Search Documents

By G Chitombo, A Perryman, A D. Campbell, J White, B Hollis

This paper describes the development and implementation of an optimisation tool developed as part of the Mass Mining Technology (MMT) Project. The tool, known as the SLC Schedule Optimiser, is capable of optimising the schedule of development and production activity for a sublevel cave, given a fixed draw strategy, for the life of the mine.This paper starts by describing the development and production scheduling problem for a sublevel cave, the geotechnical constraint that a schedule of activities must adhere to, and outlines the pre-existing manual planning procedures used to produce schedules.Following this, the paper then outlines the optimisation tool developed, describes the changes to the planning process it has enabled and finally quantifies the improvement to operations this tool has brought using Glencore’s Ernest Henry Mining Operations as a case study.CITATION:White, J, Perryman, A, Campbell, A D, Hollis, B and Chitombo, G, 2016. Life-of-mine development and production scheduling optimisation for sublevel cave operations, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 133–138 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By A Kurniawan, A Sjadat and M Akhasyah

PT Freeport Indonesia’s Deep Ore Zone (DOZ) is a block cave mining operation that has been in production for 15 years. DOZ is located approximately 900 m below surface and has an average production rate of more than 5000 t/d. The footprint of the extraction level will ultimately be 900 m long and average more than 200 m wide. The undercut level is located 20 m above the extraction level.While developing Panel 1K on the northern portion of the extraction level, a major geotechnical problem was encountered when there was a change in lithology and an associated fault intersection. A large collapse of the hanging wall of the extraction level drifts occurred in the area of the fault intersection between February and March 2011. This was followed by a collapse of one of the undercut level drifts directly above the extraction level in May 2011.It was suggested that the best approach to mitigate risk during rehabilitation was to systematically open up the failed area under the protection of a steel set support system. To achieve this, approximately 60 t of grout was injected from the undercut level to fill the voids created when the rock mass between the two levels failed. A ground penetrating radar system was used to survey the condition of the rock mass between the two levels before and after the injection of grout. After the grout injection phase was completed to a satisfactory level of confidence, rehabilitation activities started on the extraction level by taking out the now consolidated material from inside the drift in 2 m advances from under steel sets initially constructed in secured ground.Controlled blasting was the key aspect to the success of the initiative to open up just enough of the drift to systematically support the rock mass before the next set was installed. The systematic support consisted of in-cycle shotcrete sprayed over mesh pinned to the exposed rock, as effectively as possible, with splitsets before spiling the next advance’s protection canopy with rebar. Once secure, a combination of steel set and pumped concrete was installed as the final support. This final support provided a safe platform to repeat the process until the failed zone was safely traversed.CITATION:Kurniawan, A, Sjadat, A and Akhasyah, M, 2016. Rehabilitation of the collapsed panel 1K north in the Deep Ore Zone block cave mine, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 763–768 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By A T. Yuniar, C A. Brannon, N D. Pascoe, H H. Firdausi

This paper describes the key components of the Grasberg Block Cave (GBC) mine design and the development and construction status of the mine. Drawpoint production from GBC will be initiated in 2018 following the closure of the Grasberg open pit. Full production of 160 000 t/d is planned for 2024, which will make it a 20-year time period between initial access development in 2004 and full production.Diluted ore reserves are about 1 Bt at a grade of 1.0 per cent Cu and 0.78 g/t Au. The mine plans some 2400 drawpoints on a 20 m × 30 m drawbell spacing in a 700 000 m2 footprint using the El Teniente layout. The drawpoint opening sequence includes five production blocks, the first two of which are scheduled to be undercut simultaneously in 2018. Ore is transported using diesel-powered load-haul-dumps to a series of orepasses and then delivered via loading chutes to a rail haulage system, which delivers the ore to a three gyratory crusher complex. Crushed ore is transported to the mill stockpiles via dual inclined conveyors.Development and construction of the substantial fixed facilities are now well underway. Primary access for personnel and materials is via the 6 km Ali Boediardjo (AB) adits. A service shaft will hoist personnel and materials from the AB adits level to the various operating levels. Shaft commissioning is scheduled for late 2015. The rail haulage system installation and construction is in progress and is due to be commissioned in 2017, which is timed to coincide with the commissioning of the ore handling system. Ventilation is provided through a series of large intake and exhaust drifts, and two of the four main fans have been commissioned. A 1600 L/s pumping system will manage drainage from the mine.Other key facilities include separate shops for rail and rubber-tired equipment, warehousing, a powder magazine, a main control centre and an underground concrete batch plant.CITATION:Brannon, C A, Firdausi, H H, Pascoe, N D and Yuniar, A T, 2016. Development and construction update of the Grasberg block cave mine, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 625–634 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By A Gustafson, D Johansson, K Jonsson

