ROES A Low-Cost, Remotely Operated Mining Method I Gipps1, J

Cunningham2, G Cavanough3, M Kochanek4 and A Castleden5 ABSTRACT ROES

is a proposed new mining system for underground hard rock mines. Ore is accessed from
within a shaft, which is located close to or within the stope, and pitched either vertical or
within approximately 20 degrees of vertical. The shaft is designed to exclude personnel
entry so production drilling and explosive placement is done using remotely controlled or
automated machines. Routine remotely controlled survey of the shaft, stope back and
broken rock within the stope is typically done following each blast. The survey may
include excavation geometry, rock fragmentation and geotechnical characteristics.
Blastholes are surveyed before placement of explosives. This provides mine operators
and engineers with real-time data, allowing them to monitor production performance and
risk factors so that they can make rapid changes as required. ROES is designed to
apply to open stoping or sublevel caving situations either in disseminated, geologically
defined, thick tabular or narrow vein orebodies. The technologies developed for
ROES will also have potential applications to block caving operations to reduce the
risk of frozen ore and poor fragmentation. In a typical sublevel open stope application,
ROES will reduce the amount of stope-associated development by about half and
therefore will allow ore to be brought on-stream sooner and at significantly reduced cost.
Other savings are expected to flow from the centralisation of mining activities and
operational data, reduction in mining fleet, reduction in ventilation requirements,
improved occupational safety and reduced mine complexity. CSIRO and Orica Mining
Services are developing the required technology and AMIRA is seeking sponsorship for a
project to trial the mining method. This paper details the ROES method, expected
benefits and applications and includes typical stope and mining block designs and design
requirements. INTRODUCTION The Mining Industry is under continuous pressure to
improve its performance in areas of safety, cost and productivity. This has been achieved
in the past by improvements through mechanisation, scale-up of equipment size and
occasionally changes in mining methods. The ability of underground mines to improve
productivity by increasing equipment size is constrained by the trade-off between
opening dimensions and ground support requirements. Another constraining factor is the
increasing mining depth resulting in increased geotechnical risk, increased travel times
and more hostile working environments for people. To overcome these constraints a
considerable effort is being undertaken by equipment manufacturers, research
organisations and mining companies into the remote control and automation of mining
equipment. The mining industry currently has access to both remotely controlled and
automated machinery for stand- alone mining activities. While the take-up of these
technologies is increasing, significant transformation will only come about when
technologies are fully integrated or when a designed-for- automation mining system is
introduced. Isolated introduction of remote control and automation may shift bottlenecks
to other parts of the system. Mining methods based on block, panel and sublevel caving
have been attractive for a number of reasons, including their low operating costs and high
production rates (Brown, 2007). However, caving methods can be problematic when the
cave does not perform as expected, especially when ground conditions are not suitable.
Issues such as frozen ground, excessive dilution and poor fragmentation are difficult to
remedy once a cave has been initiated. However, sublevel open stoping (SLOS) is more
 flexible, allows better control of fragmentation and can bring a mining block into
production earlier. Unfortunately SLOS has higher operating costs. For some time,
horidiam or raise mining geometries for drill and blast mining have been proposed and
used for shaft expansion and stoping. For example: Mount Charlotte (Mikula and Lee,
2000), Mount Lyell (Usher and Kennewell, 1992) and Viscaria (Anon, 1983, 1984).
These applications used manually operated equipment and therefore risked high exposure
to hazardous environments. The protective measures applied to mitigate the risks limit
productivity and the minimum shaft size. Mikula and Lee (2000) and others have
observed that automation of the process should be possible and beneficial to overcome
some of these drawbacks. Early concepts for automation have been proposed and
discussed by various people (eg Adams, 1996) including equipment suppliers. The Curtin
University of Technology, Western Australian School of Mines published a masters
thesis which examined an application for automated horidiam stoping (Fleetwood, 2002).
This was proposed and sponsored by the CSIRO. More recently, Dorricott outlined a
mining strategy using horidiam for underground uranium mines (Dorricott, Derrington
and Horsley, 2006). CSIRO has develop a mining system concept called ROES,
which is based on horidiam geometries and aims to operate by remote and automated
control. To achieve this, a system is proposed that uses the latest technology that will
ultimately deliver a level of control and integration unprecedented in mining operations.
