Underground Mining Method

AES/RE/13-36 Underground mining method
selection and preliminary techno-

economic mine design for the
Wombat orebody, Kylylahti
deposit, Finland
30/08/2013 T.W. Peskens

Abstract
Title : Underground mining method selection and

preliminary techno-economic mine design for the
Wombat orebody, Kylylahti deposit, Finland
Author : T.W. Peskens
Date : 30 August 2013

Supervisors : Dr. M.W.N. Buxton
Prof. Dr. M. Rinne
Prof. Dr. Ir. A. Vervoort
TA Report number : AES/RE/13-36
Postal Address : Section for Resource Engineering

Department of Geoscience & Engineering
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5028
The Netherlands
Telephone : (31) 15 2781328 (secretary)
Telefax : (31) 15 2781189
Copyright ©2013 Section for Resource Engineering
All rights reserved.

No parts of this publication may be reproduced,
Stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
In any form or by any means, electronic,
Mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
Without the prior written permission of the
Section for Resource Engineering
II
Abstract
Abstract
Mining method selection lies at the basis of every mining operation and is essential for
maximizing economic return. Especially in the current market with decreasing metal
prices selecting the right method can mean the difference between a viable and a non-
viable operation. More importantly the right mining method increases the safety of
employees and secures the production. The Kylylahti underground copper mine, owned
by Altona Mining ltd. is located in Northern-Karelia, Finland. This deposit consists of two
orebodies, the upper Wallaby and the lower Wombat. Longitudinal bench stoping is
proposed for the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies. The Wallaby orebody is currently
mined using the proposed method. However, different orebody characteristics suggest a
more suitable mining method for the Wombat orebody.
This work determines the mining method which maximizes economic return for the
Wombat orebody. This is a three phase process. First phase is the mining method
selection on technical suitability to the orebody; for which two methods are. The UBC
method is applied first resulting in the selection of the area of sublevel stoping methods.
Later a new technique is introduced to optimize the mining method selection process
and to control the wide spectrum of mineral deposits. This technique is called the Fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process approach and is based on Multiple Criteria Decision Making.
Six factors specifically applicable to the Kylylahti mine are used as input for the
approach resulting in transverse bench stoping as the most suitable method for the
Wombat orebody.
In the subsequent phase, the rock mass properties of the ore zone and the host rock
masses are calculated using the Q-classification method. These values are combined
with the results of in situ stress measurements to determine the stability of the open
stopes at different depths. Dimensions of the stopes are determined depending on the
resulting stability limits on stope height, width and length. Applying these stope limits a
preliminary mine design was made, resulting in a reserve estimation of 3.4 Mt of ore in
place. This gives a life of mine of 6 years and 3 months for the Kylylahti mine using
transverse bench stoping.
The combination of all obtained data is the input for the financial analysis phase for the
Wombat orebody; comparing the proposed longitudinal bench stoping to transverse
bench stoping, as recommended in this thesis. The sensitivity of the net present value to
metal price is investigated in two different metal price forecasting scenarios resulting in
an economic return. In both scenarios transverse bench stoping maximized the
economic return delivering $52 million and $63 million extra profit at the end of mine
life.
III
Abstract
IV
Disclaimer
Disclaimer
The views and opinions of the author expressed in this thesis work do reflect any official
data. Therefore it shall not be used for other purposes than reading this thesis.
V
Disclaimer
This thesis is made possible by Altona Mining ltd. and the Delft University of Technology.
Their support is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
VI
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Abstract……………. ............................................................................................................................ III

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................... V
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... VII
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................XI
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................XIII
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ XVII
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................ XIX
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. XX
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................... XXIII
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Foreword .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 General locality............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Problem statement ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Aim and objectives ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Research questions ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Report outline ................................................................................................................................. 5
1.7 Research scope and limitations ............................................................................................... 6
2 Background information ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Geology .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Structural geology ............................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Outokumpu type ore .......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.3 Outokumpu assemblage..................................................................................................11
2.1.4 The Kylylahti deposit .......................................................................................................13
2.1.5 Mineralisation .....................................................................................................................15
2.2 Kylylahti underground copper mine ...................................................................................18
2.2.1 Kylylahti mining area and license ...............................................................................18
2.2.2 The Kylylahti deposit .......................................................................................................20
2.2.3 Resource and reserve estimates ..................................................................................20
2.2.4 Different types of ore in the mineral deposit .........................................................21
2.2.5 Rate of production .............................................................................................................21
2.2.6 Ore boundaries of the ore and host rock mass ......................................................22
2.2.7 Gap between Wallaby and Wombat ...........................................................................23
3 Wallaby orebody versus Wombat orebody ...................................................................25
3.1 Orientation of the orebody ......................................................................................................25
3.2 Shape of the orebody .................................................................................................................26
3.3 Orebody thickness ......................................................................................................................27
3.4 Thickness and shape of orebody shown by resource and block model................30
3.4.1 Sections through the Wallaby orebody ....................................................................30
3.4.2 Sections through the Wombat orebody....................................................................37
VII
Table of Contents
3.4.3 Differences shown by the block models of the Kylylahti orebodies .............42
4 Benchmark: mine design in the Wallaby orebody ......................................................43
4.1 Production from the Wallaby orebody ...............................................................................43
4.1.1 Mining method: longitudinal bench mining ...........................................................43
4.1.2 Development........................................................................................................................44
4.1.2.1 Decline ................................................................................................................................................44
4.1.2.2 Headings & drives ..........................................................................................................................45
4.1.3 Production ............................................................................................................................47
4.1.3.1 LBS sequence ...................................................................................................................................47
4.1.3.2 Stope production............................................................................................................................48
4.1.3.3 Stopes layout in the Wallaby orebody ..................................................................................48
4.1.4 Ventilation ............................................................................................................................50
4.1.5 Ground support ..................................................................................................................50
4.1.5.1 Roof bolts...........................................................................................................................................51
4.1.5.2 Cable bolts .........................................................................................................................................52
4.1.5.3 Mesh.....................................................................................................................................................53
4.1.5.4 Shotcrete ............................................................................................................................................53
4.1.6 Backfilling .............................................................................................................................53
4.2 Processing ......................................................................................................................................54
4.2.1 Processing flow...................................................................................................................54
4.2.2 Demands for optimal processing ................................................................................56
5 Underground mining method selection (UMMS) for the Wombat orebody by
traditional selection methods....................................................................................................57
5.1 Traditional UMMS tools ............................................................................................................58
5.1.1 Boshkov and Wright .........................................................................................................58
5.1.2 Morrison ................................................................................................................................58
5.1.3 Laubscher..............................................................................................................................58
5.1.4 Hartman .................................................................................................................................58
5.1.5 Nicholas method ................................................................................................................59
5.1.6 University of British Colombia (UBC) method.......................................................59
5.2 Factors influencing mining method selection .................................................................60
5.2.1 Technical and operational factors ..............................................................................60
5.2.2 Economic factors ................................................................................................................62
5.3 Underground mining method selection with the UBC method ................................64
5.3.1 Input parameters to the UBC method .......................................................................64
5.3.1.1 Orebody characteristics ..............................................................................................................64
5.3.1.2 RMR of orebody and host rock masses ................................................................................66
5.3.1.3 RSS of orebody and host rock masses ..................................................................................66
5.3.2 Ranking and result ............................................................................................................67
5.3.3 Discussion on exclusion of mining methods...........................................................68
5.4 Included mining methods ........................................................................................................69
5.5 Shortcomings of traditional selection methods ..............................................................69
6 New approach to UMMS using multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) .......71
6.1 Decision making with Fuzzy AHP approach.....................................................................72
6.1.1 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)...............................................................................72
6.1.2 Fuzzy logic ............................................................................................................................73
6.1.3 Fuzzy AHP .............................................................................................................................74
6.1.4 Introduction into fuzzy numbers ................................................................................74
6.2 Buckley’s FAHP approach ........................................................................................................75
6.2.1 The geometric mean method ........................................................................................76
6.2.2 Fuzzy matrix calculations ...............................................................................................76
6.3 Identifying key factors for the FAHP approach...............................................................78
6.3.1 Ore boundaries / orebody thickness: ........................................................................78
VIII
Table of Contents
6.3.2 State of stress: .....................................................................................................................79

6.3.3 Flexibility to secure production: .................................................................................79
6.3.4 Selectivity of ore type: .....................................................................................................79
6.3.5 Dilution and recovery: .....................................................................................................79
6.3.6 Health and safety: ..............................................................................................................79
6.4 Hierarchy analysis of the key factors ..................................................................................80
6.5 Construction of the pair wise comparison matrices .....................................................83
6.6 Results of the UMMS using the FAHP approach .............................................................85
6.7 Discussion on TBS as most suitable mining method ....................................................86
6.8 Discussion on the FAHP approach as a UMMS tool .......................................................88
7 Definition of design parameters: Q-classification and stope limits ......................89
7.1 The Q-classification method ...................................................................................................90
7.2 Q-classification for the orebody and host rock mass....................................................92
7.2.1 Selection of data used for Q-classification ...............................................................92
7.2.2 Results of Q-classification ..............................................................................................94
7.2.3 Summary of the Q-classification results...................................................................97
7.3 In situ state of stress at upper Wombat level ...................................................................98
7.3.1 Location of measurements.......................................................................................... 100
7.3.2 Results of the in-situ stress test ................................................................................ 102
7.4 Determining the stope limits for the Wombat orebody ........................................... 104
7.4.1 Determining the stability number (N’ values) .................................................... 106
7.4.2 Determining the stope limits using the stability graph .................................. 108
7.4.2.1 Transverse stopes at depth of 500 m................................................................................. 109
7.4.2.2 Longitudinal stopes at depth of 500 m ............................................................................. 110
7.4.2.3 Transverse stopes at depth of 600 m................................................................................. 111
7.4.2.4 Longitudinal stopes at depth of 600 m ............................................................................. 112
7.4.3 Discussion on the calculated stope limits ............................................................. 113
8 Implementation: preliminary mine design for the Wombat orebody .............. 115
8.1 Development - decline............................................................................................................ 116
8.1.1 Issues on the current decline design ...................................................................... 117
8.1.2 Different decline designs ............................................................................................. 118
8.1.2.1 Current decline design ............................................................................................................. 119
8.1.2.2 Decline that circles around the orebody .......................................................................... 119
8.1.2.3 Decline located south-east of the orebody ...................................................................... 120
8.1.2.4 Decline located north-west of the orebody ..................................................................... 120
8.1.2.5 Discussion on the decline options ....................................................................................... 120
8.2 Development – horizontal headings & drives .............................................................. 121
8.2.1 Types of headings & drives ......................................................................................... 121
8.2.1.1 Level access headings ............................................................................................................... 121
8.2.1.2 Auxiliary headings ...................................................................................................................... 121
8.2.1.3 Operation drives ......................................................................................................................... 121
8.2.2 Horizontal development design ............................................................................... 122
8.2.3 Distribution on type of development ..................................................................... 122
8.2.4 Horizontal development required for production ............................................ 123
8.2.5 Ore / waste ratio ............................................................................................................. 124
8.2.6 Benefits of extra development using TBS ............................................................. 125
8.3 Stope production using TBS ................................................................................................. 125
8.3.1 Stope design overview and layout ........................................................................... 126
8.3.2 Stope design per level ................................................................................................... 129
8.3.2.1 Upper levels................................................................................................................................... 129
8.3.2.2 Middle levels ................................................................................................................................. 130
8.3.2.3 Lower levels .................................................................................................................................. 132
8.3.3 Sequence of mining ........................................................................................................ 133
8.3.4 Expected increase in mine life ................................................................................... 136
IX
Table of Contents
9 Financial analysis for the Wombat orebody............................................................... 137

9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 137
9.2 Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 137
9.2.1 Estimated mining costs ................................................................................................ 138
9.2.2 Metal prices forecasting ............................................................................................... 139
9.2.3 Development parameters ............................................................................................ 139
9.2.4 Production parameters ................................................................................................ 140
9.2.5 Financial constraints ..................................................................................................... 141
9.3 Results of the financial analysis ......................................................................................... 142
9.3.1 Life of mine (LoM) .......................................................................................................... 142
9.3.2 Net present value (NPV) .............................................................................................. 142
9.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 147
10 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 149
10.1 Answers to the research questions ................................................................................... 149
10.2 Final conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 151
10.3 Present situation: official mine planning for the Wombat orebody .................... 152
11 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 155
11.1 Recommendations on improving results in this thesis ............................................ 155
11.2 Operational recommendations ........................................................................................... 156
12 Personal communication .................................................................................................. 157
12.1 Unpublished data accessed through Altona Mining ltd. repository .................... 158
13 References .............................................................................................................................. 159
X
Appendices
Appendices
Appendices: table of contents ………………………………………………………………………………….A/I
Appendices: table of figures ………………………………………………………………………………...…A/II
Appendices: table of tables ………………………………………………………………………..………….A/III
Appendix A: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area ……………………………………………………A/V
Appendix B: Support charts for traditional MMS tools ……………………………………………A/VI
Appendix C: General description of stoping methods …………………………………………….A/XII
Appendix D: FAHP approach; the calculations ……………………………………………………...A/XIX
Appendix E: Q-classification support charts …………………………………………………….A/XXVIII
Appendix G: Ground support requirements for the Wombat orebody …………………A/XXXI
Appendix F: Sections used for Q-classification …………………………………………………..A/XXXV
Appendix H: Measured displacement of the LVDT-cell ……………………………………A/XXXVII
Appendix I: Stability zones on the Mathews graph ……………………………………………...A/XLII
XI
Appendices
XII
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Kylylahti mine location map showing the province of Northern-Karelia
outlined in red. Map of Finland obtained via Europa.eu. A detailed map of
the mine area is seen in Figure 1 in Appendix A: Overview map of the
Polvijärvi area ......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2-1: Geological map of Finland (Kontinen, et al., 2006). For NKSB detail view see
Figure 2-2. ................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2-2: Geological map of the Outokumpu area (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). The NKSB
is shown as black line with orientation S-NW. For Outokumpu area view
see Figure 2-3........................................................................................................................10
Figure 2-3: Deposits which are a member of the Outokumpu assemblage: (1)
Outokumpu, (2) Luikonlahti, (3) Vuonos, (4) Saramäki, (5) Kylylahti (detail
in Figure 2-4), (6) Perttilahti, (7) Riihilahti, (8) Hietajarvi, (9) Kettukumpu,
(10) Hoikka, (11) Sola .......................................................................................................12
Figure 2-4: Geological map of the Kylylahti deposit, in red the surface projection of the
ore is shown (Altona Mining ltd., 2007) ....................................................................14
Figure 2-5: Resource model of the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies, grid cells are
100x100m (Altona Mining ltd., 2007) ........................................................................15
Figure 2-6: Banded pyrite (left) and blebby pyrite (right) (Peltonen, et al., 2008) ............17
Figure 2-7: Mine license area, Polvijärvi is located 2 km to the west, descriptions on the
figure (Courtesy of Altona Mining ltd.).......................................................................18
Figure 2-8: Office buildings. The ground floor houses the dressing rooms and lunch
room, and the second floor is designated as office. ...............................................19
Figure 2-9: Ore boundary between MSM ore (right) and blackschist (left) ...........................22
Figure 2-10: Location of the gap between the Wallaby and Wombat orebody (Altona
Mining ltd., 2013) ................................................................................................................23
Figure 2-11: Cross section 6972810mN showing overlap of the Wallaby orebody with
the Wombat orebody (Altona Mining ltd., 2013) ...................................................24
Figure 3-1: Orientation of the Kylylahti deposit (red) as seen by projection on to the
surface. Dashed lines depict 500x500 m ...................................................................25
Figure 3-2: Dimensions of the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies as seen from the west...26
Figure 3-3: Distribution of the orebody widths of the Wallaby orebody (Altona Mining
ltd., 2007)................................................................................................................................27
Figure 3-4: Distribution of the orebody widths of the Wombat orebody (Altona Mining
ltd., 2007)................................................................................................................................28
Figure 3-5: Kylylahti desposit seen from the west depicting the distribution of the
orebody widths through the orebody (Altona Mining ltd., 2007)...................29
Figure 3-6: Location of the sections through the Wallaby orebody ..........................................30
Figure 3-7: Resource model from section A (697350mN) ............................................................32
Figure 3-8: Block model from section A (6973050mN) .................................................................33
XIII
List of Figures
Figure 3-9: Resource model from section B (6973000mN)..........................................................34

Figure 3-10: Block model from section B (6973000mN)...............................................................35
Figure 3-11: Location of the sections through the Wombat orebody .......................................37
Figure 3-12: Resource model from section C (6972700mN) .......................................................38
Figure 3-13: Block model from section C (6972700mN) ...............................................................39
Figure 3-14: Resource model from section D (6872650mN) .......................................................40
Figure 3-15: Block model from section D (6972650mN) ..............................................................41
Figure 3-16: Differences in thickness and shape between Wallaby and Wombat
orebodies ................................................................................................................................42
Figure 4-1: Schematic diagram of the principal of Bench Stoping (Terramin Australia
ltd., 2008)................................................................................................................................43
Figure 4-2: Decline (gold) on the FW of the Wallaby orebody. Access drives to orebody
are shown in green. ............................................................................................................45
Figure 4-3: Top down view of the main level development in the Wallaby orebody
(Altona Mining ltd., 2007)................................................................................................45
Figure 4-4: Ore drives in the upper Wallaby orebody (green). Backfilled stopes are
marked purple. .....................................................................................................................46
Figure 4-5: Schematic cross-section of the longitudinal mining operation sequence in the
Wallaby orebody (modified from Potvin & Hudyma (2000))...........................47
Figure 4-6: Stope layout for the Wallaby orebody. Red and purple depict the individual
stopes. Stopes with high gold grade are coloured green and yellow. The
grey coloured stopes as taken and backfilled ..........................................................49
Figure 4-7: Four different classes of ground support as defined by Theron (2007) ..........51
Figure 4-8: Cable bolting design for stope support (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013b) .....52
Figure 4-9: Pattern of cable bolting in crosscuts and loading points (Theron, 2007) .......52
Figure 4-10: Processing flow chart for the Luikonlahti processing plant (Anttonen, pers.
comm., 2012b) ......................................................................................................................55
Figure 5-1: Overview of the the factors influenceing mining method identified for the
Kylylahti deposit ..................................................................................................................63
Figure 6-1: Trapezoidal fuzzy number (Azadeh, et al., 2010) ......................................................75
Figure 6-2: Variations on the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (Azadeh, et al., 2010).................75
Figure 6-3: Basis for the hierarchy analysis for the mining method selection problem ...80
Figure 6-4: Hierarchy analysis parameters used as input for the construction of the pair
wise comparison matrices for the mining method selection for the Wombat
orebody. Factors ranked equally have the same suitability. .............................82
Figure 6-5: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the
Wombat orebody based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method ...86
Figure 7-1: Drill holes used in the Q-classification. Left: top view showing drill holes with
ID. Right: Floating view of the same drill holes. .....................................................93
Figure 7-2: Location of the LVDT measurement (WAL300P1) ...................................................98
Figure 7-3: Guide to instalation of the LVDT-cell and minimum overcoring length
(Hakala, 2012) ......................................................................................................................99
Figure 7-4: Photogrammetric image of W300P1 with locations of measurements
(Hakala, pers. comm., 2013c) .........................................................................................99
XIV
List of Figures
Figure 7-5: Position of different measurements in relation to the horizontal (Hakala,

pers. comm., 2013c) ........................................................................................................ 100
Figure 7-6: Major, intermediate and minor principal stress for the different setups
(Hakala, pers. comm., 2013c) ...................................................................................... 102
Figure 7-7: Mathews graph as shown by Diederichs & Kaier (1996) .................................... 104
Figure 7-8: Parameters for calculations of the stability number (Diederichs & Kaiser,
1996) ..................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 8-1: Top down view of the decline and its shift from FW to HW. Model is cut off
between level 265 and 415 (Malmberg, pers. comm. 2013i) ........................ 116
Figure 8-2: Detail on the intersection of the decline and the ultramafic zone (purple).
Model is cut off between level 265 and 415 (Malmberg, pers. comm. 2013i)
.................................................................................................................................................. 117
Figure 8-3: The four different decline designs. 1: Current design, 2: Decline circling
around the orebody, 3: decline located south-east of the orebody, 4: decline
located north-west of the orebody............................................................................ 118
Figure 8-4: Graph on the development per type ............................................................................ 122
Figure 8-5: Development shown from level 440 - 530. Brown depicts development in
waste, red in ore. .............................................................................................................. 123
Figure 8-6: Graph showing the distribution for the metres of development ..................... 124
Figure 8-7: Graph showing the percentage ore development to waste development; (A)
amount of metres, (B) tonnage of ore ...................................................................... 124
Figure 8-8: Wombat stope layout, overview; purple and red colours are applied per
individual stope, blue and green coloured stopes have a high gold grade.
.................................................................................................................................................. 126
Figure 8-9: Graph showing the number of stopes and percentage of ore at every level127
Figure 8-10: Graph showing the amount of stopes versus the amount of development
.................................................................................................................................................. 127
Figure 8-11: Graph showing the percentage of ore from development and stoping ...... 128
Figure 8-12: level 350 stope overview ............................................................................................... 129
Figure 8-25: TBS sequence of mining phase 1................................................................................. 133
XV
List of Figures

Figure 9-1: Ore recovered from development, ore recovered from stoping and total ore
recovered depicted for both TBS and LBS ............................................................. 143
Figure 9-2: Discounted cummulative cashflow depicted for both TBS and LBS for
scenario 1 and scenario 2 of metal price forecasting ........................................ 146
Figure 10-1: Official mine plan for the Kylylahti copper mine as shown in the Quarterly
report of March 2013 (Altona Mining ltd., 2013) ............................................... 152
Figure 10-2: Official mine plan for the Kylylahti copper mine as shown in the Quarterly
report of June 2013 (Altona Mining ltd., 2013) ................................................... 153
XVI
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Main conventional mining methods based on Adler & Thompson (2011) ......... 3
Table 1-2: Scope of thesis .............................................................................................................................. 6
Table 2-1: Initial resource estimations and remaining resource inventories for the
deposits which are a member of the Outokumpu assemblage .........................11
Table 2-2: Metal ppm for MSM en DISS zones (Peltonen, et al., 2008).....................................16
Table 2-3: Resource and reserve estimation for the Kylylahti deposit (Altona Mining ltd.,
2012) ........................................................................................................................................20
Table 4-1: Support requirements for four rock classes based on Q-value (Theron, 2007)
.....................................................................................................................................................50
Table 5-1: Technical and operational factors .....................................................................................61
Table 5-2: Economic factors .......................................................................................................................62
Table 5-3: UBC tool parameter: General shape ..................................................................................64
Table 5-4: UBC tool parameter: Orebody thickness .........................................................................64
Table 5-5: UBC tool parameter: Deposit plunge ................................................................................64
Table 5-6: UBC tool parameter: Grade distribution .........................................................................64
Table 5-7: UBC tool parameter: Deposit depth ..................................................................................65
Table 5-8: UBC tool parameter: RMR .....................................................................................................66
Table 5-9: UBC tool parameter: RSS .......................................................................................................66
Table 5-10: UBC tool final ranking for depth <600 m .....................................................................67
Table 5-11: UBC tool final ranking for depth >600 m .....................................................................67
Table 6-1: Example of a pair wise comparison matrix ....................................................................72
Table 6-2: Weighting system for pair wise comparison. Modified from Saaty (2008)......73
Table 6-3: Key factors identified for mining method selection ...................................................80
Table 6-4: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor orebody thickness & ore
boundaries .............................................................................................................................83
Table 6-5: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor state of stress........................................83
Table 6-6: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor flexibility for securing production
.....................................................................................................................................................84
Table 6-7: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor selectivity on ore type.......................84
Table 6-8: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor dilution & recovery ............................84
Table 6-9: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor health & safety .....................................84
Table 6-10: The pair wise comparison matrix between the different key factors (Ē) .......85
Table 6-11: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the
Wombat orebody based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method ...85
Table 6-12: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of transverse bench stoping
in the Wombat orebody ....................................................................................................88
Table 7-1: Q method classification groups ...........................................................................................91
Table 7-2: ESR rating for different excavation categories .............................................................91
Table 7-3: Q-classification results for rock type MSM .....................................................................94
XVII
List of Tables
Table 7-4: Q-classification results for rock type tremolite skarn ...............................................95
Table 7-5: Q-classification results for rock type blackschist ........................................................95
Table 7-6: Q-classification results for rock type vein quartz........................................................96
Table 7-7: Q-classification results for rock type ultramafics ........................................................96
Table 7-8: Low, Median and High Q value of the 5 different rock masses ..............................97
Table 7-9: Measurements with installation depth and overcoring start and end (Hakala,
pers. comm., 2013c) ........................................................................................................ 101
Table 7-10: Recorded notes and reliability of the different measurements (Hakala, pers.
comm., 2013b) ................................................................................................................... 101
Table 7-11: Results of biaxial testing on samples R1, R2, R3 and R5..................................... 103
Table 7-12: Original 25% N’ values from feasibility study (at a depth of 590 metre)
(Altona Mining ltd., 2007)............................................................................................. 107
Table 7-13: Values adjusted to the new in situ stress model (at a depth of 500 metre) 107
Table 7-14: Values adjusted to new in situ stress model (depth 600 metre) ..................... 107
Table 7-15: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of transverse stopes at a
depth of 500m.................................................................................................................... 109
Table 7-16: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of longitudinal stopes at a
depth of 500m.................................................................................................................... 110
Table 7-17: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of transverse stopes a at
depth of 600m.................................................................................................................... 111
Table 7-18: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of longitudinal stopes at a
depth of 600m.................................................................................................................... 112
Table 7-19: Summary of the limits defined for TBS and LBS at depth 500 and 600 m for
both stopes bounded by ore as stopes bounded by waste .............................. 113
Table 9-1: Capital and operational expenditures for mining the Wombat zone based on
available sources .............................................................................................................. 138
Table 9-2: Realised metal prices for 2013......................................................................................... 139
Table 9-3: Metal price forecasting to 2020 (World Bank, 2013) ............................................. 139
Table 9-4: Development and stoping grades for copper, gold and zinc ................................ 140
Table 9-5: Tonnas of ore in place for Wallaby and Wombat orebodies using LBS or TBS
.................................................................................................................................................. 140
Table 9-6: Dilution & recovery for LBS and TBS ............................................................................. 141
Table 9-7: Financial constraints ............................................................................................................ 141
Table 9-8: Calculated life of mine for LBS and TBS........................................................................ 142
Table 9-9: CAPEX and OPEX for LBS and TBS given per year ................................................... 144
Table 9-10: NPV achieved for LBS and TBS for life of mine ....................................................... 145
XVIII
Nomenclature
Nomenclature
σ1 Pa Minor principal stress

σ2 Pa Intermediate principal stress
σ3 Pa Major principal stress
σmax Pa Maximum principal stress
De Equivalent diameter
Jn Number of joint sets
Ja Joint roughness
Jr Joint alteration
Jw Water reduction factor
N’ Stability number
Q Tunnel Quality Index
Q’ Modified Q
ν Poisson ratio
XIX
Abbreviations
Abbreviations
AF Anisotropy Factor
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
ANFO Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CRF Cemented Rock Fill
DISS Disseminated ore
drm drill metres
EDZ Excavation Disturbance Zone
ESR Excavation Support Ratio
FAHP Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
FW Footwall
HR Hydraulic Radius
HSEC Health, Safety, Environment & Community
HW Hanging wall
LHD Laud, Haul & Dump vehicle
LoM Life of Mine
LVDT Linear Variable Differential Transformer
MCDM Multiple Criteria Decision Making
MMS Mining Method Selection
MSM Massive – Semi Massive ore
NGI Norges Geotekniske Institutt
NKSB North-Karelian Schist Belt
NPV Net Present Value
NSR Net Smelter Return
ob orebody
OKU Outokumpu (drill hole ID)
OPEX Operating Expenditure
Oy Osakeyhtiö (denotation of a Finnish stock company)
RMR Rock Mass Rating
ROMpad Run Of Mine pad
RQD Rock Quality Designation
RSS Rock Substance Strength
SRF Stress Reduction Factor
UBC University of British Colombia
UCS Uniaxial Compressive Strength / Unconfined Compressive Strength
UMMS Underground Mining Method Selection
TC/RC Treatment Charges and Refining Charges
TFN Triangular Fuzzy Number
TzFN Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number
XX
Abbreviations
Abbreviations for mining methods
CSS Conventional Sublevel Stoping