The underground mining process, from in situ characteristics of the unmined rock mass to the final mill product with fully liberated minerals, consists of a chain of unit operations. Some of them influence fragmentation while fragmentation impacts others. From a production point of view, fragmentation is a key parameter for the proper functioning of many unit operations and affects total production; it influences the ability to load, haul and crush the rock later in the process. Fragmentation varies because of rock mass strength, the presence of joints, the chosen explosive, specific charge (kg/m3) and quality of drill holes. The efficiency and result of unit operations such as drilling, blasting, loading and crushing depend on the rock properties, which vary throughout a mine. Generally speaking, operations are not well adapted to the actual rock properties, leading to a non-optimised flow in production. This paper presents the initial part of a project that will build knowledge on the impact of fragmentation on each step of the production chain in an underground mine. It identifies the key parameters of fragmentation, which influence the overall energy consumption and productivity in a mining operation through interviews, mine visits and a literature review. In the subsequent stages of the project, a number of field tests in the case study mine will address important segments of the production process where fragmentation is a major obstacle to improvements. Optimising the entire process, rather than isolated unit operations, will lead to increased productivity, decreased amount of interruptions and lower energy consumption.CITATION:Gustafson, A, Jonsson, K, Johansson, D and Schunnesson, H, 2016. From face to surface – a fragmentation study, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 555–562 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By K A. Bunker, A D. Campbell, E Ah Mu, A R. Penney

The Ernest Henry mine is a transverse sublevel cave (SLC), which is relatively unique due to the 45 degree inclination of the orebody. To economically recover ore, each sublevel is horizontally offset from the previous level by around 25 m, depending on the orebody geometry. Mine development, slotting and initial production within this zone occurs in a high stress abutment that increases in magnitude at depth. These areas are seismically active and close to the hanging wall where cave propagation is yet to initiate. High stress conditions and the close proximity to the cave seismogenic zone results in challenging geotechnical conditions in the step out zone of each level and requires management of hazards including stress driven rockfalls, rock bursts and pillar failure.This paper outlines how these hazards were forecast using numerical modelling and geotechnical monitoring. Risk management techniques included dynamic ground support design, development of a new mine layout and extraction sequence as well as delayed re-entry into seismically active areas. Ongoing monitoring, instrumentation measurements and field observations were used to track the effectiveness of the controls.Future production levels are forecast to experience increasing stress and seismicity, which will increase demand on excavations and installed ground support. Ensuring the techniques and controls for monitoring, measuring and mitigating stress and seismic hazards are enforced is essential for continued safe production.CITATION:Campbell, A D, Bunker, K A, Ah Mu, E and Penney, A R, 2016. Managing stress and seismicity in an inclined sublevel cave, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 319–328 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By A Gustafson, G Shekhar, P Boeg-Jensen

The amount of material extracted from each blasted ring in sublevel caving mines is vital when deciding the overall mine production target. The orientation of the production drifts is normally perpendicular to the strike of the orebody, and rings are blasted from the hanging wall side to the footwall side in a retreating manner. For an inclined orebody, a given ring will contain different amounts of material based on its relative position along the production drift. This layout creates a distinctive problem with respect to the extraction ratio optimisation along the axis of the production drift. This paper describes the current drawpoint control strategy practiced at LKAB and presents the variation of drawpoint performance parameters along the production drifts. It uses automatically generated data from a bucket weighing system that measures tonnage drawn per bucket, and it classifies the blasted rings into four zones based on their relative position along the production drift. It considers the loading procedure for blasted rings at Kiirunavaara mine and analyses the variations in drawpoint performance along the production drift. The paper finds that although the current draw control strategy is sensitive to ring position along the drift, it could be modified to optimise the final extraction ratio.CITATION:Shekhar, G, Gustafson, A, Boeg-Jensen, P and Schunnesson, H, 2016. Draw control optimisation along the production drift in sublevel caving mines, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 241–250 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By E Ah Mu and C R Lilley, A D. Campbell