ROES will be a non-entry mining system and as such, allows more freedom in stope
design than is available through conventional horidiam methods. Consequently, benefits
of horidiam should be delivered beyond the reduction in sublevels. ROES offers the
benefits of SLOS at an operating cost close to that of caving methods when the latter
includes amortisation of capital. Compared with caving it also offers deterministic control
of fragmentation, recovery and dilution. CSIRO has worked with other parties, including
Orica Mining Services, and the Curtin University of Technology during the development
of ROES concepts. CSIRO undertook and commissioned extensive evaluation of the
technical and economic benefits of ROES including mining block designs for a
number of mineral deposits. ROES SYSTEM ROES is a system comprising
equipment and software that will be used for the remote/automated mining of bulk
underground stopes in hard rock mines and quarries as well as the stripping of shafts in
mines and civil projects. This is a proposed new mining system currently being
developed to fully utilise the benefits of Tenth Underground Operators Conference
Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 147 1. MAusIMM, Research Stream Leader, Non-
Entry Underground Mining, Minerals Down Under National Research Flagship, CSIRO,
QCAT Technology Court, Pullenvale Qld 4069. Email: ian@csiro.au 2. MAusIMM,
Research Theme Leader, Transforming the Future Mine, Minerals Down Under National
Research Flagship, CSIRO, QCAT Technology Court, Pullenvale Qld 4069. Email:
jock.cunningham@csiro.au 3. Mechatronics Research Engineer, CSIRO Exploration and
Mining, QCAT Technology Court, Pullenvale Qld 4069. 4. Research Physicist, CSIRO
Exploration and Mining, QCAT Technology Court, Pullenvale Qld 4069. 5. Mechanical
Engineer, CSIRO Exploration and Mining, QCAT Technology Court, Pullenvale Qld
4069.

remote and automated machine control without the constraints required by the presence
of operators near the active working area. Rock fragmentation is achieved using drill and
blast methods and the system includes integrated sensor technology for monitoring the
mining equipment and stope environment. As all of the equipment and the processes are
controlled remotely, or by automation there is no need for people to be in close proximity
to the associated hazardous activities of mining. Rock is extracted at the base of the
stopes via conventional draw points. ROES operators and mine engineers will be able
to use online software for design of blasting patterns and assessment of relevant mining
conditions and monitoring product quality. ROES is primarily designed as a
replacement for sublevel open stoping (SLOS) with improved safety, lower costs and
higher productivity, but can potentially be reconfigured for sublevel caving (SLC) or used
to precondition block caving operations. It aims to solve many occupational health and
safety hazards in mining, reduce the operating costs and reduce the time required to bring
new stopes online. As a result of the lower cost structure, ROES will also have the
ability to increase ore reserves by shifting lower grade mineralised zones from
subeconomic to economic. As shown in Figure 1, ROES requires significantly less
development compared with conventional SLOS, and the primary access to the ore for
drilling and blasting is vertical (or near vertical inclined) rather than lateral access. This
allows reductions in total development metres, generally smaller average development
profiles and more efficient and effective use of development in both tonnes per metre of
development and total metres required. ROES, as a remote/automated system, will be
configured to provide remote controlled and real-time survey of the stope so
that blasting patterns, blasthole loadings and stope shape can be modified easily during
the production cycle as required. ROES DETAILS Pertinent aspects of the system are
discussed below. Stope access The stope access is provided on two levels: The lower
or draw point access is developed to allow mining of the undercut and extraction of the
broken rock from the stope. Current design for the system utilises a draw point layout
similar to that used for SLOS and provides for equipment ventilation and access between
the draw points and ore passes or truck loading facilities. This design was adopted to
increase confidence in using the system but it is expected that as experience is gained, a
modified layout will be developed that utilises the ROES equipment and shaft to
develop the undercut bells. This will further reduce the lateral development associated
with the undercut. The upper access as currently designed is developed above the
stope crown pillar and provides access to the ROES raise and for equipment
deployment. The development provides for access to the ROES chamber and raise as
well as flow-through ventilation for service and re-supply crews. While the design places
the development above the crown pillar, if required this crown pillar could be extracted
via a mass blast when the stope is near the end of its production. The development for the
top level is likely to be less than that required for a SLOS stope layout because access is
required only to the raise rather than a number of suitable drilling locations for SLOS.
