A Cut-Off of Liberated and Selected Ore

Minerals Optimisation Based on the

Geometallurgy Concept
G Turner-Saad1
ABSTRACT
An improvement to cut-off grade optimisation theory based on geometallurgy has been completed.
The improvement fundamentally consisted of taking into account mineralogical and textural
characteristics instead of grades. These characteristics are related to the spatial variability of
mineral abundance, association, particle size and liberation properties. Additionally, the improvement considered the spatial variability of mineral processing liberation and selectivity properties
associated with mineralogy and texture. The enhanced optimisation enables estimation of the
economic value of mining operations based on an optimum cut-off policy attributed to liberated
and selected ore minerals.
The enhanced optimisation was developed as an essential component of a joint cut-and-fill
mining and mineral processing methodology based on mixed integer mathematical programming.
The formulation considers static and dynamic modifying factors that vary over the projected life of
mining. The objective function of the mathematical formulation consists of maximising the realistic
expected economic value of concentrates or products of liberated and selected ore minerals,
whilst minimises liberated and selected gangue minerals. The optimal solution is obtained when
the objective function is subject to geological, mining, processing, marketing, smelting, refining,
environmental and financial constraints. The methodology accesses geometallurgical multivariate
resource models, which integrate the spatial variability of mineralogical and textural characteristics
and mineral processing liberation and selectivity properties.
The geometallurgical process concurrently optimises stope geometries, ore reserves, mining
sequences, and mining and mineral processing production based on the enhanced cut-off of
liberated and selected ore minerals. In addition, the process considers additive and non-additive
transfer functions associated to mutually exclusive geometallurgical spatial domains. The transfer
functions also take into consideration the blending of mineralogical and textural characteristics
with mineral processing liberation and selectivity properties.
This contribution presents an example of cut-off grade optimisation via mineralogical and
textural characteristic, and liberation and selectivity processing parameter optimisation for a
spatially variable orebody.

INTRODUCTION
The most important objective of the strategic mine planning
process consists in maximising the expected economic
or net present value (Davis and Newman, 2008). This is
achieved by mining and processing the ore reserves, and
the marketing, smelting and refining of the concentrates or
products over the projected mine life. The maximisation of the
expected economic or net present value can be determined by
applying current state-of-the-art cut-off grade optimisation
methodologies (Lane, 1964, 1979, 1988; Rudenno, 1979;
Lane et al, 1984; Dagdelen,1993). These methodologies are
fundamentally based on the spatial distribution of orebody
grades. In addition, account can be made of reasonable static
and dynamic assumptions on some of the modifying factors in
converting mineral resources to ore reserves (eg JORC, 2004;
Napier, 1983; Baird and Satchwell, 2001; Asad, 2005).

However, a realistic expected economic value can be

determined by considering the spatial variability of mineralogical and textural characteristics and associated liberation
and selectivity properties (Turner-Saad, 2010). In addition,
reliable static and dynamic assumptions can be made of the
modifying factors over the projected mine life.
The straightforward principle of determining the expected
economic value of mining, processing and marketing the
concentrates or products of two independent discrete ore
reserve blocks is described. The most important assumption
is that the two ore reserve blocks with the same volume,
bulk density, grade, dilution and static mineral processing
recovery will produce the same recovered metal content.
Nevertheless it is likely that the real recovered metal content
of these two discrete blocks will be different. This is due to the

1. Executive Geometallurgical Consultant, CAE Mining, Level 23, 333 Ann Street, Brisbane Qld 4000. Email: gts@datamine.co.uk

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

263

G TURNER-SAAD

difference in the mineralogical and textural characteristics,

and mineral processing performance of the two blocks. In
general terms, the mineral processing recovery is a function
of the abundance, association, grain size and liberation
characteristics and product size properties of ore and gangue
minerals. It is convenient to emphasise that concentrates or
products are constituted by liberated and selected ore and
gangue minerals.
On other hand, underground mine optimisation methodologies relate to stope geometries, mining sequences and
mining production have been developed as isolated stages
by a number of researchers as is shown in Figure 1 (Murray
and Magri, 1978; Trout and Grice, 1993; Alford, 1995; Ovanic
and Young, 1995; Ataee-pour and Baafi, 1998; Van Leuven,
1998; Thomas and Earl, 1999; Rahal et al, 2003; Smith,
Sheppard and Karunatillake, 2003; Topal, Kuchta and
Newman, 2003; Grieco, 2004; Smith and ORourke, 2005).
These mathematical formulations did not take into account
the combined relationship of the underground mining
stages either for single or multiple commodity deposits.
Additionally, there are no publications on the integration of
the geometallurgical concept, and specifically for underground
cut-and-fill mining.
Mineral
Resources