Cave propagation is a complex process due to interacting variables such as mine geometry, rock mass heterogeneity and complex structural networks and stress fields. The Ernest Henry sublevel cave (SLC) is directly below an open pit, which provided an opportunity to observe and measure rock mass failure as the cave initiated and propagated through the pit wall. This paper describes interaction between the open pit and SLC as well as rock mass failure mechanisms observed from the start of the SLC to surface breakthrough.Cave propagation and slope failure mechanisms were found to be governed by intermediate structures, while the cave shape was largely controlled by cave-scale faults. The open pit, production-level geometry and production draw strategy were also important factors for cave and subsidence growth. Cave propagation was episodic and asymmetric in shape due to the orientation and relative position of geological structures, combined with the effects of the increasing SLC geometry and drawdown from the underlying production levels. The precursors and failure mechanism of a 2.5 Mt wall collapse are also reviewed in detail.Cave growth was simulated using a 3D, non-linear, discontinuum finite element model coupled with Newtonian Cellular Automata. Model results are compared to field observations and monitoring data to determine the accuracy of forecasts and compared models versus actual rock mass response during cave propagation.CITATION:Campbell, A D, Ah Mu, E and Lilley, C R, 2016. Cave propagation and open pit interaction at the Ernest Henry Mine, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 311–318 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By B Mobilio, M Secheny, J Rachocki, G B. Sharrock, A Jäger, J L. Lett, I Brunton, G W. Capes

Establishment of the Cadia East Panel Cave Stage One (PC1S1) commenced with the firing of the first bell in early 2011. Production began with the completion of the undercut in May 2014. PC1S1 used a post-undercut composed of 114 drawbells covering a footprint area of 73 438 m². The extraction level is located at a depth of 1200 m below the surface and is based on a 32 × 20 m El Teniente layout. Cave establishment required the construction of multiple conveyor drifts, a large-capacity jaw-gyratory crusher and ancillary ventilation and pumping infrastructure. Preconditioning via hydraulic fracturing and blasting was implemented at various locations of the cave block height. This paper presents an overview of the key learnings from the commencement of undercutting to surface breakthrough, including rock mass classification and modelling, stress measurements, preconditioning, numerical modelling and cave monitoring.CITATION:Lett, J L, Brunton, I, Capes, G W, Jäger, A, Mobilio, B, Rachocki, J, Sharrock, G B and Secheny, M, 2016. Undercutting to surface breakthrough – Cadia East panel cave (stage 1), in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 65–82 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By L Olivier, R J. Lowther, J L. Lett, I Brunton

Hydraulic fracturing to precondition the orebody to enhance rock mass cavability is gaining acceptance in underground cave mining applications. Assisting cavability is becoming important as an increasing number of cave mines are being implemented in hard, deep and competent rock masses where clamping stresses are higher and cave column heights may be in excess of 1000 m. Propagating large caves to surface in such conditions can be challenging as risks such as slowed propagation and air gaps can develop during the process.Underground-based hydraulic fracturing is routinely used at Cadia East as a means of preconditioning the orebody to assist in cave propagation, fragmentation and seismicity reduction. This paper presents a summary of a surface-based hydraulic fracture program that was successfully implemented to assist in the propagation of the Cadia East Panel Cave 1 (CE-PC1) cave to surface through competent overlying rock masses. In this case study, the propagation of the CE-PC1 cave slowed as the cave grew past 750 m in height, initiating a Trigger Action Response Plan regarding the cave propagation rate. Surface-based hydraulic fracturing was subsequently used to stimulate the cave to propagate through the final 450 m to surface. The paper details the equipment, strategy, implementation and risk management involved in the program as well as the key learnings.CITATION:Lowther, R J, Olivier, L, Lett, J L and Brunton, I, 2016. Implementation of a surface-based hydraulic fracturing program to successfully propagate a large cave through hard, competent near-surface rock masses to achieve breakthrough, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 83–96 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By N Cusworth, W R. Mackenzie