LBS Longitudinal Bench Stoping
SCB Stoping with Continuous Backfill
TBS Transverse Bench Stoping
Abbreviations for factors
D&R Dilution & Recovery

FSP Flexibility for Securing Production
H&S Health & Safety
OB Orebody thickness & ore boundaries
SOS State of Stress
SOT Selectivity of Ore Type
XXI
Abbreviations
XXII
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
This thesis project I performed for my masters’ studies at the Resource Engineering
department at the Delft University of Technology. It is the final stage toward finishing
my Master of Science degree. Thanks to the support and input of everybody I have
worked with in the past nine months I was able to deliver this report. Therefore I would
like to express my gratitude to all these people.
First of all I want to thank Mike Buxton for his guidance and support in achieving this
thesis work. Gratitude goes out to the members of my exam committee, for you showed
your enthusiasm and took the time to review my thesis work.
I want to firmly acknowledge Altona Mining ltd. and especially Esko Pystynen and Jarmo
Vesanto for giving me the opportunity to do this project at the Kylylahti copper mine.
The discussions with Esko about the visions and future of the mine were very valuable
to form my aim for this thesis work.
I want to give special thanks to Markus Malmberg and Antti Sorsa who were always
there to answer my questions and guide me through all the obstacles encountered in the
past months. Even after I went back to the Netherlands they continued to help me and
give answers to every e-mail I sent.
Of course I cannot forget all other on-site staff at the Kylylahti copper mine who helped
me with my thesis work, but even more important to make me feel at home in Finland:
My housemates Arto Mikkonen and Teemu Törmälehto for all the nice evenings and
Finnish saunas, the geology team Jari Juurela, Max Forsman and Ilkka Seppänen for your
infinite knowledge about the geology, Petri Valjus for introducing me to the typical
Finnish sports and the nice evenings at the local bar, Paavo Karttunen for organizing the
ice fishing competition in which I finished fifth, and of course Heli Kasurinen for our
interesting conversations during the coffee breaks.
I would also like to acknowledge Pekka Lappalainen for our discussion about mining
and giving me guidance on the interpretation of my results and giving me valuable tips
towards achieving my goals.
Last, but not least I want to thank my family and friends. You are all very dear to me.
Your endless support and believe in me throughout my years of study fills my heart with
happiness.
XXIII
Acknowledgement
XXIV
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Foreword
The results in this thesis are based on available data within Kylylahti Copper Oy and
scientific articles publically available. Although the available data was well documented,
the availability of the data was limited. This was a major hurdle towards obtaining valid
and complete data on the Wombat orebody. These gaps between the data were filled in
by communication with on-site staff and interpretation of the available data. This was on
some occasions difficult and therefore limited the amount and quality of results.
This thesis combines available geological, geotechnical and engineering data on the
Kylylahti deposit. The data was acquired from November the 6th untill June the 6th while
the student was on site at the Kylylahti mine. Through communication with the staff
understanding of the mining method and future targets was obtained. Previous
knowledge of the student was valuable in reaching the goal. All this information was
used to come to the conclusions in chapter 10.
1
1 Introduction
1.2 General locality
The Kylylahti underground copper mine is located in the province of Northern Karelia
(Pohjois-Karjala) in Eastern Finland (see Figure 1-1). The mine site is located 100 m
above sea level at the coordinates 62o51’25”N and 29o19’51”W. The concession area is
in the municipality of Polvijärvi, which is 40 km north-west of Joensuu. The municipality
of Polvijärvi has about 4,700 inhabitants, and houses a number of employees, but most
of the employees live in the nearby Outokumpu and Joensuu. The mine site (as seen in
Figure 1 in Appendix A: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area) is accessible from a dirt
road connected to the national highway 502. The processing plant is located 40 km, or a
45 min drive, from the mine site in Luikonlahti and is reachable via the national highway
502 and 573. The nearest airport is at Joensuu, and is serviced by 5 flights a day from
and to Helsinki-Vantaa. Other cities with an airport on an under two hours’ drive are
Kuopio and Varkaus. Trains depart from Joensuu to the rest of Finland.
Figure 1-1: Kylylahti mine location map showing the province of Northern-Karelia outlined in red.
Map of Finland obtained via Europa.eu. A detailed map of the mine area is seen in Figure 1 in
Appendix A: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area
2
1 Introduction
1.3 Problem statement
Mining method selection lies at the basis for every mining operation. Determining the
most suitable mining method is essential for maximizing economic return. Especially in
the current market and the decreasing metal prices selecting the right mining method is
of utmost importance. The Wallaby orebody, part of the Kylylahti deposit located in
Finland, is currently mined using a longitudinal bench stoping method. The Kylylahti
deposit consists of two orebodies, the upper Wallaby and the lower Wombat. Likewise
the Wallaby the usage of longitudinal bench stoping in the Wombat orebody is proposed
in a feasibility study done in 2010. Because of differences between the two orebodies
questions arose whether this would in fact be the most suitable mining method for this
orebody. Mining in the Wombat orebody is planned to commence in 2014, and thus a
decision on the mining method to be implemented is necessary. During the writing of
this thesis work there is a limited amount of data available due to the absence of infill
drilling of the Wombat orebody as the decline is still at Wallaby level. There is enough
data for mining method selection for the Wombat orebody and confidence is high
enough for the preliminary mine design.
There is a wide variety of mining methods available, each putting their own
requirements onto the orebody. Both the characteristics of the ore and the host rock
mass properties are important in the mining method selection process. Each of the
mining methods shown in Table 1-1 demand specific mine infrastructure. To develop
this mine infrastructure and produce the ore will generate a certain amount of costs, but
on the other hand generate certain revenue. Keeping the costs low and the revenue high
will maximize economic return while regarding a high standard of safety for employees
and low environmental impact. Altona Mining ltd. wants to know which mining method
will optimize this process for the Wombat orebody.
Table 1-1: Main conventional mining methods based on Adler & Thompson (2011)
Block caving
Unsupported Sublevel caving
Longwall mining
Underground mining method Room & pillar
Self-supported
Shrinkage stoping
Cut & fill stoping
Artificially supported
Sublevel stoping
3
1 Introduction
1.4 Aim and objectives
The aim of this thesis is to determine the mining method which maximizes economic
return for the Wombat orebody. Maximized economic return can only be achieved if the
mining method is technically possible. Therefore economic and technical / operational
variables will be considered. Three objectives that are set to reach this aim are:
 Determine the mining method most suitable for the Wombat orebody
 Describe how the mining method is implemented
 Determine the economic return of the selected mining method
1.5 Research questions
Each objective includes one or more research questions that need to be answered.
Answering these questions will lead to better understanding of the problem statement
and will guide towards achievement of the aim.
 Objective 1: Determine the mining method most suitable for the Wombat orebody
Research question 1.1: What are the orebody characteristics of the Wombat
orebody and do these suggest a different mining method?
Research question 1.2: What are the key factors influencing the mining method
selection, and what is their importance to the selection process?
Research question 1.3: What is the most suitable mining method for the Wombat
orebody?
 Objective 2: Describe how the mining method is implemented

Research question 2.1: What are the design parameters regarding the mining
method?
Research question 2.2: What is the proposed mine layout for the Wombat
orebody?
 Objective 3: Determine the economic return of the selected mining method

Research question 3.1: What is the economic return of the selected mining
method versus the proposed method?
4
1 Introduction
1.6 Report outline
The defined objectives and related research questions in the previous section are
answered through the following chapters.
1 Introduction
2 Background information
3 Wallaby orebody versus Wombat orebody
4 Benchmark: mine design in the Wallaby orebody
5 Underground mining method selection (UMMS) for the Wombat orebody by
traditional selection methods
6 New approach to UMMS using multiple criteria decision making (MCDM)
7 Definition of design parameters: Q-classification and stope limits
8 Implementation: preliminary mine design for the Wombat orebody
9 Financial analysis for the Wombat orebody
10 Conclusions
11 Recommendations
After the introduction this thesis work starts with a chapter with background
information on the Kylylahti deposit including the geology and a general introduction to
the Kylylahti underground copper mine. Chapter 3 will list the difference between the
two orebodies that make up the deposit. As a benchmark the longitudinal bench stoping
in the Wallaby orebody will be discussed in chapter 4.
Mining method selection starts in chapter 5. Here traditional mining methods are
discussed. The first mining method selection will be done with the UBC method. Results
of this selection are presented in section 5.3. A new approach to mining method
selection (FAHP approach) will be introduced in chapter 6. This chapter will begin with
an introduction into the method in section 6.1 and 6.2. Sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 define
the parameters necessary for selection using the FAHP approach after which the results
are presented in section 6.6 and discussed in sections 6.7 and 6.8.
In chapter 7 the parameters for the preliminary mine design are defined. A rock mass
analysis using the Q-classification method is done on both ore zone and host rock
masses. Stope design limits are defined in section 7.3. The results of chapter 7 are used
as the input for the preliminary mine design done in chapter 8. In this chapter all the
statistics about the mine design can be found.
A financial analysis between longitudinal bench stoping and transverse bench stoping is
performed in chapter 9. For this analysis a sensitivity of the net present value to two
different metal price forecast scenarios is done to determine the economic return of
both mining methods. Additionally annual production is used to determine the life of
mine of each mining method. Final conclusions are given in chapter 10 and
recommendations are written down in chapter 11.
5
1 Introduction
1.7 Research scope and limitations
Based on the availability of the data and the defined objectives decisions were made on
the boundaries of this thesis work. The limited access for the thesis worker to mining
related software was an influence to exclude a numerical approach. Disclosure policy of
Altona Mining ltd. resulted in the exclusion of a detailed economic model. A summary of
what is included and excluded is given in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: Scope of thesis
Included Excluded
Mining Mining method - UBC method Other selection methods.
method selection - Fuzzy AHP approach
selection
Rock Mass Q-classification Other classification

Properties methods.
Ground Empirical ground Numerical modelling
support support calculations
Calculations
(based on Q-
classification)
Stope stability Calculation stope limits Stope design using special
using a stability graph software
Dassault - Modelling of stopes Resource modelling
systemes: and development
GEOVIA Surpac - Calculation of
development metres
and stope size / volume
Modelling Economic - CAPEX & OPEX (based Detailed cost overview
modelling on available data)
- Different price
scenarios
- LoM & NPV
calculations
6
In this chapter background information on the Kylylahti deposit is given. Chapter 2.1
describes the geology for the deposit and chapter 2.2 gives a description of the Kylylahti
underground copper mine.
2.1 Geology
In this chapter the geology of the Outokumpu area and the mineralization of the
Kylylahti deposit are discussed. The bedrock of Finland belongs to the Precambrian East
European craton (Lehtinen, et al., 2005) and can be seen in Figure 2-1.
2.1.1 Structural geology
The whole Outokumpu Nappe is located within the North Karelia Schist Belt (NKSB)
(Kontinen, 2005) see Figure 2-2. The NKSB is characterized as structurally complex,
mainly consists of Proterozoic amphibolite facies metasedimentary rocks (Altona
Mining ltd., 2007) and is resting on the Archaean Karelian Craton (Peltonen, et al., 2008).
There are two tectonic stratigraphic units that can be recognized within the NKSB. Two
older ones representing shallow water cratonic to epicratonic quarzitic sand deposits
are called Sariola and Jatuli, and are formed 2.5 – 2.0 Ga ago (Kontinen, 2005). A
relatively younger one is called Kaleva. It was formed 2.0 – 1.9 Ga ago and consists in
essence of deep water turbidite deposits (Kontinen, 2005). The Kaleva itself is divided in
to two tectostratigraphic units by Kontinen (1987) in the autochthonous upper Kaleva
and the allochthonous lower Kaleva (Peltonen, et al., 2008). The lower Kaleva consists of
metaturbiditic greywackes and blackschists in its top part (Peltonen, et al., 2008). The
partly overthrust upper Kaleva comprises around 90% deep marine metaturbeditic
greywackes and thick horizons of blackschist (Kontinen, 2005). It is in these blackschists
where the thick ophiolitic bodies (serpentinite lenses and sheets) can be found that are
associated with the Outokumpu assemblage (Peltonen, et al., 2008).
7
Figure 2-1: Geological map of Finland (Kontinen, et al., 2006). For NKSB detail view see Figure 2-2.
8
The obduction of the Outokumpu assemblage was preceded the docking of the
Svecofennian island arc with the Karelian Craton (Peltonen, et al., 2008). During this
docking the NKSB went through an orogenic process in which it sustained NNE-SSW
compression, with NNE directed thrusting to NW directed shearing (Kontinen, 2005).
The thrusting can be related to the docking of the Svecofennian island arc complex to
the Karelian Craton, and the shearing is related to the dextral strike-slip movement
along the Svecofennian-Karelia boundary (Kontinen, 2005). The line where the Karelian
Craton and the Svecofennian meet is called the “Suture” and runs from southeast to
north (Peltonen, et al., 2008). It is not known with absolute certainty how many
orogenic stages there have been. One suggestion is that the Outokumpu ores were
deposited in basins with mixed bottom water and hydrothermal fluids. The blackschists
acted as a cap for the precipitating metals (Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, 1999).
2.1.2 Outokumpu type ore
Outokumpu type polymetallic sulphide deposits normally consist of copper, cobalt and
zinc, but nickel, chromite, gold and silver can also be found. The Outokumpu type ores
are associated with the serpentinite bodies that are enclosed in the metasediments of
the NKSB (Peltonen, et al., 2008). These serpentinite within the NKSB bodies are
considered to be ophiolitic (Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, 1999). These serpentinites vary
greatly in size, from massive thick sheets stretching out several kilometres to small thin
lenses (Peltonen, et al., 2008). The deposits typically occur as thin, narrow and sharply
bounded sheets lenses or rods on the margins of serpentinite bodies, in between the
blackschists and the carbonate rocks (Peltonen, et al., 2008). Outokumpu type ores are
in many ways different from the more common hydrothermal massive sulphide
deposits, and are in fact a universal but rare deposit type with ultramafic rock related
hydrothermal origin (Kontinen, 2005). Few others are known to exist outside of Finland
(Kontinen, 2005). A feature that distinguishes the Outokumpu assemblage from the rest
is the presence of thin fringes of carbonate-skarn-quartz rock around the serpentinite
bodies (Peltonen, et al., 2008). The thickness of these fringes can be up to 5 metres, and
consists mainly of the minerals dolomite, calcite and locally magnesite and tremolite
(Peltonen, et al., 2008). Tremolite rich carbonate rocks are called tremolite skarns and
occur as two distinct varieties: tremolite carbonate skarns and diopside tremolite
carbonate skarns (Peltonen, et al., 2008).
9
Figure 2-2: Geological map of the Outokumpu area (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). The NKSB is shown as
black line with orientation S-NW. For Outokumpu area view see Figure 2-3.
10
2.1.3 Outokumpu assemblage
The Kylylahti deposit is a member of the Outokumpu assemblage. In total there are 11
economically mineable deposits related to the Outokumpu type ore, from which
Outokumpu (Keretti) was by far the biggest, see Table 2-1. All of the Outokumpu
deposits are located in Eastern Finland around the town of Outokumpu where this type
of ore was first discovered (Figure 2-3). Three of the deposits are depleted: Outokumpu,
Vuonos and Luikonlahti. Kylylahti is the largest and economically most significant of the
remaining 8 deposits.
Table 2-1: Initial resource estimations and remaining resource inventories for the deposits which
are a member of the Outokumpu assemblage
Year of
Deposit Tonnes (Mt) Cu (%) Years mined
discovery
Outokumpu 28.50 3.80 1910 1913 – 1989
(Keretti)
Luikonlahti 7.50 0.99 1944 1968 – 1983
Vuonos 5.89 2.45 1965 1972 – 1986
Kylylahti 7.85 1.17 1984 2012 – present
Saramäki 3.40 0.71 1967 No mining
Perttilahti 1.32 2.15 1982 No mining
Riihilahti 0.70 0.72 1957 No mining
Kettukumpu 0.40 0.44 1976 No mining
Hietajärvi 0.33 0.78 1955 No mining
Hoikka 0.20 0.50 1974 No mining
Sola 0.10 2.00 1957 No mining
11
Figure 2-3: Deposits which are a member of the Outokumpu assemblage: (1) Outokumpu, (2)
Luikonlahti, (3) Vuonos, (4) Saramäki, (5) Kylylahti (detail in Figure 2-4), (6) Perttilahti, (7)
Riihilahti, (8) Hietajarvi, (9) Kettukumpu, (10) Hoikka, (11) Sola
12
2.1.4 The Kylylahti deposit
The Kylylahti deposit which is the one of interest in this thesis is located 4 km west of
the town of Polvijärvi and 40 km northwest of the city of Joensuu, Eastern Finland. It
was discovered in 1983 during a major exploration program by Outokumpu Oy (Altona
Mining ltd., 2007). The deposit is found at the eastern margin of a volumetric talc-
carbonate-serpentinite body called the Kylylahti ultramafic complex (Kontinen, 2005).
The strike of the deposit is NNE-SSW and the dip is near vertical to the west. The deposit
has a plunge to the south which is 25o in the upper part and 50o in the lower part. The
top of the orebody is 120 metres below the surface, or 20 metres below sea-level. The
deposit is enclosed by dolomite and tremolite skarn in the hanging wall and graphite
rich blackschists in the foot wall. An ultramafic zone is located west of the tremolite
skarn. From geological interpretation of existing exploration holes there is indication
that ultramafics can be found in zones within the tremolite skarn west and north of the
orebody (Juurela, pers. comm., 2013c). Of all the Outokumpu deposits the Kylylahti
deposit is located in the lowest grade regional metamorphic terrain (Peltonen, et al.,
2008). However, pervasive syntectonic reworking of the sulphides has in fact taken
place (Peltonen, et al., 2008). Most of the area consists of mica schists (see Figure 2-4).
These mica schists show strong and consistent NNE striking near vertical schistosity
(Kontinen, 2005). One major fault runs along the deposit, the Kylylampi Fault. At the
Kylylampi Fault there is a direct contact between talc carbonate rocks and mica schists
(Altona Mining ltd., 2007).
13
Figure 2-4: Geological map of the Kylylahti deposit, in red the surface projection of the ore is shown
(Altona Mining ltd., 2007)
14
2.1.5 Mineralisation
The Kylylahti deposit is formed by two sulphide lenses that together form, the upper
Wallaby and the lower Wombat (see Figure 2-5). Within each of the orebodies there are
two styles of sulphide mineralisation present (Altona Mining ltd., 2007):
1) A massive to semi-massive (MSM) sulphide mineralization that has the sharp

footwall contact with the blackschists,
2) A disseminated (DISS) sulphide that that continues into the dolomite-tremolite
skarn.
The definition of the semi-massive massive ore is a copper grade of >1%, and the
boundary with the disseminated ore is usually sharp and visible. The style of sulphide
mineralization occur as different forms: pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and sphalerite
are the main minerals (Peltonen, et al., 2008). Quartz is the main gangue mineral of both
orebodies (Peltonen, et al., 2008).
Figure 2-5: Resource model of the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies, grid cells are 100x100m (Altona
Mining ltd., 2007)
15
Within the massive semi-massive ore Kontinen (2005) makes a distinction between four
main ore types:
1) Banded pyrite ore
2) Blebby pyrite (pyrrhotite) ore
3) Pyrrhotite ore
4) Pyrrhotite magnetite ore
The most abundant types are the blebby pyrite ore (Figure 2-6) and the pyrrhotite ore
(Altona Mining ltd., 2007) and banded pyrite ore (Figure 2-6) is also a main
characteristic of the sulphide lenses (Peltonen, et al., 2008). Banded pyrite is low in
copper content and it defines the southern part of the deposit (Kontinen, 2005). The
pyrrhotite magnetite ore occurs only in the Wombat zone (Peltonen, et al., 2008). Within
these ores the valuable metals occur as sulphide minerals: chalcopyrite (Cu), pentlandite
(Ni) and sphalerite (Zn) (Kontinen, 2005). The occurance of these metals in both MSM
and DISS zones can be seen in Table 2-2. The cobalt resides in the lattice of the pyrite
and in Co-bearing pendtlandite (Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, 1999).
Table 2-2: Metal ppm for MSM en DISS zones (Peltonen, et al., 2008)
Cu ppm Zn ppm Co ppm Ni ppm Au ppb Ag ppm S wt %

Kylylahti
30940 21171 4327 1674 258 9.2 24.6
(MSM)
Kylylahti
5659 3521 1262 2837 782 4.4 8.7
(DISS)
16
Figure 2-6: Banded pyrite (left) and blebby pyrite (right) (Peltonen, et al., 2008)
17
2.2 Kylylahti underground copper mine
The Kylylahti underground copper mine is a multi-metal deposit mined by Kylylahti

Copper Oy, a wholly owned subsidiary by Altona Mining ltd. which has its head office in
Perth, Australia. Official production of copper, zinc and gold commenced in July 2012,
though the first ore produced was in November 2011.
2.2.1 Kylylahti mining area and license
Apart from the Kylylahti deposit Altona Mining ltd. owns the mining rights of several
other deposits in the area, including Saramäki, Perttilahti and Riihilahti. The mining
license, on which the Kylylahti mine is located, spans 1,807 square kilometres around
the town of Polvijärvi, which can be seen as the white outline on Figure 2-7. The location
of the mine in relation to the town of Polvijärvi is seen in Figure 1 in Appendix A:
Overview map of the Polvijärvi area.
Figure 2-7: Mine license area, Polvijärvi is located 2 km to the west, descriptions on the figure
(Courtesy of Altona Mining ltd.)
18
On the mining area several utilities are located. The ROMpad and waste dump are most
western and closest to highway 502. At the moment the offices and dressing rooms are
housed in a temporary building made from furbished containers see Figure 2-8. North-
east from the office are the intake and exhaust fans. As the fans are on the other side of a
popular cross-country track, which runs alongside the power line, a bridge had to be
constructed over the mining area. Close the office is the entrance to the mine by decline.
On the mining area there are also five water ponds for water treatment. More buildings
on the area are workshops and a warehouse.
Figure 2-8: Office buildings. The ground floor houses the dressing rooms and lunch room, and the
second floor is designated as office.
19
2.2.2 The Kylylahti deposit
The Kylylahti deposit consists of two zones of mineralisation (Juurela, pers. comm.,
2013b) identified as two orebodies. The most shallow orebody is called Wallaby and
extends from 120 to 420 m below the surface. The Wallaby has a strike length of 900
metres. It has a lens shape with the thickest part in the lower part. The Wombat is the
deeper orebody. It extends from 410 to 900 m from the surface. This orebody is also
lens shaped. It consists of two lenses at the top, which join in the middle. Currently the
upper part of the Wombat is drilled to achieve more accuracy.
The deepest drill holes for the Kylylahti deposit intersect the orebody at the depth of
770m and continuation is open. In August an exploration program will start to explore
whether there is more ore below the current orebody.
2.2.3 Resource and reserve estimates
The latest publicly available resource and reserve update is from December 2012 and
can be found on the website (Altona Mining ltd., 2012) and are shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Resource and reserve estimation for the Kylylahti deposit (Altona Mining ltd., 2012)
Tonnes (Mt) Cu (%) Co (%) Ni (%) Zn (%) Au (g/t)

Mineral
resources
Measured 1.2 1.50 0.27 0.20 0.60 0.71
Indicated 6.40 1.22 0.23 0.21 0.55 0.69
Inferred 0.30 0.97 0.24 0.18 0.70 0.57
Total 7.90 1.25 0.23 0.20 0.56 0.69
Contained
- 99,050 18,550 16,200 44,250 175,750oz
metal (t)
Ore
reserves
Probable 3.60 1.69 0.26 0.14 0.67 0.66
Contained
- 60,500 9,400 5,000 24,000 76,100oz
metal (t)
20
2.2.4 Different types of ore in the mineral deposit
At the moment the mine identifies four different kind of ores mined from the Kylylahti
deposit: Massive ore, Disseminated ore, Gold ore and Pyrite massive ore. For both
Wallaby and Wombat orebody the types of ore are similar.
The ores are separately stored on the ROMpad and transported to the processing plant.
Descriptions below are the ROMpad stockpiles classifications.
 Development ore is the ore from the development drives. This ore has a
minimum net smelter return of 20-30 €/t to be considered ore, including a
planned dilution of 10%.
 Low grade ore can be found in the DISS zone. This is ore with a copper grade
between 0.4% and 1%. Below 0.4% the rock is considered waste.
 High grade ore is associated with the massive-semi massive (MSM) sulphides.
This is ore with a grade higher than 1%. Areas with grades over 10% are
encountered in both Wallaby and Wombat orebodies.
 Gold ore is ore with a gold grade over 2.5 g/t. Gold ore is found in separate
lenses within the orebody. There is an indication of lenses of gold ore lenses in
the Wombat HW below 480 metres depth. Further exploration has to be done to
ensure these gold lenses can be considered ore and are viable for mining.
2.2.5 Rate of production
At the moment the yearly production is set at 550,000 tonnes of ore, 45,000 tonnes a
month. This target is reached and even exceeded with current mining of the Wallaby
orebody. This means that on average a new stope has to be ready for blasting every 2
weeks. Currently about three stopes a month are mined.
For this thesis work an increased production of 800,000 tonnes of ore a year is
simulated. Mining 800,000 t/a breaks down to 67,000 tonnes a month. In this simulation
the Wombat zone will be the main source of this material. If the dimension of the stopes
being extracted will not change from the current design a total of 3.5 stopes a month
should be produced. For future production it would mean one stope every 9 days, this
can change if stope dimensions would be different. This production planning will have
an influence on the mining method selection process as the mining method should be
able to reach this rate of production.
21
2.2.6 Ore boundaries of the ore and host rock mass
The boundary of the deposit with the footwall waste rock is distinct as can be seen in
Figure 2-9. Ore boundaries in the Wombat are comparable to the Wallaby. The FW
contact is distinct and clearly visible. Boundary between massive and disseminated is
commonly sharp and a Cut-off grade of 1% is used.
Figure 2-9: Ore boundary between MSM ore (right) and blackschist (left)
The ore boundary with the Wallaby and the hanging wall is gradually (Juurela, pers.
comm., 2012). The DISS ore within the tremolite skarn causes the ore boundary to be
defined by the cut-off grade, which is 0.4% at current copper prices (Romppanen, pers.
comm., 2012). Quite often 0.4% can be identified from the washed faces, otherwise this
makes boundary hard to spot, and only sampling will tell its location (Juurela, pers.
comm., 2012).
22
2.2.7 Gap between Wallaby and Wombat
Between the Wallaby and the Wombat orebody is a gap which defines the transition
between the two orebodies. In July 2013 using new infill drill data a resource model of
this part of the deposit was created. Grades in this part turned out better than
previously modelled and will increase resources. The location of the gap is shown in
Figure 2-10.
Figure 2-10: Location of the gap between the Wallaby and Wombat orebody (Altona Mining ltd.,
2013)
A section through the gap is shown in Figure 2-11, with location 6972810nM. By this
section from the updated resource model it was confirmed that there is overlap between
the Wallaby and Wombat orebody. The upper orebody left of the middle is the Wallaby
orebody, the lower to the right the Wombat. In between is the contact between the
blackschists and tremolite skarn. The figure also shows the grade and thickness of the
intersections of the infill drilling.
23
Figure 2-11: Cross section 6972810mN showing overlap of the Wallaby orebody with the Wombat
orebody (Altona Mining ltd., 2013)
24
The premise of the mining method selection is the fact that the Kylylahti deposit consists
of two orebodies and that these orebodies have different characteristics. This chapter
will compare the two orebodies to indicate the differences. The similarities are already
given in the previous chapter.
3.1 Orientation of the orebody
The strike of the Kylylahti deposit is NNE-SSW as is depicted in Figure 3-1. The dip of
the orebody is west and near vertical, with an overall dip of 80o. As the ore is not
tabular, but folded in the middle, the dip changes from near horizontal to vertical on
different levels. The plunge is approximately 25o towards the south for the first 400
vertical metres before plunging to a steeper angle of 45o (Juurela, pers. comm., 2012).
The Wombat orebody has a steeper plunge of 55o overall (Juurela, pers. comm., 2012).
Figure 3-1: Orientation of the Kylylahti deposit (red) as seen by projection on to the surface. Dashed
lines depict 500x500 m
25
3.2 Shape of the orebody
The Wallaby and Wombat orebodies are both lens shaped. The ore is located in lens
shaped zones within the orebody (Juurela, pers. comm., 2012). The longitudinal
dimensions of both orebodies are shown in Figure 3-2. The difference in plunge as
described in the previous section is clearly seen.
Figure 3-2: Dimensions of the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies as seen from the west
26
3.3 Orebody thickness
One of the differences between the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies is the range of
orebody thicknesses. The Wallaby orebody is generally thinner than the Wombat
orebody, Average thickness (both MSM and DISS) for the Wallaby is about 20 metres
(Juurela, pers. comm., 2012). Only 19% of the orebody is over 20 m wide. The major part
(43%) of the Wallaby is less than 5 m wide. A pie chart of the distribution of the orebody
widths in the Wallaby orebody is seen in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: Distribution of the orebody widths of the Wallaby orebody (Altona Mining ltd., 2007)
27
In the Wombat orebody the average thickness (both MSM and DISS) is about 29 m.
Compared to the Wallaby a much larger percentage is over 35 m wide, 19% to 3% (see
Figure 3-4). The parts which are less than 5 m are only 18% of the orebody compared to
43% in the Wallaby. In the Wombat 55% of the orebody is over 20 m wide.
Figure 3-4: Distribution of the orebody widths of the Wombat orebody (Altona Mining ltd., 2007)
The distribution of the thickness at different areas of the orebody is made clear by
Figure 3-5, it shows the deposit looking west and. The thickness of the orebody is shown
in different colours. Areas coloured purple are the thickest of the orebody, with place
where the orebody thickness is over 25 m. In the Wallaby orebody this occurrence is in
spots in the deeper parts of the orebody. The Wallaby has an irregular pattern of thicker
and thinner parts. In the Wombat orebody the thickest parts are centralized in the
middle part of the orebody, corresponding to its lens shape. The entire middle of the
lens is over 25 m thick while in the Wallaby there where only certain spots with this
thickness.
28
Figure 3-5: Kylylahti desposit seen from the west depicting the distribution of the orebody widths
through the orebody (Altona Mining ltd., 2007)
29
3.4 Thickness and shape of orebody shown by resource and block

