Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/269397396
CITATIONS READS
0 3,724
3 authors:
Bahareh Asi
BBA
16 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Farshad Rashidinejad on 11 December 2014.
Mining in the 21st century is facing many challenges, among which are low-grade and high-
tonnage orebodies. One great (r)evolution in mining occurred in the early 20th century when
Daniel Jackling proposed the concept of economies of scale for large-scale (bulk) mining at
Bingham Canyon. At that time, there were many shallow deposits around the world suitable
for open pit mining. Hence, this method grew rapidly and the majority of iron, copper, and
gold production came from open pit mines. Open pit mining method has many advantages
such as increased safety, higher production rates, more flexibility, lower cost, less
operational risk, etc., so normally it considered as preferred option; but break-even depth,
high stripping ratios, and environmental issues have become significant challenges facing
this method in 21st century.
In underground mining, block caving is the only method with the costs comparable to
surface mining methods, especially open pit mining. A switch from open pit mining to
block caving mining could be another great development in this century. However, even
though an increasing number of mines are being developed using block caving, this method
involves many technological and environmental challenges. The depth of the orebody is
one of the most important factors governing selection of the mining method. This paper
offers a numerical (quantitative) ranking system for mining method selection when both
open pitting and block caving are feasible, which is true for many low-grade and super-
large hard rock mining operations.
Introduction
Both surface and underground mass mining methods have generated increasing interest in recent years, as global
demand for raw materials continues to grow. Mining companies are looking for ways to exploit large orebodies faster
and more economically. Underground mining of massive, low-grade orebodies has been carried out for decades, but in
total there have been fewer than 20 block caving mines (Oancea, 2013). As shown by greenfield projects around the
world, production rates of block caving operations can be up to 160 kt/day (Steinberg et al., 2012). According to
Chitombo (2010), the caving industry is rapidly moving from weak rock application into strong rock, from shallow
operations to depths up to one to two kilometres, and from small block heights to 500 m to 1000 m.
As shallow ore deposits accessible through open pit mining become exhausted, block caving mining methods to
extract massive low-grade orebodies are gaining increasing attention owing to their merits in terms of safety, tonnages
produced, and mining costs that can match those of open pit operations. Underground caving mining methods such as
block, panel, and sub-level caving continue to be the premier choice for deeply situated massive orebodies, thanks to
the high potential production rates and low operating costs involved.
Recent technological developments and improved solutions for designing, planning, and modelling caving operations
mean that these techniques can now be applied at greater depths, in more competent rock masses with greater
geotechnical challenges than ever before. This does not imply that developments for open pit mining are declining.
Bulk mining methods are necessary for the economic exploitation of massive, low-grade porphyry copper, gold,
molybdenum, and diamond deposits, and block caving is the method of choice. The process is suitable for the mining of
massive deposits, poor cap rock, compact, and highly fissured orebodies (Adler and Thompson, 2011). The rock mass
characteristics of the orebody itself and the waste overburden are the governing factors for operating costs of these
mining methods.
By analysing the advantages and disadvantages of block caving, the risk profile of this type of operation will be
understood and the proper approach to succeed in mining these huge deposits will be established.
This investigation addresses the question of how a mineral resource is assessed for its suitability for open pit or block
cave mining methods. A broad literature review was conducted to gather background information on open pit and block
183
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
cave mining methods, their operations statistics, and challenges. Generic areas of mine evaluation technical risks such
as geological resource model risks, geotechnical/hydrogeological model risks, mining method selection, and revenue
assumptions, as well as environmental and geopolitical risks, are examined. The two mining methods are compared and
evaluated, and finally, a numerical ranking method is proposed.
In terms of production, surface mines are almost always larger than underground mines producing the same
commodity. This is partly because open pit mines must mine much more waste, whereas many underground methods
can mine the same mineral much more selectively (Table I). However, block caving is categorized as a non-selective
underground mining method and dilution associated with this method cannot be controlled easily. Dilution is a
deficiency of both methods. On the other hand, cut-off grades of open pit and block cave mining methods are not
dramatically different, because the mining costs associated with them are not dramatically different.