This development will have drive dimensions similar to those currently in use. ROES
chamber The ROES chamber will be above the stope and usually above the crown
pillar to maximise development usage. It will be of similar cross-sectional dimensions
required by a raise bore machine but will be longer than a conventional raise bore
chamber. Again it is likely that once experience has been gained with the method, the
length of the chamber may be reduced from that shown. Once the chamber has been
developed then a raise is mined between the ROES chamber and the draw point
horizon. The chamber, as shown in Figure 2, will be equipped with a crane or hoist to
 lower and raise the ROES modules in the shaft and to move the modules between the
shaft and service, storage and resupply areas. The concept shown uses an overhead bridge
crane with a 10 t capacity to deploy and store the ROES modules. Alternative
methods have been considered, including monorails, rail tracks, mobile, jib and pedestal
cranes. The area will be laid out to allow easy movement of the modules as well as re-
supply (consumables) and servicing in a safe environment. The chamber will be equipped
with a communications node between the ROES modules and the control station and
mine network if required. Technology is also available to provide this functionality from
a distant remote monitoring or control station via secure web communication protocol.
Examples of this 148 Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 Tenth Underground
Operators Conference I GIPPS et al SLOS Layout ROES Layout SLOS Layout
ROES Layout FIG 1 - ROES layout.

capability can be seen in the ACARP sponsored longwall automation project (ACARP,
2008). This initial chamber concept is recommended for the trial stages of the
development program to provide maximum flexibility. A production version of ROES
may use a simplified concept. ROES raise Although the raise shown in Figure 2 is
located centrally to the stope plan area and pitched vertically, this need not be the case. It
can be located and pitched as required by geotechnical and orebody considerations. The
top of the raise in this example is located towards the return air end of the chamber and
set towards one side to allow easy movement of the various items of equipment past each
other and around the chamber. The raise is expected to be 2.4 m in diameter, although
final dimensions above this size, up to 3.0 m, may be justified. The raise would replace
the cut-off slot raise as used in SLOS but a larger dimension (2.4 m to 3.0 m versus 1.4 m
to 1.8 m) is required to accommodate the ROES modules. ROES equipment
modules The two main modules deliver drilling and explosives placement with a third
module for survey. All modules have been designed to achieve a loaded weight well
below the 10 t rating of the crane, including the weight of the ropes. Drilling module The
drilling module shown in Figure 3 consists of a drifter and power pack similar to that
used in existing stoping drilling rigs. Modifications will be made to traditional boom,
slide and drill carousel, in order to fit the smaller opening dimensions of the ROES
raise. Power and water are supplied to the platform from the ROES chamber and
compressed air is provided locally from an onboard air compressor. The rig carries
sufficient consumables for several rings of drilling before re-supply is necessary. The
system design anticipates that before drilling commences, hydraulically powered legs
extend radially to the raise wall to lock the drill into position. This configuration, together
with the more compact design of the boom and slide, is mechanically very stiff compared
with existing stoping rigs, allowing increased collaring and drilling accuracy. The drill
collar will be initiated orthogonal to the shaft walls, providing very accurate collar
location. As the drill progresses in the collar, the orientation of the drifter changes to
acquire the desired blasthole inclination. Once this is reached, the slide stinger extends to
lock against the opposite side of the shaft so that all of the drilling reaction force is
applied directly to the shaft wall. A specially developed drill control algorithm has been
developed and will be applied to maintain the correct force on the bit as the rock type
changes or the bit wears. As a result, the drill will be operating at its optimal performance
while minimising wear, directional drift and risk of stalling. Additionally, any automatic
 change in the drilling control point will be logged and may be interpreted as a change in
rock type, thus providing a level of measurement while drilling. Tenth
Underground Operators Conference Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 149
ROES A LOW-COST, REMOTELY OPERATED MINING METHOD FIG 3 -
Conceptual drilling module. FIG 2 - ROES chamber layout.

Explosives module The explosives module will be similar in size to the drilling module.
It consists of storage and assembly area for the initiation components, emulsion and
sensitiser storage and mixing and the robotic manipulators to load the components into
the blasthole. Power and water are supplied to the platform from the ROES chamber
and compressed air is provided locally from an on- board air compressor. The rig carries
sufficient emulsion and consumables for a ring of drill holes before resupply is necessary.
Survey module This carries the instruments to accurately survey the stope void and map
the exposed backs and walls of the stope. This module can operate independently of or in
conjunction with the other two modules. Depending on requirements and local
conditions, the survey will provide accurate dimensional data and possible block jointing
patterns and a measure of fragmentation. Based on the data provided by the survey
module, particularly the shape and location of the stope back, it will be possible to
redesign the next blast round to correct any deficiencies with the previous round.
Scanning lasers, millimetre radar and photogrammetry have been proven in similar
applications and may be used for this survey. ROES design Mine layout As the
ROES system only accesses the stope from two areas, the top and base, the mine
layout will be significantly simplified and total development required will be reduced by
up to 50 per cent dependent upon the stope height, orebody dimensions and orientation.