"In 2007, the authors presented a framework for the conduct of resource project feasibility studies and provided guidance on minimum standards and best practice (Mackenzie and Cusworth, 2007).This paper will present the authors’ observations in relation to feasibility studies undertaken to support investments made during the unprecedented period of resource project capital investment since 2007. It will also provide comments on general trends in the mining industry’s approach to project assessment and update recommendations on best practice.CITATION:Mackenzie, W R and Cusworth, N, 2016. The use and abuse of feasibility studies – has anything changed?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 133–148 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P McCarthy

"This paper is based on 30 years of involvement in feasibility studies as a participant, study manager and the leader of a firm that provides study components and overall study management. The following topics are discussed:the purpose of feasibility studiesaligning the goals of the study team with those of the ownerthe difference between optimisation and designhow the types and levels of studies affect the organisation of the studythe relative merits of various management structures and contractual arrangementssetting scopes of work and tendering the work outthe selection of a study manager and the study management teamcommunications within the study team and externallythe project management trianglemanaging scope changes and maintaining flexibility to respond to study findingsprogress paymentsmanaging a study crisisinnovation, risk aversion and bankabilityreporting the resultsthe dangers and benefits of value engineering.CITATION:McCarthy, P, 2016. Making studies work – organisation, communication and management, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 20–30 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By A A. Roberts, R F. Dewhirst

"Extensive literature surveys, research in the project environment and personal experiences both within and consulting to project teams have revealed some consistent ‘people factors’ that contribute most to ultimate project success. Outside of purely technical and business case issues, there are a small number of leadership characteristics – probably only ten – that if correctly applied can positively leverage a team’s impact on project success.Of the top seven project success characteristics that were consistently highly rated in a recent study, five of them were around leadership. The authors have focused on this topic, noting that good leaders need to display the following traits:passionate commitment to deliveryconsistent modelling and reinforcement of correct values and behaviourfocus on managing relationships well and energising teams and individualscarefully clarifying project vision from front-end loading stages onwardseffective decision making.Not every project manager can and does practise these behaviours all of the time, but being aware of them and receiving training or facilitation in improving their application of these skills can equip project managers with the essential tools to markedly improve their own performance and that of their teams.This paper draws upon experiences in the field and provides lessons – both good and bad – to illustrate. As well as examining leadership traits, the way in which a leader can establish, organise, motivate his or her team and ultimately lead them to success is examined. The paper shares methodologies that have been successfully used to track status within a team and generate appropriate recovery plans where required.In particular, the paper will examine a case study based on an amalgamation of real project issues in some challenging situations using virtual teams (ie physically distant teams located in different centres) to illustrate the importance of strong and positive leadership in achieving success across geographies, time zones and languages.CITATION:Roberts, A A and Dewhirst, R F, 2016. Leadership in projects – a recipe for success, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 49–58 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By L A. Martinez Tipe, J McKibben, S Barry

"Metal prices are central to a mineral investment decision and have a profound impact on the financial performance of companies in the mining industry. At its most basic level, metal prices are influenced by the disequilibrium between international metal volume supply and demand. That is, the commodity price is a regulator that equates international metal supply and demand where inventories act as a buffer between the emergence of this disequilibrium and its dissolution through a price change.From this viewpoint, mining companies are required to forecast metal and bulk commodity prices when evaluating minerals projects through discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. While supply-demand models are instructive, many companies use historical prices, spot prices, futures/forward pricing and consensus opinion (or a combination of all of these) to develop price forecasts.This paper discusses the definition, fundamentals and differences between futures/forward and consensus pricing and the appropriateness of each in a DCF model for mine project economic evaluation.Our results demonstrate that great care is required when using either futures/forward or consensus pricing and that the decision to use one rather than the other requires consideration of other important elements in the DCF model (ie the risk-adjusted discount rate).CITATION:Martinez Tipe, L A, McKibben, J and Barry, S, 2016. Metal prices and the differences between forward and consensus pricing – which one is better for use in a discounted cash flow model?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 149–158 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By B E. Hall, D B. Kahler

