Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
Experience:
Eleven years international mining experience: specialising in blasting, planning and mine optimisation
Currently:
Principal Consultant Mining Engineer with Rio Tinto Technical Services Ltd, Australia.
Introduction
Scheduling many resources requires the
segregation of ore for processing, and barren
or low grade rock sent to waste dumps. The
rock is ranked so that the highest value
material can be separated for processing.
Deposits with only one valuable metal, such
as gold, normally would use the element
grade (oz/t) to rank the resource. In a simple
process, the highest grade material is
processed to recover the gold and the low
grade material sent to a waste dump.
As multimetal ores are mined, the ranking
of the resource may utilise equivalent grades
(e.g. Au-Equiv, oz/t) or dollar grades ($/t).
These grades are used to find the material
that will add greatest value to the operation
when processed. More complex ranking
systems are required when the minerals are
hosted in rocks with different processing
rates. A quantitative system is required to
decide if it is better to process a few (hard)
high gold grade blocks, or more (softer) low
gold grade rock. This paper explores a
method to rank ores with different
processing characteristics.
A New Ranking Method: Cash Flow
Grades
In considering how to appropriately rank
ores with different throughput rates, the
underlying formula used in cut-off grade
optimisation was considered (Lane, 1988):
STRATEGIC MINE PLANNING Conference
Technological Resources Pty Limited 1998
V * (T + t , R r )
V * (T , R) = 0Max
c(t, r, ) +
r R
for all
(1 + )t
In this equation the maximum present value
(V*) of the entire resource (R) is calculated
at a specific time (T). The maximum
present value is calculated by selecting the
strategies (), for a portion of resource (r),
which maximise the sum of the cash flow (c)
and the maximum present value of the
remaining resource (processed during a time
t, with discount rate ).
Maximum cash flows are a key component
used in optimisation of a schedule to
determine a cut-off grade strategy and
achieve the greatest NPV. When applying a
cut-off grade, the best ranking system will
result in the maximum cash flow.
A rock classification system has been
derived by considering how to maximise the
cash flow used in long term schedule
optimisation (further details are included in
Appendix A). The following formula shows
the Cash Flow Grade, calculated as a value
per time period to rank the rocks for both
short and long term scheduling.
GCashFlow [$ / hr ] = (OreValue[$ / t ]
WasteValue[$ / t ]) * OreProcessingRate[t / hr ]
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
Brett King
3.0
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 110%
Process Capacity
120%
130%
140%
150%
Page 3
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
Application
Cut-off Grade Strategy
For Cash Flow Grades to be used in
developing a cut-off grade strategy, the cash
flow must be calculated with the relevant
constraints applied. To calculate the cash
flow contribution from the rocks processed
as ore, the average ore cash flow grade must
have the waste value corrections removed.
It may be easier to separately calculate the
cash flow based on the raw block
information (e.g. copper grade, gold grade,
concentrate mass). It is apparent that the
grade used for ranking and splitting ore from
waste does not have to be used in the
calculating the cash flow.
80
10.0
Total Mass
Ore - Mass
Cash Flow Cut-off Grade
70
9.0
8.0
60
7.0
50
6.0
40
5.0
30
4.0
3.0
20
2.0
10
1.0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Time Period
Stockpiles
Stockpiles capture material that can be
processed economically at a later time.
Stockpiling to help maintain blended targets
is not included in this discussion since this
normally falls outside the scope of cut-off
grade optimisation problems. If sufficient
space exists, a number of stockpiles may be
created to separate ores of different values.
The same principles may be used to separate
Page 4
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
Brett King
80
10.0
Total Mass
Ore - Mass
Cash Flow Cut-off Grade
70
9.0
8.0
60
7.0
50
6.0
40
5.0
4.0
30
3.0
20
2.0
10
1.0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Time Period
Figure 3:
Multiple Processes
Although this paper addresses ore and waste
separation, the same principles apply to two
different ore processing streams (e.g. two
different concentrators). For example,
consider the case of floatation and heap
leach circuits.
As well as determining which material is
sent to waste dumps, question arises of
Page 5
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
GCashFlow [$/hr] =
(FloatationValue[$/t ] HeapLeachValue[$/t ])
* FloatationThroughput[t/hr ]
Two ranking systems would be implemented
by first determining what should be mined
as ore, then determining what ore should be
sent to each process. Material would be
separated as shown in Table 1.
Concentration Ranking
Ranking System
Waste/Ore
Ranking
Low
High
High
Low
Floatation Ore
Waste
Location
Open Pit
Rock
U/G Stoping
B
U/G Development
D
Ore Revenue
Ore Mining Cost
Ore Processing Cost
Ore Throughput
Waste Cost
$12.0 /t
$1.0 /t
$2.0 /t
140 t/hr
$1.5 /t
$15.0 /t
$1.0 /t
$2.2 /t
80 t/hr
$1.5 /t
$25.0 /t
$15.0 /t
$2.0 /t
140 t/hr
$0 /t
$30.0 /t
$15.0 /t
$2.2 /t
80 t/hr
$0 /t
$12.0 /t
$50.0 /t
$2.0 /t
140 t/hr
$50 /t
$15.0 /t
$50.0 /t
$2.2 /t
80 t/hr
$50 /t
$9.0 /t
$10.5 /t
$11.8 /t
$13.3 /t
$8.0 /t
$8.0 /t
$12.8 /t
$12.8 /t
-$40.0 /t
$10.0 /t
-$37.2 /t
$12.8 /t
$1,120 /hr
$1,024 /hr
Table 2: Underground & Open Pit Ranking using Cash Flow Grades
Page 6
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
Brett King
Page 7
hitt
Opti m
n g w it h W
i zi
PPeer
rtt h 119
9 9995
Appendix A
t metal
OreConValue[$ / t ] =
t Re cov ered Metal
ConGrade
t con
Likewise the value of processing the same material as waste would be given by a similar, less
complicated, equation. In calculating the value of this material if it was mined as waste, the
same ore processing rate is used to ensure an equal quantity of material is mined as waste. This
last assumption does not always hold true since waste may be processed at different rates
depending on the location and rock characteristics.
WasteValue[$ / hr ] = (WasteMassValue[$ / t ]) OreProcessingRate[t / hr ] + FixedValue[$ / hr ]
The benefit of processing material as ore instead of waste can be quantified by simply looking
at the difference between the ore and waste cash flows. Material with the greatest benefit to
process as ore will contain the highest difference in value, therefore ranking the rock with all
other material.
GCashFlow [$ / hr ] = OreValue[$ / hr ] WasteValue[$ / hr ]
or
GCashFlow [$ / hr ] = (OreValue[$ / t ] WasteValue[$ / t ]) * OreProcessingRate[t / hr ]
One significant feature of this equation is that the fixed costs do not have an impact on the
ranking of material. A corollary is that the highest cash flow that can be realised from a
resource is independent of what fixed costs must be paid. As with any algorithm derivation, if
the assumption base does not represent the problem, an optimal ranking is not guaranteed.
Tests with other ranking systems can be used to assess the applicability of the derived formula.
Page 8