See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281639806

Footprint and Economic Envelope Calculation for

Block/Panel Caving Mines Under Geological Uncertainty

Conference Paper July 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 106

1 author:

Emilio Vargas
University of Chile
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Emilio Vargas on 10 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Footprint and Economic Envelope
Calculation for Block/Panel Caving
Mines Under Geological Uncertainty
Emilio Vargas, CSIRO Chile , Delphos Universidad de Chile
Nelson Morales, Delphos-AMTC, Universidad de Chile
Xavier Emery, AMTC, Universidad de Chile
 Introduction
Traditional underground mine planning
methods are based upon deterministic data,
therefore plans and decisions may not be
robust.
Including the uncertainty in the resource
model and risk analysis in early stages of the
project allows making better decisions.
 Methodology
1. Develop a procedure for calculating
the economic outline of a block/panel
caving mine (deterministic case).
2. Generate block model scenarios of
the deposit
PCBC Geovia
3. Validate the procedure results against
existing tools.
4. Assess geological uncertainty impact
on the outline by running the
procedure over the scenarios.
 Scope
Strategic mine planning.
The envelope calculation is applicable for a
Block/Panel Caving mine.
The geological uncertainty is incorporated
using conditional geostatistical simulations of
a real orebody.
Dilution is modelled using Laubschers
approach
Footprint and Outline
Computation
 Algorithm 1/3
Block Model

MineLink
Ultimate Pit Algorithm

Footprint Envelope
 Algorithm 2/3
Footprint
For each level:
Calculate position discounted profit 3.85

Surface
4.32
Calculate economic value, tonnage and area

Ore column
3.17

Find optimum level 3.78

3.95
4.52
3.78
Validate results with PCBC 2.30
 Algorithm 3/3
Economic Envelope (Outline)
Cut block model given the economic footprint data
Compute different slope precedence depending on
the level
Calculate outline using an inverse ultimate pit
algorithm
Post-process the envelope to smooth
the outline
Generation of scenarios
 Dataset and parameters
Parameter Value
Cu Price [US$/t] 2.5
1550 m

Selling Cost [US$/t] 0.35

Mine Cost [US$/t] 10

800 m
Processing Cost [US$/t] 16.1
Recovery 87%
Density [ton/m3] 2.7
Maximum Column Height [m] 300
Minimum Column Height [m] 100
990 m
Productivity [tpd] 200
Parameter Value
Utilization [days/yr] 200
Number of Blocks 2,340,000
Draw Point Area [m2] 225
Block Dimensions [m] 10x10x10
Slope angle 45- 60- 90
Levels 80
Minimum Level [m] 2,755
Maximum Level [m] 3,545
 Generation of scenarios
Geological scenarios were generated using the
turning bands algorithm (Isatis)
Input: 12,000 samples
Output: 1,000 scenarios + kriging
Dilution is integrated using Laubschers model
HIZ: 100 [m]
HOD: 300 [m]
Dilution Entry: 60%
Not considered for validation
Validation
 Footprint Validation
PCBC vs MineLink
Accumulated Footprint Value and Tonnage by
Level There is a maximum difference of
5000 700 10% between MineLink and PCBC
4500
(depends on the simulated model)

Accumulated Tonnage [MTon]

600
Accumulated Value [MUSD]

4000
3500 500
3000 400 This difference does not impact the
2500
300
final decision about the optimal level
2000
1500 200
1000
100
500
0 0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79
Level number
Valor Script Valor PCBC Tonelaje Script Tonelaje PCBC
Impact of the Geological Uncertainty
 Footprint Results
For each simulated block model the optimum
footprint is calculated over all levels.

1550 [m]
660 [m]
620 [m]

670 [m]

510 [m] 550 [m] 600 [m] 990 [m]

Kriging Worst Average Best
 Impact on the Level Selection
Economic Level distribution (Footprint)
200
180
160
Kr
140
120
Frequency

100
80
60
40
20
0
Level [m]

Level n 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73
 Envelope Results
The shape and value of the envelope vary due to geological
uncertainty and the placement of the footprint
Envelope Economic Value Histogram Envelope Mean Grade Histogram
300 350
250 300
250
Frequency

200

Frequency
Kr 200
150
150 Kr
100
100
50
50
0 0

Economic Value [MUSD] Copper Grade [%]

BM304 - Level: 3095 BM386 - Level: 2755

BM91 - Level: 2755 BMKr - Level: 3255
300 [m]
300 [m]
300 [m]

Worst Average Best Kriging

Risk Analysis
 Envelope Results
Risk analysis
Value at Risk (1,000 scenarios)
Pessimist Optimist
Expected Value
1% 3% 5% 5% 3% 1% Kriging
(1,000 scenarios)
Economic Value [MUSD] 575 781 889 2,408 2,516 2,717 1,646 1,445
Tonnage [Mton] 56 75 84 218 228 246 151 106
Area Footprint [m2] 78,520 102,460 115,380 293,980 306,520 330,840 204,484 141,800
Mean Grade [%] 0.801 0.819 0.829 0.979 0.991 1.013 0.902 0.964

Envelope Economic Value Distribution

300

250

200
Frequency

150

100
5%
50
5%
0

Envelope Economic Distribution [MUSD]

 Conclusions
The kriging grade scenario has one of the worst accumulated
footprint economic value for almost all levels.
Given the 1,000 scenarios, to find the economic footprint in
the first level has a probability of 20%, and a 17% near the
50th level, meanwhile to find it in upper levels has a very low
probability.
The economic envelope found using the kriged block model
has an economic value below the expected value of the 1,000
scenarios.
 Conclusions
Given the risk analysis, with a 5% risk the economic value of
the outline could be 46% less or more than the expected
value for the pessimist or optimist scenario respectively (760
MUSD).
The production level should be placed at the deepest level,
which is more likely to be the economic level and the
envelope value is near the expected value, better than the
krigings model result.
A risk approach in early stages of a mine project allows to take
a better decision in terms of the upside and downside
potential.
 References
Dimitrakopoulos R., 2011, Stochastic Optimization For Strategic
Mine Planning: A Decade of Developments.
Diering T., 2000, PC-BC: A Block Cave Design and Draw Control
System.
Elkington T., Bates L. and Richter O., 2012, Block Caving Outline
Optimisation.
Diering T., Richter O. and Villa D., 2008, Block Cave Production
Scheduling Using PCBC.
Vargas M., Morales N. and Rubio E., 2009, A short term mine
planning model for open-pit mines with blending constraints.
Emery X., Lantujoul C., 2006, TBSIM: A computer program for
conditional simulation of three-dimensional Gaussian random fields
via the turning bands method.
Vielma J., Espinoza D. and Moreno E., 2009, Risk control in ultimate
pits using conditional simulations.
Footprint and Economic Envelope
Calculation for Block/Panel Caving
Mines Under Geological Uncertainty
Emilio Vargas, CSIRO Chile, Delphos Universidad de Chile
Nelson Morales, Delphos-AMTC, Universidad de Chile
Xavier Emery, AMTC, Universidad de Chile

Corresponding author: evargas@ing.uchile.cl

MineLink details delphos.dmi.uchile.cl

View publication stats