Figure 1 gives some indication of the difference in development needed for a stope block
of three by four stopes, Table 1 shows this comparison numerically. Obviously the total
percentage saving will depend on the amount of declining and other capital development
required per stope, but an overall saving of 50 per cent in development is certainly an
achievable target. Top level development There is a slight reduction in total metres of
development required compared with SLOS because only one drive is required per stope
versus two drill drives and a ballroom cross-cut for SLOS. However, ventilation
development remains similar so that in the layout shown, a saving of about 20 per cent is
possible for this level. Sublevels ROES requires no sublevel development so that each
sublevel removed is a saving of the total development for that level. Extraction level
ROES is shown as having the same development for this level as the SLOS system. If
the draw point cones were to be developed using the ROES drill and blast platforms,
then some minor savings on this level would also be possible. Raising ROES requires
slightly more vertical development compared with SLOS because the chamber is placed
above the crown drive. In addition to the extra length of raising, the ROES raise is
likely to be of a greater diameter than conventional existing slot raises. Drilling and
blasting The ROES system will provide advantages in both drilling and blasting. The
drilling advantages arise because: The drill module is held rigidly against the surface
of the raise, reducing the opportunity for reactive forces to cause misalignments in drill
collar location and/or hole direction. ROES collars orthogonally into a machined
surface (raise bore hole) before slowly acquiring the desired hole angle and this greatly
improves collar location and accuracy. Collar slippage is expected to be nil. The axis
 of the drill slide can be accurately located in both position and orientation allowing the
hole to be drilled in the exact location and in the orientation it was designed. Where
the ROES raise is within the orebody, the maximum drill hole length is reduced and
drilling occurs in the plane that has the smallest dimension.6 Improved drill accuracy
should allow a reduction in total holes, total drill metres and explosives (and explosive
consumables) as less allowance will be required for hole deviation. This also leads to
improved control of fragmentation. Initial calculations show that ROES requires
slightly more total drill metres (zero to five per cent) for the same powder factor than
would be used for SLOS. This is a result of the shorter holes being slightly less efficient
in coverage of the volume to be blasted. These calculations, however, did not take into
account the potential reduced powder factor as a result of more accurately placed drill
holes. 150 Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 Tenth Underground Operators
Conference I GIPPS et al 6. This compares with SLOS where the aim is normally to
maximise the height between sublevels (and hence blasthole length) to reduce
development requirements. Item ROES SLOS stope height Stope height (m) Variable
100 m 150 m 200 m 250 m Top level (m) 1500 1800 1800 1800 1800 Sublevels (number
of) 0 1 2 3 4 Distance at 1800 m 1800 3600 5400 7200 Draw points (m) 1800 1800 1800
1800 1800 Total (m) 3300 5400 7200 9000 10 800 Saving with ROES (m) 2100 3900
5700 7500 Saving with ROES (%) 40% 55% 62% 70% TABLE 1 Development
metres comparison.

Blasting advantages arise because: No blasting energy is required to throw

the rock clear of the face as broken material falls clear of the face that is being worked.
The stope can be fired as single rings, multiple rings or as a mass blast (as can SLOS
stopes). As no broken material will remain against the blast face, it may be possible
that less material is required to be removed from the stope compared with SLOS before it
is practical to fire the next ring blast. This may be of benefit where it is decided to
maintain ore within the stope for wall support until the final extraction sequence. Again
initial calculations show a slight increase in blasting consumables (detonators and
boosters) as a result of the shorter average drill hole length leading to more holes. This
may be negated by reduced powder factor with improved drill hole location. Ventilation
ROES also benefits the mine in other ways as a result of the reduced development and
reduced complexity of the mining operation. One of these areas is mine ventilation,
where ventilation requirements are reduced and simplified compared with conventional
SLOS because: reduction of sublevels reduces ventilation requirements for drives by
approximately 40 to 70 per cent, having fewer openings into stopes with no sublevel
openings and only a single top level opening reduces short circuits through stopes,
the reduced complexity of the ventilation system means less management will be required
to ensure that re-circulation is not occurring, and there will be reduced exposure of
people to contaminants that may be flushed from stopes into the ventilation circuit.
Dependent upon the amount of air required to ventilate stopes, the potential to save over
50 per cent of ventilation operating costs exists and significant reductions in capital cost
may be available. In most mines with reduced openings into the stopes, very little stope
ventilation air will be required. Also, ventilation air required for service crews does not
need to pass through the stope, making control easier. Stope filling The ROES system
provides the potential for improvements to the stope filling. In the ROES stope it
 should be possible to tight fill against most of the crown as the fill can be placed through
the raise, with the fill rising up the arched backs of the crown pillar and into the raise.