Geometallurgical
Resources

Mining
Design

Mining
Design

Ore
Reserves

Ore
Reserves

Mining
Sequence

Mining
Sequence

Mining
Production

Mining
Production

Processing
Production

Processing
Production

Smelting
Production

Smelting
Production

Refining
Production

Refining
Production

FIG 1 - Process diagrams of the isolated (left) and concurrent

(right) mining and mineral processing optimisation.
A geometallurgically integrated and iterative underground
cut-and-fill mining and mineral processing optimisation
methodology based on a mixed integer mathematical programming has been developed. The methodology described is
an extension and enhancement of the research previously
published by Turner-Saad and Smith (2006) and TurnerSaad (2011), which integrates geometallurgical multivariate
resources models of mineral deposits. This extended and
enhanced methodology takes into consideration the spatial
264

variability of mineralogical and textural characteristics, and

liberation and selectivity mineral processing properties of an
orebody.
The purpose of the proposed methodology consists of assessing the realistic expected economic value of mining operations
by defining what if strategic, tactical and operational
scenarios. The assessment can be performed by defining
and varying geological, mining, processing, marketing,
smelting, refining, environmental and financial scenarios and
assumptions over the projected mine life.

METHODOLOGY
In this study, the objective of the geometallurgical optimisation
process is to maximise the expected economic value of underground cut-and-fill mining and mineral processing operations.
The estimation of expected economic value throughout
this methodology is based a function of static and dynamic
technical and financial factors over the projected mine life.
The essence of the methodology resides in defining optimum:

mining, blending, stockpiling and processing of reserves

with different mineralogical and textural characteristics,
and mineral processing liberation and selectivity properties; and
marketing, smelting and refining concentrates or products
with different liberated and selected ore and gangue
minerals,
where optimisation is in agreement with geological, mining,
processing, marketing, smelting, refining, environmental and
financial constraints.
The development of the geometallurgical optimisation
process is based on five activities, inclusive of:
1. accessing geometallurgical multivariate resource models
of a deposit;
2. defining the strategic, tactical and operational scenarios;
3. defining the static and dynamic modifying factors over the
projected mine;
4. optimising simultaneously stope geometries, ore reserves,
mining sequences, mining and mineral processing
productions; and
5. assessing the realistic expected economic value.
Optimisation is an iterative process due to the unlimited
number of what if strategic, tactical and operational
scenarios that can be considered and because of the unlimited
number of assumptions of the modifying factors.
The iterative optimisation process is based on concurrent
integration of stope geometries, ore reserves, mining
sequences, mining and mineral processing productions over
the projected mine life as is shown in process diagram of
Figure 1.
The methodology is based on a mixed integer mathematical
programming formulation developed in AMPL A Mathematical
Programming Language (Fourer, Gay and Kernigham, 1993)
and using the IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimizer solver (IBM, 2011).
A summary of the objective function and geological, mining,
processing, marketing, smelting, refining, environmental and
financial constraints of the mathematical formulation are
described in the next sections.

Objective function
The objective function consists in maximising the realistic
expected economic or net present value of concentrates
or products of liberated and selected ore minerals whilst
minimising liberated and selected gangue minerals.

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT

The maximisation is controlled by a cut-off of liberated and

selected ore minerals optimisation methodology, which it is
an adaptation and enhancement of the original cut-off grade
optimisation theory (Lane, 1964).
The estimated annual cash flows or profits are determined
by means of a dynamic update of the net smelter return value
that varies over the projected mine life. The dynamic net
smelter return value is computed for concentrate or product
types by applying the defined static and dynamic modifying
factors (Liimatainen, 1998; Wellmer, 1989).
The formulation enables consideration of additive and nonadditive transfer functions that correlate the mineralogical
and textural characteristics with liberation and selectivity
processing properties for each geometallurgical domain.

Geological constraints
The aim of the geological constraints consists of selecting
orebodies, domains and resource categories in a specific time
period of the projected mine life. Consequently, a variety of
scenarios can be analysed with this group of constraints.