Bingham Canyon produces about 300 000 t of copper, 12.5 t of gold, 125 t of silver, and almost 11 000 t of
molybdenum annually (Rio Tinto, 2014). Chuquicamata will be switched to underground production in 2018. The ore
reserve under the existing pit is estimated to be 1.7 billion tons grading at 0.7% copper. Escondida produced 1.1 Mt of
copper in the financial year 2013, which accounts for about five per cent of global copper production. Escondida's
recoverable copper reserve was estimated to be more than 32.6 Mt as of December 2012. At Udachny, the probable
contained diamond reserve at the open pit was estimated to be 0.88 t (4.4 million carats) as of July 2013. The Udachny
open pit operation is scheduled to close in 2014, and will be replaced by the Udachny underground mine, which is
under construction, with more than 108 million carats contained diamond reserves (Kable, 2013).
Surface mining has advantages over underground mining regarding recovery, production capacity, mechanization
ability, grade control, operational flexibility, low operational and economic risks with possibility of earlier cash flow, as
well as safety (Chen et al., 2003). Less additional development is required if resources are increased. Surface mining
methods are less complicated and can be assessed and scheduled in simpler manner using off-the-shelf optimization
software with easier planning and supervision. Therefore, in suitable deposits, surface mining is more productive, more
economical, and safer for workers.
However, changes in environmental regulations and societal expectations may lead to fewer large open pit mines,
particularly if operators are required to backfill open pits and re-contour waste dumps (Nelson, 2011). Unfavourable
weather conditions and depth considerations may result in the development of small, high-grade deposits by very
shallow open pits or in the development of high-grade underground mines in place of large open pit mines. Where
applicable, large low-grade deposits may be mined by in-situ methods (Hitzman, 2005).
As shown in Table I, the size of pits, and consequently the amount of waste removal resulting in environmental
concerns in open pit mining may make it less attractive in spite of its advantages of lower development costs, quicker
start-up times, and lower accident rates. In open pit mining, the impact on the environment must be considered more
184
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
seriously compared to underground mining. Environmental impact of surface mining includes aesthetics, noise, air
quality (dust and pollutants), vibration, water discharge and runoff, subsidence, and process wastes. The sources of
these environmental concerns include the mine infrastructure, mineral processing plant, access or haul roads, and
remote facilities. If mining will cause a deterioration in the quality of either surface water or groundwater, remedial and
treatment measures must be developed to meet discharge standards. These issues are the primary challenges facing
surface mining in the 21st century.
International surveys have shown that sub-level caving and block caving are the preferred methods in underground
hard rock mining, often supported by preconditioning of the virgin rock mass with hydrofracturing and dynamic
weakening using explosives (Ghose, 2009). Block caving involves excavation of natural support from beneath the ore,
causing the structure of the orebody to fail and collapse into the excavated void under the force of gravity and local
geomechanical stresses. The broken ore is then removed from under the caved section through a drawpoint
arrangement, subsequently removing support from ore and overburden at increasing height above the initial excavation,
and eventually extending the cave upward to the surface. The attractive aspect of block caving is that only a relatively
small portion of the ore must be drilled and blasted prior to extraction. Once the cave initiates, production continues
without further primary drilling and blasting until the ore column above is exhausted.
185
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
Figure 2. Cave mining by (a) continent, (b) mining method (BC = block cave, PC = panel cave, SC = sublevel cave), (c) resource mined, and (d)
activity (Woo et al., 2009)
186
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
Two of the world’s largest copper mines will soon move underground. The Grasberg mine in Indonesia (Figure 3),
operated by Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold, will reach its open pit limit by 2016 (Chadwick, 2010), while
Codelco’s Chuquicamata mine in Chile is expected to do the same in 2018 (Kable, 2013).