The placement of dry fill through the raise borehole should also be safer than traditional
practice via a drill drive. Large machinery cannot fall into the stope and the ground from
which the equipment is operating should be more stable as it is above the crown pillar,
not adjacent to the blasted void. Stope design The design of ROES stopes is
reasonably flexible as the stope can accept several shapes and can be varied to follow the
orebody profile or grade contours. While the early diagrams indicate a rectangular shape
to the ROES stopes, they need not be restricted and will conceivably migrate to other
shapes as the system is introduced and mines become more confident about the method.
Suggestions for other stope shapes are shown below. Various shapes considered to date
include the following. Rectangular (square) This shape has been adopted for the initial
feasibility comparisons with SLOS stopes during the early stages of ROES
development. It allows easy comparison with the SLOS system, which currently utilises
square or rectangular plan shapes. In an area where square or rectangular stopes are
optimal then the ROES stopes may be arranged as shown in Figure 4, which shows a
four by three stope block. Note that the ROES chamber layout shown has a single
pass airflow so that mine staff are isolated from air that leaves the stope. This is
particularly useful for uranium mining. Hexagonal and circular In areas where cemented
fill is to be used, the stope may have a hexagonal or circular shape to improve drill hole
efficiency and reduce exposed surface areas of fill in adjacent stopes (see Figure 5). In
areas of low grade and in the absence of cemented fill, rock pillars are left between stopes
and the ROES stope shape could be circular to maximise drill hole efficiency and
deliver improved geotechnical stability, or elliptical to match ground stress directions
(Figure 6). Inclined The stope does not need to be vertical as the raise can be pulled to
match the ore orientation. The maximum inclination would currently be limited by the rill
angle of the blasted material without modifications to the draw point layouts (see Figure
7). Tenth Underground Operators Conference Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008
151 ROES A LOW-COST, REMOTELY OPERATED MINING METHOD FIG
4 - Square/rectangular stopes. FIG 5 - Hexagonal stopes. FIG 6 - Circular stopes.

Shaped The ROES stope does not need to have a constant plan area, or be vertical, as
ground can be made or lost as required during the mining of the stope
(as shown in Figure 8) to meet any combination of grade contours, geotechnical or
infrastructure constraints. Since the location of the drilling rig and the location of the
collar and its direction are also known very accurately for ROES, the drill pattern can
easily be changed from the control station as information is updated. The design of
ROES envisages that the drill holes will normally be subhorizontal but the angle from
the horizontal can be varied as required and this allows the stope to either make
or lose ground to match the desired stope profile. This is achieved by varying
the amount of subgrade drilled, or preferentially by changing the angle that the drill holes
intercept the profile shape, ie changing the amount of dump angle on the drill holes.
Figure 9 shows how by varying the declination of the hole it would be possible to change
the plan area of the stope and make ground. Increasing the dump angle (angle from the
horizontal) should increase the gain angle by one degree for every one degree increase in
the dump. As the initial design of the drill module allows angles of up to 40 degrees from
 the long axis of the machine, it should be possible to gain ground at a rapid rate by
decreasing the ring burden at the toe by increasing the dump angles with successive rings
until the new profile has been reached. It should be possible to expand the plan area by
achieving a gain of 30 - 40 degrees off the shaft axis. This is enough to allow the stope
wall angle to approach the rill angle of the broken material.7 There can be several reasons
for shaping stopes. These could be to follow geological or grade boundaries or to mine
through areas that have existing development that intrudes through the 152 Launceston,
TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 Tenth Underground Operators Conference I GIPPS et al 7.
An angle lower than the rill angle could be obtained but would not be practical unless a
modified extraction layout was developed. 1 4 ROES TM shaft Ore outline 5 3 2 1.
Dump angle to arch backs for geotechnical reasons. 2. Dump angle required to make
blastholes perpendicular to required stope outline making ground. 3. Dump angle with
added safety margin to allow for some loss of ground during blasting. 4. Ground
to be made to match ore outline. 5. Safety margin to allow for any losses. 1 4 ROES TM
shaft 5 3 2 1 4 ROES TM shaft 5 3 1 4 ROESTM shaft 5 3 2 FIG 9 - Making ground. FIG
8 - Shaped stopes. FIG 7 - Inclined stopes.