Mining constraints
The mining constrains simultaneously define the stope geometry, reserves, mining sequence and production of ore and
gangue minerals over the projected life of mining operations.
It is performed by constraining the quantity and quality of ore
and gangue minerals.
The mining constraints define the level intervals, stope
dimensions and locations, cut heights, pillar dimensions and
locations for each orebody. The levels, stopes and cuts can be
also selected in a specific time period to assess any particular
mining scenario.
In addition, a number of mining constraints related to the
underground cut-and-fill mining cycle (Hustrulid and Bullock,
2001) were established in the formulation. Furthermore, mine
capacity, level, stope and cut productivities, mineralogical and
textural characteristics, internal and wall dilution and cut-off
of liberated and selected ore minerals are also considered.
The stope geometry is then generated by differential cut-off
of liberated and selected ore and gangue minerals that vary
in both horizontally and vertically directions across levels,
stopes and cuts.
The reserves consist of those blocks included in the mining
production of ore and gangue minerals. The optimal solution
defines the quantity and quality of the diluted and blended
reserves blocks to be mined and processed for each time
period and by orebody, domain, level, stope and cut.

Processing constraints
The quantity and quality of liberated and selected ore and
gangue minerals in concentrates or products is controlled by
a group of constraints based on mineral processing liberation
and selectivity parameters.
The additive and non-additive transfer functions defined
for each domain calculate the quantity and quality of the
concentrates or products according to the mineral processing
capacity.
Normally, a static mineral processing recovery function is
applied to determine the recovered metal content of specific
commodity. However, dynamic mineral processing recovery
transfer functions can be applied in the formulation based on
the geometallurgical characteristics and properties of the ore
minerals in each domain (Bojcevski, 2003). The expected net
smelter return value could then vary significantly depending

on whether the mineral processing recovery is treated as a

static, dynamic additive or non-additive transfer function.
In summary, the formulation uses transfer functions to
determine the recovered metal content when the net smelter
return value is computed for each concentrate or product.

Marketing constraints
The quantity of liberated and selected ore and gangue minerals
in concentrates or products are limited by this group of
constraints and based on the market demand or smelters and
refineries short, medium- and long-term sales agreements.

Smelting constraints
This group of constraints restricts the quality of liberated and
selected ore minerals in concentrates. These constraints also
limit the production capacity of the smelter.

Refining constraints
The refining constraints group controls the quality of liberated
and selected ore minerals in concentrates or products. In
addition, this group of constraints limits the production
capacity of the refinery.

Environmental constraints
The main purpose of this group of constraints consists
limits the quality of liberated and selected gangue or deleterious minerals abundance in waste materials, tailings
and concentrates or products, that in some way have an
environmental impact.

Financial constraints
This group of constraints controls the mining, processing,
marketing, smelting, refining and environmental fixed
and variable operating costs for each time period over the
projected mine life.

APPLICATION
A case study was considered to demonstrate the capability of
integrating the cut-off of liberated and selected ore minerals
and the joint cut-and-fill mining and mineral processing
optimisations. The assessment of the integrated optimisation
was performed throughout the definition of several scenarios.
Each scenario included the combinations of static and
dynamic modifying factors over the projected mine life.
The geologic setting of the case study consists of several
mesothermal and pyrometasomatic replacement orebodies in
a thick limestone sequence. The mineralisation is composed
of mainly massive galena and sphalerite with amounts
of chalcopyrite associated with pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite,
silicates, sulfates and carbonates.
Two structural and geometric types of orebodies have been
identified within the project:
1. a gently dipping sheet, and
2. steeply plunging chimneys.
The sheet orebodies comprise a combination of silicates
and sulfides, whilst the chimneys are dominated by sulfides
with or without silicates. One of the irregular sheet orebodies
was used as the case study, which represents a metasomatic
replacement system. A long-section model of the orebody is
shown in Figure 2.
A geometallurgical multivariate resource model of
the orebody was previously generated and accessed as
fundamental to the optimisation process. The resource
model comprised the spatial variability of mineralogical and

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

265

G TURNER-SAAD

considered in the optimisation process. The processing

selectivity or flotation information was related to the recovery
of ore and gangue minerals. The recovery information was
defined as transfer functions based on the relationship of
the abundance (per cent), association (per cent), particle size
(microns), liberation (per cent) and product size P80 (per
cent) of each ore mineral, in each domain.
The integrated and iterative optimisation process consisted
of assessing the impact of using static and dynamic modifying
factors over the projected mine life, including:

