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
3. Validate the procedure results against
existing tools.
4. Assess geological uncertainty impact
on the outline by running the
procedure over the scenarios.
PCBC Geovia
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
Algorithm 1/3
Block Model
MineLink
Ultimate Pit Algorithm
Footprint
Envelope
Algorithm 2/3
Footprint
3.85
4.32
Ore column
3.17
3.78
3.95
4.52
3.78
2.30
Surface
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
800 m
1550 m
990 m
Parameter
Value
Number of Blocks
2,340,000
10x10x10
Levels
80
2,755
3,545
Parameter
Value
Cu Price [US$/t]
2.5
0.35
10
16.1
Recovery
87%
Density [ton/m3]
2.7
300
100
Productivity [tpd]
200
Utilization [days/yr]
200
225
Slope angle
45- 60- 90
Generation of scenarios
Geological scenarios were generated using the
turning bands algorithm (Isatis)
Input: 12,000 samples
Output: 1,000 scenarios + kriging
Validation
Footprint Validation
PCBC vs MineLink
Accumulated Footprint Value and Tonnage by
Level
700
4500
600
4000
3500
500
3000
400
2500
2000
300
1500
200
1000
100
500
0
0
1
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
Level number
Valor Script
Valor PCBC
Tonelaje Script
Tonelaje PCBC
5000
Footprint Results
For each simulated block model the optimum
footprint is calculated over all levels.
1550 [m]
Kriging
670 [m]
660 [m]
620 [m]
510 [m]
550 [m]
Worst
600 [m]
Average
990 [m]
Best
Kr
Frequency
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Level [m]
Level n
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
300
200
Frequency
Frequency
250
Kr
150
100
50
0
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
300 [m]
300 [m]
300 [m]
Worst
Kr
Average
Best
Kriging
Risk Analysis
Envelope Results
Risk analysis
Value at Risk (1,000 scenarios)
Pessimist
Optimist
1%
3%
5%
5%
3%
1%
575
56
78,520
0.801
781
75
102,460
0.819
889
84
115,380
0.829
2,408
218
293,980
0.979
2,516
228
306,520
0.991
2,717
246
330,840
1.013
Frequency
250
200
150
100
50
5%
5%
0
Envelope Economic Distribution [MUSD]
Expected Value
(1,000 scenarios)
1,646
151
204,484
0.902
Kriging
1,445
106
141,800
0.964
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.