stoping area. This development will intersect ROES blastholes with the potential to
cause shadows or sterilised ore, as shown in Figure 10. With the reduced
development resulting from the ROES system there are fewer opportunities to locate
a drilling rig close to the intrusive development except from the ROES raise. A first
solution might be to utilise the intrusive drives to drill the shadow zone; however, if these
drives require rehabilitation before safe entry can be obtained then it may be preferable to
avoid that task and fire the entire stope from the ROES raise. The various ways this
can be achieved are shown in the following diagrams and discussion. Managing intrusive
development One of the perceived problems with adoption of a ROES system is that
first applications will probably occur in mines using SLOS and the first stopes mined are
likely to occur in areas with existing sublevel development. The problem then becomes
that some of the ROES stopes may have existing development drives within the
stoping area that will give rise to shadows that can not be accessed by the
standard ROES drill pattern. While the occurrence of narrow natural voids can be
accommodated by the drilling and explosive loading modules, these development drives
are too large to be managed in a practical way. The magnitude of the challenge is
determined by: the location of the drive relative to the ROES shaft, the
location of the drive relative to the edges of the stope, and the size of the drive
relative to the drill pattern spacing and burden. The main approaches to avoiding a
significant loss of ore as a result of existing development causing drill shadows can be
divided into the following categories: redesign of the stoping block and individual
stopes to relocate the development in a suitable position relative to stope boundaries and
the stope raise, access the drive and use it for some drilling, leave ore grade
material in place, and reconfigure the ROES rings to drill the shadow from above
and below. Redesign stoping boundaries If possible the stopes and stope block should be
redesigned so that: The stope is designed to ensure that the drives are as close as
possible or coincident with the boundary of the stopes and running parallel to the
boundary. This minimises the size of the shadow at it may be decided to leave the
relatively small remnant material at the edge of the stope. The stoping layout is
 designed so that the ROES raise passes through the drive. As it is possible to locate
the ROES shaft non-central to the stope, this offers some scope for avoiding the
creation of a shadow. Access the drive This is a solution provided that the drive is in good
condition and can be easily accessed and has not been already isolated from the mine
access development. This enables conventional stope drilling rigs and explosive loading
equipment to access the drive so that they can drill and fire material that would otherwise
be left behind. The length of the drill holes in the ROES rings contracts and re-
expands to cover the rest of the material. However, if the drive is in a remnant part of the
mine the costs of doing this may not be justified, particularly if the material is low grade.
This solution will probably also require rehabilitation of accesses leading to the
intersecting-stope drive. Figure 11 shows the drill pattern around a rehabilitated drive.
Note that in order to ensure safe access, explosive loading from the drive would need to
be done prior to firing at least three ROES rings below the drive. Hence this system
would probably require firing of at least five rings in combination, ie at least three
ROES rings below the drive plus two that intersect it in a sequenced firing. Leave
grade material behind The material within the shadow and some material both above and
below would have to be left in place so that ground could be lost and regained around the
shadow area while forming a bulge into the stope (as shown in Figure 12). This provides
a reasonably easy solution if the material does not have a high value and is adjacent to the
edge of the stoping region; however, this solution may not be possible if adjacent areas
are of fill as there would be insufficient strength to hold the bulge in place. Reconfigure
ROES rings The flexibility of the ROES system allows the material in the shadow
to be accessed by modifying the ring drilling parameters and design. There are two main
solutions required: where drilling and firing occurs a single ring at a time, and
where drilling and firing is on multiple rings (or mass blast). Tenth Underground
Operators Conference Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 153 ROES A
LOW-COST, REMOTELY OPERATED MINING METHOD FIG 11 - Rehabilitated
drive. FIG 10 - Drill shadows.

To demonstrate the ability of the ROES system to overcome this issue an example is
shown based on assumed design parameters of: spacing and burden at stope
boundaries are: 4 m spacing between holes, 3 m ring burden, and dump
angle on holes from the horizontal of 15 degrees down. When the stope is mined by
drilling and blasting a single ring at a time the hardest problem is presented. The
constraint of the single ring at a time firing being that additional rings can not be drilled
through the plane of standard rings, making it harder to access the material within the
shadow. Figure 13 shows a potential solution by modifying the drilling as the stope
approaches the development, causing the drill shadow. The following modifications are
made: The inclination of the holes within a ring is adjusted from 15 degrees down to
flat or inclined slightly upward in the region of the development. The ring spacing at the
collars of the hole decreasing to half that at the hole toes so that the ring burden remains
constant at the toe location. Just below the base of the development the rings are
drilled horizontal or with a slight upward inclination to access material behind the drive.