FIG 2 - Explicit spatial model of the case study orebody.

textural characteristics and mineral processing liberation
parameters. These parameters, in turn, were constrained by
several mutually exclusive geometallurgical liberation and
selectivity spatial domains within the orebody by applying
and combining implicit modelling and multivariate statistical
analysis.
The spatial models of mineralogical characteristics used
in the optimisation process included: abundance (per cent),
association (per cent), particle size (microns) and liberation
(per cent) of the galena, sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite
and arsenopyrite. An example of the galena model is shown
in Figure 3.
The mineral processing liberation and comminution
information was also accessed and specifically associated with
the spatial models of feed size F80 (mm), product size P80
(microns), throughput (t/h) and energy consumption (kWh/t)
as are shown in Figure 4. The processing recoveries of galena,
sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite and arsenopyrite were

cut-off and average of liberated and selected ore minerals;

stope geometries;
reserves;
ore and waste mining sequences;
expected mining, processing, smelting and refining
productions; and
expected profits.
The optimisation was constrained by geological, mining,
processing, marketing, smelting, refining, environmental and
financial constraints. Four scenarios were considered.
Scenario 1:

geological constraints:
static orebody and domains; and
static measured and indicated mineral resources;
mining constraints:
static limits of level intervals;
static limits of stope dimensions and locations;
static limits of cut heights;
static limits of pillar dimensions and locations;
static limits of levels, stopes and cuts dilution rates;
static limits of levels, stopes and cuts productivities; and
static limits of ore and waste production capacities;

Abundance [%]

Association [%]

Grain Size [microns]

Liberation [%]

FIG 3 - The galena abundance (per cent), association (per cent), particle size (microns) and liberation (per cent) spatial models of the case study orebody.
266

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT

Feed Size F80 [mm]

Product Size P80 [microns]

Throughput [tph]

Energy Consumption [kWh/t]

FIG 4 - The feed size F80 (mm), product size P80 (microns), throughput (t/h) and energy consumption (kWh/t) spatial models of the case study orebody.

processing constraints:
static limits of ore production capacity;
static limits of ore minerals abundance;
dynamic limits of liberation or comminution
properties; and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties;
marketing constraints:
static limits of marketing costs;
static limits of shipping costs; and
static limits of treatment costs;
smelting constraints:
static limits of concentrates production capacity; and
dynamic limits of ore minerals abundance.
refining constraints:
static limits of products production capacity; and
dynamic limits of ore minerals abundance.
environmental constraints:
static limits of deleterious minerals abundances in
waste;
static limits of deleterious minerals abundances in
tailings; and
static limits of deleterious minerals abundances in
concentrates or products;
financial constraints:
static limits of mining, processing, smelting and
refining fixed and variable operating costs;
static limits of discount rate; and
dynamic limits of metal prices.
The geological, mining, marketing, smelting, refining,
environmental and financial constraints of scenarios 2, 3
and 4 were similar to scenario 1. The only difference was in the
processing constraints and specifically in defining the static

limits of the mineral processing liberation or comminution

properties.
Scenario 2:
processing constraints:
static limits production capacity of ore,
static limits of ore minerals abundance,
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
energy consumption (kWh/t), and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties.
Scenario 3:

processing constraints:
static limits production capacity of ore,
static limits of ore minerals abundance,
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
energy consumption (kWh/t),
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
throughput (t/h), and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties.
Scenario 4:

processing constraints:
static limits production capacity of ore,
static limits of ore minerals abundance,
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
energy consumption (kWh/t),
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
throughput (t/h),
static limits of liberation or comminution properties
product size P80 (microns), and
dynamic limits of selectivity or flotation properties.
In summary, the objectives of the four scenarios consisted of
assessing the impact of relaxing and constraining the energy
consumption (kWh/t), throughput (t/h) and product size P80
(microns).