model
Three major diamond drilling programs were done to sample the Kylylahti deposit. The
first one started in 1983 after the deposit was discovered by Outokumpu Oy. This
exploration program totalled 43,500 metre of drill core (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). A
second program was begun in 1998 to explore for talc in the Polvijärvi area, which
added another 10,000 metres of drill core (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). The last drilling
program was done by Vulcan Resources in 2005/2006 for the feasibility study on the
Kylylahti deposit. Vulcan drilled 14,000 metre (Altona Mining ltd., 2007).
Current drilling campaigns are continuous from November 2011 up to this date. In this
timeframe the whole Wallaby has been re-drilled to minimum of 20x20 drill grid. Also
face sampling, face mapping, backs mapping and sludge hole drilling information exist,
Sections from the resource model through the Wallaby and Wombat orebody are shown
hereafter to show the differences in more detail.
3.4.1 Sections through the Wallaby orebody
In Figure 3-6 two locations of sections through the Wallaby orebody are shown. These
sections are shown in Figure 3-7 - Figure 3-10.
Figure 3-6: Location of the sections through the Wallaby orebody
30
The sections are subsequent sections with a distance of 50 m between them. In Figure
3-7 & Figure 3-8 the outline of the MSM zone is shown as interpreted from the drill
holes. The values next to the drill holes display the grades of copper in that intersection.
Red shows massive copper, while purple shows semi-massive copper.
Figure 3-8 & Figure 3-10 depict the block model from Surpac of the same sections. Here
both MSM and DISS are shown, as well as planned ore drives. The block model is
coloured by net smelter return value. The NSR is a measurement for profit (in €) per
tonne of mined ore. The following categories are used to indicate different NSR values
(Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013h):
 red = NSR > 100
 orange = NSR 48-100
 yellow = NSR 41-48
 green = NSR 30-41
 light blue = NSR 20-30
 dark blue NSR 15-20
 no color = NSR < 15
What is clearly seen is a folded structure in the middle of the orebody in both in both
sections. At location B this fold is almost horizontal. Also the thickness of the orebody is
not constant. On its tightest the orebody is approximately 2 metres thick. The widest
part of the MSM zone is approximately 17 metres and is found at depth of 125 metres at
location B.
31
Figure 3-7: Resource model from section A (697350mN)
32
Figure 3-8: Block model from section A (6973050mN)
33
Figure 3-9: Resource model from section B (6973000mN)
34
Figure 3-10: Block model from section B (6973000mN)
35
36
3.4.2 Sections through the Wombat orebody
Two sections through the Wombat are taken to be able to compare the Wombat with the
Wallaby. The locations of these two sections are given in Figure 3-11.
Figure 3-11: Location of the sections through the Wombat orebody
All the four diagrams shown in Figure 3-12 - Figure 3-15 are taken from Surpac, two
from the resource model based on drill hole database from the initial exploration and
two from the block model. The depth of the ore in these sections is from -400 m to just
above -600 m. Both the MSM and DISS zone are shown in all four diagrams.
A distinct difference between the orebodies is the fact that the Wombat is more lens
shaped and not folded in the middle as was the case with the Wallaby. This lens shaped
feature is seen in Figure 3-12. In Figure 3-13 can be seen that the Wombat orebody is
split in to two lenses at the top. Another difference, as is already stated in section 3.3, is
that the Wombat orebody is thicker than the Wallaby. In the middle the MSM zone is
almost 50 m as is seen in section D in Figure 3-12.
37
Figure 3-12: Resource model from section C (6972700mN)
38
Figure 3-13: Block model from section C (6972700mN)
39
Figure 3-14: Resource model from section D (6872650mN)
40
Figure 3-15: Block model from section D (6972650mN)
41
3.4.3 Differences shown by the block models of the Kylylahti orebodies
The main difference between the two orebodies is their thickness and shape. The
differences are shown again in Figure 3-16, in this diagram the two orebodies are shown
next to each other for clear comparison.
Figure 3-16: Differences in thickness and shape between Wallaby and Wombat orebodies
Where the Wallaby orebody is thin and folded, the Wombat orebody is thicker and lens
shaped. The Wombat orebody has a bigger volume and a wider MSM (high NSR) zone.
The differences between the two orebodies are the basis for the mining method
selection in chapters 5 and chapter 6.
42
In the previous chapter it is determined that there are differences in orebody thickness
between the Wallaby and Wombat orebodies. Since official production from the Wallaby
orebody started in July 2012, experience and data on the mining of the Wallaby is
gathered. This data is used in this chapter to discuss the mining method and mine design
in the Wallaby orebody. Insight in to the mining method used and the reason this
method is selected will enable a comparison to a possible different approach in the
Wombat orebody. The mining approach of the Wallaby is for this reason set as the base
case of the Kylylahti mine.
4.1 Production from the Wallaby orebody
4.1.1 Mining method: longitudinal bench mining
The Kylylahti mine is defined as a hard rock mine. This is defined by the fact that the ore
cannot be mined by mechanical mining equipment (Carter, 2011). As was proposed in
the definitive feasibility study from 2007 the Wallaby orebody is mined with
Longitudinal Bench Stoping (LBS). Which is logical due to the fact that for orebodies up
to 20 metres LBS is preferred over a transverse method (Pakalnis & Hughes, 2011).
Bench stoping (Figure 4-1) is an underground mining method by which the stopes are
mined in sequential stopes. Longitudinal bench stoping is a variation by which these
benches are mined parallel to the orebody. LBS is a low cost high tonnage option for
narrow to moderate thick orebodies (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2012).
Figure 4-1: Schematic diagram of the principal of Bench Stoping (Terramin Australia ltd., 2008).
43
The following section describes the different stages in mine design for the Kylylahti
Wallaby orebody.
4.1.2 Development
Two stages of development are the construction of the decline to reach the required
depth and construction of horizontal drives to gain access to the orebody. The horizontal
drives consist of the access drives form decline to orebody and the ore drives for the
production of the ore.
4.1.2.1 Decline
It was decided to make a decline instead of sinking a shaft. A major advantage of a

decline is that developing access drives and ore drives can start as soon as the decline is
past that level (Alford, et al., 2007). Shaft sinking requires that it has to be completed to
the lowest level before further development can commence.
In Kylylahti a contractor is in charge of driving the decline. The decline is planned to be

completed in 2015, the bottom is at 800 metres below surface. The gradient of the
decline is 1:7, which is the maximum for modern haulage trucks (Alford, et al., 2007).
Level spacing is set at 30 metres. Four levels have a deviating level spacing. Within the
Wallaby 11 levels are located: 50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300 and 320.
The level number is the depth from sea level, so for actual depth 100 m has to be added.
Curvature of the corners is set at 25 m (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2012). The decline is
widened in corners at deeper levels, to allow haulage trucks to pass each other. Costs of
the decline increase in the areas where it is widened; in these areas more roof support is
needed as well as more excavation costs; drilling, blasting, mucking, hauling. From the
surface the decline makes a right corner before making a long straight run, here the
decline will pass through the Kylylampi fault. Hereafter the decline starts spiralling
down with left-hand turns. Alternately a left turn or right 90 degree turn gains access to
the level access drives. The course of the decline on the FW side is shown in Figure 4-2.
44
Figure 4-2: Decline (gold) on the FW of the Wallaby orebody. Access drives to orebody are shown in
green.
4.1.2.2 Headings & drives
From the decline access drives will connect the decline with the production drives.
These access drives are labelled P1; the P stands for perä which is Finnish for drift. The
P1 can be seen in Figure 4-3 outlined by orange. The access drives run perpendicular to
the orebody, starting at the decline and driven across the ore into the hanging wall.
Length of the P1 changes every level according to the location of the decline at that level.
Figure 4-3: Top down view of the main level development in the Wallaby orebody (Altona Mining
ltd., 2007)
45
Longitudinal bench stoping requires the ore drives to run parallel to the strike of the
orebody. Normal practise is let the ore drives follow the footwall contact between the
ore and waste rock. Development of the ore drives is thus dependent on the shape of the
orebody and especially on the course of the ore waste contact. This makes LBS a useful
method in early stages of the mine, as development can be started without exact
knowledge about the geology (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2012). The first step is to
sample and map the orebody outcrop in the access drive and compare it to existing ore
model. The design for the ore drive will be modified from initial design if necessary.
Waste rock in the ore drive is minimized; planned dilution is 10% (Sorsa, pers. comm.,
2012). The importance of the ore drives is high, initial production is generated from
these drives. In Kylylahti the ore drives are called P2 and P3 which are running south
and P4 and P5 are running north. Ore drives are marked green in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-4: Ore drives in the upper Wallaby orebody (green). Backfilled stopes are marked purple.
46
4.1.3 Production
After development is completed ore is produced from the longitudinal stopes at each
level.
4.1.3.1 LBS sequence
Two types of production can be identified in stoping operations. The initial production
will be generated in the ore drives. Main production of a longitudinal bench stoping
operation is freed by construction of stopes. These stopes are orientated parallel to the
orebody. Depending on the width of the orebody one or two stopes next to each other
can be taken. In the Wallaby stopes are initially designed at the width of the orebody,
with a maximum design width of 10–15 m (Romppanen, pers. comm., 2012). In Figure
4-5 the sequence is shown schematic as a cross-section through the orebody. After a
level is developed and ground support is installed, the individual stopes are drilled with
a longhole drill rig. A slot raise is blasted to create a free face for later blasting. This slot
raise is ideally located at the far side of the stope to allow for producing towards the
access drive.
Figure 4-5: Schematic cross-section of the longitudinal mining operation sequence in the Wallaby
orebody (modified from Potvin & Hudyma (2000))
47
4.1.3.2 Stope production
Drilling of the stopes is done by downhole and uphole drilling with a ratio of 60/40. The
advantage of downhole drilling is the fact that charging the drill holes is easier. Another
advantage is that the mucking crew can work simultaneously with the drillers, because
loading and hauling is done on the level below (Karttunen, pers. comm., 2013), though
this practice is prohibited out of instability issues and safety reasons, Uphole drilling has
the advantage that more metres per shift can be achieved because the operator does not
have to install sludge pipes in the holes. For uphole drilling an advance of 110 metres a
shift is possible, and for downhole drilling not more than 100 metres. Efficiency is
around 70% to 80% due to stoppages because of maintenance, blast fumes and
electricity and water shortages. The efficiency is improving as more start-up issues are
resolved. Drilling is done by a Sandvik DL321. The design amount of drilling is estimated
to get 6-8 tonnes of ore per metre of longhole drilling. This gives an 18,000 tonnes stope
with 6 t/drm (tonnes per drill metre) a required 3000 metres of longhole drilling
(Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013a). When the stopes are wider and parallel drilling is an
option it requires the least amount of drilling and up to 8 t/drm can be obtained. Very
small stopes do require more drilling because parallel drilling is not possible and
require a larger opening with more specific drilling. In these stope there is less than 6
t/drm is achievable. Drill hole diameter is 70 mm, although the equipment is suitable to
go up to 76 mm (Karttunen, pers. comm., 2013). A stope will on average consist of 20
rings of holes (Romppanen, pers. comm., 2013c). Production drill holes have diameter of
70 mm. These are loaded with an explosive emulsion and in some cases ANFO after
which they are fired. In a normal situation 3 to 4 rings will be blasted each time. This
gives enough ore to provide the mucking crew with one shift of ore (Romppanen, pers.
comm., 2013c).
4.1.3.3 Stopes layout in the Wallaby orebody
Figure 4-6 depicts the stope layout of the Wallaby orebody. View is looking from the
west perpendicular to the orebody. The ore drives are shown in gold colour following
the orebody. Stopes are shown in either purple or red to distinguish between individual
stopes. The stopes shown in grey are mined out and backfilled as of beginning of June
2013. The green and yellow stopes contained increased amount of gold, and are
considered gold ore stopes. In total 61 stopes will be mined in the Wallaby orebody. On
average a stope has 20,000 tonnes of ore (Romppanen, pers. comm., 2013b).
48
Figure 4-6: Stope layout for the Wallaby orebody. Red and purple depict the individual stopes.
Stopes with high gold grade are coloured green and yellow. The grey coloured stopes as taken and
backfilled
49
4.1.4 Ventilation
The primary ventilation system at the Kylylahti mine is an overpressure system and is
designed so that there is an intake air quantity of 260 m3/s and an exhaust air quantity
of 200 m3/s (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). The remaining 60 m3/s will leave the mine
through the decline (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). This 60 m3/s is needed to ventilate the
upper parts of the decline. The intake fan has a power consumption of 910 kW and for
the exhaust a 770 kW fan is used. The intake and exhaust airway are constructed by
raiseboring and have a diameter of 4m and 3.5m respectively (Altona Mining ltd., 2007).
The length of the intake raise is 223m while the exhaust airway is 142m long. Secondary
ventilation used in the level drifts are 55 kW fans. While decline is in development a 220
kW fan is used to provide enough fresh air to the levels where the airway is not yet
constructed (Altona Mining ltd., 2007).
4.1.5 Ground support
Four classes of rock mass properties are defined to assess ground support within the
Kylylahti mine (Theron, 2007). The tour classes concern support in drifts & the decline.
These rock classes are based on the Q-classification system which will be more explicitly
discussed in chapter7. Table 4-1 gives the different support requirements per class.
Table 4-1: Support requirements for four rock classes based on Q-value (Theron, 2007)
Bolts per ring Bolt spacing Ring spacing Shotcrete

Class 1 (Q>10) Spot bolts 4 per 4m N/A No
advance
Class 2 6 1.5 m 2.0 m 50 mm from
(1<Q<10) thick on roof
starting m
above floor
(0.1<Q<1) thick on roof
starting m
above floor
Class 4 (Q<0.1) 8 1.5 m 1.2 m 125 mm from
thick on roof
from floor to
floor
50
These four classes are also depicted in Figure 4-7 showing the bolting pattern and the
shotcrete area.
Figure 4-7: Four different classes of ground support as defined by Theron (2007)
A short description of five types of ground support used through the different areas of
mining are discussed in the following subsections.
4.1.5.1 Roof bolts
In all the permanent drifts cement grouted rebars are installed as roof support. The
rings consist of 4 bolts across the roof. The steel bars have a length of 3 m. The spacing
between the rings is 2 meter. In short term access drives (the ore drives), which have a
maximum of 2 year lifespan; Swellex bolts are used in the same pattern. Every cut is
bolted before firing a new one, with a pattern of 2 rings of 4 bolts (Sorsa, pers. comm.,
2012).
51
4.1.5.2 Cable bolts
For stope support cable bolts are installed by a mechanized cable bolting rig. Cable bolts
with a length of 6 m are installed in sets of two cables per hole. One of the cables is cut
shorter to allow proper installation of the faceplates (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2012). When
the footwall is blackschist cable bolts are placed in the 2-3 bolts per ring are installed in
the footwall. In the roof and hanging wall 2-4 bolts per ring are used. The spacing
between the rings is 2 meter. An example of this cable bolting is shown in Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-8: Cable bolting design for stope support (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013b)
In crosscuts and areas where the loading of the trucks takes place a 2x2 pattern of cable
bolts is installed in the roof see Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9: Pattern of cable bolting in crosscuts and loading points (Theron, 2007)
In places where the drives exceeds 7 meter extra cable bolts are used to achieve
maximum safety. One exception is the decline where when exceeding 7 metres cement
grouted rebars are installed (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013b).
52
4.1.5.3 Mesh
Mesh is occasionally used in very weak areas in upper Wallaby. Here are some areas
where overbreak causes too much dilution. It is installed in the top drive of the stope to
prevent breaking to continue into the abutments (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2012).
4.1.5.4 Shotcrete
The shotcrete is reinforced by adding steel fibres to increase strength of the shotcrete
(Sorsa, pers. comm., 2012). Reinforced shotcrete is used in every opening in different
thicknesses. In poor rock a layer of 50 mm is applied, in very poor rock this is 70 mm
and in extremely poor areas a layer 125 mm thick would be applied.
4.1.6 Backfilling
Currently cemented waste rock from development is used to backfill the produced
stopes. The ratio between cement and rock is 5%. Therefore 6 m3 of cement slurry,
which contains 6 tonnes cement, is mixed with 120 tonnes of waste rock (Malmberg,
pers. comm., 2013c). For the shallow depths of the Wallaby this will not cause significant
problems. When going deeper in the next stage of mining waste fill will not be enough to
provide a stable mine layout. At the moment Altona Mining is looking into the
possibilities. One of these possibilities would be paste fill, but because of the distance
between the mine and the processing plant getting the paste will be expensive. Another
option is cemented rock fill (CRF) (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013c).
53
4.2 Processing
The processing plant has certain demands on the ore production. A short overview of
the processing flow is given before the specific demands on the Wallaby ore are
explained.
4.2.1 Processing flow
The processing at the plant in Luikonlahti is a conventional staged flotation process

(Figure 4-10). First step is a jaw crusher that crushes the ore down to 20 mm. The
crushed ore is temporarily stored in one of three ore bins are 2000 tonnes and the
oversize is fed to the pebble bin which is 600 tonnes. From here the ore is fed to a two
staged grinding circuit with a rod mill and a pebble mill. The p80 of this step is 105 µm
(Anttonen, pers. comm., 2012a). The flotation circuit consists of one copper rougher and
three cleaners. And another flotation circuit with a zinc rougher and three cleaners. In
the first cleaner after the copper rougher the cobalt and nickel are recovered. At the
moment the cobalt is not further processed, because the cobalt resides in the lattice of
the pyrite from which it cannot be freed. The cobalt and nickel are stored in the CoNi
temporary storage. After the third cleaner the copper is recovered and will pass through
a thickener and a filter. The final concentrate grade is 22% with a copper recovery of
92% (Anttonen, pers. comm., 2012a). This concentrate is shipped with trucks to the
buyers. The zinc flotation circuit has a recovery of 40% - 60% because most of the zinc is
lost in the copper circuit. The final grade of concentrate is 45% (Anttonen, pers. comm.,
2012a). After the first zinc cleaner more cobalt and nickel are recovered and stored in
the CoNi temporary storage. From the zinc circuit the sulphur is recovered in a third
circuit. This is done because there is a limit, less than 1%, on the amount of sulphur you
can discharge with the tailings. The sulphur in the material that comes with the zinc
from the copper rougher amounts to 10% - 15% of the material. This is lowered to less
than 1% by a sulphur rougher, a scavenger and three cleaners. The excess sulphur is
stored.
54
Figure 4-10: Processing flow chart for the Luikonlahti processing plant (Anttonen, pers. comm.,
2012b)
55
4.2.2 Demands for optimal processing
The processing is affected by the graphite in the blackschist. The higher the graphite
grade gets the lower will be the cupper grade of the concentrate. Current measurements
show that with an average graphite grade of 3% the copper grade of the concentrate is
lowered to 18% (Anttonen, pers. comm., 2012a). This shows that dilution from the
blackschist into the ore should be avoided as much as possible.
The massive semi-massive ore is both pyrite and pyrrhotite dominated. The
disseminated ore is mainly pyrrhotite dominated. A pyrrhotite dominated ore gives a
high grade of cobalt in the concentrate. For future cobalt production blending should not
be applied.
When there is gold dominated ore the processing flow should be changed so that the
result is a lower copper grade in the concentrate, but a better gold recovery. Another
issue is the sulphur extraction, for this process to work optimally it is desired that the
sulphur content remains steady throughout the batch. At the moment the distinction
between DISS and MSM is made on copper grade. Sulphur content is not related to the
copper grade, so this can lead to an unsteady flow of sulphur. When the distinction
would be made on sulphur grade, it can be beneficial for the processing (Anttonen, pers.
comm., 2012a). To sum up the demands of the processing plant:
 Have MSM & DISS mined separately
 Minimize the dilution of graphite
 Gold ore mined separately
56
5 Underground mining method selection (UMMS) for the Wombat orebody by traditional
selection methods
5 Underground mining method selection (UMMS) for

the Wombat orebody by traditional selection
methods
In the previous chapter an indication is given on a suitable mining method for the
Kylylahti deposit. As the Wallaby orebody is mined with an underground mining method
it is certain that the Wombat orebody will likewise be mined with an underground
mining method. However, as discussed in chapter 3 the Wallaby and Wombat have
different orebody characteristics. A mining method describes a unique combination of
variable linking the process of excavating the rock with the orebody characteristics
(Carter, 2011). It is therefore thinkable that the Wombat orebody will require a different
mining method. A number of factors and variables have an influence on mining method
selection. Most important group of factors are the orebody characteristics and style of
deposit (Carter, 2011). Additionally other variables and factors that have an influence
on the selection process are:
 Engineering properties of both the mineral deposit and host rock mass
(Carter, 2011)
 Geotechnical factors including strength of rock mass (Carter, 2011) and
state of stress (Pystynen, pers. comm., 2012a)
 Production rate from the orebody (Carter, 2011)
 Processing characteristics of the ore (Pystynen, pers. comm., 2012a)
 Economic factors including the capital and operating costs combined
with the forecast of the value of the metals (Carter, 2011)
 The mining method should ensure a high standard of safety for
employees and low environmental impact (Carter, 2011)
The most suitable and optimum mining method for any orebody will be the one that
maximizes the economic return (Carter, 2011). This means not only that production and
processing targets are met, but that the proposed mining method will generate the
maximum amount of profit. This division in to technical and operational factors and
economic factors is also suggested by Azadeh et al (2010) stating that combining the
two can result is an technical superior method to rank high regardless of the economic
return due to the fact that the factors are ranked equal. Therefore to select on technical
and operational suitability before these results are tested on economic return is a more
realistic approach. In this thesis this suggested sequence will be followed.
Next different mining method selection (MMS) tools are described. Not all of them use
the above mentioned factors. A complete list of factors designed for the Wombat
orebody is given in the chapter 4.2.
57
selection methods
5.1 Traditional UMMS tools
Several MMS/UMMS tools are developed through the years. This chapter will give an
introduction in to the different UMMS tools. All the UMMS tools given in this chapter are
based on qualitative and quantitative ranking systems.
5.1.1 Boshkov and Wright
Boshkov and Wright (1973) devised one of the first mining method selection tools based
on qualitative classification schemes. It was developed especially for underground
mines. Its premises is that the possibility of open pit mining is already eliminated
(Carter, 2011). Factors that have to be identified are ore thickness, ore dip and strength
of the ore and walls. The supporting table is shown in Table 1 in Appendix B: Support
charts for traditional MMS tools.
5.1.2 Morrison
Morrison (1976) took another approach dividing underground mining methods in to
three groups: 1. Rigid pillar support, 2. Controlled subsidence and 3. Caving. Factors
influencing the selection in to one of the groups are: ore width, support type and strain
energy accumulation (Carter, 2011). The selection is made on a classification figure
depicting the three groups, as is shown in Figure 2 in Appendix B: Support charts for
traditional MMS tools.
5.1.3 Laubscher
Laubscher (1981) devised a selection system that connected to the rock mass rating
system (RMR). It was specifically orientated on mass mining methods (Carter, 2011).
This selection system was updated by Laubscher (1990) to include the hydraulic radius.
This resulted in cavability methods being more feasible for more competent rock masses
when the undercutted area is large (Carter, 2011). Both charts are shown in Appendix B:
Support charts for traditional MMS tools.
5.1.4 Hartman
The mining method selection tool developed by Hartman (1987) makes use of a flow
chart, which was based on the geometry of the deposit and the ground conditions of the
ore zone. Hartman’s system resembles the one from Boshkov and Wright, though it
resulted in a more specific mining method. This method is also qualitative and includes
underground mining methods as well as surface options for both hard and soft rock
(Carter, 2011). The flow chart is given in Figure 5 in Appendix B: Support charts for
traditional MMS tools
58
selection methods
5.1.5 Nicholas method
A quantitative MMS selection tool was developed by Nicholas (1981), which uses
numerical ranking tables to select the most suitable mining method. Within these tables
several factors are taken into account, including: rock mass characteristics of the
orebody, hanging wall and footwall in addition to ore geometry and grade distribution
(Carter, 2011). It includes the rock quality designation (RQD) and the rock substance
strength (RSS) which consists of the UCS divided by overburden pressure. Using
different tables weights are given to each factor, adding up these weights will result in a
final ranking. Both surface and underground methods are options in the Nicholas
method. These tables are shown in Table 2 in Appendix B: Support charts for traditional
MMS tools.
5.1.6 University of British Colombia (UBC) method
The UBC method developed by Miller-Tait et al (1995) is based on the Nicholas method.
This method is developed to target underground mining methods. Instead of the RQD in
the Nicholas method is uses the RMR and it does not focus on fracture strength. The UBC
method gives a scoring for suitability of a mining method to the predefined parameters.
Scores go from 5 to 1, 5 being the most suitable, and if a mining method is totally
unsuitable it scores -49. Adding up all the scoring will results in a final score, the mining
method scoring the highest will be ranked highest and is considered most suitable. The
support table for the UBC method is shown in Table 3 in Appendix B: Support charts for
traditional MMS tools
This is the method used in this chapter for UMMS as it is the most recent and focusses on
underground mining methods.
59
selection methods
5.2 Factors influencing mining method selection
As was discussed the main factors and variables influencing the selection process are
orebody characteristics and style of deposit. These two are the main input on the
described MMS tools in the previous chapter. Additionally the UBC method, that is going
to be used in this thesis, requires calculation of the RMR and RSS of orebody and host
rock mass. However, when looking at the suitability of one mining method over another
there will be a variety of factors that have an influence and can be linked to the mining
method. In this chapter these additional factors will be identified. One important thing
to recognize is that the factors given here are relevant to the current and future mining
situation at the Kylylahti mine. This group of factors is chosen as a representative
collection of factors that should be looked at when performing the mining method
selection for the Wombat orebody. The factors are divided in to two themes: technical
and operational factors and economic factors.
The list of technical and operational factors (Table 5-1) and economic factors (Table
5-2) are compiled by inspecting the variable and factors given by the MMS tools in the
previous section. The goal is to obtain more depth in the list of factors. The list is also
based on the list of factors given by Azadeh et al (2010) and factors that are important in
the vision of Altona Mining ltd. (Pystynen, pers. comm., 2012a). Through discussion with
on-site engineers the final list was composed.
5.2.1 Technical and operational factors
A number of factors are directly linked to the properties of the orebody, while others
will be related to the mining operation and infrastructure. Five areas are determined.
These areas are related to every facet of the Kylylahti mine and deposit. Within these
five areas the factors can be identified. All the factors given in this chapter are of
relevancy to the mining method, but do not necessarily influence the final decision
making. A majority of these factors will only be used to exclude unsuitable mining
methods before mining method selection. The five areas in which the factors are placed
are:
 Geological factors
 Geotechnical factors
 Production factors
 Processing factors
 Health, safety, environment & community (HSEC) factors
60
selection methods
Table 5-1: Technical and operational factors
Area Factor Definition