Figure 3. Perspective view of the Grasberg District orebodies (Brannon et al., 2012)
As indicated by Brannon et al. (2012), the three currently active mining operations in the Grasberg Mining District
are the Grasberg open pit (160 kt/d), the Deep Ore Zone (DOZ) block cave mine (80 kt/d), and the newly commissioned
Big Gossan open stoping operation (target 7 kt/d). The Grasberg concentrator has a capacity of about 240 kt/d. After
open pit mining is concluded in 2016, production from the district will remain at 240 kt/d but will be entirely from
underground. The Grasberg block cave mine will be the primary source of mill feed at that time, with a target 1 of 60
kt/d (Figure 4)
187
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
Figure 5. Predicted copper output from open pits and underground – Rio Tinto production share (Cross, 2005)
Block caving is a capital-intensive mining method, requiring significant initial investment early in the mine life for
infrastructure and primary development. Once in place, the method’s high upfront costs are offset by high production
rates and low operating costs (relative to other underground methods) over a considerable length of time, resulting in a
low overall cost per ton. Block cave mining is among the least costly of all underground mining methods per ton of ore
extracted. While the startup costs are comparable to those of an open pit mining operation, block caving operations have
a significantly longer lifespan, usually in the 15 to 20 year range. For example, Freeport’s Deep Mill Level Zone
(DMLZ) underground mine is expected to be fully developed over 12 years (Casten and Johnson, 2013). Also, four
subterranean tunnels extending 1 500 km will be constructed under the surface of the new Chuquicamata underground
mine that will begin operations in 2018. The underground mine will be developed at an estimated cost of $2 billion and
will produce an estimated 120 000 t/d (Hatch, 2012).
Another factor that differentiates block caving from open pit mining operations is that for a block caving operation,
on average, 70 per cent of capital expenditure is incurred before any revenue is generated (Oancea, 2013). Long lead
times and high capital expenditures mean that block caving carries certain risks for investors, including geopolitical
risk, long-term commodity prices, and cost inflation.
Block caving has several advantages. It has high productivity, which is comparable to open pit methods. Unit costs
are low and production rate is high. It is safer in comparison with other underground mining methods, and is without the
waste dump requirements of a large open pit. The production cost of block caving method per unit ore is comparable to
that of open pit mining.
However, block caving entails certain disadvantages. It is more capital intensive and a long lead time is required for
development, construction, and decommissioning of the mine. Intermittent secondary blasting is necessary which
results in more personnel exposure to open drawpoints, high risk of production interruption, more repair required due to
blast damage, and negative impact on draw control. If overburden fragmentation is greater than expected it leads to ore
loss and increased dilution. The subsidence resulting from block caving has a negative impact on surface facilities.
There are issues with cave management and control with numerous steep structures that transect the deposit. Cave
management and problems with geological structures can lead to the loss of developed production areas.
As mentioned previously, one of the most important consequences of block cave mining is the potential for surface
subsidence or settling. Surface subsidence is caused by the material above the orebody gradually moving downward to
replace the ore that has been mined. Caving-induced subsidence may endanger mine infrastructure and is a major
concern for operational safety. Using industry standard engineering practices, it is possible to predict both the cave and
subsidence zones based on orebody knowledge gained during exploratory geological investigations. However, the best
understanding of caving and subsidence will come only once mining begins.
The initial capital costs for a block or panel cave is always higher than for other underground mining methods, which
generally phase in capital costs over time. Large, modern-day caving projects typically report total capital costs of
anywhere from US$500 million to in excess of US$10 billion for ‘mega-caves’. However, operating costs for block or
panel caves are much lower than for other underground methods, and are comparable to open pit mining costs. Typical
operating costs are in the order of US$10-20 per ton (Lovejoy, 2012). Figure 6 illustrates estimated capital costs as well
as operating costs for both caving and open pit mines with different stripping ratios.
188
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
Figure 6. Capital (a) and operating (b) costs for open pit and caving mines
Underground mining is more acceptable from an environmental and social point of view (for instance, an
underground operation will often have a smaller footprint than an open pit of comparable capacity) (Chadwick, 2008).
