Advanced Reserves Database Editing.

In majority of cases a reserves database is computed from a structural model where the coal seams created
are on a ply basis, or some geological grouping of plies. The reality is that a mining engineer will require
the reserves in a state similar to the way his equipment would mine the coal, ie plies in mining sections.
To make the reserves reflect the actual mining situation the processes of WASTING of coal, JOINING of
waste, and/or COMPOSITING of layers plus DILUTION may need to be carried out.
This section will explain some of the tools available to turn the geological seams into mining (Working )
sections in the mine reserves database.
The process of computing mining sections from the geological model may also be done on the grided
model. In this case advanced editing of the reserves database is not required. This process will not be
covered in this section.
Waste / Merge Layers.
The Waste / Merge Layers option enables the user to combine (Join), composite, and waste both ore and
waste layers in the reserves database. The actual decision, on whether a layer in a particular block should
be taken as ore or waste, is made according to the differential value of benefit versus cost at the time of
mining, i.e., once a particular block/layer has been uncovered, the net worth of that unit may be calculated
in two ways:
1. As a unit of waste it will cost $X to load, haul and dump.
2. As a unit of ore it will cost $Y to load, haul, process and sell. It will, however, yield a return of $Z.
If $Z - $Y is greater than $X it is better to treat the unit as ore, otherwise it is waste.
The cost of mining a unit is a function of its thickness and sometimes other qualities. The sale value of a
mining unit is a function of its quality. Both of these are affected by dilution.
The option is designed to assist the user in maximizing return from a deposit.
As described above there are three main facilities available in this option. These are normally handled in
the following order:
1.

Compositing,

2. Wasting; and
3.

Joining (Combining).

A Tidy Up option which tidies up the results from the above processes is also available. It is
recommended to be should be used after each of the processes.
NOTE: Each of these processes operate on the reserves data base file and permanently change it. It is
highly recommended that the user makes a backup copy of the untouched reserves data base
file before any of these processes are carried out. A good practice is to have an original insitu
reserves database, then rename it to a composite name before compositing.
A more complete description of each of these three processes is given below.

Page 1 of 7

Seam Compositing.
Waste and/or coal may be composited where it is more beneficial to mine two or more layers
simultaneously. This compositing is carried out according to a set of user-defined rules which are
explained more fully further below.
The Compositing option allows the user to composite waste and/or ore on the basis of the following
parameters:
1.

Minimum mining thickness.

2.

Mining costs versus material thickness table.

3. Net benefit from ore versus grade table. This table should reflect the total benefit/cost consideration
for the processing material as ore rather than waste.
4.

Dilution thicknesses.

Optimal mining units are created maximizing benefit.

NOTE:
The cost/benefit tables may, in fact, be simple square shaped curves which will simulate
grade/thickness cutoff criteria. In such cases the cost curve may be large for thicknesses less than the
minimum mining thickness and zero for thicknesses greater than the minimum mining thickness. The
benefit curve should be a high positive for acceptable grade and a high negative for reject grade.
You may apply dilution to both top and bottom of each composited layer for the purpose of estimating
grade.
NOTE:
This dilution is NOT applied to the composited layers, but is used only for the purpose of
estimating final composite grade.
Example:
Here is an example showing a possible scenario for the Mining Cost vs Material thickness & the Net
Benefit vs Quality Tables. It assumes that it is very expensive to mine thin material (say < 0.1m thick) and
falls steadily until a thickness of 3 meters.
THICKNESS
IN METERS

0.0
0.1
1.0
3.0
3.1
10.0

COST IN $ PER
COMMENT
CUBIC METER
$100.00 Large number to avoid ludicrous results
$ 25.00 As above
$ 6.00 Assumes ripping and pushing with small dozers, say D8's and inefficient FEL work.
$ 5.00 Assumes large equipment and resultant efficiencies
$ 3.00 Assumes drilling and blasting in introduced and costs fall steadily with thicker material
$ 2.00 End points on curves.