Deposit depth The depth of the deposit
Deposit dip The dip of the deposit
Deposit shape /
The shape and volume of the deposit
volume
Geological
Orebody thickness The thickness of the orebody
The properties of the boundary of the orebody and the
Ore boundaries
footwall / hanging wall
Grade The grade of the deposit
Uniaxial
Compressive An indication of the compressive strength of the rock
Strength (UCS)
Geotechnical The in situ state of stress conditions in the
State of stress
underground
Rock mass The properties of the rock mass (RMR, RSS, Q-
properties classification)
The size of the stopes influences the amount of
Stope size
production reachable
A different amount of development is necessary for
Development
different mining methods
Production Ground control What kind of ground support needed
Backfill properties Depends on the mining method if backfill is needed
Technique and
What kind of technique and equipment is available
equipment
Flexibility The flexibility of the mining method
Dilution How much dilution is generated
Recovery What level of recovery is achieved
Processing
Selectivity How selective is the mining method
Feed rate How much production is reachable
Availability of
Can the community provide enough workers
workers
Health & safety Is health and safety of all employees ensured
HSEC Does the community has nuisance due to the mining
Community
activity
Environmental What is the environmental impact of the mining
impact method
61
selection methods
5.2.2 Economic factors
The importance of the suitability of a mining method judged on the technical and
operational factors is high. However mining companies exist to make a profit. As stated
if a mining method is technically more advance but more expensive than a less advanced
method it is likely that it will not be applied. Economic factors are given in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Economic factors
Area Factor Definition

Mine life How many years till mine closure
The cost of rehabilitating the mining
Rehabilitation costs
area
Capital expenditures
The capital expenditures
(CAPEX)
Economic factors
Operating
The operating expenditures
expenditures (OPEX)
The income generated from the ore
Net smelter return
mined after processing depicted as
(NSR)
€ / tonnes of ore mined
The complete flowchart of factors influencing mining methods is now complete and can
be seen in Figure 5-1. This diagram also shows the relationship between several factors
(dashed blue line). These relationships are between factors of different areas and depict
an influence of one factor on to the other.
62
selection methods
Figure 5-1: Overview of the the factors influenceing mining method identified for the Kylylahti
deposit
63
selection methods
5.3 Underground mining method selection with the UBC method
5.3.1 Input parameters to the UBC method

The parameters to be defined for the UBC method are essentially the same as those of
the Nicholas method. In addition the UBC method uses the rock substance strength
(RSS) which specifically targets underground mining methods. The parameters are
given by Table 5-3 - Table 5-9.
5.3.1.1 Orebody characteristics

For the orebody characteristics a choice has to be made between several predefined
options for every parameter given by the method. The parameters are given as tables
with the option best describing the Wombat orebody marked in green.
Table 5-3: UBC tool parameter: General shape
General shape
Equi-dimensional All dimension are of the same order
Platy-tabular Two dimensions are larger than the
thickness
Irregular Dimension vary
Table 5-4: UBC tool parameter: Orebody thickness
Orebody thickness
Narrow <10 m
Intermediate 10 – 30 m
Thick 30 – 100 m
Very thick >100 m
Table 5-5: UBC tool parameter: Deposit plunge
Deposit plunge
Flat <20o
Intermediate 20o – 55o
Steep > 55o
Table 5-6: UBC tool parameter: Grade distribution
Grade distribution
Uniform Grade is equal to the mean grade
throughout the orebody
Gradational Grade has a zonal characteristic which
gradually changes from zone to zone
Erratic Grade can change quickly over distance
without any pattern
64
selection methods
Table 5-7: UBC tool parameter: Deposit depth
Deposit depth
Shallow <100 m
Deep >600 m
Immediately this method generates a problem. Especially in the two factors orebody
thickness and deposit depth. As the Wombat orebody is lens shaped the middle is the
thickest part after which it thins out towards the edges (saying it is totally tabular is also
not totally accurate, but it is not one of the other options). So choosing a single option is
difficult. In this case it is a solution to take the mean value, in the case of the Wombat
orebody this is 29 m, so just within intermediate. Given that 25% is over 30 m thick, the
choice for intermediate seems insufficient and choosing a thick orebody is preferred.
Deposit depth of the Wombat orebody is from about 400 m to 800 m. Therefore the
deposit depth spans two options. This can be more easily countered by doing the
selection twice, once for the intermediate part of the orebody and one time for the deep
part of the orebody.
65
selection methods
5.3.1.2 RMR of orebody and host rock masses
For the RMR values of the orebody and the host rock masses are known at the Kylylahti
mine. The average for orebody, FW and HW are (Juurela, pers. comm., 2012) & (Altona
Mining ltd., 2006):
Table 5-8: UBC tool parameter: RMR
RMR
Orebody 64 Strong
Footwall 51 Medium
Hanging wall 66 Strong
5.3.1.3 RSS of orebody and host rock masses
The RSS values are calculated from the known UCS of the different rock masses and the
major principal stress on the orebody (Juurela, pers. comm., 2012) & (Altona Mining ltd.,
2006). As this overburden pressure changes with depth and the mining method
selection with the UBC method will be performed twice the RSS will also be given for the
different depths.
Table 5-9: UBC tool parameter: RSS
RSS
Depth <600 m
Orebody 13 Medium
Footwall 11 Medium
Hanging wall 13.5 Medium
Depth >600 m
Orebody 9.5 Weak
Footwall 8 Weak
Hanging wall 10 Medium
66
selection methods
5.3.2 Ranking and result
The final ranking is achieved with the use of the UBC mining method selector provided
by EduMine (1999) which uses the original method by Miller-Tait et al (1995). For the
selection only the mining methods given by Table 1-1 in section 1.3 of the introduction
are taken into account. The results are given in Table 5-10and Table 5-11showing the
ranking and the scored points for each mining method.
Table 5-10: UBC tool final ranking for depth <600 m
Final ranking for depth <600 m

Rank Mining method Points
1 Sublevel Stoping 38
2 Cut and Fill Stoping 34
3 Sublevel Caving 29
4 Block Caving 25
5 Shrinkage Stoping -19
6 Room and Pillar -76
7 Longwall Mining -83
Table 5-11: UBC tool final ranking for depth >600 m
Final ranking for depth >600 m

Rank Mining method Points
1 Sublevel Stoping 36
2 Cut and Fill Stoping 35
3 Sublevel Caving 29
4 Block Caving 25
5 Shrinkage Stoping -20
6 Room and Pillar -77
7 Longwall Mining -82
In both selection procedures the Sublevel stoping option ranked number 1 followed by
cut and fill stoping. Sublevel stoping is thus the most suitable mining method for the
Wombat orebody. The other methods are excluded.
67
selection methods
5.3.3 Discussion on exclusion of mining methods
The mining method selection using the UBC method resulted in sublevel stoping as most
suitable for the Wombat orebody. This result will be discussed for each excluded mining
method using the identified factors in section 5.2.
Cut and fill stoping scores just below Sublevel stoping. The shape and the dip of the
orebody are in favour for using cut and fill. However, this mining method is labour
intensive, which is not workable for the scale of operation at Kylylahti. Moreover there
is not enough skilled workers on site or available the near surroundings. Cut and fill on
the other hand does have the advantage that it is highly selective. The downside is that
the extra labour increases the cost of mining. For this reason this mining method is not
suitable for this deposit as the grades are not high enough to maximize economic return.
Sublevel caving would be possible as the orebody shape, volume and dip are favourable
for sublevel caving. However, due to the fact that the deposit is located close to the
municipality of Polvijärvi a caving method is not achievable. There are also numerous
lakes in the surroundings that would be affected by a caving operation and the related
environmental impact would be large.
Block caving is not possible due to the combination of the high depth and too small
volume of the deposit. This mining method is applied on large scale operations where
the large amount of development is justified by the large amount of ore extracted. This
deposit is too small a scale to use block caving.
Shrinkage stoping scores negative, this means that it is not a suitable mining method for
the Wombat orebody. As cut and fill stoping this method is labour intensive and
therefore expensive mining method. It is not workable with the grades at Kylylahti.
Longwall mining and room and pillar are excluded because of the near vertical dip of the
orebody. These two methods will be used in (near) horizontal and tabular deposits,
which the Kylylahti deposit is neither.
68
selection methods
5.4 Included mining methods
After excluding the unsuitable mining methods the sublevel stoping option is the only
mining method that is likely to be viable for the Kylylahti deposit. However, there are
multiple stoping methods available in modern day mining. These methods are variations
on conventional sublevel stoping (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2012). The difference
between them is the direction of mining, the design of the stopes or the method of
backfilling. These four are used throughout the world and are proven to work for
deposits like Kylylahti (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2012). In Finland examples of mines
using one or a combination of these stoping methods are FQML owned Pyhäsalmi mine
and Outokumpu Oy owned Kemi mine (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2013b). Another well-known
underground operation in which stoping is used is Xstrata owned Mt. Isa in Australia
(Villaescusa, 2003). A general description of each of these four mining methods can be
found in Appendix C: General description of stoping methods.
 Conventional Sublevel stoping
 Longitudinal Bench Stoping
 Transverse Bench Stoping
 Stoping with Continuous Backfill
5.5 Shortcomings of traditional selection methods
An issue that arises is the fact that the traditional MMS tools, given in section 5.1, do not
give a distinction on this depth of selection. Therefore these cannot be used to further
select a mining method for the Wombat orebody. For this reason a different UMMS tool
is used, which can perform a selection between different stoping methods. Additionally
the problems encountered with the UBC method concerning the arbitrary distinction
between ‘intermediate’ and ‘thick’ for the variable orebody thickness can be overcome
with this new approach to UMMS. This tool is based on multiple criteria decision making
and will be the subject of the next chapter.
69
selection methods
70
6 New approach to UMMS using multiple criteria

decision making (MCDM)
To be able to overcome the issues presented in the previous chapter researched looked
at more elaborate decision making tools within other industries (Azadeh, et al., 2010).
The shortcomings of the existing MMS tool are clear. One major issue is that all of the
selection criteria have the same relevance (Bitarafan & Atei, 2004), while in practise
certain factors are more influential regarding different deposits. Another issue is that
fact that within a selection criterion there is no transmission zone; this will cause issues
as mineral deposits cannot be categorized by a Boolean number.
To optimize the MMS process to be able to control the wide spectrum of mineral
deposits a new technique was implemented. This technique is based on multiple criteria
decision making (MCDM) and is called the Fuzzy AHP approach. Bitafaran and Atei
(2004) were the first to try this approach to find select a mining method for the Gol-
Gohar iron ore mine near Kerman, Iran. Karadogan et al (2008) applied the fuzzy AHP
approach to the underground Çiftalan lignite mine north of Istanbul, Turkey. Azadeh et
al (2010) gave this method as a new approach to mining method selection and use it to
find the most suitable mining method of the Western orebody of the North anomaly of
the Coghart iron mine in the province of Yazd, Iran. Others that have implemented this
technique are Naghadehi et al (2009) on the Jajarm Bauxite mine in Iran and Alpay and
Yavuz (2009) on the Eskisehir-Karaburun chromite mine in Turkey. This shows that
implementation of this technique on the mining method selection process is fairly new
and has not been verified by big mining companies. Moreover in this thesis the fuzzy
AHP approach will be done on the different stoping methods given in section 5.4.
Selecting between only stoping methods has not been done yet with this technique.
71
6.1 Decision making with Fuzzy AHP approach
To get familiar with the idea behind this UMMS tool a description of the theory behind
the method is given in this chapter.
6.1.1 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
The modern day analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was introduced by Saaty (1988)
though he started his work on the subject in the early 70’s (Karadogan, et al., 2008). It is
used for all kinds of decision making and planning in many different fields, from politics
to enterprises to choosing a location for a playground (Karadogan, et al., 2008). The
basis of AHP is the fact that all problems consist of smaller sub-problems. Therefore a
problem can be solved more effectively and easily when the problem is divided into its
sub-parts (Karadogan, et al., 2008). With AHP the decision making process is cut down
into 4 steps (Saaty, 2008):
1. Defining the problem
2. Structure the decision hierarchy, and set goals
3. Construct pair wise comparisons matrices
4. Obtain priorities from these matrices and use these to come to a final decision
The matrices in point three are constructed by putting the sub-problems on both
horizontal and vertical axis. These sub-problems are then pair wise compared through a
through a scale invented by Saaty (1980). To put this into an example a 3x3 matrix is
given in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Example of a pair wise comparison matrix
F1 F2 F3
F1
F2 [ ]
F2
Table 6-2 depicts the scaling system developed by Saaty. Weights can be chosen from
the numbers 1 to 9; these numbers are considered crisp (ordinary) numbers.
To get back to the example Table 6-2 is needed. The example shows three factors: F1, F2
and F3. Factor F3 is favoured strongly over F1 and more than slightly favoured over F2.
This can be seen as the numbers 7 and a 4 in the third column of the matrix as Table 6-2
suggests. On the other hand F2 is just slightly favoured over F1, Table 6-2 suggest the
number 3 at A1,2 in the pair wise comparison matrix. If the bottom halve of the matrix
are the reciprocals from the top half the matrix A is called a positive reciprocal matrix
(Buckley, 1985). To solve this decision making process Saaty (2008) suggests ‘λ-max’
method which uses the eigenvector of the matrix to calculate to decisive values.
72
Table 6-2: Weighting system for pair wise comparison. Modified from Saaty (2008)
Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally
to the objective
2 Weak or slight Can be used as a compromise
between 1 and 3
3 Moderate importance Experience and judgement
slightly favour one factor over
the other
4 Moderate plus Can be used as a compromise
between 3 and 5
5 Strong importance Experience and judgement
strongly favour one factor over
the other
6 Strong plus Can be used as a compromise
between 5 and 7
7 Very strong or A factor is favoured very
demonstrated importance strongly over the other
8 Very strong plus Can be used as a compromise
between 7 and 9
9 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one
factor over the other is of the
highest possible order
6.1.2 Fuzzy logic

Fuzzy logic deals with the vagueness of data sets and was first introduced by Zadeh
(1965). Zadeh wanted to create a way to make sense of the complexity of human
thought (Naghadehi, et al., 2009). Fuzzy set theory was aimed at the rationality of
uncertainty due to imprecision or vagueness (Naghadehi, et al., 2009). There are three
steps in the fuzzy set theory:
 Fuzzy sets: a concept/object with uncertain limits/vague boundaries. It is used
to describe terms like ‘a little bit’ or ‘somewhat’ (Bitarafan & Atei, 2004). This
includes also numbers like nearly 5, almost 4 or just under 6.
 Fuzzy set theory: This is used to describe a group of Fuzzy sets.
 Fuzzy logic: With the use of Fuzzy logic a membership function is added to the
Fuzzy set theory, which can be used for decision making purposes. The Fuzzy
logic gives a meaningful answer to problems described by Fuzzy sets.
So Fuzzy logic describes problems that are not simply yes or no, 0 or 1, but consists of all
the possible answers in between.
73
6.1.3 Fuzzy AHP
When AHP and Fuzzy logic are used together it combines to fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process approach (FAHP approach). This approach will be used in this thesis for the
MMS. Instead of using crisp numbers in the AHP, it uses fuzzy numbers. The aim of this
multiple attribute decision making is to find the most suitable mining method. This is
that mining method that has the highest level of association with all the predefined
factors. By weighing the factors to their importance to the mining operation this
association is measured. A higher importance means a higher weight. This is combined
with a relevance rating towards the different stoping methods. When combining these
two ratings a single fuzzy number is the result. The most suitable mining method will be
the one with the highest overall fuzzy number.
6.1.4 Introduction into fuzzy numbers
Fuzzy numbers are invented to accommodate for the vagueness of value that cannot be
dealt with by a crisp number (Buckley, 1985). Problems cannot be defined by single
number, so the principle of a fuzzy numbers is that can take any value limited by a
certain distribution (Buckley, 1985). In this thesis trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (TzFN) are
used. TzFN are denoted as (α/β,γ/δ), where 0<α≤β≤γ≤δ (Buckley, 1985) and α, β, γ and
δ are the four parts of a fuzzy number as shown in Figure 6-1. Say that Ai is more
important than Aj than the fuzzy ratio āij = (αij/βij,γij/δij) has α, β, γ and δ ϵ {1, 2, 3, … ,9}
(Buckley, 1985). When two numbers are equal α, β or β, γ or γ, δ are equal in āij, then the
line segment between them does not exist (Buckley, 1985). When the pair wise
comparison āij = 1 this is denoted as the fuzzy number (1/1,1/1). Just as in Saaty’s AHP
the matrix Ā is a positive reciprocal matrix, consider Ā = [āij], an m x m matrix with āji =
āij-1 and āii = (1/1,1/1). The membership function is defined by ̅ ( ). This membership
function gives a value of importance of x in Ā that maps X onto the membership space M.
This membership space consists of a range of finite and nonnegative numbers (Azadeh,
et al., 2010).
Every pair wise comparison ratio from Saaty’s AHP can be fuzzified (creating a TzFN out
of a crisp number). For example take a random factor F1 which has a ratio of 5 over F6.
When fuzzifying (turn a crisp number into a fuzzy number) this number to a TzFN it can
have a number of different shapes, as seen in Figure 6-2. One option is the TzFN
(3/4,5/6) when the vagueness is assumed to be on the lower side, or the TzFN (4/5,5/6)
when the vagueness is on both sides the same (this is known as a triangular fuzzy
number (TFN)). Another possibility is the TzFN (4/5,6/6) or (5/5,6/7) when there is
only vagueness on one side. One rule that is applied is that in a TzFN (n/n,n/n) every n
is a subset of ℝ (all real numbers) (Buckley, 1985). In this thesis when a fuzzy number is
given a bar is placed over the letter representing the fuzzy number.
74
Figure 6-1: Trapezoidal fuzzy number (Azadeh, et al., 2010)
Figure 6-2: Variations on the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (Azadeh, et al., 2010)
Next is a more detailed description of the calculations that need to be performed. The
method used is the FAHP method developed by Buckley (1985) which uses the
geometric mean.
6.2 Buckley’s FAHP approach
Fuzzy numbers are introduced by Buckley (1985) in the following way: Let ̅ be a fuzzy
number with membership function ̅ ( ). The fuzzy number ̅ is denoted in the TzFN
(m1/m2,m3 /m4). The visualization of ̅ ( ) in a Cartesian coordinate system is 0 to the
left of m1, a line from (m1,0) to (m2,1). Next a straight horizontal line between m2 and m3.
Then a line connecting (m3,1) to (m4,0) and finally 0 again to the right of m4 (Buckley,
1985). On the segments [m1, m2] and [m3, m4] this line does not have to be straight, but it
is continuous monotonically increasing/decreasing (Buckley, 1985).
For fuzzy calculations and are used to show fuzzy multiplication and fuzzy addition
(Buckley, 1985).
Buckley (1985) proves that a fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix Ā is consistent if A = [aij]
is consistent, considering Ā = [āij] where āij = (αij/βij,γij/δij) and βij ≤ aij ≤ γij for all i,j. This
implicates that when the pair wise comparison matrix A is fuzzified the consistency will
stay.
75
6.2.1 The geometric mean method
In contrast to Saaty’s AHP after fuzzyfying the pair wise comparison matrix it is no
longer possible to use the λ-max method (Buckley, 1985). Instead Buckley proposes the
geometric mean technique for computing the weights wi, which is a crisp weight.
Say the pair wise comparison matrix is defined as (1):
[ ] (1)
Given this mxm matrix Ā, the geometric mean of each row (r) is computed by (2)
(Buckley, 1985):
(∏ ) (2)
From this geometric mean the crisp weight (w) of element i is obtained by (3):
[∑ ] (3)
6.2.2 Fuzzy matrix calculations
From a hierarchical analysis the pair wise comparison matrices are made. In case of the
positive reciprocal matrices: if āi is more important than āj then ̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ )
if however āj is more important than āi then ̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ ). Whenever āi
and āj have an equal importance then ̅ ̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ ) (Azadeh, et al., 2010).
The first step is to compute the fuzzy weights of each of the matrices by the geometric
mean method as shown above. If ̅ is the geometric mean of each row of ̅ [ ̅ ], then
this is defined as (4) (Buckley, 1985):
⁄
̅ (̅ ̅ ̅ ) (4)
And consequently (5) for ̅ :
̅ ̅ ( ̅ ̅ ̅ ) (5)
To determine the membership function of ̅ , fi(y) and gi(y) are defined as left and right
sides of ̅ to get the exact graph for the fuzzy weights (6) & (7):
76
( ) [∏ (( ) )] (6)
( ) [∏ (( ) )] (7)
⁄
Furthermore is defined [∏ ] and α is the sum of all (8):
∑ (8)
As in this way define also and , and and and (Buckley, 1985). And in the
same way let (9) & (10):
( ) ∑ ( ) (9)
( ) ∑ ( ) (10)
The fuzzy weight ̅ of each row will be obtained by (11):
̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ ) (11)
With the membership function ̅ defined by (12):

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
̅ ( ) ( ) (12)
( )
( )
( ) ( )
{ ( )
With the x-axis being horizontal and the y-axis vertical the membership graph starts at
( ) for and increases to ( ) as is increasing from 0 to 1.
The previous step is repeated for every single matrix (Dermirel, et al., 2008). At the end
of the iteration of the last step there is a ̅ for every row of the pair wise comparison
matrices. For further calculations for ̅ the rows of the factor matrices will be called ̅
with the j defining the matrix and the i defining the row of that matrix. There is also the
comparison matrix between the factors from which a ̅ is calculates. This will be called
77
̅ with the j defining each row of this matrix. Now to get to the final fuzzy weight U for
every criterion (13) (Azadeh, et al., 2010):
̅ ∑ ̅ ̅ (13)
The decision making process is finished by looking at the final fuzzy weight. The higher
the value of the fuzzy weight the more suitable that method is.
6.3 Identifying key factors for the FAHP approach
For the FAHP approach it is necessary to define the factors/criteria’s on which the
decision will be made. After identifying these factors a hierarchy between them is made
to distinguish their importance.
Whilst all the factors identified in the previous chapter are influential when regarding
the mining method, not all necessary in the mining method selection with only the four
defined stoping methods in mind. On some factors these stoping method will have the
same outcome and can therefore be disregarded. Therefore key factors will be defined
that have a significant influence in the decision making between the stoping methods
stated in section 5.4. To define the key factors different aspects of the properties of a
stoping method should be taken into account. How are the methods used, and what is
possible in respect to a mining operation when implementing one of these four methods.
Also these key factors should encompass the components that are of most importance in
the vision of Altona Mining ltd, The key factors are identified in collaboration of staff
members. In total are six key factors that will be include in this new UMMS.
6.3.1 Ore boundaries / orebody thickness:
From infill drilling it has been shown that the orebody is not straightforward as was
initially expected from the surface drilling. Though less folded than the Wallaby orebody
the Wombat waste to ore boundary is not a straight line. This will influence the needed
precision and direction of the longhole drilling. On the hanging wall side because of the
disseminated zone the boundary of the orebody with the waste rock is defined by the
cut-off grade. If this cut off would change due to increase of copper price or increase in
cost of mining, the boundary will shift further or closer to the footwall. The orebody is
not simply tabular and at a uniform thickness but rather lens shaped. This will result in
wider stopes in the middle and thinner stopes at the edges. The selected mining method
should be able to cope with both these issues.
78
6.3.2 State of stress:
Because of the depth of the Wombat zone the stresses are higher here than encountered
in the Wallaby zone. Rock stress measurements (explained in detail in section 7.3) show
the principal stress to be horizontal and perpendicular to the strike which makes stope
design challenging. To mine the Wombat in a responsible way, the mining method
should be able to deal with this higher stress and the direction of this stress.
6.3.3 Flexibility to secure production:
When Altona Mining ltd. increases their production to the planned 800.000 tons per
annum the chosen mining method will have to be able to deal with this increased
demand. This means that the mining method should be flexible enough to deliver a
steady production. This can be done by the producing from stopes on different levels or
producing from different stopes on the same level. The mining method which can
optimize the production from the Wombat orebody will be most suitable to secure the
production.
6.3.4 Selectivity of ore type:

Because of the different types of ore and the difference in processing of these ores the
mining method used should be able to accommodate selective mining to supply the
processing plant on its demands. These demands are that the different ore types are not
to be blended; this will optimize processing recovery and therefore maximize the profit.
6.3.5 Dilution and recovery:
In addition to the types of ore the allowed dilution and optimum recovery should be
altered accordingly. For high grade ore and gold ore it is important to have a high
recovery while the amount of dilution is less important (Lappalainen, pers. comm.,
2013b). With low grade ore the amount of dilution should be as low as possible while
the recovery does not have to be maximized. Dilution from the graphite rich blackschist
in the footwall should be avoided, as the graphite has a negative impact on processing
recovery. Best grades are at the FQ contact, so high recovery here is required. One issue
that is encountered at Kylylahti is the fact that the processing plant is at a distance of 40
km. This will push towards low dilution to minimize material flow and its transportation
costs. The most efficient mining method is the one that can deal with these ore type
changes in dilution and recovery.
6.3.6 Health and safety:
One of the most important factors nowadays and also a key value for Altona Mining is
health and safety. Profit should be maximized, but this has to be done with respect to the
health and safety of the operators. Never should the workers be under unsupported roof
or work in dangerous conditions. The possibility of mechanization of the mining method
is the goal. The selected mining method has to have the option to ensure safety. This
includes also the stability of the stopes and the use of ground support and backfill.
79
6.4 Hierarchy analysis of the key factors
Before the UMMS calculations can be made the pair wise comparison matrices that are
needed to do the FAHP approach have to be constructed. As is explained in the
beginning of this chapter a pair wise comparison matrix will represent the suitability of
one of the four mining methods defined in section 5.4 to a factor. The factors used for
comparison are defined in the previous section and comprise of the six key factors as is
shown in Table 6-3. This will result in six matrices and an additional seventh matrix to
compare the six factors with each other on importance to Kylylahti and the Wombat
orebody.
Table 6-3: Key factors identified for mining method selection
Key factors identified