"'Optimisation' has become a catchcry among many mining companies looking to tell the market how mining businesses will be improved and shareholder value increased. Consequently, the term 'optimisation' has been adopted by many service providers as they look to assist mining companies in achieving their objectives. But the explosion of services and products being offered with the label 'optimisation' has created some confusion. Mining companies ask for help in 'optimising' and service providers offer their assistance because they have a product that has the word 'optimisation' in its title. This is of course an over-simplification, but not by much! The authors' discussions in recent years with both mining companies and service providers have uncovered a number of very different definitions of optimisation.This paper provides a framework for identifying the scope and approach of different mining optimisation products and services, particularly the distinction between optimisation of components of the operation and the business as a whole. The different types of business optimisation are discussed, highlighting the failings of the mining industry's typical approach of strategy selection (as opposed to strategy optimisation). Mining business optimisation is discussed as a wicked problem, with the implication of this on how strategy optimisation models should be used and what the objectives of a business optimisation study should be.Case studies are also included to illustrate how fully flexible strategy optimisation models have been applied to assist decision-makers understand the impacts of changes in one part of the operation on the whole mining and treatment process, from geological models to the sale of product to customers.CITATION:Kahler, D B and Hall, B E, 2016. Strategic decision-making in mining – business optimisation using flexible evaluation models, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 215–225 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P Mitchell, S Pushpan, G Ferres, K Bobbermien, L Hudson

"Falling commodity prices and a rising supply surplus have ushered in a period of restraint in capital project investment across the global mining and metals sector. Competition for capital project funding has seen fewer projects progress through investment gates and a stronger focus on projects that deliver gains in capital productivity and strategic outcomes.Over the course of the 2015 financial year, EY conducted a study of 108 projects in the global mining and metals sector (EY analysis; Larsson and Ericsson, 2014; SNL Financial, 2015). The projects studied were at various life cycle stages and related to the development of copper, iron ore, gold, coal, nickel and other commodities. Each individual project investment exceeded US$1 B, and the studied group represented a cumulative investment value of US$367 B.The research found that the majority of projects were delayed and/or over budget when measured against the initial estimates made during the early stages of the project life cycle. Of the surveyed projects, 69 per cent were identified as facing cost overruns with an average overrun of 62 per cent above the initial estimate and 50 per cent reported schedule delays, even after remedial acceleration initiatives.The analysis found that budget and schedule overruns could be attributed to five key causes:project management factorsstakeholder conflictsresource constraintsregulatory, and policy-related challengesunfavourable external environment.Improving project delivery performance starts with successful planning, followed by rigorous management during delivery. From global experience on large and complex capital programs, EY has observed a consistent theme of underinvestment and a lack of focus in three often-overlooked but critical areas:implementing effective governance and reporting frameworks with lead indicators that reliably flag emerging risks while they can still be mitigatedallocating adequate cost and time contingency to account for risks across the life cycleenhancing the value of contingency by aligning contingency plans with scenario plans.This paper explores the surprising findings of the study, proposes a root cause model and examines key considerations in applying these critical enabling techniques.CITATION:Hudson, L, Mitchell, P, Ferres, G, Bobbermien, K and Pushpan, S, 2016. Are your megaproject schedules and costs under – or out of – control?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 75–85 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P J. Fairfield

"This paper reflects on the author’s experiences in undertaking mining studies and reviewing mining projects and technical reports, particularly over the past five years, and the impact of recent changes in reporting standards and listing requirements pertaining to mining-related evaluation and valuation exercises. It also discusses contemporary changes in the expectations of the investment community and the implications for the role of the technical specialist in providing advice to such stakeholders.Not for the first time in history, the resources industry has experienced a significant downturn after a period of strong, sustained growth in line with the traditional view of the cyclical nature of commodity markets. The resource industry is currently faced with capital austerity in the wake of projects ‘failing’ (not delivering to expectations). In response, the industry has experienced changes in investment behaviour (slowing of investment) and an increasing regulatory burden as stakeholders seek a greater understanding of mining project risks.This paper discusses this response and uses case studies to highlight the key learnings (perhaps re-learnt) by the industry. It also discusses the challenges faced by technical specialists in communicating the results of technical and valuation studies to the investment community.As investors seek to take advantage of the current stage in the investment cycle, the key challenge of the technical specialist is to effectively communicate the uncertainty in technical assumptions, risks and opportunities that drive project value.CITATION:Fairfield, P J, 2016. Managing expectations – from buyer beware to buyer be aware, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 66–74 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By D J. Logan, J Jackson