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

267

G TURNER-SAAD

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Liberated and Selected Galena

The probability density function (per cent) and cumulative

distribution function (per cent) of the galena abundance (per
cent) in the resource model is shown in Figure 5. As expected,
both functions were dynamic in the sense that new functions
are computed for every time period. The new functions represent the statistical distribution of the remaining resources of
the orebody. This means that the quantity of material mined
in a specific time period is removed from the resource model.
The statistical distribution of the updated resource model
has a direct impact on the definition of the balancing cut-offs
of liberated and selected ore minerals of the following time
periods. The maximisation of the expected economic value
requires mining of high values in each time period as can be
seen in both functions of Figure 5.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]
Ore:Material Ratio

Concentrator:Mine Capacities Ratio

Liberated and Selected Galena

Liberated and Selected Galena

PDF [%]

CDF [%]

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Product:Material Ratio

3.0

Refinery:Mine Capacities Ratio

Abundance [%]
Probability Density Function

Cumulative Distribution Function

Liberated and Selected Galena

FIG 5 - The dynamic probability density function (per cent) and cumulative
distribution function (per cent) of the galena abundance (per cent) of each
time period over the projected mine life.
The quantity (t) quality (per cent) cut-off of liberated and
selected ore minerals (per cent) plot in Figure 6, also confirm
that the resource model was updated dynamically in each time
period. This means that the quantity and quality of the galena
is decreasing in every time period and subsequently the cutoff of liberated and selected ore minerals as well.
Liberated and Selected Galena

Quality [%]

Quantity [t]

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]
Product:Ore Ratio

Refinery:Concentrator Capacities Ratio

FIG 7 - The dynamic concentrator-mine (top), refinery-mine (middle) and

refinery-concentrator (bottom) balancing cut-offs of liberated and selected
galena (per cent) of each time period with a static mine, concentrator and
refinery production capacities over the projected mine life.
The behaviour of the information represents the depletion of
the resources in each time period due to mining, processing,
smelting and refining.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]
Material

Average of Galena Abundance

FIG 6 - The dynamic quantity (t) (material) - quality (per cent) (average of
galena abundance) - cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per cent) of
each time period over the projected mine life.

The optimum cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per

cent) and average of galena abundance (per cent) over the
projected life of the mining operation and by scenario is shown
in Figure 9. The differences in cut-offs among scenarios is due
to the limits defined for the energy consumption (kWh/t),
throughput (t/h) and product size P80 (microns). The average
galena abundance (per cent) decreases over mine life as a
result of the maximisation process.

The dynamic and decreasing balancing cut-offs of liberated

and selected ore minerals is illustrated in Figure 7. The
balancing cut-offs are decreasing due to the updated resource
model having higher values. Also, in Figure 7, the static mine,
concentrator and refinery production capacities over the
projected mine life can be seen.

Figure 10 describes the material, ore, product productions

(t) and profits ($) of each scenario. The differences among
scenarios is due to the static limits defined in some of the
mineral processing liberation properties. However, from these
plots can be seen that the refinery capacity is the bottleneck of
production.

The dynamic mine, concentrator and refinery productions,

profits and present value plots are illustrated in Figure 8.

The energy consumption (kWh/t), throughput (t/h) and

product size P80 (microns) over the projected life of the

268

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT

The spatial distribution of the stope geometries and mining

sequences of the four scenarios and the cut-off of liberated
and selected galena are shown respectively in Figures 12 and
13. The spatial differences among the four scenarios is mainly
due to the impact of the defined static mineral processing
liberation or comminution parameters used during the optimisation process. Definitively, any change of static or dynamic
parameters involved in the modifying factors has a specific
impact in the stope geometry, reserves, mining sequence, mine
and processing productions and subsequently the economics.

Liberated and Selected Galena

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]
Mine Production

CONCLUSIONS

Concentrator Production

Refinery Production

The main conclusions of this study are:

Liberated and Selected Galena

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]
Mine Profit

Concentrator Profit

Refinery Profit

Liberated and Selected Galena

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cut-Off [%]
Mine Value

Concentrator Value

the realistic expected maximum economic or net present

value of mining operations is reached when the mining
and mineral processing stages are optimised concurrently
instead of isolated;
the joint mining and mineral processing methodology
enables maximising the depletion of the resources;
the fundamental information of the optimisation process
is the geometallurgical multivariate resource models,
which integrate the spatial variability of mineralogical and
textural characteristics and mineral processing liberation
and selectivity properties;
the additive and non-additive transfer functions also
need to take into consideration the capability of blending
the ore from mutually exclusive geometallurgical spatial
domains, which contain different mineralogical and
textural characteristics and mineral processing liberation
and selectivity properties;
the realistic economic assessment of what if strategic,
tactical and operational scenarios is obtained when
dynamic modifying factors are applied over the projected
mine life; and
further research and development is required to enhance
and apply the methodology to other underground and
open pit mining methods.