A1 Orebody thickness & ore boundaries
A2 State of stress
A3 Flexibility for securing production
A4 Selectivity on ore type
A5 Dilution & recovery
A6 Health & safety
These six factors result in the hierarchy depicted in Figure 6-3 which will be basis for
the hierarchy analysis needed for the UMMS. This analysis is given next.
Figure 6-3: Basis for the hierarchy analysis for the mining method selection problem
80
For this this thesis the hierarchy analysis done through discussions with certified people
within the Kylylahti office. The team consisted of the mine manager, mine planning
manager and mine planning engineer and the thesis worker. In these discussions the
hierarchy of each of the factors and mining methods to the Kylylahti mine was made by
each of the team members. Based on this hierarchy the matrices were constructed.
UMMS with the FAHP approach is thus influenced by the ideas and vision of the mining
engineers on site. During the discussions it turned out that in some cases there was total
agreement, health and safety as the most important factor was enforced by everyone,
but in other cases there was a difference in ideas of suitability and importance. In the
end a consensus was reached which is represented in the hierarchy analysis in Figure
6-4. The four stoping methods are ranked by suitability 1 being most suitable. Factors
ranked equally have the same suitability. In the same order the factors themselves are
ranked to importance.
81
The following abbreviations are used to indicate the different mining methods.
CSS: Conventional Sublevel stoping
LBS: Longitudinal Bench Stoping
TBS: Transverse Bench Stoping
SCB: Stoping with Continuous Backfill
Figure 6-4: Hierarchy analysis parameters used as input for the construction of the pair wise
comparison matrices for the mining method selection for the Wombat orebody. Factors ranked
equally have the same suitability.
82
6.5 Construction of the pair wise comparison matrices
Based on the hierarchy analysis the pair wise comparison matrices are constructed.
Each of the matrices is filled with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers according to Buckley
(1985) and implementing the weighting ranges of Table 6-2. A better suitability (and
thus favourable) of one mining method over the other on a particular factor will result in
a higher fuzzy number and vice versa. If the mining methods are ranked equal the fuzzy
number (1/1,1/1) is applied, referring to the equality of suitability. Important and most
difficult in this process is the decision on the value and range of this fuzzy number. The
accuracy of the matrices depends on the experience of the decision making team.
Thus in this thesis there will be six matrices comparing the factors which are number Ā1
to Ā6. In addition a pair wise comparison matrix of the importance of the factors (Ē) is
created. Next the matrices Ā1 to Ā6 are given in Table 6-4 - Table 6-9.
The numbers in the rows give a measurement of the suitability / importance for that
factor / mining method over the factor / mining method in the column. On the diagonal
the fuzzy number is (1/1,1/1), this is normal practise as is described earlier in this
chapter. Above and below this diagonal the numbers are reciprocals of each other. To
understand the comparison between two mining methods on that factor, only one half of
the matrix is enough. For calculations however both halves are of importance.
Table 6-4: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries
Orebody thickness & ore boundaries (Ā1)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
LBS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
TBS (3/4,5/5) (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4)
SCB (2/3,4/5) (2/3,4/5) (2/3,3/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
Table 6-5: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor state of stress
State of stress (Ā2)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
LBS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
TBS (3/4,5/5) (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4)
SCB (2/3,4/5) (2/3,4/5) (2/3,3/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
83
Table 6-6: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor flexibility for securing production
Flexibility for securing production (Ā3)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) (2/3,4/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
LBS (1/2,2/3)-1 (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/5)-1 (1/2,2/3)
TBS (2/3,4/4) (2/3,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/4)
SCB (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) -1 (2/3,4/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
Table 6-7: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor selectivity on ore type
Selectivity on ore type (Ā4)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/4) -1 (5/5,6/7) -1 (1/3,3/5) -1
LBS (2/3,4/4) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/5) -1 (2/3,4/5)
TBS (5/5,6/7) (2/3,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/5)
SCB (3/3,4/5) (2/3,4/5) -1 (3/4,5/5) -1 (1/1,1/1)
Table 6-8: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor dilution & recovery
Dilution & recovery (Ā5)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/6) -1 (1/2,3/4) -1
LBS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (4/4,5/5) -1 (1/2,3/4) -1
TBS (3/4,5/6) (4/4,5/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4)
SCB (1/2,3/4) (1/2,3/4) (1/3,3/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
Table 6-9: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor health & safety
Health & safety (Ā6)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (4/5,6/6) -1 (3/4,4/5) -1
LBS (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) -1 (1/1,1/1)
TBS (4/5,6/6) (1/2,2/3) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3)
SCB (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) (1/1,1/1)
84
Table 6-10 gives the pairwise comparison matrix (Ē) for the different key factors which
are given by the following abbreviations:
OB: orebody thickness & ore boundaries
SOS: state of stress
FSP: flexibility for securing production
SOT: selectivity on ore type
D&R: dilution and recovery
H&S: health and safety
Table 6-10: The pair wise comparison matrix between the different key factors (Ē)
OB SOS FSP SOT D&R H&S

OB (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (5/6,7/8) -1 (1/2,3/4) -1 (3/4,5/6) -1 (7/8,8/9) -1
SOS (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,3/3) -1 (1/2,3/4) (1/1,1/1) (4/5,6/7) -1
FSP (5/6,7/8) (1/2,3/3) (1/1,1/1) (4/5,6/6) (3/3,4/5) (2/2,3/4) -1
SOT (1/2,3/4) (1/2,3/4) -1 (4/5,6/6) -1 (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4) -1 (3/4,5/6) -1
D&R (3/4,5/6) (1/1,1/1) (3/3,4/5) -1 (2/3,3/4) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,3/4) -1
H&S (7/8,8/9) (4/5,6/7) (2/2,3/4) (3/4,5/6) (1/2,3/4) (1/1,1/1)
6.6 Results of the UMMS using the FAHP approach
The final calculated fuzzy numbers for the suitability of each mining method on the pre-
defined factors give are shown in Table 6-11 and Figure 6-5. The detailed calculations
and results of the intermediate steps are found in Appendix D: FAHP approach; the
calculations
Table 6-11: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the Wombat
orebody based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method
Fuzzy number
Conventional Sublevel stoping (0.0864/0.1003,0.1152/0.1460)
Longitudinal Bench Stoping (0.1367/0.1618,0.2013/0.2541)
Transverse Bench Stoping (0.2547/0.4242,0.5929/0.8699)
Stoping with Continuous Backfill (0.1520/0.1839,0.2379/0.3073)
85
Final fuzzy numbers

1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
Conventional Sublevel
Stoping
0.6000 Longitudinal Bench Stoping
Transverse Bench stoping
0.4000
Stoping with Continuous
Backfill
0.2000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0600
0.1200
0.1800
0.2400
0.3000
0.3600
0.4200
0.4800
0.5400
0.6000
0.6600
0.7200
0.7800
0.8400
0.9000
0.9600
Figure 6-5: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the Wombat
orebody based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method
6.7 Discussion on TBS as most suitable mining method
From Table 6-11 and Figure 6-5 it can be seen that the most suitable mining method for
the Wombat orebody is transverse bench stoping. Thereafter longitudinal bench stoping
and stoping with continuous backfill are comparable in suitability. Conventional
sublevel stoping is the least suitable of this four stoping methods to be used as mining
method for the Wombat orebody. Therefore based on multiple criteria decision making
transverse bench stoping was determined to be the most suitable mining method for the
Wombat orebody. A closer look to the pair wise comparison matrices used for the
mining method clearly indicates that TBS is the most adaptable all of the pre-defined
factors, which is shown by the high fuzzy numbers.
Because the stopes used in TBS are perpendicular through the Wombat orebody the
long walls of the stopes are within the ore in comparison to LBS where the long walls
are adjoining waste rock. Because the stub ends of a transverse stope are facing the
waste rock there is less dilution expected when mining the stope. Overbreak into the ore
does not generally result in waste dilution, but is regarded dilution by material having
metal grades comparable with the mined ore. Another advantage of this perpendicular
86
positioning of the stopes comes when drilling the stopes. There is less area of
uncertainty, which makes the drill pattern design easier. Therefore TBS has fewer
problems with the uncertainty of the ore boundaries. Orebody thickness in the Wombat
is on average over 20 metres, which is the limit at which the change from LBS to TBS is
normally made. Therefore using TBS on the Wombat is logical.
In comparison to the other stoping methods when applying TBS the orebody is opened
up with multiple ore drifts going perpendicular through the orebody. This has the
benefit that there are multiple accesses in to the orebody as well. It gives the choice to
develop / stope the Wombat in different ore drives at the same time. To be able to
increase the production as planned it is necessary to produce ore from multiple stopes
at the same time, TBS provides in this need. More importantly if there is delay on one
stope, there is another place to start working. So the delay will not interfere with the
production. Whereas mining with longitudinal ore drivers there are less ore drives, and
thus fewer locations / stopes to open up, a delay will automatically create a delay in
production. This single advantage has a very high importance in the vision of Altona
Mining ltd. Also with the other stoping methods it is the fact that there are fewer places
to develop. This can be seen in the Wallaby where on some occasions it is not possible to
open up new stopes as there are other processes that need to be finished first (Sorsa,
pers. comm., 2013c). This makes LBS less flexible. With conventional sublevel stoping
the time it takes to develop a stope is longer than with the other methods, which in turn
makes it less flexible. TBS has multiple locations and it gives the opportunity to easily
adjust the length of stopes to match the ‘at the moment’ required production. With
selectivity of the ore type the differences between the stoping methods are smaller. With
all of the methods you can design the stopes to take the high grade and low grade ore
separately. However, with TBS it is possible to extend the stope further into the
hangingwall to take more disseminated ore should the cut-off grade drop.
TBS is very suitable to use a combination of CRF and waste fill, altering the stopes
between primary and secondary stopes. Using CRF to fill up the primary stopes and
waste fill in the secondary stopes it is possible to lower the amount of CRF needed,
which will lower the costs. In Wallaby all stopes are backfilled with CRF, this is more
cost intensive. TBS is suitable to implement some sort of mechanization /
automatization. One advantage of mechanization is that the remote controlled
equipment does not need any special transverse draw points (Lappalainen, pers. comm.,
2013c). This will decrease the amount of development within the Wombat. Though TBS
is not much safer than the other three, there is one exception where TBS will be safer
when an accident should occur. Because of the multiple cross orebody drives, the length
of these ore drives is generally shorter than the parallel drives used in longitudinal
mining. If a hazardous situation should occur, the escape way is much shorter, and there
will be more options to escape to (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2013c). If something should
happen in a longitudinal drive, there is a higher chance your exit will be blocked off.
Thus concluding all the advantages versus disadvantages, as seen in Table 6-12, it is
clear that transverse bench stoping is the most suitable stoping method to be
implemented for the Wombat orebody.
87
Table 6-12: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of transverse bench stoping in the
Wombat orebody
Advantages Disadvantages
Flexible / security of production. Requires more development than
Possibility to increase production. longitudinal (~25 % more (Altona Mining
ltd., 2007))
Multiple stopes available. Problems in one Lower grade earlier due to more low grade
stope will not cause delay. disseminated ore being taken in early
development
Higher recovery. It is possible to take most Development in waste rock.
of disseminated ore.
Less dilution due to relatively small
footwall face exposure.
Selectivity in taking different ore types.
Possibility to take massive-semi massive
and disseminated ore separately.
Less affected by high horizontal stresses.
More stable stope walls.
Easier to organize mine infrastructure due
to standardized levels
6.8 Discussion on the FAHP approach as a UMMS tool
The FAHP approach gave a clear result. However, when looking at the hierarchy analysis
this result can already be expected. TBS scored highest on every factor in the hierarchy
analysis. Because the pair wise comparison matrices used in the calculations are based
on this hierarchy analysis the final result is not surprising. This effect is caused by the
subjectivity of the FAHP approach. Where the other selection tools are too objective, a
possible problem of the FAHP approach is that the outcome is greatly influenced by the
ideas of the executive engineers. Mining method selection in this case is based on the
experience and preferences of these engineers. An uncertainty is the limited experience
of the decision makers, which influences the accuracy of the matrices. It should be
emphasised that this is not necessarily an insuperable issue. As in the case of the
Wombat orebody, the most suitable mining method was not the only one that fitted by
the books, but more the one that best fitted the vision of Altona Mining ltd.; influencing
the UMMS by the discussions held with on-site engineers at Kylylahti. The result
obtained in this chapter therefore endorses the effectiveness of the FAHP approach.
88
7 Definition of design parameters: Q-classification and

stope limits
Now that the mining method is selected the next step is defining the design parameters
used in the mine design. Mine design is necessary to obtain an input for the financial
analysis. As a stoping method will be used this will consist of stope design with use of
the stability graph developed by Mathews (1980). In order to use the Mathews graph
three parameters have to be calculated: the Q-classification, a stability number (N’) and
the hydraulic radius. Additionally the Q-classification will be used to design the ground
support requirements in the decline and the ore drives.
For this purpose analysis is made from the available drill hole logs and images. It must
be emphasised again that this data was limited. From the drill hole analysis the Q-value
is obtained which in combination with the in situ state of stress is used to calculate N’.
The in situ state of stress values come from the stress test done at the development drive
on level 300. The stope stability eventually gives a limit to the size of the stopes. Two
parameters that will be necessary to get an accurate stope design are the maximum
dimensions of the roof and the spacing between the different levels (height of the stope).
After these limits are obtained stope design and sequencing of the stope extraction is
determined in chapter 8. This will provide an approximate production to further
calculate the profitability of the mining method in chapter 9. After and introduction of
the Q-classification method in chapter 7.1, in chapter 7.2 the Q-values of the rock masses
is determined. Chapter 7.3 describes the state of stress in the Wombat zone and chapter
7.4 determines the stope limits for the Wombat orebody.
89
7.1 The Q-classification method
The Q-method was introduced by Barton et al (1974) for the Norges Geotekniske
Institutt (NGI) (Hoek, 2007). Barton based his method on the evaluation of a large
amount of case records of underground excavations throughout history (Hoek, 2007). It
was originally designed as the Tunnelling Quality Index to determine the required
support within tunnel excavations and give a rock mass classification of the host rock.
The main geotechnical parameters are block/particle size, which describes the structure
of the rock mass, the minimum inter-block shear strength, a measure for the roughness
and frictional characteristics of the joints, and active stress, or total stress (Hoek, 2007).
There parameters are calculated by the following equations:
1 Block size: (14)
2 Inter-block shear strength: (15)
3 Active stress: (16)
Where (Hoek, 2007):

 RQD is the Rock Quality Designation
 Jn is the joint set number
 Jr is the joint roughness number
 Ja is the joint alteration number
 Jw is the water reduction factor
 SRF is the Stress Reduction Factor
The values of the parameters can be deducted from Table 31 in Appendix E: Q-

classification support charts. The RQD is a measurement of estimating the rock mass
properties from drill core logs designed by Deere et al (1968). It gives the percentage of
intact rock over the length of a metre and is calculated by (17) (Deere & Deere, 1987):
∑
(17)
Together these three parameters are used to calculate the Q value: (18)
(18)
The Q value is given on a logarithmic scale and will lie between 0.001 and 1000. The
subsequent classification of the rock mass can be seen in Table 7-1.
90
Table 7-1: Q method classification groups
Q Group Classification
400 – 1000 Exceptionally Good
100 – 400 Extremely Good
A
40 – 100 Very Good
10 – 40 Good
4.0 – 10 Fair
1.0 – 4.0 B Poor
0.10 – 1.0 Very Poor
0.01 – 0.10 Extremely Poor
C
0.001 – 0.01 Exceptionally Poor
The Q-classification includes a support chart to relate measured Q-value to needed

ground support (Hoek, 2007). Therefore an additional parameter named the Equivalent
Dimension (De) is defined. This equivalent dimension is obtained by taking the either
the span, diameter or the height of the excavation, depending on which part of the
excavation the support is calculated for and dividing this by the Excavation Support
Ratio (ESR). This ESR, Table 7-2, is a value depending on the degree of security that is
needed to ensure the stability in the excavation.
Table 7-2: ESR rating for different excavation categories
Excavation category ESR

A Temporary mine openings 3-5
Permanent mine openings, drifts and
B 1.6
headings for large excavations
C Storage rooms and access tunnels 1.3
D Portal intersections 1.0
Underground nuclear power stations, sports
E 0.8
and public facilities.
The equivalent dimension is then calculated by (19) (Hoek, 2007):
( )
(19)
Grimstad and Barton (1993) provided a support chart where the De is plotted against
the Q value. This chart will give guidance on the amount and type of ground support
needed for a specific part of the excavation. In addition to the support chart Barton
(1980) also designed a measure of calculating the needed length of the rockbolts (20).
( )
( ) (20)
Ground support requirements are found in Appendix G: Ground support requirements

for the Wombat orebody.
91
7.2 Q-classification for the orebody and host rock mass
Data from 8 diamond core holes was used to calculate the Q value of the different rock
types that are encountered in the Wombat zone. The main rock types as described in
chapter 2 are the blackschist in the footwall, tremolite skarn in the hanging wall and the
semi massive-massive copper ore zone. There are two other rock types present,
ultramafics and vein quartz. The ultramafics are found to the west of the tremolite skarn
and in zones within the tremolite skarn. Vein quartz is found in the hanging wall and can
be within the tremolite skarn. Vein quartz can have a proportion of 50:50 with the
skarn, but tremolite skarn is usually more dominant. Vein quartz is also found close to
the ultramafic zone where it can have interlayers of talc-chlorite. The general sequence
of rock from east to west is: blackschist, ore zone, tremolite skarn, quartz rock and
furthest west lay the ultramafics. From these five rock types the Q-value will be
calculated.
7.2.1 Selection of data used for Q-classification
The drill holes that are used in the Q-classification are as shown in Figure 7-1:
OKU-909 / OKU-914 / OKU-917 / OKU-919 / OKU-920 / OKU-923 / OKU-927/ OKU-934
These eight drill cores are from the initial exploration phase from surface and go below
400 metre from surface and some penetrate the Wombat orebody either through to top
part or through the deeper parts. In Figure 7-1 the left diagram is a top down view
showing the drill hole numbers, while the right one show the locations where the drill
holes intersect the orebody in a floating view.
For the Q-classification sections of the drill core were used that are representative for
the Wombat zone. As there is not much geotechnical data from the Wombat zone the
evaluation will not be as reliable. Currently this is the most up to date data, and will give
an interpretation of the current understanding of the Wombat orebody. These sections
are relevant to that specific rock type and are also taken as close to the orebody as
possible to give an as good as overview of the rocks encountered when developing and
mining the Wombat orebody. The tables showing the specific sections used for each rock
type are shown in Appendix F: Sections used for Q-classification.
92
Figure 7-1: Drill holes used in the Q-classification. Left: top view showing drill holes with ID. Right:
Floating view of the same drill holes.
93
7.2.2 Results of Q-classification
The parameters for the Q-value calculations are taken from original drill hole data
accessed via the Altona Mining ltd. database. The obtained parameters are used to
calculate the Q-value for the given sections using formula (18), and the results are
shown in Table 7-3 - Table 7-7. One thing that is notable is the high RQD in every
analysed section. Examination of the available photographs taken of the drill holes
during exploration did confirm this high RQD, therefore the value were not altered. The
water reduction factor is set at 1 for all sections. The SRF is 1.5 or 2.5 depending on the
available data.
Table 7-3: Q-classification results for rock type MSM
Drill
hole Section RQD Jr Ja Jn Jw SRF Q Classification
ID
OKU- 597.80- Exceptionally
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
909 604.15 good
619.60- Extremely
100 3 0.75 1 1 1.5 266.7
623.00 good
635.60- Exceptionally
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
647.25 good
654.00-
100 1 0.75 1 1 1.5 88.9 Very good
655.00
673.75-
100 2 3.00 1 1 1.5 44.4 Very good
675.25
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
914 595.24 good
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
919 529.42 good
OKU- 522.14-
100 1.5 3.00 2 1 1.5 16.7 Good
923 525.56
94
Table 7-4: Q-classification results for rock type tremolite skarn
Drill
ID
OKU- 595.00-
100 2 3.00 1 1 1.5 44.4 Very good
909 597.80
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
632.15 good
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
914 590.01 good
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
917 420.20 good
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
433.70 good
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
919 547.95 good
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
923 463.80 good
Table 7-5: Q-classification results for rock type blackschist
Drill
ID
OKU- 421.10-
100 3 3.00 2 1 2.5 20.0 Good
917 426.00
OKU- 498.60-
100 1.60 3.00 6 1 1.5 5.8 Fair
920 511.00
519.47-
100 4 3.00 3 1 1.5 29.6 Good
534.00
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 2.5 426.7
549.50 good
584.50-
93 3.40 4.00 4 1 2.5 7.9 Fair
600.00
OKU- 487.69-
99 1.5 4.00 2 1 1.5 12.4 Good
934 491.65
494.50-
99 0.5 4.00 2 1 1.5 4.1 Fair
503.05
95
Table 7-6: Q-classification results for rock type vein quartz
Drill
ID
OKU- 587.25- Extremely
100 3 2.00 1 1 1.5 100.0
909 595.00 good
OKU- 518.56-
100 4 4.00 2 1 1.5 33.3 Good
914 522.58
OKU- 464.17- Extremely
100 4 0.75 2 1 1.5 177.8
919 466.50 good
469.17-
100 2.2 3.60 9 1 1.5 6.8 Fair
480.70
100 4 1.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
521.60 good
OKU- 444.21-
100 1.6 4.00 3 1 1.5 8.7 Fair
923 453.27
518.25-
100 1.5 4.00 2 1 1.5 12.5 Good
520.50
Table 7-7: Q-classification results for rock type ultramafics
Drill
ID
OKU- 419.70-
100 0.5 4.00 9 1 1.5 0.9 Very poor
909 434.80
434.80-
100 2 3.70 1 1 1.5 36.4 Good
440.70
449.20-
100 2.60 4.00 12 1 1.5 3.6 Poor
466.50
469.60-
99 1 4.00 6 1 1.5 2.8 Poor
473.60
OKU- 331.00-
99 4 4.00 2 1 1.5 33.0 Good
914 342.23
OKU- 581.90-
100 3 4.20 6 1 1.5 7.9 Fair
919 590.30
OKU- 668.90-
100 1.97 3.80 9 1 1.5 3.8 Poor
927 684.30
100 4 0.75 0.5 1 1.5 711.1
934 560.00 good
96
7.2.3 Summary of the Q-classification results
The results of the Q-classification given in the tables in the previous section are
summarized in Table 7-8.
Table 7-8: Low, Median and High Q value of the 5 different rock masses
Rock type Q-classification

Low Q Median Q High Q
MSM 16.7 – Good 177.8 – 711.1 –
Extremely good Exceptionally good
Tremolite skarn 44.4 – Very good 711.1 – 711.1 –
Exceptionally good Exceptionally good
Blackschist 5.8 – Fair 12.4 – Good 426.7 –
Exceptionally good
Vein quartz 6.8 – Fair 33.3 – Good 711.1 –
Exceptionally good
Ultramafics 0.9 – Very poor 6.9 – Fair 711.1 –
Exceptionally good
The MSM ore zone is an extremely good rock mass. All sections are ranked in ‘Group A’
(Table 7-1). The joints within this zone are generally rough, tightly healed with two
exceptions and the rock mass is massive. Drill hole OKU-923 section 522.14-525.56 has
a lower inter-block shear strength and therefore scores a lower Q-value compared to the
other sections.
Tremolite skarn is an exceptionally good rock mass, with 6 out of 7 sections scoring a Q-
value of 711.1. This rock mass is massive, has tightly healed and rough and irregular
joints. Drill hole OKU-909 section 595.00-597.80 had a lower inter-block shear strength
but still scores a ‘very good’ classification. Tremolite skarn however is weakened by the
zones of ultramafics and vein quartz which occur locally.
This ultramafic zone has a poor competency and should be avoided as it is hard to give a
prediction as to how the rock will behave. The ultramafic zone is has on average three
joint sets, these are softened and are generally rough, but can be smooth as well. These
joints can also be filled with talc-schist which makes them weak. One exception is drill
hole OKU-934 section 554.83-560.00 which scores a high Q-value due to a high inter-
block shear strength and large block volume.
Vein quartz is a good rock mass with generally one joint set, though drill hole OKU-919
section 496.17-480.70 shows three joint sets. The joints are rough and the joint
alteration is medium.
The blackschist is in general a good rock mass. The rock mass shows one to two joint
sets. Joint alteration is medium and the joints are rough and irregular. Drill hole OKU-
934 section 494.50-503.05 shows low roughness and therefore is fairly competent.
97
7.3 In situ state of stress at upper Wombat level
One necessity to make an accurate stope design was an updated model of the stresses in
the deeper underground. This was accomplished by a successful in situ stress
measurement done by Stress Measurement Company Oy between 18 and 23 March
2013. The location for the stress measurements was the end of development drive at the
300 level (WAL300P1) which is the upper Wombat, as shown in Figure 7-2. This area
was prepared for the measurements by smooth blasting and not installing any ground
support. The careful blasting was to avoid damage to the rock and to create an as small
as possible excavation disturbance zone (EDZ).
Figure 7-2: Location of the LVDT measurement (WAL300P1)
The stress measurements are done with a LVDT cell. LVDT is short for ‘linear variable
differential transformer’ and its purpose is to measure linear displacement (Hakala,
pers. comm., 2013a). The cell used in WAL300P1 has eight LVDT sensors to measure
four directions of diametric deformations.
Firstly a pilot hole is drilled in which the cell is installed (see Figure 7-3). Normal
practise is to install the cell at a depth of at least 25-50 cm to avoid the EDZ zone.
Additionally overcoring distance should ideally be a minimum of 35 cm as is seen in in
Figure 7-3. After installation by the means of overcoring the stresses are released and
the resulting deformation is picked up by the LVDT-cell (Hakala, pers. comm., 2013a).
98
Figure 7-3: Guide to instalation of the LVDT-cell and minimum overcoring length (Hakala, 2012)
Additionally a 3D photogrammetric image of the drive is simplified into a 3D boundary

element mesh. This mesh is used to calculate the LVDT-head displacements caused by
six unit in situ stress tensor components. The boundary mesh was simplified into a
profile with 500 mm spacing as is shown in Figure 7-4. At the area of the measurements
this spacing was reduced to 250 mm (Stress Measurement Company Oy, 2007).
Figure 7-4: Photogrammetric image of W300P1 with locations of measurements (Hakala, pers.
comm., 2013c)
99
Measuring with the LVDT-cell takes at least six hours. This time is necessary to let the
temperature, which increases by the friction of the overcoring, stabilize to its normal
state (Hakala, pers. comm., 2013a). The cores taken from the pilot holes (except R3)
were afterwards biaxial tested with a Hoek-cell to get the Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio.
7.3.1 Location of measurements
The location of the measurements is in the hanging wall. Therefore the dominant rock
type is tremolite skarn. The tremolite skarn in this area was recorded as sparsely
jointed, with sub horizontal south dipping fractures visible in the roof. In total five
different measurements were taken, one in the northern wall (R1), one in the southern
wall (R2) and three in the roof of the drift (R3, R4, R5) as is shown in Figure 7-5 (Stress
Measurement Company Oy, 2007).
Figure 7-5: Position of different measurements in relation to the horizontal (Hakala, pers. comm.,
2013c)
100
Due to the fact that blasting in this area was done neatly it was possible to install the cell
on a shallower depth as seen in measurements R4 and R5 in Table 7-9. In all cases
except R4 overcoring is at the required >35 cm criterion.
Table 7-9: Measurements with installation depth and overcoring start and end (Hakala, pers. comm.,
2013c)
Measurement Installation depth Overcoring start Overcoring end

R1 49 cm 40 cm 80 cm
R2 55 cm 45 cm 85 cm
R3 55 cm 47.5 cm 66.5 cm
R4 18 cm 8 cm 38.5 cm
R5 22 cm 8 cm 52 cm
During installation several issues (notes) have been reordered (Table 7-10). Combining
these notes with the installation and overcoring depths results in reliability label for
each measurement as is also shown in Table 7-10 (Stress Measurement Company Oy,
2007).
Table 7-10: Recorded notes and reliability of the different measurements (Hakala, pers. comm.,
2013b)
Measurement Reliability Notes