For near-surface deposits with a vertical extent, open pit mining is usually used first, but with increasing mining depth
there is a point where a decision has to be taken whether to continue deepening the surface operation or change to
underground mining (Flores, 2004). This transition point from open pit to underground operation (break-even depth) is
currently the focus of much research.
189
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
event in a production drift that eventually resulted in the total collapse of 36 m of drift and another 52 m of severely
squeezed tunnel that completely halted production in the middle of the cave panel (Carlson et al., 2012).
Deep underground mines are also plagued by other negative events, including rockbursts. These are caused by the
sudden release of the high energy stored in compressed rocks as well as fault-plane movements caused by mining
operations. Examples of slope failure include the Cadia Hill open pit south wall bench failure that occurred in 2006
(Sainsbury et. al., 2007), Chuquicamata open pit west wall bench failure in 1967–1969 (Lorig et. al., 2009), and one of
the world’s largest landslides, which tumbled 150 Mt of rock and dirt down the northeastern pit wall of Kennecott
Utah’s Bingham Canyon (Kosich, 2013).
Figure 7. Palabora northwest wall failure (left), and 3-D spatial relationship between the underground operations, open pit, and fault (right)
(Severin and Ebrehardt, 2012)
Environmental risks
Geography and topography play important roles in establishing the risk profile of a block caving operation. Block
caving operations located in the vicinity of inhabited areas are not desirable as they create significant risks for water
resources, infrastructure, buildings, and human lives due to ground subsidence.
Block caving mines located in wet climates have a higher risk of flooding than those located in temperate or desert
climates. Managing water inflows and dewatering the mine and surrounding area will definitely have adverse impacts
190
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
on groundwater in the long term, and possibly on the local flora and fauna. These types of environmental impacts are
not overlooked by regulators, NGOs, and local communities and can result in longer approval times.
On a related note, an often-overlooked aspect of deciding whether block caving is a suitable mining method is the
region’s seismicity. Some regions, like Bingham Canyon, are quite stable and present little seismic risk, while other
sites are characterized by high seismicity – for example, El Teniente in Chile (Potvin et al. 2010) or Olympic Dam
(BHP Billiton, 2011). An earthquake that might not adversely affect an open pit mining operation is capable of
substantially damaging a block caving operation through a massive cave-roof collapse. One of the most common
locations for a block caving operation is below an existing open pit. In this case, the block caving operation could pose
serious danger to the open pit mine, especially if the underground operation starts before open pit mining is completed.
Geopolitical risk
The large capital cost and long lead times associated with block cave mines highlight the importance of a correct
geopolitical risk assessment of a prospective block cave project. Friendly mining jurisdictions where open pit operations
have gone undisturbed for decades and where mines are in transition to underground bulk mining are good places to
invest.
191
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
A numerical ranking system for open pit and block caving mining evaluation
Based on the discussion comparing open pitting and block caving, and in order to further determine which method is the
most suitable, the authors have tried to identify the most important factors/criteria by considering physical parameters
as well as mining costs, mining rate, labour availability, and environmental regulations to develop a numerical
(quantitative) ranking system for the two mining methods. The principle of this classification is based on the modified
classification proposed by Nicholas (1981).
Different criteria carry different weights; these weights were determined by considering the impact of each criterion
on the performance and main problems experienced on the mines. The proposed weightings for each category are based
upon the findings of recent NI 43-101-compliant technical reports. Table IV shows the respective weights of the
criteria. The score was multiplied by its weight and these values were added to give an overall performance rating. The
mining method with the higher score will be the better performing one and the more suitable.
192
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
193
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
Weights of criteria
A selection of technical reports prepared in accordance with the requirements of Canada’s National Instrument 43-101
(NI 43-101), Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, of the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) for mining
projects in different stages such as preliminary economic assessment, pre-feasibility study, and feasibility study were
reviewed in detail to adjust the ranking system developed in this research. (Table V).
In Table VI, the score sheet of one of the case studies has been evaluated. As can be seen, in this case, open pitting is
more profitable than the block caving method.