Figure 1 below describes these values.

Page 2 of 7

Figure 1

Mining cost

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Thickness

10

11

A similar curve for benefit and grade can be determined by relating the profit per cubic meter to the grade
of the product. As there are only two dollar values (mining cost and profit) allowed, the profit or benefit
must allow for crushing, processing and shipping costs.
Note: Benefit is in $ per Cubic Meter or Yard not in $ per tonne.
In the following example coal brings a profit or benefit (excluding mining costs) of $30 per cubic meter if
its ash is from 0 - 10 %, at 10.1% ash its profit drops to $20 because:
a. it required washing &
b. the wash plant yield is say 75%
At 30% ash the processing becomes a liability with a benefit of $0.0 and then falls to $-100.00 loss at 100%
ash. The final figure in this case is a large negative to force wasting of coal above a set grade. An
alternative is to set the minimum benefit to equal the processing cost, (ie no reserve). It is important that
this negative point be included to provide a clear distinction between treating material as waste, or saleable
material. Figure 2 below describes this result.
Figure 2

40
20
Profit

0
-20

10

20

30

40

50

-40
-60
-80

-100

Page 3 of 7

Ash

60

70

80

90

100

Using these two curves the compositing will then seek the best (most $ return) layer combination. As an
example in Figure 3 below shows five layers labelled A,B,C,D, and E and shows their thickness and ash values.
Compositing allows introduction of a dilution thickness at the top and base of the coal this is ignored here.
Figure 3. Layer definition.
LAYER

TYPE

THICKNESS

ASH VALUE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A
COAL
1.0
10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B
WASTE
0.5
100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C
COAL
1.0
10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D

WASTE

0.2

100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E

COAL

3.1

10

From the above example many different mining scenarios can be analysed. Three looked at here are:
1.
2.
3.

Mine A,B, C, D and E as separate layers.

Combine C, D and E and mine A and B separately.
Combine all layers into one layer.

In the first case the costs for mining are:

Layer A thickness = 1.0 m thus cost = $6.0 per metre or $6.0.
Layer B thickness = 0.5 m thus cost = $16.5 per metre or $8.25.
Layer C thickness = 1.0 m thus cost = $6.0 per metre or $6.0.
Layer D thickness = 0.2 m thus cost = $22.9 per metre or $4.6.
Layer E thickness = 3.1 m thus cost = $3.0 per metre or $9.3.
Total mining cost is thus $ 34.1. The benefits of this mining are realised by selling layers A, C and E, all layers
have a grade of 10% ash so the benefit is $30 per unit for a total of 5.1 metres. Thus the benefit is $153. Thus
the overall profit is $153-$34 or $119.0.
In case two combining layers C, D and E give a single thickness of 4.3 with a cost of approximately $3.0 per
metre or a total cost of $12.9. layers A and B are mined separately at $6 and $8.2 respectively so the total
mining cost is $27.1. The grade of the combined C, D and E material is 14.2% ash (assuming a density of 1 for
coal and waste). The benefit of this material would be $15.6 per cubic metre or $67.1 for 4.3 cubic metres. Total
benefit is thus $97.1, and the return is $97.1 - $27.1 or $70.0.
In the third case all material is combined so the total mining thickness is 5.8 metres and the cost of mining is thus
$17.4. The grade of the combined product is now 20.8% ash and the benefit of this is $53, for a net return of
$35.6.

