Amirkabir University of Technology

Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering

Integrated open pit pushback selection and production capacity optimization

T. Elkington and R. Durham

Journal of Mining Science, 2011

3rd presentation of surface mining and sustainable development Professor: Osanloo November 20, 2012 Satar Mahdevari

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Methodology MIP Formulation Case study Conclusions

25

Introduction
3

Strategic mine planning for open pit mines typically involves solving the problems of:

What should be mined? Where it should be sent? When this should be done?

There have been two main broad methodologies for optimizing these problems block level resolution and aggregation approaches.

25

Introduction
4

This paper utilizes an aggregation approach in a new formulation for simultaneously optimizing production rates and pushback selection, along with scheduling, stockpiling, and cut-off grades.
Open pit strategic mine planning is processed of two steps: First, nested pit shells are generated over a range of prices Second, selection of pushbacks from the available nested pit shells is built in an MIP scheduling formulation

25

25

MIP Formulation
There are nine main types of decision variables used in this model.

25

25

Objective Function
The objective of the optimization model is to maximize NPV.

Phbgt Yhbgt Xhbgt Whcbt MCt PCt

discounted net revenue from directly processed material discounted net revenue from processed stockpile material costs from material added to stockpile costs from mining units of mining capacity units of processing capacity

25

Constraints
Quantity Constraints

Product Constraints

25

Pit Shell to Pushback Allocation Constraints

Pushback Constraints

25

10

Material Flow Constraints

Sequencing Constraints

Stockpile Constraints

25

11

Key Assumptions
Pushback selection is determined by allocating parcels in each pit shell to a pushback. The ultimate pit outline is defined as the outline of the final pushback. The schedule optimization defines the portion of each panel that is mined in each period. Cut-off grade optimization is implicitly defined by the material contained within the grade groups selected for processing. It is assumed that material can be removed from the stockpile in any period after it has been placed there. Each unit of production capacity must be purchased at a given unit cost. It is assumed that the relationship between production capacity and cost is linear.
25 12

Case study
A hypothetical copper orebody with approximately 160 000 blocks was used to demonstrate the proposed methodology. To begin, a pit optimization was completed with the Whittle strategic mine planning package. Overall 31 nested pit shells were generated using a parameterized copper price, ranging from 30 to 200 percent of the base case price and resulting in 454 parcels. Three pushbacks containing a minimum of 80 Mt of total material, Maximum advance of six benches per year per pushback, Unlimited stockpiling capacity, A discount rate of 10 %, A capital cost of $25/ tpa of processing capacity, A capital cost of $5/ tpa of mining capacity.
25 13

An optimization completed at the base case price of $3,300/t Cu The NPV of this scenario is $1,031 million
25 14

Three strategies were considered for comparison:

1) stockpile optimization base case (Scenario SP OPT) 2) marginal cut-off grade with no stockpiles (COG MARG) 3) optimized cut-off grade with no stockpiles (COG OPT) The predicted NPV of the COG OPT scenario is $995 million, and the COG MARG scenario is $917 million. This represents a decrease in NPV of 3.5 % and 11.1 % from the SP OPT scenario, respectively.

25

15

1- SP OPT 2- COG MARG 3- COG OPT

SP OPT is able to operate at full processing capacity for the life of the mine, whereas the other cases both had processing shortfalls in some periods, and consequently revenue shortfalls, which may result in liquidity issues.

25

16

1- SP OPT 2- COG MARG 3- COG OPT

The most flexible method (SP OPT), which allows stockpiling and cut-off grade to vary implicitly, produces the highest NPV with the lowest capital expenditure associated with processing capacity.

25

17

Price uncertainty
A significant source of uncertainty is commodity price. The influence of this parameter on strategy selection must be well understood to avoid suboptimal project outcomes.

Five scenarios were considered:

The base case price (Scenario A) 20 % below the base case price (L) 20 % above the base case price (H) The price falls from the H case to the A case over 5 years (HA) The price increases from the L case to the A case over 5 years (LA)

25

18

25

19

(a) Low price scenario (L) production schedule (b) High price scenario (H) production schedule (c) High to average price scenario (HA) production schedule (d) Low to average price scenario (LA) production schedule
25

20

Processing rate schedule, by price scenario

25

21

Stockpile size versus cumulative tonnes mined profile, by price scenario

25 22

Direct processing cut-off grade versus cumulative tonnes mined profile, by price scenario
25 23

Conclusions
This paper demonstrated a new MIP method of simultaneously optimizing mining and processing capacities, intermediate pushback, and ultimate pit outline selection in conjunction with optimized scheduling, cut-off grade and stockpiling. The cut-off grade and stockpiling affects the optimal production capacities, as well as NPV. The main strategic aspects affected by price were the ultimate pit outline and production capacities. Future work will focus on incorporating uncertainty, both market and geological, into this planning framework.

25

24

Thank you for your attention

25

25