+3 µm shift in convergence when drilling with water
Reading stable while overcoring
R1 Good
Minor temperature change
Local plane stress solution consistent and reliable
Maximum temperature increase 4o C
R2 Good Reading stable while overcoring
Measurements done between two subhorizontal
natural fractures
Limited overcoring length of 19 cm
R3 Low/moderate Jump in convergence associated with instant stress
release
Installation at shallow depth due to natural fractures
No stable readings while overcoring
R4 Moderate
Temperature increase over 9o C
Installation at 22 cm due to natural fractures (no
EDZ)
R5 Good Reading stable while overcoring
101
7.3.2 Results of the in-situ stress test
The deformation graphs for all 5 locations can be found in Appendix H: Measured
displacement of the LVDT-cell. Best fit solution was done on four different scenarios.
First one was by using all the values of measurement after the cooling period (All).
Because R3 has low/moderate reliability there is a solution without R3 (No R3). Using
convergences at overcoring stop time, so before the cooling period without R3 (All,
R3b). The last scenario is using convergences at overcoring stop time with R3 (All_b). In
addition the effect of elastic constant values was studied with combinations of high
Young’s modulus and low Poisson’s ratio (High_E) and low Young’s modulus and high
Poisson’s ratio (Low_E).
The maximum in situ stress component σ1 is 30.8 MPa is horizontal and has an
orientation close to East-West (1040). The intermediate stress σ2 is 22.6 MPa is also
horizontal with an orientation close to North-South (140). The minor principle stress σ3
is near vertical (plunge 850) and has a value of 11.2 MPa. This value is close to the
weight of overburden (12 MPa = 400m * 0.03 MPa/m). This means that the σ 1 / σ3 is
2.75. Figure 7-6 gives an overview of the results (Stress Measurement Company Oy,
2007).
Figure 7-6: Major, intermediate and minor principal stress for the different setups (Hakala, pers.
comm., 2013c)
102
The biaxial testing gave the following results (see Table 7-11). The R3 pilot core was
excluded because it was intersected by two fractures and therefore too short for testing.
Two strain rosettes were glued to each core, 900 apart from each other. Each rosette
consists of three 300 mm long strain gauges in axial, tangential and 450 declined. All
samples except R2 showed a low degree of heterogeneity or anisotropy (AF in Table
7-11). This high degree of heterogeneity or anisotropy in R2 is probably caused by a
quartz vein that is also visible within the core (Stress Measurement Company Oy, 2007).
Table 7-11: Results of biaxial testing on samples R1, R2, R3 and R5
Rosette 1 Rosette 2 Both rosettes

E E E
Measurement ν AF ν AF ν
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
R1 0.34 66 -1% 0.32 75 1% 0.33 70
R2 0.37 101 -19% 0.20 62 41% 0.27 77
R4 0.27 82 2% 0.32 85 10% 0.29 84
R5 0.30 76 -4% 0.30 79 11% 0.30 78
Mean for all
0.30 77
accepted
103
7.4 Determining the stope limits for the Wombat orebody
Design of the stope dimension is done with use of the Mathews stability graph. This
empirical method is still commonly used and gives good results. Mathews (1980) based
his stability graph on a limited number of case studies from which he determined
whether stopes were stable, unstable or starting to cave. The Mathews graph is seen in
Figure 7-7. The stability graph was extended by Potvin (1988) to 175 case studies
(Mawdesley, et al., 2001). Currently the database holds over 400 case studies
(Mawdesley, et al., 2001). The principal of the stability graph is that it deals with the
individual surfaces of the excavation, rather than the excavation as a whole (Mawdesley,
et al., 2001).
The Mathews graph (Figure 7-7) is a log-linear graph and has on its x-axis the hydraulic
radius (HR), which is plotted against the stability number (N’). This stability number
utilizes a modified form of the Q-value (Q’) which excludes the active stress factor. The
stability graph includes a stable zone, a caving zone and the unstable zone where there
is possibility of major failure. With the graph and the fixed N’-value the HR can be
manipulated to maximize the stope dimension while still maintaining in the stable zone
of the stability graph.
Figure 7-7: Mathews graph as shown by Diederichs & Kaier (1996)
104
The N’ can be calculated with the available data from the Q-classification and the stress
test (21) & (22).
(21)
And
(22)
Here A is the rock stress factor, B is the joint orientation adjustment factor and C is the
gravity adjustment factor (Diederichs & Kaiser, 1996). As can be seen in Figure 7-8 the
rock stress factor is derived from the ratio between Uniaxial Compressive Strength
(UCS) and maximum induced compressive stress (σmax) on the stope surface. The joint
orientation factor is given by the angle between the stope face and the major joint
orientation. The gravity adjustment factor can be determined in two ways. Either it uses
the dip of the stope face or the dip of the critical joint on that stope face.
Figure 7-8: Parameters for calculations of the stability number (Diederichs & Kaiser, 1996)
The hydraulic radius (HR) which is needed for application in the Mathews chart gives a
measurement on the size of an excavation (23).
(23)
( )
105
7.4.1 Determining the stability number (N’ values)
Stope design is previously done in the feasibility stage by SRK consulting (Theron,
2007). Because the exact in situ stress was not known at that time, historical values from
the old Keretti mine were used. This gave a maximum principal stress of 2.0x vertical
stress and an intermediate stress of 1.5x vertical stress. It was performed for a depth of
590 metre. With the updated in situ stress model from section 7.3 it is possible to make a
more accurate N’ calculation and more accurate stope limits can be determined, which
will be performed in this chapter.
Stope design limits are calculated for both transverse stopes and longitudinal stopes.
This is done because although transverse bench stoping is the main mining method in
the Wombat orebody, there will probably still be longitudinal mining in the thin sections
of the orebody.
In transverse stopes the long walls will be abutted by ore (MSM or DISS) or waste rock.
The short walls will be bounded by waste rock, and the back will be in ore. The design
width of an individual transverse stopes is either 10 or 15 metres, depending if it is a
primary or secondary stope. The designed length is given by the width of the orebody
which varies between 7 and 60 metres, with an average thickness of 29 metres. The
height will be tested for level spacing between 25 and 40 metres (Malmberg, pers.
comm., 2013f).
Longitudinal stopes need to be treated differently, because of the different positioning.

With current design, longitudinal stope widths vary between 3 and 17 metres, with an
average of 7 metre. The length of the stopes varies between 10 and 55 metre, with an
average of 28 metres (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013f). This means that there are several
stopes adjoining each other across the orebody. All the faces of the individual stope thus
can have a wall either in waste rock or in ore. The backs of the stopes are bounded by
ore.
Every stope has 4 walls and a back. The calculations are done for a depth of 500 metres
and 600 metre. Both failure by falling rock and slabs are taken in to account. Because
personnel will be present around open stopes and instability leads to dilution, a more
conservative estimation is given. An accepted standard practice is to determine the 25%
value of N’ to use in the Mathews graph. When designing a stope it will be expected that
only a quarter of the rock material is expected to be of poorer quality (Theron, 2007).
106
The original N’ calculations by Theron (2007) are given in Table 7-12.
Table 7-12: Original 25% N’ values from feasibility study (at a depth of 590 metre) (Altona Mining
ltd., 2007)
Vertical stope walls Inclined stope walls Backs

Falls & Falls & Falls &
Sliding Sliding Sliding
slabs slabs slabs
Wombat
40 – 50 10 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 9 – 10 30 – 40
waste rock
Wombat
800 – 900 800 – 900 800 – 900 800 – 900 700 – 800 800 – 900
ore
The updated N’ stability number calculations, with adjusted values based on the in situ
stress test are given in Table 7-13 and Table 7-14.
Table 7-13: Values adjusted to the new in situ stress model (at a depth of 500 metre)

slabs slabs slabs
Wombat
34 – 42 9 – 17 16 – 25 24 – 33 7–8 24 – 33
waste rock
Wombat
684 – 770 684 – 770 652 – 733 652 – 733 570 – 652 652 – 733
ore
Table 7-14: Values adjusted to new in situ stress model (depth 600 metre)

slabs slabs slabs
Wombat
26 - 34 6 – 14 12 – 26 17 – 26 5–6 17 – 26
waste rock
Wombat
542 – 609 542 – 609 503 - 565 503 – 565 440 – 503 503 – 565
ore
107
7.4.2 Determining the stope limits using the stability graph
The relevant Mathew graphs can be found in Appendix I: Stability zones on the Mathews
graph. The orebody has a very high competency given by the high N’ (>570 for 500 m
depth and >440 for 600 m depth). Therefore stopes bounded by the orebody fall outside
of the range of the Mathew graph. This means that the waste rock will be the limiting
factor on the outer stope dimensions and no direct calculations for stope faces within
the orebody are given, it is assumed that the competency of the ore is high enough to fall
within the design limits.
From Table 7-13 it is determined that for waste rock at depth of 500 metre:
 For the inclined walls the range of 25% N’ is 16 – 33 see Figure 18 in Appendix I:
Stability zones on the Mathews graph.
 For the vertical walls the range of 25% N’ is 9 – 42 see Figure 19 in Appendix I:
Stability zones on the Mathews graph..
 For the backs the range of 25% N’ is 9 – 33 see Figure 20 in Appendix I: Stability
zones on the Mathews graph.
And for 600 metre depth see Table 7-14:
 For the inclined walls the range of 25% N’ is 12 – 26 see Figure 21 in Appendix I:
 For the vertical walls the range of 25% N’ is 6 – 34 see Figure 22 in Appendix I:
 For the backs the range of 25% N’ is 5 – 26 see Figure 23 in Appendix I: Stability
zones on the Mathews graph.
Next the relevant hydraulic radii are calculated for the Wombat orebody (ob) and
compared to the Mathews graph to check whether these dimensions would be stable or
not. Explanation for the coloured cells is given by:
Stable
Transition zone
Caving / major failure
108
7.4.2.1 Transverse stopes at depth of 500 m
Table 7-15: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of transverse stopes at a depth of
500m
Long face (length) Short face (width)

Waste Min ob Avg ob Max ob
Height 10 m 15 m 20 m
rock width width width
25 m 2.7 6.7 8.8 3.6 4.7 5.6
30 m 2.8 7.4 10.0 3.8 5.0 6.0
35m 2.9 7.9 11.1 3.9 5.3 6.4
40 m 3.0 8.4 12.0 4.0 5.5 6.7
Backs
Min ob width 2.1 2.4 2.6
Avg ob width 3.7 4.9 6.0
Max ob width 2.6 5.6 7.5
From Table 7-15 the following conclusions are drawn:
- Mining a stope with height of 30 metres will produce a stable stope up to 16 metres in
length (HR = 5.2). This is only valid if the wall is in contact with the waste rock.
Transverse stopes will normally be inside the orebody which will allow for longer
stopes. With a stope height of 30 metres and the full length of the orebody the hydraulic
radius is 9.7. This will allow for a stability number as low as 50, which is far below the
minimum of 684 calculated for the orebody.
- Mining a stope with width up to 20 metres and a height up to 30 metres always
produces a stable stope. If the maximum width is set to 15 metre, higher level spacing is
possible. As the stub ends of transverse stopes are in contact with the waste rock this 20
metres will be the maximum width a stope has to be designed to.
- Mining a stope which is beneath the waste rock the maximum dimension for stable
production are 15 metres wide and 30 metres long (HR = 5).
109
7.4.2.2 Longitudinal stopes at depth of 500 m
Table 7-16: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of longitudinal stopes at a depth of
500m

Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Waste
Height stope stope stope stope stope stope
rock
length length length width width width
25 m 3.6 6.3 8.6 1.3 2.7 5.1
30 m 3.8 6.8 9.7 1.4 2.8 5.4
35 m 3.9 7.3 10.7 1.4 2.9 5.7
40 m 4.0 7.7 11.6 1.4 3.0 6.0
Backs
Min stope length 1.2 2.1 3.1
Avg stope length 1.4 2.8 5.3
Max stope length 1.4 3.1 6.5
From Table 7-16 the following conclusions are drawn:
- Mining a stope with height up to 30 metres will produce a stable stope up to 20 metres
in length (HR = 6). This is only valid if the wall is in contact with the waste rock. This will
be the case in most eastern and western stopes when mining longitudinal stopes. With a
height of 30 metres, constructing a stope with the maximum length will create a stope
close to the caving zone (HR = 10).
produces a stable stope. Above these limits there is a possibility of caving. Note that the
short face of longitudinal stopes are generally confined by the orebody, this will allow
for wider stopes.
production are 7 metres wide and 55 metres long (HR = 3.1) or 17 metres wide and 24
metres long (HR = 4.9).
110
7.4.2.3 Transverse stopes at depth of 600 m
Table 7-17: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of transverse stopes a at depth of
600m

Waste Min ob Avg ob Max ob
Height 10 m 15 m 20 m
rock width width width
25 m 2.7 6.7 8.8 3.6 4.7 5.6
30 m 2.8 7.4 10.0 3.8 5.0 6.0
35 m 2.9 7.9 11.1 3.9 5.3 6.4
40 m 3.0 8.4 12.0 4.0 5.5 6.7
Backs
Min ob width 2.1 2.4 2.6
Avg ob width 3.7 4.9 6.0
Max ob width 2.6 5.6 7.5
From Table 7-17 the following conclusions are drawn. In comparison to 500 metre
depth there are a few parameters that will change:
- Mining a stope within the waste rock with height of 30 metres will produce a stable
stope up to 12 metres in length (HR = 4.3). With level spacing over 30 metres there will
be major failure of the stope walls when the orebody stopes get longer than 30 metre.
produces a stable stope. Above these limits there is a possibility of caving.
production are 15 metres wide and 19 metres long (HR = 4.2).
111
7.4.2.4 Longitudinal stopes at depth of 600 m
Table 7-18: Stability calculated for different stope dimension of longitudinal stopes at a depth of
600m

Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Waste
Height stope stope stope stope stope stope
rock
length length length width width width
25 m 3.6 6.3 8.6 1.3 2.7 5.1
30 m 3.8 6.8 9.7 1.4 2.8 5.4
35 m 3.9 7.3 10.7 1.4 2.9 5.7
40 m 4.0 7.7 11.6 1.4 3.0 6.0
Backs
Min stope length 1.2 2.1 3.1
Avg stope length 1.4 2.8 5.3
Max stope length 1.4 3.1 6.5
From Table 7-18 the following conclusions are drawn. In comparison to 500 metre
depth there are a few parameters that will change:
- Mining a stope with height up to 30 metres will produce a stable stope up to 18 metres
in length (HR = 5.7). This is only valid if the wall is in contact with the waste rock.
- Even with a level spacing of 25 metre the maximum stope width is not reachable
without the possibility of failure. In this case the maximum width of a stope is 12.5
metre at 30 metre level spacing (HR = 4.4).
112
7.4.3 Discussion on the calculated stope limits
To summarize the results from the previous section Table 7-19 is given.
Table 7-19: Summary of the limits defined for TBS and LBS at depth 500 and 600 m for both stopes
bounded by ore as stopes bounded by waste
Dimension Depth 500 metre Depth 600 metre

Stope Stope Stope Stope
bounded by bounded bounded by bounded
waste rock by ore waste rock by ore
Height: 30 m 40 m 30 m 40 m
Transverse Max design Max design

Width: 20 m 15 m
stopes width width
Full Full
Length: 16 m 12 m
orebody orebody
Height: 30 m 40 m 30 m 40 m
Longitudinal Max design Max design

Width: 16 m 12.5 m
stopes width width
Max design Max design
Length: 20 m 18 m
length length
From this table it is concluded that waste rock bounded stopes cannot be the length as
given by the design plan. This has several implications to which mining method can be
used for the Wombat orebody.
If LBS were to be used as main mining method the length of the stopes on the
boundaries of the orebody can only be 16 m, and even 12.5 m only when mining deeper
levels. It would require a high number of these small stopes to cover the length of the
Wombat orebody. This will be an inefficient process as each individual stope will
generate low tonnage while the required development (slot raise) is still needed (Sorsa,
pers. comm., 2013c). A solution in this case is to apply SCB as this would be continuous
and would require only a single raise, though this option is not further investigated.
TBS however will not have this problem as all the suggested design parameters are met.
Due to the shape of the orebody the transverse stopes will be located in the middle part
where the orebody is the thickest as will be explained in detail in next chapter. The
transverse stopes in this part of the orebody are bounded by waste rock on the face of
the stope, which is not limiting the design width as seen in Table 7-19. Longitudinal
stopes will be located in the edges where the orebody width not sufficient for transverse
stoping. These stopes will have direct contact with the waste rock.
113
114
8 Implementation: preliminary mine design for the

Wombat orebody
This chapter will combine the results from mining method selection in chapter 6 and the
defined parameters from chapter 7 into the preliminary mine design for the Wombat
orebody. The selected mining method, transverse bench stoping, differs from the mining
method and mine design in the Wallaby orebody (chapter 4) and the proposed mining
method for the Wombat orebody in the definitive feasibility study of 2007. TBS operates
on a method specific sequence of development and stoping. Therefore a new mine
design and infrastructure plan is created. In this chapter the implementation of TBS is
described, though it should be emphasized that these designs are preliminary. The block
model from which two sections are shown in section 3.4 is used to make this
preliminary design and the subsequent financial analysis in chapter 9.
In section 8.1 the development of the decline will be described. The current design and
an additional three options will be discussed. Section 8.2 describes the horizontal
development needed to open up the orebody. Stope layout and the sequence of mining
are described in section 8.3.
115
8.1 Development - decline
Currently the decline is at a depth of 510 metres, its course follows the decline design
plans stated in the definitive feasibility study from 2007. These designs plans include
the shifting of the decline underneath the Wallaby from the FW to the HW, which is done
at a depth of 440 metre below surface. Figure 8-1 depicts this shift, the decline spirals
down at the FW side and shifts to the HW side at 340 level. Other design parameters of
the decline are a slope gradient of 1:7 and a radius of 25 metres for the curvatures
(Altona Mining ltd., 2007).
Figure 8-1: Top down view of the decline and its shift from FW to HW. Model is cut off between level
265 and 415 (Malmberg, pers. comm. 2013i)
The main justification for this decline design plan was that it allows for extraction of the
MSM ore in the first stages of mining, due to the fact that the direction of mining, retreat
benching, will be toward the decline so MSM will be mined first. Additionally the
tremolite skarn in the HW of the Wombat tended to be more competent than the
blackschist.
116
8.1.1 Issues on the current decline design
As more data of the HW zone was acquired by infill drilling in the Wallaby zone issues
arose about the current plans. These issues can influence the further design of the
decline and maybe change the layout all together. These issues are threefold.
Because the decline is now at the disseminated ore side of the orebody there is no clear
boundary between ore and waste rock. This boundary can shift several metres just by a
change in the copper price. The decline should thus be on a safe distance from the
orebody to not lose any possible profitable ore. The issue is that the area between the
orebody and the weak ultramafic rock is relatively thin and there is not enough space
left to drive the decline taking into account a radius of 25 m (Malmberg, pers. comm.,
2013d). This will bring the decline even closer to the ultramafic zone, and makes
developing into the weak ultramafics unavoidable. Current surveying of the decline
already shows the bottom of the decline hitting the ultramafics as seen in Figure 8-2.
Figure 8-2: Detail on the intersection of the decline and the ultramafic zone (purple). Model is cut off
between level 265 and 415 (Malmberg, pers. comm. 2013i)
There are zones of poor quality ultramafic rock within the HW tremolite skarn. These
zones need to be avoided (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013d). There is a general
understanding of the locations of these zones, but there are also parts that are not
accurately mapped yet. So chance is high that during development of the decline a zone
of weak ultramafics is hit.
Because the decline is now in the HW there are parts of the decline that are almost
directly above open stopes as the orebody is dipping underneath it (Malmberg, pers.
comm., 2013d). Although there will be more than 100 metres of rock between them.
However, this can generate some stability issues which should be considered. There is
always the possibility of an unknown major structure which can potentially cause large
rock movements (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013d).
117
8.1.2 Different decline designs
To counter the above listed problems there are three more options for the decline
(Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013d). The four options can be seen in Figure 8-3.
 A decline that circles around the orebody
 A decline that will be located south-east of the orebody
 A decline that will be located north-west of the orebody
Figure 8-3: The four different decline designs. 1: Current design, 2: Decline circling around the
orebody, 3: decline located south-east of the orebody, 4: decline located north-west of the orebody
118
Next the advantages and disadvantages of these four decline options will be given.
8.1.2.1 Current decline design
The current design has as main advantage that it is straightforward. This gives a mine
infrastructure which is easy to organize. In addition is gives good access to the levels as
the decline is constantly on the HW. The access drive will be perpendicular to the
decline and have the possibility to access the orebody in the most optimal location for
the planned stope production. Another advantage is that the decline will stay in the
stress shadow of the orebody (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2013d).
As a disadvantage it has all the above mentioned issues to deal with. Especially in the
southern curvatures the decline would be above the orebody. The width of the zone
where the decline will be developed has to be at least 50 m wide to allow for an optimal
design of the curvatures. If the decline is moved further away into the HW more of the
weak ultramafic rocks will be encountered.
8.1.2.2 Decline that circles around the orebody

If the decline circles around the orebody the width of the decline zone is only as wide as
the decline itself. This makes it possible to stay further away from the orebody and still
keep a good distance from the weak ultramafic rocks. Another advantage arises from the
fact that with this layout it would be possible to do infill drilling from both sides of the
orebody. The planned decline area can also be explored in advance. An additional
advantage comes from the fact that in the future there may be a shaft for hoisting if
more ore is found below the current orebody. This shaft will be located in the mica
schists of the FW. If the decline would be partly at the FW side, shorter access to the
shaft is possible.
Though the decline stays a at least 50 m away from the orebody there will still be parts
that cross above the orebody and open stopes in the southern part. This will generate
possible instabilities in the decline which have to be carefully examined. From current
data it is likely that the northern part of the FW has even worse ultramafics than the HW
(Juurela, pers. comm., 2013c). So even though the decline in this design avoids the HW
ultramafics there is a chance that the northern FW ultramafics cannot be avoided.
Because the gradient will stay the same the spacing at the HW will be much bigger. This
makes designing the access drives to the orebody challenging and an optimal access is
not always possible (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013d). It also has the disadvantage that
dewatering holes between the levels of the decline cannot be made as frequently as
would be desired.
119
8.1.2.3 Decline located south-east of the orebody
The area to the south of the orebody is well explored and in the holes drilled in this area
there is no evidence for weak ultramafic rocks. Stability of the decline will be ensured.
Distance to the orebody can be optimized without risking any loss of ore. It will also
generate a short distance to the possible shaft. If designed correctly the decline will not
be located above the orebody, which will benefit stability. Access to the production
levels is straight forward and gives a maintainable mine infrastructure, though it will
not be as easily organized as a decline in the HW as is the current design.
Although the decline itself will not be located above the orebody, the access drive will
be. This comes with the stability issues, especially because the access drives will be
closer the stopes below in the parts closest to the orebody. Infill drilling will be more
difficult from this this part of the decline (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013d). Additionally
there is no benefit from the stress shadow of the orebody which will increase stresses in
the decline (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2013d).
8.1.2.4 Decline located north-west of the orebody

If the decline will be located at the northern end of the orebody it can be designed to be
at a good distance from the orebody, staying away from the HW ultramafics and the gold
ore lenses. Because of the plunge of the orebody to the south it will also be located
beneath the orebody which will reduce the stability issues. The mine infrastructure is
easy and standard as well as the access to the production levels.
As there is not sufficient data about this area it is not possible to know if the rocks will
be competent enough. From geological interpretation of existing exploration holes there
is a possibility that weak ultramafics can be found in this area (Juurela, pers. comm.,
2013c), but more geological data has to be gathered to give a sufficient impression of the
zone. Access to the orebody will be from the north which requires developing the full
length of the orebody before any production can start. Exploration from the decline is
possible, but it will be hard to reach to the most southern parts of the orebody.
8.1.2.5 Discussion on the decline options
At the moment there it is not clear which decline option will be most suitable. More
exploration drilling has to be undertaken to get a better geological understanding of the
zones of weakness and major structures around the Wombat orebody. The current plan
is to continue with the current decline design until a substantiated decision can be
made.
120
8.2 Development – horizontal headings & drives
Horizontal development consists of all the openings needed for exploration, exploitation
and services for the mine (Bullock, 2011). Transverse bench stoping requires more
horizontal development than longitudinal bench stoping. This is extra development is
estimated at 25% (Altona Mining ltd., 2007). Especially the fact that this increased
development is in waste ore and thus does not generate production makes horizontal
development for TBS more expensive than LBS. However, this additional development
also generates benefits, which are discussed in section 8.2.6. In the next section the
different types and amounts of horizontal developments are planned in the Wombat
orebody.
8.2.1 Types of headings & drives
Developing towards a transverse stoping method requires three different kinds of

headings:
 Level access headings
 Auxiliary headings
 Operation drives
o Haulage / servicing drives
o Production drives
8.2.1.1 Level access headings
The level access heading gives access from the decline to the operation drives.
8.2.1.2 Auxiliary headings

These headings created for all the auxiliary openings that are necessary for operation.
These include support headings for pumping stations and headings used for ventilation
rises, but also openings to create safety zones and exploration cubbies.
8.2.1.3 Operation drives
The haulage / servicing drive parallel to the orebody, driven in waste rock. This drive
has several purposes. It is used for the loading and hauling of the ore as well as for
service to the stopes. Normal practise is that this drive is at least 15 metres from the
nearest stope as there should be room for the LHD to manoeuvre and to limit the
amount of rehab ground support needed due to secondary stresses caused by stoping
(Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2013c).
Secondly the production drives perpendicular across the orebody through which the
stopes are produced. These drives should be located directly beneath each other to have
the most efficient production (Karttunen, pers. comm., 2013). The production drives will
generate ore. In current design the drives for the primary stopes are wider as the ones
for the secondary stopes. Preferably these primary drives have the width close to the
121
width of one stope to allow vertical longhole drilling, which breaks the rock better
(Karttunen, pers. comm., 2013). Secondary ore drives can be made wider to achieve an
optimal recovery; though not the total width of the secondary stope.
8.2.2 Horizontal development design
The preliminary design for the Wombat orebody has generated data for the amount of
horizontal development. The values given in this chapter are just an indication, and will
change when final designs will be made. Due to disclosure of Altona Mining ltd. not all
exact development values are given, these values are given in percentages.
The design dimensions of the access and haulage drives are 5 m by 5 m plus up to 10%
additional width/height due to blasting (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013g). The primary
ore drives will be 8-10 metres wide and 5 metres high (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013g).
The drives are designed to achieve a good drainage of the mine water, in which case a
grade of 2% toward the decline should be maintained in all horizontal development as is
suggested by Bullock (2011).
8.2.3 Distribution on type of development

The total amount of development metres in the Wombat zone is over 10,000 metres.
This is divided into 8 types as can be seen in Figure 8-4. Most of the development is from
the ore drives at almost 38% of the total development.
Development by type
Development by type
Percentage of total development metres
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Decline Decline Level Level Level Fresh air Return Ore
support access operating support headings air drives
headings headings waste headings headings
Type
Figure 8-4: Graph on the development per type
122
8.2.4 Horizontal development required for production
In current design the total amount of development metres for the development used in
the operation of the mining method is about 6,900 m. This is divided into development
in ore (4,500 m) and the amount of development in waste rock (2,400 m).
After the service drive is completed the auxiliary drive is made in the waste rock parallel
to the orebody. This is different from the longitudinal stoping in the Wallaby were the
ore drive double functions as a service drive. Figure 8-5 shows five levels in the middle
of the orebody (see black circle). Each level has a service drive (brown). This service
drive has the required distance of 15 metres from the stope, to allow for a LHD to
operate. However, this is not always possible so parts of the service drive run through
ore (red), this ore above this service drive will be taken last retreating towards the
decline and abandoning the level (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013g). At the edges of the
orebody the stope will be taken longitudinal and require a parallel ore drive comparable
to the Wallaby.
Figure 8-5: Development shown from level 440 - 530. Brown depicts development in waste, red in
ore.
123
The average amount of development metres per level is about 500 m. The largest
amount of metres will be at level 440 at 12% of the total (see Figure 8-6).
Metres of development
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
Percentage of total
8.00%
6.00% Meters in ore
4.00% Meters in waste
2.00%
0.00%
350 380 410 440 470 500 530 560 590 620 650 680 710
Level #
Figure 8-6: Graph showing the distribution for the metres of development
8.2.5 Ore / waste ratio
The ore / waste metre ratio (Figure 8-7A) has a value of 1.88. Because the density of the
ore is slightly higher than the waste rock the ore / waste tonnage ratio is 2.11 (Figure
8-7B).
Figure 8-7: Graph showing the percentage ore development to waste development; (A) amount of
metres, (B) tonnage of ore
124
8.2.6 Benefits of extra development using TBS
These benefits are discussed with on-site staff:

 With the increasing depth haulage time will increase accordingly, efficient
loading cycles can save time and money (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2013c). Because the
extra parallel drive is separated from the orebody more flexibility is achieved
while mining as this drive can be used for service operations.
 Mucking the ore from one stope will not interfere with operations on another
stope. It can be used to centralize the installation of services like water and
electricity, this will make the distance to the different stopes shorter and will
require less stations. Both these benefits will affect the costs of mining
(Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013g).
 The extra development will increase people’s safety. The ore drives are shorter
which decreases the length of the escape route to the safety of the service drive
if any instability should occur in an open stope (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013g).
8.3 Stope production using TBS
The values and Surpac screenshots shown in this chapter are taken from the preliminary
stope design. It is a guideline for the mining of the Wombat orebody. When more
geological data is available these designs will change and a definitive mine design is
made.
Two parameters influencing the preliminary stope design are:
 The level spacing is set at 30 metres; this gives the Wombat orebody 13 levels,
the top level 350 and bottom level 710. The reason for this level spacing is
twofold. Firstly the equipment that is currently used is not capable of drilling
longer holes with desired accuracy, as the current equipment is not replaced for
the next few years, the level spacing should not change as well. Secondly as a
result of the stope limit calculations in section 7.4 the level spacing should not
exceed 30 m; creating bigger openings will lead to stope instability, a stope
height of 30 m is within the stability limit.
 The remaining stopes from the Wallaby will generate enough production for the
coming year during which development on the Wombat orebody will commence,
and most of it will be completed as the first Wombat stopes will be opened up.
The ore from the ore drives will give additional production during these first
years. Nearing the end of 2014 stope production from the Wallaby and Wombat
orebody will run simultaneously.
125
8.3.1 Stope design overview and layout
The main mining method will be transverse bench stoping as is concluded in chapters 5
and 6. In the edges of the orebody where the thickness of the ore is less than 10 metres
stopes will be mined with longitudinal bench stoping, though for each separate case an
analysis should be made whether TBS or LBS is more profitable. In the preliminary
design the total amount of stopes is 115, of this 73 stopes are transverse stopes
(Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013f). The layout of the stopes can be seen in Figure 8-8. The
orebody is seen as looking to the west. The blue and green coloured stopes have a high
gold grade and are taken as gold ore as defined in section 2.2.4. To distinguish the
individual stopes purple and red colours are applied per stope. The difference in width
of the individual stopes the primary and secondary stopes. Also the longitudinal stopes
can be seen along the edges of the orebody. The top and bottom levels consist mainly of
longitudinal stopes.
Figure 8-8: Wombat stope layout, overview; purple and red colours are applied per individual stope,
blue and green coloured stopes have a high gold grade.
126
Figure 8-9 shows the distribution of stopes and tonnage between the levels. Depending
on the size of the stopes ore tonnage differs. From the upper levels less ore is produced
per stope. Level 650 has larger stopes producing 11.5% of the total tonnage from 10
stopes (which is 9% of the total amount of stopes). The largest amount of stopes is at 18
at level 440; this is the reason this level has also the largest amount of development
metres as discussed in the previous section.
Mining per level

20 14.00%
18
Percentage of total tonnage

12.00%
16
14 10.00%
# of stopes
12 8.00%
10
6.00% # Stopes
8
% Ore
6 4.00%
4
2.00%
2
0 0.00%
350 380 410 440 470 500 530 560 590 620 650 680 710
Level
Figure 8-9: Graph showing the number of stopes and percentage of ore at every level
The longitudinal stopes are smaller in size due the limits on stope length described in
section 7.4.3. Therefore while there are 42 longitudinal stopes, which is 37% of the total,
the amount of ore from these stopes is only 23% of the total tonnage as is shown in
Figure 8-10.
Amount of stopes versus ammount of ore tonnage

100%
90%
80%
Percentage of total
70%
60%
50%
Ore tonnage
40%
30% Stopes
20%
10%
0%
LBS TBS
Mining method for the Wombat orebody
Figure 8-10: Graph showing the amount of stopes versus the amount of development
127
In Figure 8-11 the percentage of ore out of development versus the amount of ore out of
stoping can be seen per level. In total the amount of ore out of stoping is 86%. There the
upper Wombat levels have more longitudinal stopes which explains the increase ore
from development in these levels.
Percentage ore from development /stoping

100%
90%
80%
70%
Percentage
60%
50%
40% Development
30%
Stoping
20%
10%
0%
Level
Figure 8-11: Graph showing the percentage of ore from development and stoping
128
8.3.2 Stope design per level
The stope design is optimized for efficient mining. Primary stopes with a width of 10
metres and secondary stopes with a width of 15 metres, the maximum which was set in
section 7.4. The primary stopes will be filled with CRF, secondary stopes are filled with
waste fill. Each level will have longitudinal stopes, and on the levels 350, 380 and 710
only longitudinal stopes are planned. The other levels have transverse stopes and
longitudinal stopes (see Figure 8-12– Figure 8-24).
Three sections can be identified within the Wombat orebody.

 Upper levels; these levels are on the same depth as the lower Wallaby orebody
(see section 2.2.6 about the gap between Wallaby and Wombat).
 Middle levels; the widest part of the Wombat orebody and the sections with
most stopes. These levels are most optimal for TBS.
 Lower levels; the orebody width decreases and production from these levels is
low. Due to the depth there is increased uncertainty in the resource model
8.3.2.1 Upper levels
Level 350 is the first level of the Wombat orebody. It is the top of the lens and thus not
wide enough for any transverse stope. Because level 350 one row of 2 longitudinal
stopes and level 380 has no transverse stopes only one ore drive is necessary. The
orebody is accessed from the south so the stopes can be taken in retreat.
Level 380 will already have five transverse drives for the stopes on level 410.
Additionally two parallel drives are needed for two rows of longitudinal stopes due to
the separate lenses in the upper Wombat orebody as described in section 3.4.2.
Figure 8-12: level 350 stope overview Figure 8-13: level 380 stope overview
129
Level 410 is the last level where there are two distinct separate lenses. The ore that is
split by the waste rock between the two lenses will be taken as one stope, with the rings
of waste rock blasted separately. In this way there is only one raise needed. However, it
depends on the width of the waste rock if this is most economic. This level will have 7
transverse stopes and 4 stopes that are half a level high. The 3 stopes in the northern
end of the orebody are mined longitudinal.
Figure 8-14: level 410 stope overview
8.3.2.2 Middle levels
Level 440 was the level with most development. It is also the level from which will be
the most productive of all the levels in the Wombat. The ore will be produced from 14
transverse stopes and 2 longitudinal stops at the most northern end. These longitudinal
stopes are taken first. Two gold ore stopes will be taken separately.
In level 470 the ore is split by waste rock but the orebody is connected in most of the
level. Therefore full length transverse stopes will be possible. Three longitudinal stopes
are present in the northern end and one on the western side. Nine transverse stopes are
located in the middle of the orebody.
130
From level 500 to level 650 the orebody is at its widest. From these six levels 56% of the
ore out of the Wombat is produced from 48% of the stopes. Mining is almost completely
done by transverse stopes, apart from the stopes at the edges. The ore is not split by
waste rock any more. However, at level 620 and 650 some zones of waste rock occur. A
total of 4 gold ore stopes are taken from the levels 590 and 620. On level 620 and 650
the parallel support drives are too near to the orebody, this will lead to a very high
amount of ground support needed to keep these drives stable.
131
8.3.2.3 Lower levels
Level 680 and 710 are on the bottom of the orebody. The deepest drill hole made during
the drilling campaign in 2006 (Altona Mining ltd., 2007) intersected the ore at ~770
metres depth. The orebody is still open at depth and it is just an interpretation that the
orebody thins out at lower depth. The stopes designed on level 710 are based on a few
geological data points, but is still valid by the latest audit. Current assumption is that the
orebody continues at this depth and a new drilling campaign should give a definitive
answer. This would mean that even below the 680 level the orebody is wide enough for
transverse stoping. The current design is based on the available data.
132
8.3.3 Sequence of mining
The TBS stopes are mined in a bottom up sequence. Ideally all the primary development
is finished before stoping starts and the sequence can start at the bottom of the orebody.
However, common practice is to start at a certain level which will be the bottom of the
sequence (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013g). This will also provide stoping ore which can
be added to the production. In case of the Wombat orebody this first bottom level where
the first stopes will be taken is the 440 level. Currently the decline is at the 380 level, so
development on 440 level can start in a several months with current decline advance
(Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013d). The northern stopes will be the first to be taken;
hereafter new plans can be made to move further down. When stoping in this block is
finished it depends on the progress of the decline where the next bottom level will be.
Likely this will be around level 500, but if the decline is already at the bottom of the
orebody level 680 can be used.
The mining sequence for the Wombat orebody consists of several phases, which are
discussed in this section. The first phase is to develop the ore drives for the primary
stopes, starting on the lowest level and moving upwards (phase 1, Figure 8-25). This
stage will be done during initial development as soon there is access to the levels. Access
drives from the decline to the levels will be driven as soon as the decline is passed that
level.
Figure 8-25: TBS sequence of mining phase 1
133
Stoping will move from north to south, this sequence will allow the northern stopes to
be taken earlier as there is solid waste rock underneath due to the southward plunge of
55o as stated in section 3.1. When the first two levels are developed the mining of the
primary stopes starts at the lowest level (phase 2, Figure 8-26).
These stopes are backfilled with CRF and after it is sufficiently hardened the primary
stopes at upper level are mined out (phase 3, Figure 8-27). At the same time the
secondary ore drives are driven, to ensure a smooth transition to secondary stoping.
134
This will continue upwards and more secondary drives are driven (phase 4, Figure 8-28)
When the second level is completely developed and the CRF and the primary stopes at
the first level are hardened out the secondary stopes in the lowest level can be taken
(phase 5, Figure 8-30).
135
When the primary stopes in the second level are hardened and the secondary stopes at
the first level are filled with waste rock the secondary stopes on the second level are
mined (phase 6, Figure 8-29). Phase 7 is to take the last stopes on the upper level and
retreat back to the decline.
8.3.4 Expected increase in mine life
It is expected that the life of mine (LoM) will increase by using TBS. this is explained by
the fact that more of the disseminated ore can be taken. In the longitudinal mining plans
from the definitive feasibility study the total amount of ore that was mined is 2,328,000
tonnes (Altona Mining ltd., 2007) . With the new TBS design the amount of ore to be
taken is higher by about 20%. This extra ore will increase the LoM, which is calculated in
the next chapter.
136
As was stated in chapter 5 it is most important that the economic return of the project is
maximized. To research which mining method generates the highest economic return a
financial analysis is done between two mining method scenarios. First scenario is
mining the Wombat orebody using LBS. The second scenario is mining the Wombat
orebody with TBS, the selected mining method in chapter 6.
It should be noted that all Altona Mining ltd. financial data is classified except for data
publicly available in their reports at altonamining.com. Due to this fact the financial
analysis is of higher pre-feasibility order and results have an error ±30%. The
conclusions should only be regarded in context of this thesis and no conclusion other
than those given in this chapter should be made from the analysis done.
9.1 Assumptions
Chapter 8 gave detailed plans and statistics about mine design with the TBS method. To
compare the two scenarios several assumptions are made:
 Development
o Decline has the same length in both methods
o Support drives have the same length in both methods
o Ventilation drives have the same length in both methods
o Access drives have the same length in both methods
o There are no operating drives in waste with LBS
o Total amount of operating drives is 25% less in LBS
 Production
o Because more DISS ore can be taken in TBS the total amount of ore is
20% more than LBS (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013e)
o Backfilling is 40% cheaper in TBS because of the usage of primary and
secondary stopes
9.2 Constraints
To compare the two mining methods constraints are given which differ between the two
methods or which are important to get a good approximation of the profit generated.
Any constraints not given in this chapter are considered equal for both methods, ceteris
paribus.
137
9.2.1 Estimated mining costs
Because confidentiality some the operating costs given hereafter are taken from
Infomine edition 2011 and cannot be related to the actual operating costs. Capital
expenditures and the some of the operating costs are taken from the Altona Mining
quarterly report released July 29th 2013. Table 9-1 gives used costs and shows the
source.
Table 9-1: Capital and operational expenditures for mining the Wombat zone based on available
sources
Section Costs per unit Source

CAPEX
Expenditures 4.00 $/t Altona Mining quarterly
Financing 0.40 $/t Altona Mining quarterly
OPEX
Development
Decline 2,500 $/m Infomine 2011
Support drives 2,500 $/m Infomine 2011
Access drives 1,000 $/m Infomine 2011
Ventilation drives 2,500 $/m Infomine 2011
Waste drives 1,000 $/m Infomine 2011
Ore drives 1,000 $/m Infomine 2011
Production
Stoping 3.00 $/t Infomine 2011
Backfilling LBS 3,50 $/t Infomine 2011
TBS 2,10 $/t Infomine 2011
Ore trucking 0.84 $/t Altona Mining quarterly
Processing
Processing 3.12 $/t Altona Mining quarterly
TC/RC and transport 1.46 $/t Altona Mining quarterly
Auxiliary
Work force 8.00 $/t Infomine 2011
Supplies 5.25 $/t Infomine 2011
Maintenance 0.70 $/t Infomine 2011
Administration 4.00 $/t Infomine 2011
138
9.2.2 Metal prices forecasting
At the moment only copper, gold and zinc are sold to the market. This financial analysis
will only take those three metals into account. Up to date Altona Mining realised prices
shown in Table 9-2. These are calculated from the Altona Mining quarterly report
released July 29th 2013.
Table 9-2: Realised metal prices for 2013
Metal Realised price

Copper ($/kg) 7.52
Gold ($/kg) 50,219
Zinc ($/kg) 1.28
Two future metal price scenarios are taken into account (see Table 9-3). First scenario is
based on future metal prices taken from commodity price forecast by the World Bank
(2013). Second scenario is based on internal forecasting done by Altona Mining ltd. As
these numbers are classified only the results will be shown, these metal prices are on
average 15% higher than the metal prices of scenario 1. The World Bank forecasting
differs from the realised price for 2013. In the financial analysis the realised price will be
taken for the remainder of 2013.
Table 9-3: Metal price forecasting to 2020 (World Bank, 2013)
Metal 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Copper
5.98 5.82 5.71 5.63 5.55 5.46 5.37 5.27
($/kg)
Gold
37,327 36,105 34,430 34,883 34,369 33,790 33,147 32,504
($/kg)
Zinc
1.60 1.77 1.88 1.87 1.87 1.86 1.84 1.83
($/kg)
9.2.3 Development parameters
Total amount of development is taken from the Surpac block model combined with the
mine design from chapter 8. The amount of metres of development is classified, but
exact numbers are used for financial analysis. As assumed LBS has no operating drives
in waste and 25% less operating as TBS. To estimate costs of development it is assumed
that 50% of the total development is completed in the first year and an additional 40%
of the total is completed in the second year. In the third year development is finalized.
As development will be an undergoing process in the first years the financial analysis
assumes a 40% share of development ore to the total amount of ore mined in the first
year, only from the primary ore drives, and a 30% share in the second year, both from
primary and secondary ore drives. The remaining development, last of the secondary
ore drives, is finished in 2016.
139
9.2.4 Production parameters
The grades used in the financial analysis can be seen in Table 9-4. These are the in situ
grades. Grades of development ore are lower because planned dilution has already been
taken into account (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2013d)
Table 9-4: Development and stoping grades for copper, gold and zinc
Metal Grade stoping ore Grade development ore

Copper 1.57 % 1.42 %
Gold 0.70 g/t 0.67 g/t
Zinc 0.60 % 0.57 %
In the financial analysis the tonnage of the remaining stopes and development in the
Wallaby orebody will be taken into account. Mid 2013 this amount of ore in stopes is
about 750 kt and 25 kt of ore is left in production drives at a grade roughly the same as
the stoping ore in the Wombat. Ore tonnage from the Wombat stopes and development
is taken from the Surpac block model based on the TBS mine design in chapter 8. As
assumed the LBS stope tonnage is 22% less than TBS stope tonnage. Because LBS has all
development in waste, the resulting development ore tonnage is larger than the TBS
development ore tonnage. Total ore used per mining method can be seen in Table 9-5.
Table 9-5: Tonnas of ore in place for Wallaby and Wombat orebodies using LBS or TBS
Wallaby Wombat
Development Stopes Development Stopes
LBS 25,000 t 750,000 t 522,000 t 2,328,000 t
TBS 25,000 t 750,000 t 470,000 t 2,910,000 t
At the moment ore production is 550.000 t/y. As discussed earlier in section 2.2.5 there
is an investigation to increase production to 800.000 t/y. In this thesis work it will be
assumed that this increase will be achieved. To simulate this process in this financial
analysis the ore production per year is ramping up from the current 550,000 t to the
planned 800,000 t with 100,000 tonnes a year. Mine infrastructure will be ready for full
800,000 t/y production at the end of 2015 which will make 2016 the first year of full
production.
140
Another set of important factors are dilution and recovery. Dilution will dilute the grade
and decrease the value of the mined ore. High dilution will increase haulage costs as
more unwanted waste rock is being transported. Recovery is a measurement of how
much ore (and thus metal) is recovered. Values are given in Table 9-6 (Sorsa, pers.
comm., 2013d).
Table 9-6: Dilution & recovery for LBS and TBS
LBS TBS
Development Stoping Development Stoping
Dilution 10% 15% 0% for primary 10%
(unplanned ore drives
dilution) 10% for
secondary ore
drives
Recovery 100% 90% 100% 95%
9.2.5 Financial constraints

Extra parameters that are defined for the financial analysis can be seen in Table 9-7. In
Finland no royalties have to be paid by mining companies. Mining tax percentage is
taken from the 2012/2013 survey of mining companies by the Fraser institute (2013).
The discount rate is based on the fact that Finland has world’s highest political stability
and a good economic climate rankng Finland the #1 country for mining related
investments (Wilson, et al., 2013).
Table 9-7: Financial constraints
Parameter Unit
Mining royalties 0%
Mining tax 15%
Discount value 8%
141
9.3 Results of the financial analysis
Comparing the two mining methods is done by ‘life of mine’ and ‘net present value’.
9.3.1 Life of mine (LoM)
As was suggested in chapter xx the mine life of TBS would be longer as more of the
disseminated or could be taken. For this calculation final production of 800,000 t/y is
taken into consideration, this translates into roughly 67,000 t/m. Mine life is given to
which month and year production will take place as shown in Table 9-8.
Table 9-8: Calculated life of mine for LBS and TBS
Life of mine
LBS March 2019
TBS September 2019
So in life of mine using TBS is six months longer than when using LBS. This is a
significant difference. TBS generates a half a year of production extra.
The fact that the LoM is around 6 years generates an uncertainty due to the fact that the
mine is not gone through a full economic cycle. The influence of this uncertainty is not
quantifiable with current data.
9.3.2 Net present value (NPV)

A frequently used tool in economical assessment is the net present value. It is the sum of
the present values. A present value is a future profit discounted to the inflation over the
years. The NPV is calculated by the following formula (25):
∑ (25)
( )
In which i is the discount rate, t is time in years and Rt is the cash flow in year t. The
cashflow is constructed using the assumed costs and earnings.
142
To be able to get the NPV a cash flow is generates. Firstly the ore recovered is
determined for each mining method. In Figure 9-1 the amount of tonnes recovered can
be seen.
Figure 9-1: Ore recovered from development, ore recovered from stoping and total ore recovered
depicted for both TBS and LBS
143
The difference in total tonnage recovered comes from the fact that recovery in TBS is
higher than with LBS as yearly production is set equal for both mining methods. LBS had
more ore from development which results in more development that needs to be
finished still in year 2016. Next step is to determine the capital and operating
expenditures. These can be seen for each year in Table 9-9.
Table 9-9: CAPEX and OPEX for LBS and TBS given per year
LBS TBS
CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX
2013 $ 990,000 $ 6,720,750 $ 990,000 $ 6,405,750
(Jun-Dec)
2014 $ 2,860,000 $ 27,763,000 $ 2,860,000 $ 27,803,000
2015 $ 3,300,000 $ 29,080,500 $ 3,300,000 $ 28,790,500
2016 $ 3,520,000 $ 25,565,500 $ 3,520,000 $ 24,635,500
2017 $ 3.520.000 $ 23,896,000 $ 3.520.000 $ 22,776,000
2018 $ 3,520,000 $ 23,896,000 $ 3,520,000 $ 22,776,000
2019 $ 873,001 $ 5,926,491 $ 2,556,282 $ 16,540,308
(until end of (3 months (9 months
production) production) production)
Operating costs are not that much different between the two mining methods. In the
early years more development metres are made by TBS, the majority in waste. This
increases the cost slightly while not generating income. Thereafter TBS becomes slightly
cheaper because the lower backfilling costs. Capital costs are defined on the tonnes of
ore mined each year. As production is the same for each method in the first 6 years, the
capital costs are also the same.
144
Knowing production from which the revenue can be calculated taking dilution of grade
into account and subtracting mining costs the cash flow can be calculated. From this
cash flow mine tax is subtracted. These profits after tax are used subsequently to
calculate the present value in each year. The sum of these present values results in the
NPV. The four scenarios are independently analysed and sensitivity of the NPV on all
four scenarios is calculated as seen in Table 9-10.
Table 9-10: NPV achieved for LBS and TBS for life of mine
Scenario NPV
LBS scenario 1 $ 132,889,907
TBS scenario 1 $ 184,553,549
LBS scenario 2 $ 188,382,828
TBS scenario 2 $ 251,661,562
As can be seen the NPV in scenario 2 is much higher than in scenario 1. This results
from the fact that the metal prices of scenario 2 are higher than the metal prices in
scenario 2. NPV in this case gives only an indication as there are many factors that are
not taken into account. In the end capital and operating expenditures consist of many
more variables. Processing costs are taken into account. However, processing recovery
and the described influence of the footwall blackschist on this recovery are not included.
Financial constraints like interest, depreciation and amortization are excluded also.
Exclusion is possible because the effect on all four scenarios would be the same. The
difference between the NPV values can be compared. Additionally the metals that are
currently not processed, but stored at the processing plant, will eventually generate
additional cash flow which is also not included into the analysis. Figure 9-2 shows the
discounted cumulative cash flow of the four scenarios plotted against the years.
145
Figure 9-2: Discounted cummulative cashflow depicted for both TBS and LBS for scenario 1 and
scenario 2 of metal price forecasting
146
From this picture it is clear that TBS is more profitable than LBS when mutually
comparing scenarios. It so significantly more profitable that TBS scenario 1 is almost at
the level of LBS scenario 2. As TBS has higher development costs the increase in costs is
countered by the increase in processed ore due to higher recovery and lower dilution.
Due to the fact that production is increasing in the first years, the decrease related to the
present value of the cash flow is countered by the increase in production and revenue.
Only in the last year a drop in cash flow can be seen, which contributes to only half a
year of production in 2019.
9.4 Conclusions
More detailed analysis with accurate cost data and more accurate production numbers
has to be done to really understand the profit that can be expected from rest of the mine
life of the Kylylahti underground copper mine. But for comparison the numbers in this
chapter give an idea of the difference in cash flow between LBS and TBS.
Thus it is concluded that not only is TBS the most suitable mining method based on
technical and operating factors it is also the economically most viable mining option. In
both metal prices scenario TBS generated the most cash relatively to LBS. This extra
cash was $51 million in scenario 1 and $63 million in scenario 2. Therefore it can be
safely concluded that TBS is the preferable method to mine the Wombat orebody.
147
148
10 Conclusions
10 Conclusions
The conclusions in this chapter are drawn by answering the research questions stated in
chapter 1.5. Using a two different mining method selection tools the most suitable
mining method was selected. Subsequently existing drill hole data was used to calculate
the rock mass properties based on the Q-classification, calculate and to determine the
size limits on the stopes. Surpac designs were used to show the implementation of the
mining method. Finally an analysis was made on economic return of the chosen mining
method versus the proposed method. The conclusions are in no way definitive, it is
based on a limited amount of data. When more data comes available, it should be
combined with this thesis.
10.1 Answers to the research questions
Research question 1.1: What are the orebody characteristics of the Wombat orebody and
do these suggest a different mining method?
The Wallaby orebody is thin and folded, while the Wombat orebody is thicker and lens
shaped as is shown in section 3.4 Figure 3-16. The Wombat orebody has a bigger volume
and a wider Massive Semi-massive ore zone. In the Wombat orebody 55% of the
orebody is wider than 20 m; the width up to which LBS is preferred over a transverse
method.
Research question 1.2: What are the key factors influencing the mining method selection,
and what is their importance to the selection process?
In total 23 factors were identified that have an influence on the selection of the mining
method. There are 6 major groups that span all these factors: geological, geotechnical,
production, processing, HSEC, economic.
To be able to perform a mining method selection specifically orientated on the Wombat

orebody a total of 6 key factors were identified from within these initial 6 groups. These
key factors are influenced by the vision of Altona Mining ltd.
 Ore boundaries / orebody thickness
 State of stress
 Flexibility to secure production
 Selectivity of ore type
 Dilution and recovery
 Health and safety
149
10 Conclusions
Research question 1.3: What is the most suitable mining method for the Wombat orebody?
Using the UBC mining method selection tool sublevel stoping was selected as mining
method for the Wombat orebody. Because a more detailed selection was necessary 4
stoping methods were identified:
 Conventional Sublevel stoping
 Longitudinal Bench Stoping
 Transverse Bench Stoping
 Stoping with Continuous Backfill
A decision was made for one of the 4 stoping methods using a Multiple Criteria Decision
Making tool called the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process approach. This approach based
its selection on the 6 predefined key factors by weighing each one to the suitability and
importance for the Wombat orebody. Using this approach the mining method selected to
be most suitable from a technical viewpoint was: Transverse Bench Stoping.
Research question 2.1: What are the design parameters regarding the mining method?
Q-classification was done on data from the existing drill holes intersecting the Wombat
zone. This gave a range of Q-values for both the orebody and the host rock the
conclusion are as can be seen in Table 7-8 in section 7.2.3.
Ground support calculations done in generated no new results over previous

calculations done in the definitive feasibility study. Concluded was that the current
requirements used in the Wallaby orebody (see section 4.1.5) are also sufficient for the
Wombat orebody. The final requirements per rock type can be found in Table 32 in
Appendix G: Ground support requirements for the Wombat orebody.
The limits on the stope size are derived from the stability graph developed by Mathews
(1980). Calculations are done both for transverse stopes and longitudinal stopes. The
results are found in Table 7-19 in section 7.4. It is concluded that waste rock bounded
stopes cannot be the length as given by the design plan. Therefore transverse bench
stoping is preferred over longitudinal as the designed width is still achievable even on
the deeper levels.
Research question 2.2: What is the proposed mine layout for the Wombat orebody?
Combining all the results from both the mining method selection and the geotechnical
analysis a preliminary design was made for the Wombat orebody. The plan incorporates
the decline, development and stoping layout.
Four different recommendations for the decline are proposed. The decision on which of
these four options is the best is made as soon as more geological data will be available.
Though all four options are suitable, some will not be possible due to geological
constraints.
150
10 Conclusions
The total metres of development (both decline and drives) will be around 10,000. As
50% of this development is in waste rock, planning of these drives is done as efficient as
possible. Service drives will be located close to the orebody to minimize development,
but still at a distance which allows safe operation of equipment.
Stopes will be mainly transverse stopes. However, in the fringes of the orebody, the
width is too little to justify the use of transverse stopes. In these parts were the
thickness of the ore is less than 10 metres, longitudinal stopes will be used. In total there
will be 115 stopes (see Figure 8-8), from which 73 are transverse stopes, and 77% of the
ore will be produced from transverse stopes.
Research question 3.1: What is the economic return of the selected mining method versus
the proposed method?
Four different scenarios were compared to each other consisting of a combination of