At the level of the drive the rings are drilled horizontal. Above the drive one or
two shortened rings are drilled horizontal or on a very low downward inclination to create
the cone. From further above the drive, the rings will move to a steep downward
 inclination to pick up material within the drill shadow. Each subsequent ring will be
drilled at a lower inclination until the standard inclination has been reached. Again the
collar burden between the rings is half that of the ring burden at the toes until the
standard inclination has been achieved. In practice the ring locations would be designed
to minimise the number of rings that would occur within the elevation of the development
and the amount of inclination and extra dump on holes in rings around the development
would vary with the location of the drive and its height relative to the ring burden. Note
in Figure 13 the light blue rings at the base and top represent rings drilled on the standard
ring pattern. The purple rings represent drill patterns where the rings have been adjusted.
Note that this ring design is provided to show that it is possible to modify rings to
overcome shadows and does not represent an optimal ring design. Where multiple rings
are fired in combination it is possible to interweave the rings to improve the solution. In
this case, shown in Figure 14, one extra part ring is drilled from below and one extra part
ring is drilled from above the drive to intersect material in the shadow. As the rings are
fired in multiples it is possible to fire the lower purple ring in combination with the three
rings above and the upper purple ring in combination with the rings below. Stope block
and development layout One of the advantages of the ROES system is that the top
lateral development is not required to be coincident with the top of the stope. It thus
becomes possible to handle rapid variations in the thickness of the ore zone by varying
the thickness of the crown pillar. As shown in Figure 15, as the top level of the ore varies
154 Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 Tenth Underground Operators Conference
I GIPPS et al FIG 14 - Multi-ring firing. FIG 13 - Single ring firings. FIG 12 - Loose
ground.

the development can remain on one level by varying the thickness of the crown pillar for
individual stopes. The only additional cost of this approach is due to the additional metres
of raising for some stopes. This compares with SLOS where a number of options might
be used, including an additional sublevel, acceptance of additional waste within the stope
boundaries (dilution), loss of economic grade material that might be above the drill
horizon. For orebodies that are close to the surface or near the base of an open pit, it is
possible to deploy and service the ROES equipment from the surface while still
leaving an intact crown pillar. A significant advantage of this ability to vary stope height
without changing the development levels is that it then becomes possible to delay making
decisions about the economics of mining marginal grade material until much later in the
mining process, ie when the material is in fact being mined. Where mineralisation slowly
declines with elevation it is possible to plan development well above the stope and cease
drill and blast only when the actual grade falls below the cut-off grade. The cost of this
extra economic freedom is only the additional metres of raising undertaken. Stope
scheduling Stope scheduling becomes slightly easier using ROES than for SLOS as
the removal of all sublevels and the placement of the chamber and access above the
crown pillar means that the stope sequence is not constrained by the requirements of
access to the middle rows of stopes if the stoping block is more than two stopes wide.
Additionally, less development needs to be sacrificed as each stope is completed for
ventilation and services. The stope can, if required for geotechnical or production
reasons, retain most of the blasted material to act as support for the walls up until the
final extraction sequence, as the blast face is advancing vertically not horizontally. Only
 sufficient ore must be extracted between blasts to allow for expansion of the next blast.
Hence for most of the stope life, the height of exposed wall can be less than for SLOS
stopes.8 Production Of major concern for the introduction of any new mining method is
the likely production rate compared with existing systems. As part of the detailed
feasibility work undertaken for ROES a study was undertaken to model the
performance of the ROES stope and to compare these results with the SLOS stopes
from an operating mine. It was determined that for a single stope, the drilling rig
dedicated to the stope spent 85 per cent of its available time drilling, six per cent of its
available time travelling (up and down the shaft) and the remaining time was spent
waiting for blasting to occur. This utilisation was significantly above that achieved by
conventional stoping rigs, principally because the machine spent less time travelling
between the various sublevels within a stope. A similar modelling of the explosives
module showed that it was required for 14 per cent of the time loading, five per cent
travelling and 80 per cent free, indicating that it would be reasonable to expect one
explosive module to service four stopes at a time, while still allowing time to travel
between stopes. The study also indicated that a single ROES drilling module would
be able to supply significantly more than the daily scheduled production from the stope
for the comparison mine. In fact the drilling and blasting rate was in excess of twice the
scheduled production rate for a stope. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT The ROES
technology development program is designed to minimise costs, time and first-trial risks.
It will use existing equipment to the fullest extent possible to deliver confidence and
Tenth Underground Operators Conference Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 155
ROES A LOW-COST, REMOTELY OPERATED MINING METHOD FIG 15 -
ROES generalised layout. 8. This may be particularly important when extracting
against a filled stope.