Refinery Value

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FIG 8 - The dynamic mine, concentrator and refinery productions (t) (top),
profits ($) (middle) and present value ($) (bottom) by cut-off of liberated and
selected galena (per cent) for each time period over the projected mine life.

Special thanks to Dr Simon C Dominy for his support and help

in reviewing, commenting on and editing this paper.

mining operations is shown in Figure 11. The differences

between each scenario is due to the static limits defined for
each mineral processing liberation parameter.

Alford, C, 1995. Optimisation in underground mine design, in

Proceedings APCOM XXV, pp 213-218 (The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

REFERENCES

Optimum Cut-Off of Liberated and Selected Galena [%]

10

15

Average of Galena Abundance [%]

20

Time Period [y]

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

10

15

20

Time Period [y]

Scenario 4

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

FIG 9 - The dynamic optimum cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per cent) (left) and average of galena abundance (per cent) (right)
over the projected mine life.
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

269

G TURNER-SAAD

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

10

15

20

10

Time Period [y]

Material [t]

Ore [t]

Product [t]

Profit [$]

Material [t]

Ore [t]

Scenario 3

10

Ore [t]

20

Product [t]

Profit [$]

Scenario 4

15

20

10

Time Period [y]

Material [t]

15

Time Period [y]

15

20

Time Period [y]

Product [t]

Profit [$]

Material [t]

Ore [t]

Product [t]

Profit [$]

FIG 10 - The dynamic material (t), ore (t), concentrate or product (t) productions and profits ($) over the projected mine life.

Throughput of the Liberation Process [tph]

Energy Consumption of the Liberation Process [kWh/t]

10

15

20

10

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

15

20

Time Period [y]

Time Period [y]

Scenario 3

Scenario 1

Scenario 4

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Product Size P80 of the Liberation Process [microns]

10

15

20

Time Period [y]

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

FIG 11 - The energy consumption (kWh/t) (top), throughput (t/h) (middle) and product size P80 (microns) (bottom) of the liberation process over the projected mine life.

270

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

A CUT-OFF OF LIBERATED AND SELECTED ORE MINERALS OPTIMISATION BASED ON THE GEOMETALLURGY CONCEPT

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

FIG 12 - The stope geometries and mining sequences of a cut-and-fill mining over the projected mine life.

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

FIG 13 - The spatial distribution of the cut-off of liberated and selected galena (per cent) of a cut-and-fill mining over the projected mine life.

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

271

G TURNER-SAAD
Asad, M W A, 2005. Cut-off grade optimization algorithm for open
pit mining operations with consideration of dynamic metal price
and cost escalation during mine life, in Proceedings APCOM
2005, Tucson, Arizona, pp 273-277 (A A Balkema Publishers).
Ataee-pour, M and Baafi, E Y, 1998. Implementation of a heuristic
algorithm to optimise stope limits with excel modules, in
Proceedings APCOM 1998, Kalgoorlie, pp 161-164.
Baird, B K and Satchwell, P C, 2001. Application of economic
parameters and cutoffs during and after pit optimization, Mining
Engineering, 53(2):33-40.
Bojcevski, D, 2003. Metallurgical Characterisation of George
Fisher Mesotextures and Microtextures, 369 p (The University of
Queensland: Brisbane).
Dagdelen, K, 1993. An NPV maximization algorithm for open
pit mine design, in Proceedings APCOM XXIV Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry,
pp 257-263 (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Petroleum: Montreal).
Davis, G A and Newman, A M, 2008. Modern strategic mine
planning, in Proceedings 2008 Australian Mining Technology
Conference, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, pp 1-13.
Fourer, R, Gay, D M and Kernigham, B W, 1993. AMP A Modelling
Language for Mathematical Programming, 351 p (Boyd &
Fraser Publishing Company, International Thomson Publishing:
Danvers).

