Jaka Frianto

Jati Harianto

Why Reconcile
General Mining Process Flow at Sebuku
General Reconciliation Process Flow with Surpac
Case Study: Monthly Reconciliation for Tabirah Pit
(July)
Conclusions

Evaluate Accuracy of Resource/Reserve

Estimation
Evaluate Performance of Grade Control &
Mining Operations
How much Overcuts and Undercuts
How much is the Mining Recovery
Gain better understanding on dilution/reduction
parameters to apply

Gain understanding of accuracy and precision

in grade and tonnage forecasting

Minedout
Area
Surveying

Mining &
Load
Point
Sampling

Surface
(Grab)
Sampling

Test Pit
Sampling

Land
Clearing

Actual
RoM
Volume

Reconcile

Actual
RoM
Tonnage &
Avg Grade

Reconcile

Estimated
RoM
Volume,
Tonnage, &
Avg Grade

Import Minedout
Survey Data to
Surpac

Create Updated
Topography in
Minedout Area

Minedout
Data Points
(str)

Updated
Topograph
y (dtm)

Create Solid of
Minedout Material
Based on Original
and Updated
Topography

Calculate Volume

Actual RoM
Volume

Minedout
Solid (dtm)

1. Actual Volume

Ore Block Model

(mdl)

Apply Partial
Percentages

Constrain by
Minedout Solid

Remaining Ore
Block Model
(mdl)

Calculate Volume,
Tonnage, and
Average Grades

Estimated
Minedout
Volume,
Tonnage, and
Average Grades

Minedout Ore
Block Model
w/ Partial
Attributes
(mdl)

Minedout Ore
Block
Model(mdl)

2. Estimated Volume, Tonnage, and Avg Grade

Weigh Station
Data

Loading Point
Sampling Data

Consolidate and
Calculate Tonnage
and Average Grade
of RoM Material

Actual RoM
Tonnage
and Grade

3. Actual Grade & Tonnage

1. Actual Volume

DTM of Original Topography

DTM Created from
Survey Points of
Minedout Area

Volume (m3)
48,739

2 DTMS Above Used to Create

Solid of RoM Material

2. Estimated Volume, Tonnage, Avg Grade

Blocks in Mined Out Area

Block of Whole Tabirah Pit

Mined Out Blocks

2. Estimated Volume, Tonnage, Avg Grade

Remaining Blocks in Area

All Blocks
Mined Out Blocks
Remaining Blocks

Volume (m3) Tonnage

133,594
189,000
51,484
74,138
82,109
114,863

% Fe
48.54
48.57
48.52

% Ni
1.01
0.91
1.07

3. Actual Tonnage & Avg Grade

Tonnage
71,851

% Fe
48.78

No

Data by

Description

Volume

1 Block Model

Minedout Blocks

51,484

2 Mineout Survey

Actual Minedout Volume

48,739

Weighing Station &

Loading Point
3 Sampling

Actual Weigh Station &

Load Point Sample Data
for Area and Period of
Interest

Tonnes

%Fe

74,138 48.57

71,851

48.78

Difference (Actual - % Difference (Actual Estimated)

Estimated)
Volume (m3)
-2,745
-5.6%
Tonnage
-2,287
-3.2%
% Fe
0.21
0.4%
Metal Content (tonnes)
-960
-2.7%

How do you explain the differences?

Visually Examine Section
Views. It appears that there
are areas inside the solid
boundary that do not have
blocks in them. The blocks
outside of the solid are
accounted for by the partial
attributes. Thus, the
estimated volume should be
less than actual volume, but
in reality the actual volume is
less than estimated. Perhaps
the ore reduction parameter
needs to be changed?

Back to why we reconcile

There are many possible combinations of
factors that result in deviations between the
estimated and actual
The only way we can get a better
understanding of why is by routine
reconciliation, whether it is by week, month,
year, or pit
The versatility of modern software such as
Surpac make this process easier