maintain compatibility with existing mine equipment fleets. However where necessary, it
will also use recent advances in communications, remote and automated equipment
control, sensing and machine guidance which have been proven in other projects
undertaken by CSIRO and Orica Mining Services. Many of these technologies have been
commercialised and some are in the commercialisation stage. Technology to remotely
place explosives is currently being developed by Orica Mining Services, with assistance
from CSIRO. This will be the third generation of the remote placement technology. To
minimise the risk during trials, the trial stope will be designed so that it is compatible
with SLOS layouts so that mining can revert easily to sublevel stoping methods at any
time during the trials if required. This eliminates the risk of sterilising ore and minimises
sunk costs during the trial phase. Conversely, it will not use an optimum design
for ROES. Sponsorship for a mining trial is currently being sought through AMIRA
International. DESKTOP STUDIES Over time, a series of desktop studies have been
undertaken to help develop the concept. The first of these was a Masters Thesis by K
Fleetwood in 2002 (Fleetwood, 2002), this was a major study undertaken to look at all
aspects of the system including rock mechanics, stope scheduling, design of the draw
point and top levels, ring design and timing of activities. This study was based on a
standard mine design layout of a 12 stope (three by four) block. Three subsequent major
studies have since been undertaken. While the results of the studies remain confidential to
the companies involved they clearly demonstrated that ROES offered significant cost
reductions over conventional SLOS stoping. In the first of these studies, undertaken by
WASM at the request of CSIRO, operating savings of six per cent, 14 per cent, 16 per
cent and 20 per cent per tonne were shown for ROES compared with SLOS.
Subsequently CSIRO has undertaken with two mining companies studies showing
savings of approximately 20 per cent for ROES, compared to SLOS, for blocks of
stopes. One of these studies included detailed modelling of stope production based on
typical drilling performance achieved at the mine and scheduled production rates from
stopes. SUMMARY OF ROES ADVANTAGES Economic and safety advantages of
ROES will arise from: No one working near the openings into open stopes
all equipment can be housed, serviced and launched from the ROES chamber or from
the surface if the raise opens to the surface for shallow orebodies. Reduced lateral
development length, leading to: improved safety with reduced exposure of operators
to the development cycle, reduced costs with lower capital and operating costs, and
reduced time to bring ore production online. Improved drill/blast performance:
more accurate hole collar location, shorter and more accurate holes,
improved fragmentation control, and simple real-time control of blasting
pattern during the production cycle. Reduced ventilation requirements due to:
less development to ventilate; no through stope ventilation required to
provide ventilation for stope drill and blast crews; and smaller, simpler ventilation
circuits with reduced risk of short circuiting. Potential to improve geotechnical
performance due to: improved ability to arch the stope backs, and improved
ability to increase wall support (broken rock to support walls). Improved stope
backfilling due to: fewer entries into stope, able to arch stope crown, and
able to close fill to stope crown through ROES raise. Improved ability to monitor
and hence control stope performance: real-time acquisition of survey and equipment
data during operation; and opportunity to integrate control of mining production with
other operational tasks, including processing. REFERENCES ACARP, 2008. Longwall
automation web site. Available from: . Adams, M, Hannigan, T, Horsley, T, Cunningham,
J B, et al, 1995 - 1997. Personal communication. Anon, 1983. Viscaria A new
copper mine in Northern Sweden, Mining Magazine, October:226-233. Anon, 1984. High
grade spurred Viscaria development, Engineering and Mining Journal, 185(2):33-35.
Brown, E T, 2007. Block Caving Geomechanics, The International Caving Study, second
edition (Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre: Brisbane). Dorricott, M,
Derrington, A and Horsley, T, 2006. Underground mining strategies for uranium deposits,
in Australias Uranium 2006 Program/Abstracts, pp 19-20 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne). Fleetwood, K G, 2002. The
development and evaluation of the automated horadiam stoping method, Thesis, Master
of Science by Research Mining Engineering, Curtin University of Technology,
October. Mikula, P A and Lee, M F, 2000. Bulk low-grade mining at Mount Charlotte
Mine, in Proceedings MassMin 2000, pp 623-635 (The Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy: Melbourne). Ulrich, W, 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning,
second edition (University of Chicago Press: Chicago). Usher, R E and Kennewell, G J,
1992. Evolution of mining and current practices in the Prince Lyell orebody, Mount Lyell
Mining and railway Company Limited, in Proceedings Fifth Underground Operators
Conference, pp 37-46 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
156 Launceston, TAS, 14 - 16 April 2008 Tenth Underground Operators Conference
I GIPPS et al