194
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
048
048
1 1 %#$$"$ 3 0
## 3 1 "$%""!%) 2 3
* 2 2 "$%"#"#$"$ 2 2
$) 2 1
% 2 2 #%#$#$"$ 3 1
018 "$%""!%) 2 3
($),$&$) 2 0
#%"#$$ 2 1 "'$"%"## 1 2
"#$"%$ 2 1
$%","$'$" %$# 1 2
0/8 %"" 1 2
$$#%""#$"%$%" 1 2 "-#$) 2 0
195
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
Conclusion
With the rate of discovery of near-surface mineral deposits declining, exploring for deep-seated deposits and finding
innovative ways to mine them is the solution to the ever-growing need for metals. Exploring and finding rewarding
underground deposits is a job that can be successfully completed by juniors, but designing and bringing such
challenging projects into production is a task that requires capital and technical expertise. There are many questions that
an engineer might need to be answered before deciding to undertake a proper evaluation.
Mining in the 21st century is steadily gravitating towards large-scale low-grade deposits utilizing either open pit or
cave mining methods. It is therefore considered useful to develop a classification method by numerical ranking of
engineering properties of the orebody and host rock mass, together with technical, financial, environmental, and social
issues to assist in deciding between open pit and block cave mining methods.
This paper presents an attempt to develop a numerical ranking system for open pit and block caving that could be
helpful in making the choice between the two methods. The authors admit that the proposed method is quantitative, but
should be used as a first-pass approach similar to the other qualitative and quantitative ranking systems. The ranking is
devised by using a ‘smart’ approach to identify the most important factors, including resource geometry, geotechnical,
technical, hydrology and hydrogeology, environmental/social issues, and safety, financial, and timing factors.
Case studies have been conducted for more than 20 mining projects. In most of the projects the model was properly
matched with the result of technical reports, and for some of them, the definition and assigned scores of some criteria
should be scrutinized. Since this research is ongoing, the procedure will be fine-tuned as more data become available
and experience is gained.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ms. Isabelle Leblanc, Mr. Jean-François St-Onge, and Mr. Patrice Live from BBA for
their invaluable contributions to this work.
References
1. ADLER, L. AND THOMPSON, S.D. 2011. Mining Methods Classification System. SME Mining Engineering
Handbook. Darling, P. (ed.), Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. U.S. pp. 349-355.
2. ARANCIBIA, E. AND FLORES, G. 2004. Design for underground mining at Chuquicamata orebody, Scoping
engineering stage. Proceedings of the MassMin Conference, Karzulovic, A. and Alfaro, M. (eds.), Chilean
Engineering Institute, Santiago, Chile, pp. 603-609.
3. BERGEN, R D. RENNIE, D. W. AND SCOTT, K. C. 2009. Technical Report on the New Afton Project, British
Colombia, Canada – NI 43-101 Report. Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
4. BERRY, M. 2009. Better Decision-Making from Mine to Market by Better Assessment of Geological Uncertainty.
Proceedings of the Project Evaluation Conference, Melbourne, Vic, Australia, 21-22 April 2004. The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. pp. 15-19.
5. BOSHKOV, S. H. and Wright, F.D. 1973. Basic and Parametric Criteria in the Selection, Design and Development
of Underground Mining Systems. SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Cummins, A. B. and Given, I. A. (eds.),
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. U.S. pp. 12-2–12-13.
6. BHP BILLITON, 2011. Olympic Dam Expansion - Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement.
196
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
7. BRANNON, C. A. PATTON, M. W. TOBA, R. AND WILLIAMS, G. A. 2012. Grasberg Block Cave: Logistical
Support System Design, Proceedings of the MassMin Conference, Sudbury, Ont, Canada. 10-14 June 2012.
9. CARTER, P. G. 2011. Selection Process for Hard-Rock Mining, SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Darling, P.
(ed.), Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. U.S. pp. 357-376.
10. CASTEN, T. AND JOHNSON, M. 2013. Heading underground. Mining Magazine, [online] (Last updated 29th
April 2013). Available at: <http://www.miningmagazine.com/management-in-action/heading-
underground?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly> [Accessed: 5 March 2014].