"As of 1 December 2014, the 2012 edition of the JORC Code requires Ore Reserves to be defined by studies at the pre-feasibility or feasibility level. This paper examines how the pathway for most mining developments is determined in the Pre-Feasibility Study and how a trade-off must be made between the need to make the best decision, the constraints of limited time and resources, and the level of the project’s accuracy and uncertainty in terms of value. Issues considered include framing the scope of the study, planning for robust decision-making and ensuring effective communication between the diverse disciplines within the team.An inherent conflict exists between the immediate value added to a mining business from an increase in ore reserves resulting from a ‘quick’ Pre-Feasibility Study and the long-term value of pursuing a development strategy based on proper investigation and evaluation of the options. Recognition and resolution of this conflict is necessary if a project is to progress into future development stages, both in a timely manner and with the optimal development alternative and strategy.The challenge for project developers and those conducting the Pre-Feasibility Study is to understand what the key deliverables are (ie an Ore Reserve statement, option selection, business evaluation, forward work plan or risks) and how to follow good practice to ensure that these deliver value.CITATION:Logan, D J and Jackson, J, 2016. The pre-feasibility study – big choices, little time, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 122–132 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By A M. Ebbels

"Underground mine scheduling decision-making has been based on production requirements, equipment productivities and the mine planner’s instincts on the best scheduling strategy for the mine to optimise the net present value (NPV) of a project.In the last few years, innovative software has been developed to optimise underground schedules based on NPV. The schedule optimisation tool (SOT) allows the user to set up scenarios based on grade, metal content, capital and operating costs.This paper discusses the results of two case studies undertaken using the SOT software to optimise the NPV of the projects.In each case study, the SOT software has been applied in two ways:using the original mine planner’s scenario and determining whether the NPV could be improved by changing resource capacitieschanging the scheduling goals to determine whether a different mining strategy would have a better NPV outcome.The outcomes of the case studies demonstrate that the mine layout and design were contributing factors to the overall improvement of the NPV and that SOT has a more noticeable impact on the NPV of projects where less sequence constraints are required, such as geotechnical sequencing and access development.CITATION:Ebbels, A M, 2016. Optimising underground mining strategies, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 60–65 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By M A. Noppé

"Investors and other stakeholders assessing the risk, opportunity and relative value associated with a resource project need to appreciate the project in its correct context. Errors, omissions, biased reporting or conflicting information in project reporting may lead to a misinterpretation of technical and financial results, resulting in biased estimates or assumptions on project value.This paper provides a simple ‘Resource Project Framework’ for presenting a project’s status that may be readily benchmarked against other similar projects and to illustrate the stages required to advance the project outcomes to higher levels of certainty. The framework draws on definitions and guidelines readily available in various resource industry reporting codes and public company reporting requirements.The framework assesses three key areas for placing a resource project in its correct relative context, namely:the project development stagethe confidence in the Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and/or Ore Reservesthe level of accuracy, precision and confidence in the technical and economic studies supporting the reported results or options for the project.The application of the Resource Project Framework is illustrated using two project examples, one from publicly reported company project releases and the other for two development projects.CITATION:Noppé, M A, 2016. A framework for presenting and benchmarking resource projects, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 260–274 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By J Coombes

"In today’s challenging climate of reduced staffing, limited funding and uncertain markets, we are called on to operate more productively and ‘be more innovative’. As an industry, we are quick to identify our practice areas as a mark of our role in the machinery of the mine value chain. We proudly note our profession – ‘geologist’, ‘mining engineer’ or ‘accountant’ – and demarcate our responsibilities and even our physical space. We even subdivide our disciplines into sacred entities such as ‘logging geologist’, ‘resource geologist’ or ‘structural geologist’ to prevent any blurring as though somehow the confusion will cost valuable disciplinary ground. How can we function professionally to heed the call to be more productive and more innovative?The purpose of this paper is to underscore what is expected from project evaluation, examine the ways in which we work as an industry and explore alternatives used in other industries and environments.The paper begins with a summary of project evaluation expectations and the ways in which disciplines typically interconnect when conducting project evaluations. Next, the paper examines alternative work frameworks and making a distinction between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary frameworks. In-practice examples of these frameworks in alternative industries and contexts provide evidence for application as well as an opportunity to examine their pros and cons.The paper closes with a call to re-examine working practices in the mining industry, with a view to enhancing productivity and heeding the call for greater innovation.CITATION:Coombes, J, 2016. Transcending the mining discipline divide – multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 2–10 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016