Vital Data, Simulation of the Blasting Process Systems,
Systems of Structural Mapping in 3D; etc.)
Our challenge is to develop an Expert System,
combining artificial intelligence and our knowledge, that
will allow control of our Mining Process (Mine Plant
Market), to achieve the maximization of the value
incorporation as a product of management excellence.
The pre-requisite step will be to learn certain techniques
such as fuzzy logic and neural networks so as to
improve our knowledge of the phenomenology of the
processes themselves.
SUMMARY
The Blast, as the first stage of the rock comminution
process, has the mission of pre-conditioning, or
preparing, the rock for its subsequent processing, in

order to obtain a commercial product in the most

economic way possible.
It is necessary to know (=quantify) the impact of blasting
on the processes of loading, hauling, crushing, and
grinding, as well as in the movement of waste material
(productivity of extraction equipment and transport).
Today, we know too, that we can impact on aspects such
as the efficiency of leaching, using appropriate
explosives and systems of high precision initiation
It is necessary to define the relevant Key Performance
Indicators of the mining process: fragmentation (size
distribution), pre-conditioning (reduction of the Work
Index), swell of the muckpile, damage to the walls,
dilution, energy consumption, and impact on the
environment and personnel, e.g. dust)
A system of measurement should be implanted to
continually assess these parameters: that which cannot
be measured, can not be controlled.
It must be linked with the Mining Plan and correctly
implanted for the value creation of the business
throughout the Production Chain.
A missing link in the Value Chain is our ability to quantify
the VALUE of improved pit wall stability, and reduced
probability of failure, in dollar terms. Until we can do that,
we can not make properly informed decisions regarding
wall control blasting. Further development in Quantitative
Risk Assessment would appear to be a high priority.
REFERENCES
Eloranta, J., 2001. Improve Milling Through Better
Powder Distribution, Proc 27th Annual Conf. ISEE,

Orlando, USA Jan 28-31, pp 55-63.

Fribla, M., Orlandi, C., 2000. Effects on Economics in the
process of optimization of the specific load of explosive
and its relation with the micro-fractures generated
through Blasting, 2nd Jornadas de Tronadura ASIEX
2000.
Fribla, M., Navea, D., Orlandi, C., 2001. Micro-fracturing
Produced by the Explosive and the Increase of the
Dissolution of Metal in an Oxidized Copper Ore, 3rd
Jornadas de Tronadura ASIEX 2001.
Katsabanis, P.D, Gregersen, S., Pelley, C, and Kelebec,
S., 2003. Small Scale Study of Damage Due to Blasting
and Implications on Crushing and Grinding, Proc 29th
Annual Conf. ISEE, Nashville, USA, Feb 02-05, pp 355364.
McKenzie, C.K., 2005. Blasting A Focus on Value,
ASIEX Conference 2005, Via del Mar, Chile, May 25-27.
McKenzie, C. and Holley, K., 2004. A study of damage
profiles behind blasts, 30th Annual Conf. ISEE, New
Orleans, USA, Feb 01-04, pp 203-214.
Nielsen, K., and Kristiansen, J., 1996. Blasting-CrushingGrinding Optimisation of an Integrated Comminution
System, Proc Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada, pp 269-277.
Orlandi, C.P., 2001. Precise Initiation, Blasting for Open Cut
Mining Conference, ASIEX, Iquique, November 28-29.
Paley, N. & Kojovic, T., 2001. Adjusting Blasting to Increase
SAG Mill Throughput at the Red Dog Mine, Proc 27th
Annual Conf. ISEE, Orlando, USA, Jan 28-31, pp 65-81.
26 Santiago Chile, May 2006 Fragblast-8