11. CHADWICK, J. 2008 (Jan). Open pit or underground (Going underground, or not), International Mining, pp. 48-
50.
12. CHADWICK, J. 2010 (Feb). Freeport Indonesia’s next underground mine, International Mining, pp. 10-19.
13. CHEN, J. GUO, D. AND LI, J. 2003. Optimization Principle of Combined Surface and Underground Mining and
its Applications, Journal of Central South University of Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 222-225;
14. CHITOMBO, G. P. 2010. Cave mining – 16 years after Laubscher’s 1994 paper “Cave mining – state-of-the-art”.
Proceedings of the Caving 2010, Potvin, Y. (ed.), Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), pp.
45-61.
15. CHRISTIE, G. LIPIEC, I. SIMPSON, R. G. HORTON, J. BORNTRAEGER, B. 2014. Blackwater Gold Project -
British Columbia, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical Report on Feasibility Study, Project No. 173304. New Gold Inc.
16. CROSS, C. 2005. A Rio Tinto view of collaborative research in Europe and the World, Proceedings of the 16th
Annual General Meeting of the Society of Mining Professors, Ankara, Turkey.
17. FLORES, G. 2004. Geotechnical challenges of the transition from open pit to underground mining at
Chuquicamata Mine. Proceedings of the MassMin Conference, Karzulovic, A. and Alfaro, M. (eds.), Chilean
Engineering Institute, Santiago, Chile, pp.83-89.
18. FUENTES, S. S. 2004. Going to an underground (UG) mining method, Proceedings of the MassMin Conference,
Karzulovic, A. and Alfaro, M. (eds.), Chilean Engineering Institute, Santiago, Chile, pp.633-636.
19. GHOSE, A. J. 2009. Technology vision 2050 for sustainable mining. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, the 6th
International Conference on Mining Science & Technology. doi:10.1016/j.pro .2009.09.003. pp. 2-6.
20. HAMRIN, H. 1998. Choosing an underground mining method. Techniques in Underground Mining, Gertsch, R. E.
and Bullock, R. L. (eds.), Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. U.S. pp. 45-85.
21. HARDIE, C, RUNNELS, D, live, P. 2013. Feasibility study of the Rainy River gold project, NI 43-101 Report.
New Gold Inc., British Colombia, Canada. 629 pp;
23. HATCH, 2012. Feasibility study for Codelco’s Chuquicamata underground mine project, Chile;
24. HEBBLEWHITE, B. 2009. Mine safety-through appropriate combination of technology and management practice.
Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, vol.1, no. 1. pp. 13-19.
25. HEIMERSSON, M and CARLSON, J. A. 2013. Technical report on Ekati diamond mine, NI 43-101 Report.
Dominion Diamond Corporation, Northwest Territories, Canada;
197
2014 SOMP Annual Meeting
26. HITZMAN, W. H. 2005. (R)evolution in mining—Implications for exploration. Mining Engineering, vol. 57, no. 1.
pp. 30–33.
27. KABLE BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE LIMITED, 2013. Top 10 deep open pit mines, Mining Technology,
[online]. Available from: <http://www.mining-technology.com> [Accessed: 5 March 2014].
28. KOSICH, D. 2013. Rio's Bingham Canyon: The makings of an expensive yet successful landslide. Australian
Mining, [online] (Last updated 23rd July 2013). Available at: <http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/rio-s-
bingham-canyon-the-makings-of-an-expensive-y> [Accessed: 5 March 2014].
29. LAMBERT, R. J., GOW, N. N., HAMPTON, A. P. and GOCHNOUR, L. P. 2012. Technical report on the El
Morro project, NI 43-101 Report. New Gold Inc., Region III, Chile. pp. 174.
30. LAUBSCHER, D. H. 1981. Selection of mass underground mining methods. Design and Operation of Caving and
Sublevel Stoping Mines. Stewart, D. (ed.). New York: SME-AIME. pp. 23-38.