Page 4 of 7

In this case the separate mining is preferred. The main reason for this is the high cost of washing and the penalty
this imposes on the operation. A further reason is that the layers all have ash of 10 percent which gives a very
good return.
In figure 4 a different washing cost is used. Here the benefit is assumed constant from 0 to 15 percent at $30.
Washing is then necessary and the return falls to $20 at 15.1% ash and then falls progressively to $0 at 30
percent ash.
Fugure 4

40
20
Profit

0
-20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-40
-60
-80
-100

Ash

Under these benefits the three cases are:

1. Mine A, B, C, D and E as separate layers, all costs are the same as previous case. The net return is still
$119.
2. Combine C, D and E and mine A and B separately, the mining cost is still $27.1 (as above). The benefit
from layer A is $30 and form layers C, D and E combined at 14.1% ash the benefit is also $30 per cubic metre
or $129total. Thus the total benefit is $159 less mining at $27.1 = $131.9
3. Combine all layers into one layer, mining is then $17.4. The combined ash is 20.8% so the benefit is $13.5
per unit or $78.5 total. Thus in this case the net return is $60.9.
So in this case combining C, D and E together gives the most benefit.
A set of layers will be composited together in such a way that the combination of those layers into discrete
groups reflects the minimum cost/maximum benefit based on the defined curves. Where the net benefit is
positive, the resultant material will be classified as ore, while if the net benefit is negative, the resultant material
will be classified as waste.
NOTE: To save computer time, you should process layers in logical groups. i.e. if a number of sets of
seams exist which are physically separated by significant thicknesses of interburden, then nominate and
process each of these sets individually. If you nominate the whole range of seams without regard to thick
interburdens, the computer will spend a lot of time investigating combinations of layers which have no
hope of collectively becoming classified as ore

Page 5 of 7

100

Tidy Up
This option performs a "Clean Up' operation on the reserves database layers. It comprises of two options
described below.
1. Remove last layer on the bottom bench if it is waste.
2. Ensure that the waste layer associated with each coal layer has the correct name. i.e. if due to
merging, combining, or composting the name of the waste layer associated with particular coal
seam does not match the name as specified in the layer list, the name of the waste layer will be
changed to correct name.

Wasting
Coal may be WASTED where it fails to meet certain quality criteria e.g. Set any coal with an ash value
great than 40% to be incorporated into the waste layer above. It is best to consider the possible effects of
compositing before performing any wasting i.e. two thin coal seams may not be mineable individually
because of thickness limitations, but they may be mineable when composited together provided that the
resultant quality passes the required tests
This facility allows the user to waste ore on the same basis as provided in the reserves reporting function.
The normal procedure is to REPORT reserves on a variety of criteria with one of the reserves reporting
programs and, having resolved those criteria, to update the reserves by ACTUALLY wasting ore in the
reserves data base using this option.
The user may use a number of rejection classes.
Each rejection class may have:
1. A thickness cut-off limit, and
2. A number of quality variable limits.
To fail any rejection class the block MUST fail ALL criteria for that class.
If a block fails ANY rejection class the ore is wasted.
NOTE: The Low and High cut off criteria will waste data outside this range.

Joining (combining)
This option allows two or more waste layers to be combined or 'Joined', where there is no intervening coal
layer. These waste layers may exist above the first cola layer or between the various coal layers.
There are two basic modes of operation for this option:
Mode1: Where a single target layer is nominated for a specific group of waste layers (which must include
the target layer) which are to be combined (joined) into one layer. This option is normally used to resolve
all overburden layers to a single waste layer. If the target layer is not nominated the resultant combined
waste layer will take the name of the lowest waste layer in the nominated group of waste layers.

Page 6 of 7

Mode2: Where each contiguous set of interburdens are to be resolved to a single waste layer. This may
be performed over a range of seams, or ALL seams. The combined waste layer takes the name of the
lowest waste layer in that sequence.
Joining waste layers simplifies future mine scheduling by removing the requirement to mine multiple waste
layers which in reality would be mined at one time. Care should be exercised to ensure layers are not
combined that will be mined separately. An example of this would be where modelling has been done to
produce topsoil, unconsolidated weathered material and hard overburden resulting in 3 separate layers.
Obviously these layers will not be combined. These layers can be kept by leaving the layers out of the list
of selected layers.

Page 7 of 7