Napier, J A L, 1983. The effect of cost and price fluctuations on the

optimum choice of mine cutoff grades, Journal of the Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 83(6):117-125.
Ovanic, J and Young, D S, 1995. Economic optimization of open
stope geometry using separable programming with special
branch and bound techniques, in Proceedings Third Canadian
Conference on Computer Applications in the Mineral Industry
(ed: K Dagdelen), pp 129-135.
Rahal, D, Smith, M L, Van Hout, G and Von Johannides, A, 2003.
The use of mixed integer linear programming for long-term
scheduling in block caving mines, in Proceedings Application of
Computers and Operation Research in the Minerals Industries,
pp 1-9 (Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Marshalltown).
Rudenno, V, 1979. Determination of optimum cutoff grades, in
Proceedings 16th Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industry, pp 261-268 (Society of Mining
Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc).
Smith, M L and ORourke, A, 2005. The connection between
production schedule and cut-off optimization in underground
mines, in Proceedings 32nd Application of Computers and
Operations Research in the Mineral Industry (eds: S Dessureault
et al) (Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration: Tucson).

Grieco, N, 2004. Risk analysis of optimal stope design: Incorporating

grade uncertainty, MPhil thesis, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane.

Smith, M L, Sheppard, I and Karunatillake, G, 2003. Using MIP

for strategic life-of-mine planning of the lead/zinc stream at
Mount Isa Mine, in Proceedings Application of Computers and
Operation Research in the Minerals Industries, pp 1-10 (Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Marshalltown).

Hustrulid, W A and Bullock, R L, 2001. Underground Mining

Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Case
Studies, 718 p (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
Inc: Littleton)p.

Thomas, G and Earl, A, 1999. The application of second-generation

stope optimisation tools in underground cut-off grade analysis,
in Proceedings Strategic Mine Planning Conference, pp 1-6 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

IBM 2011. IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimizer [online]. Available from:

<http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/optimization/
cplex-optimizer/> [Accessed: 6 May 2011].

Topal, E, Kuchta, M and Newman, A, 2003. Extensions to an

efficient optimization model for long-term production planning
at LKABs Kiruna mine, in Proceedings Application of Computers
and Operation Research in the Minerals Industries, pp 289293 (Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Marshalltown).

JORC, 2004. The JORC Code, Australasian Code for Reporting of

Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, 31 p
(The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists
and Minerals Council of Australia).
Lane, K F, 1964. Choosing the optimum cut-off grade, Quarterly of
the Colorado School of Mines, 59(4):811-829.
Lane, K F, 1979. Commercial aspects of choosing cutoff grades, in
Proceedings 16th Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industry, pp 280-285 (Society of Mining
Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc).
Lane, K F, 1988. The Economic Definition of Ore, 147 p (Mining
Journal Books: London).
Lane, K F, Hamilton, D J et al, 1984. Cutoff grades for two minerals,
in Proceedings Application of Computers and Mathematics in
the Mineral Industries, pp 485-491 (The Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy: London).
Liimatainen, J, 1998. Valuation model and equivalence factors
for base metal ores, in Proceedings Seventh International
Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (ed: R K
Singhal), pp 317-322 (A A Balkema: Calgary).
Murray, R M and Magri, E J, 1978. The Use of Linear Programming
in the Short-Term Planning of Stoping Production in Gold
Mines, pp 262-268 (Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Marshalltown).

272

Trout, L P and Grice, A G, 1993. Optimisation of underground mine

activity scheduling, in Proceedings Australian Conference on the
Application of Computers in the Mineral Industry (ed: E Y Baafi),
pp 310-315 (University of Wollongong: Wollongong).
Turner-Saad, G, 2010. Vision for a risk adverse integrated
geometallurgical framework, in Proceedings 42nd Annual
Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, pp 197213.
Turner-Saad, G, 2011. A joint cut and fill mining and mineral
processing methodology for the strategic mine planning process,
in Proceedings Second International Seminar on Mine Planning,
Antofagasta, pp 76.
Turner-Saad, G and Smith, M L, 2006. The impact of the bulk
density and metallurgical recovery in strategic cut and fill mining,
in Proceedings JKMRC International Student Conference II,
pp 187-200 (The University of Queensland: Brisbane).
Van Leuven, M A, 1998. Risk analysis-an aid in selecting an
underground mining method, in Seventh International
Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, pp 349354 (ed: R K Singhal) (A A Balkema: Calgary).
Wellmer, F W, 1989. Economic Evaluation in Exploration, 163 p
(Springer-Verlag: Berlin).

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011