31. LAUBSCHER, D. H. 1990. A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design. J. S.
Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. Vol. 90, no. 10. Pp.257-273.
32. LINEBERRY, G. T. and ADLER, L. A. 1987. Mine design procedure for underground coal. Proceedings of SME
Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 24-27 January 1987. The Society of Mining Engineering. Littleton. pp. 1-11.
33. LORIG, L., STACEY, P., and READ, J. 2009. Slope design methods, Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, Read,
J., and Stacey, P. (eds.). pp. 237-264;
34. LOVEJOY, C. 2012. Keeping up with caving. Mining Magazine, [online] (Last updated 7th June 201). Available at:
<http://www.miningmagazine.com/management-in-action/keeping-up-with-caving> [Accessed: 5 March 2014].
35. MOORHEAD, C. 2012. Technical report on the Wafi-Golpu property, NI 43-101 Report. Newcrest Mining,
Morobe, Papua New Guinea. 157 pp.
36. MOORHEAD, C. 2013. Technical report on the Telfer property, NI 43-101 Report. Newcrest Mining, Western
Australia. 133 pp.
37. MORRISON, R. G. K. 1976. A philosophy of ground control - a bridge between theory and practice, McGill
University, Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering. 182 pp.
38. NELSON, M. G. 2011. Evaluation of Mining Methods and Systems, System. SME Mining Engineering Handbook.
Darling, P. (ed.), Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. U.S. pp. 341-348.
39. NICHOLAS, D. E. 1981. Method selection – a numerical approach. Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel
Stoping Mines. Stewart, D. (ed.). New York: SME-AIME. pp. 39-53.
40. OANCEA, D. 2013. Underground block caving – a guide for investors. Resource Investing News, Resource
Investing News, [online] (Last updated 16th April 2013). Available at: <http://resourceinvestingnews.com/53638-
underground-block-caving-guide-investors-open-pit-mining-rio-tinto-codelco-freeport-grasberg-
chuquicamata.html> [Accessed: 15 May 2014].
41. PETERS, B., SCOTT, J., CHANCE, A., JAKUBEC, J., DEAN, D. 2012. Oyu Tolgoi project, IDOP Technical
Report, NI 43-101 Report. AMC Consultants Pty Ltd. Omnogovi Aimag, Mongolia. 513 pp.
42. POTVIN, Y., JARUFE, J., and WESSELOO, J. 2010. Interpretation of seismic data and numerical modelling of
fault reactivation at El Teniente, Reservas Norte sector, Mining Technology, vol. 119, no. 3. pp. 175-181.
43. SAINSBURY, D., POTHITOS, F., FINN, D., SILVA, R. 2007. Three-dimensional discontinuum analysis of
structurally controlled failure mechanisms at the Cadia Hill open pit, Proceedings of the 2007 International
Symposium, Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, Perth, Australia. 14 pp.
198
Open pit or block caving? A numerical ranking method for selection
44. SEVERIN, J. M., EBERHARDT, E. 2012. Influence of stress path during the transition from open pit to block cave
mine - a Palabora example, Proceedings of the MassMin Conference, Sudbury, Ont, Canada. 10-14 June 2012.
45. STEINBERG, J., FRENZEL, M., and KRINGS, J. 2012. Block Cave Mine 2020 – Case study on a continuously
operated mega mine, Proceedings of the MassMin Conference, Sudbury, Ont, Canada. 10-14 June 2012.
46. THOMAS, M., MOORHEAD, C. 2011. Technical report on the Cadia Valley operations properties, NI 43-101
Report. AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. NSW, Australia. 136 pp.
47. WITTE, A., SKRECKY, G., JAKUBEC, J., MAJOR, K. 2012. Technical report for the Kemess underground
project, NI 43-101 Report. SRK Consulting. British Columbia, Canada. 249 pp.
48. WOO, K., EBERHARDT, E., and VAN AS, A. 2009. Characterization and emperical analysis of block caving
induced surface subsidance and macro deformations, Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Toronto, Canada May 2009.
199