two mining methods (LBS and TBS) and two price forecasts. Two parameters where
considered in the economic viability. The first was the life of mine shown in Table 9-8in
section 9.3.1and the second was the NPV shown in Table 9-10 in section 9.3.2. In both
the parameters TBS was preferable over LBS. Life of mine for TBS was 6 months longer
than for LBS due to the fact that 20% more ore can be taken from the DISS zone. The
NPV for both scenarios was higher for TBS, with an increased economic return of $52
million for scenario 1 and $63 million for scenario 2. The financial analysis gave a
second conclusive answer towards mining the Wombat orebody using TBS.
10.2 Final conclusion
The aim of this thesis is to determine the mining method which maximizes economic
return for the Wombat orebody. As was stated economic and technical / operational
variables are important to consider. Because transverse bench stoping was top ranked
on both economic return and suitability to the technical and operational variables it is
concluded that transverse bench stoping is the definitive mining method recommended
for the Wombat orebody. This mining method will maximize the economic return as
well as it is best suited to the vision of Altona Mining ltd.
151
10 Conclusions
10.3 Present situation: official mine planning for the Wombat orebody
The most recent Quarterly report (June 2013) the mine planning changed from the
previous Quarterly report (March 2013). Instead of showing the Wombat with
longitudinal stopes, a new mining method was introduced: Transverse Bench Stoping.
This thesis contributed in the decision to change of mining method.
Figure 10-1 depicts the planning as proposed in the Quarterly from March 2013.
Figure 10-1: Official mine plan for the Kylylahti copper mine as shown in the Quarterly report of
March 2013 (Altona Mining ltd., 2013)
152
10 Conclusions
Figure 10-2 depicts the mine planning as proposed in the Quarterly of June 2013. It can
be clearly seen that the main mining method for the Wombat orebody is now TBS (the
transverse stopes are seen in the middle of the orebody) with LBS near the edges of the
orebody. In these new plans the life of mine is extended until 2020, which is longer than
given in section 9.3.1. This is due to the current production planning of 550,000 t/a, but
it is still an increase from the LoM using LBS as main mining method in the earlier mine
planning.
Figure 10-2: Official mine plan for the Kylylahti copper mine as shown in the Quarterly report of
June 2013 (Altona Mining ltd., 2013)
153
10 Conclusions
154
11 Recommendations
11 Recommendations
Recommendations for follow up on this thesis are presented below. The quality of the
results given in this thesis depends on the quality of the data used. Chapter 11.1
contains practical recommendations to enhance the quality of the results in this thesis.
In Chapter 11.2 operational recommendations are given.
11.1 Recommendations on improving results in this thesis
 To improve the quality of the data it is of most importance to increase the drill
hole density by infill drilling of the Wombat orebody. As soon as this infill
drilling produces results, either different form earlier geological understanding
or not, rock mass properties should be recalculated to ensure a more accurate
interpretation both host rock and ore.
 All the infill drilling done in the Wombat should be analysed on rock mass
properties (RQD, RMR, MRMR and Q-classification) instead of only calculating
the RQD as is currently done.
 Especially the weaker ultramafics should be logged carefully. This data can then
be used to make a decision on the course of the decline as well as predicting
required ground support.
 The in-situ stress measurements were recently completed, so expectation is that
this data will be valid for the first stage of Wombat development. This stress
profile should be updated when development starts below 600 metres depth to
obtain an accurate stress profile for lower levels.
 Combining updated rock mass properties and the deeper in situ stress
measurements stope limits should be recalculated for the levels beneath 600
metres.
 A better understanding of the Wombat orebody is necessary for a more accurate
mine infrastructure design as well as stope design.
 Cost analysis on transverse bench stoping should be performed to get a better
understanding of the capital and operational expenditures using this mining
method.
 A detailed financial analysis should be done to acquire a more realistic NPV and
LoM.
155
11 Recommendations
11.2 Operational recommendations
 Grade control and material balance analysis from mine to ROMpad and from
ROMpad to the processing plant is recommended for improving the data on the
material and metal flow through the operation.
 Mechanization of the ore handling process at stope bottom will increase the
safety of the operators.
 Environmental impact on the surrounding lakes should closely be monitored for
pollution from high metal concentrations.
 Construction of a shaft will de-stress the usage of the decline, and will
additionally create a second escape route for increased safety.
156
12 Personal communication
Anttonen, R. (Altona Mining ltd. – Processing Consultant)

a. 11 December 2012, Processing Kylylahti ore and demands
[conversation]
b. 19 December 2012, Flowchart Kylylahti processing plant [e-mail]
Hakala, M. (Stress Measurement Company Oy)

a. 19 March 2013, in situ stress measurements using LVDT-cell
[conversation]
b. 22 March 2013, on the preliminary results of the in situ stress
measurements [conversation]
c. 21 April 2013, results of the in situ stress measurements [email]
Juurela, J. (Altona Mining ltd – Resource Manager Finland)

a. 25 November 2012, Orebody characteristics of the Wallaby and Wombat
orebody [conversation]
b. 12 February 2013, on the different zones of mineralisation of the
Kylylahti deposit [e-mail]
c. 18 April 2013, Existence of ultramafics around Wombat orebody
[conversation]
Karttunen, P. (Altona Mining ltd. – Superintendent)

a. 16 February 2013 , Limitations on up & downhole drilling with Sandvik
DL321 [conversation]
Lappalainen, P. (Independent Consultant)

a. 19 December 2012, Mining methods commonly used for orebodies
similar to the Wombat orebody [conversation]
b. 7 April 2013, Importance of high mining recovery in high grade ores
[e-mail]
c. 6 June 2013, Transverse bench stoping [conversation]
d. 6 June 2013, Importance of the stress shadow to decline design
[converstation]
Malmberg, M. (Altona Mining ltd. – Planning Engineer)

a. 16 January 2013, Design amount of drilling in the Wallaby [e-mail]
b. 13 February 2013, Cable bolting in the Wallaby [e-mail]
c. 19 March 2013, Details on CRF backfilling [e-mail]
157
d. 13 May 2013, Discussion about decline issues and different designs

[conversation]
e. 23 May 2013, Official Wombat ore resources and reserves from
feasibility study [e-mail]
f. 23 May 2013, Distribution of transverse vs. longitudinal stopes in
Wombat orebody [e-mail]
g. 25 May 2013, Discussions on preliminary mine design in the Wombat
orebody [conversation]
h. 17 July 2013, Key for block model sections [e-mail]
i. 17 July 2013, Progress on the construction of the decline [e-mail]
Pystynen, E. (Altona Mining ltd. – Mine Manager)

a. 14 December 2012, Factors and variables important to mining method
selection of the Wombat orebody [conversation]
Romppanen, M. (Altona Mining ltd. – Blasting Engineer)

a. 16 December 2012, Design widths of stopes in the Wallaby orebody
[conversation]
b. 18 February 2013, Planned stopes in the Wallaby [e-mail]
c. 19 February 2013, Blast design in Wallaby stopes [conversation]
d. 20 February 2013, Map of the Kylylahti area [e-mail]
Sorsa, A. (Altona Mining ltd. – Planning Manager)

a. 14 December 2012, Developing the decline and ore drives in the Wallaby
[conversation]
b. 21 February 2013, Underground mining methods in Kemi and Pyhäsalmi
[converstation]
c. 8 April 2013, Advantages of TBS over LBS [conversation]
b. 4 August 2013, Dilution & recovery using LBS vs. TBS [e-mail]
12.1 Unpublished data accessed through Altona Mining ltd. repository
Altona Mining ltd., 2007. Definitive feasibility study on the Kylylahti deposit, Finland,
Perth: Vulcan Resources Limited.
Stress Measurement Company Oy, 2013, In situ Stress Measurement with LVDT-cell in
WAL300P1 niche, Nokia, Stress Measurement Company Oy.
Altona Mining ltd., 2006, Report on intact rock properties, Kalgoorlie, Western Australian
School of Mines.
158
13 References
13 References
Adler, L. & Thompson, S. D., 2011. Mining Methods Classification System. In: P. Darling,
ed. SME Mining Engineering Handbook. USA: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Inc., pp. 349 -355.
Alford, C., Brazil, M. & Lee, D. H., 2007. Optimisation in Underground Mining. In:
Handbook Of Operations Research In Natural Resources. s.l.:s.n., pp. 561 - 576.
Alpay, S. & Yavuz, M., 2009. Underground mining method selection by decision making
tools. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Volume 24, pp. 173 - 184.
Altona Mining ltd., 2012. Resource and Reserves Estimates - Finland - Altona Mining.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.altonamining.com/finland/resource-and-reserve-estimates
[Accessed 06 05 2013].
Altona Mining ltd., 2013. High Grade Drill Results at the Kylylahti Mine, Perth: Altona
Mining ltd..
Altona Mining ltd., 2013. Quarterly Report March 2013, Perth: Altona Mining ltd..
Altona Mining ltd., 2013. Quaterly Report June 2013, Perth: Altona Mining ltd..
Azadeh, A., Osanloo, M. & Ataei, M., 2010. A new approach to mining method selection
based on modifying the Nicholas technique. Applied Soft Computing, Volume 10, pp.
1040 - 1061.
Barton, N., Lien, R. & Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the
Design of Tunnel Support. Rock Mechanics, 6(4), pp. 189 - 236.
Bitarafan, M. R. & Atei, M., 2004. Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision
making tools. The Journal of The South African Institue of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 493
- 498.
Bitarafan, M. R. & Atei, M., 2004. Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision
making tools. The Journal of The South African Institue of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 493
- 498.
Boshkov, S. H. & Wright, F. D., 1973. Underground mining systems and equipment. In: A.
B. Cummins & I. A. Given, eds. SME Mining Engineering Handbook. New York: SME-AIME.
Buckley, J. J., 1985. FUZZY HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Issue 17,
pp. 233 - 247.
Buckley, J. J., 1985. FUZZY HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Issue 17,
pp. 233 - 247.
159
13 References
Bullock, R. L., 2011. Comparison of Underground Mining Methods. In: P. Darling, ed. SME
Mining Engineering Handbook. USA: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.,
pp. 385 - 403.
Bullock, R. L., 2011. Subsurface Mine Development. In: P. Darling, ed. SME Mining
Engineering Handbook. USA: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., pp.
1203 - 1221.
Carter, P. G., 2011. Selection Process for Hard-Rock Mining. In: P. Darling, ed. SME Mining
357 - 376.
Chapman, A., 2012. Queen's University Mine Design. [Online]

Available at:
http://queensminedesign.miningexcellence.ca/index.php?title=Longitudinal_longhole_r
etreat&oldid=2340
[Accessed 08 05 2013].

Available at: http://queensminedesign.miningexcellence.ca/index.php/Sub-
level_open_stoping
[Accessed 08 05 2013].

Available at:
http://queensminedesign.miningexcellence.ca/index.php/Transverse_longhole_stoping
[Accessed 08 05 2013].
Deere, D. U., 1968. Geological considerations. In: Stagg & Zienkiewicz, eds. Rock
Mechanics in Engineering Practise. London: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1 - 20.
Deere, D. U. & Deere, D. W., 1987. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Index in Practise.
Rock Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes, 25 June, pp. 91 - 101.
Dermirel, T., Demirel, N. C. & Kahraman, C., 2008. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and
its application. In: Fuzzy Multi-Critera Decision Making. s.l.:Springer, pp. 65 - 83.
Diederichs, M. S. & Kaiser, P. K., 1996. Rock instability and risk analyses in open stope
mine design. Can. Geotech. J., Issue 33, pp. 431 - 439.
EduMine, 1999. Mining Method Selection. [Online]

Available at: http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/xmethod/miningmethodgraphic.htm
[Accessed 10 08 2013].
European Union, n.d. EUROPA - The EU at a glance - Maps - Finland. [Online]

Available at: http://europa.eu/abc/maps/images/members/finland.gif
[Accessed 15 08 2013].
Grimstad, E. & Barton, N., 1993. Updating of the Q-system for NMT, Norway: Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute.
160
13 References
Hakala, M., 2012. Stress Measurement Company Oy. [Online]

Available at: http://www.smcoy.fi/technique/
[Accessed 10 July 2013].
Hartman, H. L., 1987. Introductory Mining Engineering. 1st ed. New York: Wiley.
Hoek, E., 2007. Practical Rock Engineering. 3rd ed. Vancouver: Evert Hoek Consulting
Engineer Inc..
Karadogan, A., Kahriman, A. & Ozer, U., 2008. Application of fuzzy set theory in the
selection of underground mining method. The Journal of The Southern African Institue of
Mining and Metallurgy, Volume 108, pp. 73 - 79.
Kontinen, A., 2005. Geology of the Kylylahti Cu-Co deposit, Finland, Kuopio: Geological
Survey of Finland.
Kontinen, A., Peltonen, P. & Huhma, H., 2006. Description an genetic modelling of the
Outokumpu-type rock assemblages and associated sulphide deposits, Espoo: Geological
Survey of Finland.
Laubscher, D. H., 1981. Selection of Mass Underground Mining Methods. In: D. Stewart,
ed. Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines. New York: SME-AIME, pp.
23 - 38.
Laubscher, D. H. & Page, C. H., 1990. The design of rock support in high stress or weak rock
environments. Ottawa, ON, CIM.
Lehtinen, M., Nurmi, P. A. & Rämö, O. T., 2005. Precambrian Geology of Finland, Key to the
Evolution of the Fennoscandian Shield. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V..
Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, K., 1999. Origin of Black Shales and the Serpentinite-Associated

Cu-Zn-Co Ores at Outokumpu, Finland. Economic Geology, Volume 94, pp. 1007-1028.
Mathews, K. E., Hoek, E., Wyllie, D. C. & Stewart, S. B. V., 1980. Prediction of stable
excavation spans for mining at depths below 1000 m in hard rock, Canada: CANMET
Department of Energy and Resources.
Mawdesley, C., Trueman, R. & Whiten, W. J., 2001. Extending the Mathews stability graph
for open-stope design. Trans. Instn Min. Metall., pp. 27 - 39.
Miller-Tait, L., Pakalnis, R. & Poulin, R., 1995. UBC Mining Method Selection. Calgary, 4th
International Symposium on Mine Planning & Equipment Selection.
Naghadehi, M. Z., Mikaeil, R. & Ataei, M., 2009. The application of fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining
method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Sustems with Applications, Issue 36, pp.
8218 - 8226.
Nicholas, D. E., 1981. Method selection. In: D. Stewart, ed. A Numerical Approach, Design
and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines. New York: SME-AIME, pp. 39 - 53.
161
13 References
Nicholas, D. E., 1992. Selection Procedure. In: H. L. Hartman, ed. SME Mining Engineering
Handbook. Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc..
Pakalnis, R. T. & Hughes, P. B., 2011. Sublevel Stoping. In: P. Darling, ed. SME Mining
1355 - 1363.
Pakalnis, R. T. & Hughes, P. B., 2011. Sublevel Stoping. In: P. Darling, ed. SME Mining
1355 - 1363.
Peltonen, P., Kontinen, A., Huhma, H. & Kuronen, U., 2008. Outokumpu revisited: New
mineral deposit model for the mantle peridotite-associated Cu-Co-Zn-Ni-Ag-Au sulphide
deposits. Ore Geology Reviews, Volume 33, pp. 559 - 617.
Potvin, Y., 1988. Emperical Open Stope Design in Canada, Vancouver: The University of
British Columbia.
Potvin, Y. & Hudyma, M., 2000. Open Stope Mining in Canada. MassMin, pp. 661 - 674.
Saaty, T. L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services
Sciences, 1(1), pp. 83 - 98.
Terramin Australia ltd., 2008. Angas Zinc Mining and Processing. [Online]
Available at: http://www.terramin.com.au/lib/images/angas/mf707.jpg
[Accessed 07 08 2013].
Theron, E., 2007. Mining Geotechnical Feasibility Study Report, Australia: SRK Consulting.
Tucker, G., Herbert, D. & Robinson, J., 1998. Bench Stoping at Mount Isa Mines Limited
Isa Lead Mine - Mount Isa, Queensland. Underground Operators' Conference, pp. 135 -
147.
Villaescusa, 2003. Global Extraction Sequence in Sublevel Stoping. Kalgoorlie, MPES.
Wilson, A., McMahon, F. & Cervantes, M., 2013. Frasers Institure annual survey of mining
companies 2012/2013, Vancouver: Fraser Institute.
World Bank, 2013. World Bank - Commodity Markets. [Online]

Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-
1304428586133/Price_Forecast_July2013.pdf
[Accessed 30 07 2013].
Zadeh, L. A., 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8(3), pp. 338 - 353.
162
13 References
163
Acknowledgement
164
Appendices: table of figures
Appendices: table of contents
Appendices: table of figures .................................................................................................... A/II

Appendices: table of tables .................................................................................................... A/III
Appendix A: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area ........................................................... A/V
Appendix B: Support charts for traditional MMS tools ................................................ A/VI
Appendix C: General description of stoping methods ................................................. A/XII
Appendix D: FAHP approach; the calculations ............................................................. A/XIX
Appendix E: Q-classification support charts............................................................ A/XXVIII
Appendix G: Ground support requirements for the Wombat orebody ............. A/XXXI
Appendix F: Sections used for Q-classification ......................................................... A/XXXV
Appendix H: Measured displacement of the LVDT-cell ...................................... A/XXXVII
Appendix I: Stability zones on the Mathews graph ....................................................A/XLII
A/I
Figure 1: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area. A projection of the deposit on to the
surface is depicted in red. .............................................................................................A/V
Figure 2: Support chart for the MMS tool developed by Morrison (1976) ...................... A/VII
Figure 3: Support graph for the MMS tool developed by Laubscher (1981) ................. A/VIII
Figure 4: Support graph for the MMS tool developed by Laubscher (1990 ................... A/VIII
Figure 5: Support graph for the MMS tool developed by Hartman (1987) ....................... A/IX
Figure 6: Conventional sublevel stoping (Chapman, 2012) .................................................. A/XIII
Figure 7: Longitudinal bench stoping (Chapman, 2012).......................................................... A/XV
Figure 8: Schematic diagram showing development needed for TBS .............................. A/XVI
Figure 9: Transverse bench stoping (Chapman, 2012).......................................................... A/XVII
Figure 10: Sublevel stoping with continuous backfill (Tucker, et al., 1998)............... A/XVIII
Figure 11: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the
Wombat orebody based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method
......................................................................................................................................... A/XXVII
Figure 12: Rock classes and reinforcement categories (Mawdesley, et al., 2001) .... A/XXXI
Figure 13: WAL300P1: Convergence and temperature during the overcoring
measurement R1................................................................................................... A/XXXVII
measurement R2..................................................................................................A/XXXVIII
measurement R3..................................................................................................... A/XXXIX
measurement R4............................................................................................................ A/XL
measurement R5...........................................................................................................A/XLI
Figure 18: Mathews graph, N' = 16 - 33 ....................................................................................... A/XLII
Figure 19: Mathews graph, N' = 9 - 42 .......................................................................................... A/XLII
Figure 21: Mathews graph, N' = 12 - 26 ....................................................................................... A/XLII
A/II
Appendices: table of tables
Table 1: Support table for the MMS tool of Boshkov and Wright (1973)........................... A/VI
Table 2: Support table for the MMS tool developed by Nicholas (1981).............................. A/X
Table 3: Support table for the MMS tool developed by Miller-Tait et al (1995) ............. A/XI
Table 4: Advantages versus disadvantages of conventional sublevel stoping (Chapman,
2012) ................................................................................................................................ A/XIV
Table 5: Advantages versus disadvantages of longitudinal bench stoping (Chapman,
2012) .................................................................................................................................. A/XV
Table 6: Advantages versus disadvantages of transverse bench stoping (Chapman, 2012)
............................................................................................................................................ A/XVII
Table 7: Advantages versus disadvantages of sublevel stoping with continuous backfill
(Lappalainen, pers. comm. 2012) ...................................................................... A/XVIII
Table 8: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries
............................................................................................................................................. A/XIX
Table 9: Factor matrix of the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries ..................... A/XIX
Table 10: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries
............................................................................................................................................. A/XIX
Table 11: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor state of stress ................................... A/XX
Table 12: Factor matrix of the factor state of stress .................................................................. A/XX
Table 13: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor state of stress ....................................... A/XX
Table 14: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor flexibility for securing production
............................................................................................................................................. A/XXI
Table 15: Factor matrix of the factor flexibility for securing production........................ A/XXI
Table 16: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor flexibility for securing production
............................................................................................................................................. A/XXI
Table 17: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor selectivity on ore type ............... A/XXII
Table 18: Factor matrix of the factor selectivity on ore type .............................................. A/XXII
Table 19: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor selectivity on ore type ................... A/XXII
Table 20: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor dilution & recovery ................... A/XXIII
Table 21: Factor matrix of the factor dilution & recovery .................................................. A/XXIII
Table 22: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor dilution & recovery ....................... A/XXIII
Table 23: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor health & safety .............................A/XXIV
Table 24: Factor matrix of the factor health & safety ............................................................A/XXIV
Table 25: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor health & safety .................................A/XXIV
Table 26: The pair wise comparison matrix between the different key factors (Ē) .. A/XXV
Table 27: Factor matrix between the different key factors (Ē) .......................................... A/XXV
Table 28: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the different key factors (Ē) ............................ A/XXV
Table 29: Multiplication of the calculated fuzzy numbers ...................................................A/XXVI
A/III
Table 30: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the
Wombat orebody based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method
......................................................................................................................................... A/XXVII
Table 31: Q-classification tables ................................................................................................. A/XXVIII
Table 32: Sections used for the MSM ore zone ....................................................................... A/XXXV
Table 33: Sections used for the tremolite skarn rock mass .............................................. A/XXXV
Table 34: Sections used for the blackschist rock mass ....................................................... A/XXXV
Table 35: Sections used for the vein quartz rock mass ...................................................... A/XXXVI
Table 36: Sections used for the ultramafic rock mass ........................................................ A/XXXVI
Table 37: Ground support recommendation for the 5 setups ......................................... A/XXXII
Table 38: Support requirements for four rock classes based on Q-value (Theron, 2007)
........................................................................................................................................ A/XXXIV
Table 39: Recommended bolt length for the 5 different setups..................................... A/XXXIV
Table 40: Explanatory action with figure 13-1.................................................................... A/XXXVII
Table 41: Explanatory action with figure 13-2...................................................................A/XXXVIII
Table 42: Explanatory action with figure 13-3...................................................................... A/XXXIX
Table 43: Explanatory action with figure 13-4............................................................................. A/XL
Table 44: Explanatory action with figure 13-5............................................................................A/XLI
A/IV
To give an overview of the Kylylahti mine and deposit Figure 1 shows the mining area
and its location in relation to the town of Polvijärvi. The projection of both orebodies
onto the surface is shown in red. The Wallaby is north of the Wombat. In purple the
outline of the boxcut for the decline is shown on site roads are the thin brown lines
within the mine area. Polvijärvi is depicted as the black squares east of the orebody as
well as the main roads in dark brown.
Figure 1: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area. A projection of the deposit on to the surface is
depicted in red.
A/V
Appendix B: Support charts for traditional MMS tools
 Boshkov and Wright (1973)
Table 1: Support table for the MMS tool of Boshkov and Wright (1973)
A/VI
 Morrison (1976)
Figure 2: Support chart for the MMS tool developed by Morrison (1976)
A/VII
 Laubscher (1980) & Laubsher (1991)
Figure 3: Support graph for the MMS tool developed by Laubscher (1981)
Figure 4: Support graph for the MMS tool developed by Laubscher (1990
A/VIII
 Hartman (1987)
Figure 5: Support graph for the MMS tool developed by Hartman (1987)
A/IX
 Nicholas (1981)
Table 2: Support table for the MMS tool developed by Nicholas (1981)
A/X
 UBC method by Miller-Tait et al (1995)
Table 3: Support table for the MMS tool developed by Miller-Tait et al (1995)
General shape
Equi-dimensional All dimension are of the same order
Platy-tabular Two dimensions are larger than the thickness
Irregular Dimension vary
Orebody thickness
Narrow <10 m
Thick 30 – 100 m
Very thick >100 m
Deposit plunge
Flat <20o
Intermediate 20o – 55o
Steep > 55o
Grade distribution
Uniform Grade is equal to the mean grade throughout
the orebody
Gradational Grade has a zonal characteristic which
gradually changes from zone to zone
Erratic Grade can change quickly over distance
without any pattern
Deposit depth
Shallow <100 m
Deep >600 m
RMR
Very weak 0 – 20
Weak 20 – 40
Medium 40 – 60
Strong 60 – 80
Very strong 80 – 100
RSS
Very weak <5
Weak 5 – 10
Medium 10 – 15
Strong >15
A/XI
Appendix C: General description of stoping methods
In this Appendix the different stoping methods selected for further UMMS will be
discussed.
Conventional sublevel open stoping
This method of mining underground orebodies using sublevel open stoping originated
in the early 1900 in the USA (Chapman, 2012). Known variants are long hole and blast
hole stoping. It is used as an alternative for sublevel caving when a lower dilution is
required or when a caving method is not an option. To apply this method the ore has to
be fairly competent, and the foot- and hanging wall rock should be competent. An ideal
orebody for sublevel open stoping should be tall with a narrow to medium width
(Pakalnis & Hughes, 2011). In length the orebody can be extensive. It is required that the
orebody has a dip greater than the angle of repose so that blasted rock can be
transported to the bottom level by gravity. At the bottom level the broken ore can be
collected by LHD’s or another collection system. Normally a stope is mined in retreat
which makes this method save for operators; also it is suitable for remote operation to
increase safety even more (Lappalainen, pers. comm. 2012).
A/XII
Development can be extensive as numerous drawpoints have to be constructed (see

Figure 6). This is a reason initial production and recovery is low. When more and more
drawpoints are created, production and efficiency can be high, and up to 110 tonnes per
man shift are possible (Chapman, 2012).
Figure 6: Conventional sublevel stoping (Chapman, 2012)
A/XIII
A feature of sublevel open stoping is that drilling is done on multiple levels at the same
time (Bullock, 2011). Sublevel open stoping is not the best method if selective mining is
required. Normally recovery is around 95% and dilution around 15% (Bullock, 2011).
Table 4: Advantages versus disadvantages of conventional sublevel stoping (Chapman, 2012)
100% recovery obtainable Early production low due to extensive
development
Large scale blasting which lowers the costs Low selective method
Mechanization is easy Inflexible mining plan
High productivity Skilled workforce needed for precision
drilling
Reasonably low dilution (15%) High CAPEX due to early orebody
development
High recovery (around 95%)
Longitudinal bench stoping
Longitudinal bench stoping (see Figure 7) is a stoping method in the ore is mined in
benches of one level at the time. Because of the bottom up and retreat sequence it is
possible for operators to work under a stable roof at all times (Chapman, 2012). When
mining longitudinal the direction of mining is parallel to the dip of the orebody. Stopes
are generally the full width of the orebody. Requirements for the orebody are that it is
steeply dipping, at least steeper than the angle of repose. Foot- and hanging wall rock
should be competent. Longitudinal bench stoping has the production drives parallel to
the strike of the orebody, this gives two distinct advantages. The first advantage is that
because the drives follow the ore at the footwall contact, there will be production from
the development, which makes this method profitable at an early stage. Another
advantage because the production drives follow the footwall contact, geological data of
the footwall contact is directly an input for the next cut. Face mapping is done after
every cut, and if necessary the heading of the drive can be adjusted (Lappalainen, pers.
comm. 2012).
A/XIV
Figure 7: Longitudinal bench stoping (Chapman, 2012)
Recovery is 100% for the development and 90% in stope production. Dilution is 10% in
development and 15% in stope production (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2013d).
Table 5: Advantages versus disadvantages of longitudinal bench stoping (Chapman, 2012)
Relatively low mining costs Long mucking distance when mining the
end stopes
Fast production in early stage Risk of delay if working area is unavailable
Can change stope length to increase Planning difficulties because of a single
stability access for drilling and backfilling
Selective due to variability in stope width
Mechanization possible
A/XV
Transverse bench stoping
The distinct feature of transverse bench stoping is that the direction of mining is
perpendicular to the dip of the orebody. This method is normally used when the width
of the orebody, and thus width of the stope exceeds 20 to 30 metres (Pakalnis & Hughes,
2011). There is no limit to the width of the orebody, but when the width, and thus the
volume of the orebody, gets high other mining methods (caving methods) will be more
suitable. Transverse stoping requires more development than longitudinal stoping.
Instead of one strike drive several perpendicular drives have to be created to open op
the orebody. These will originate from a service drive parallel to the orebody in waste
rock (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).
Figure 8: Schematic diagram showing development needed for TBS
Because of the multiple of production drives transverse stoping is flexible. If something

should happen in one of the ore drives, it will not halt production because another ore
drive will be available. Mining is done in sequence, designing primary and secondary
stopes (Potvin & Hudyma, 2000). This increases the total recovery (Lappalainen, pers.
comm., 2012). Primary stopes are mined first and backfilled with paste fill or CRF.
Secondary stopes are mined when the backfill has totally set (Potvin & Hudyma, 2000).
These secondary stopes can be backfilled with waste rock. By making the primary
stopes larger than the secondary stopes, a minimum of expensive backfill (either paste
fill or CRF) has to be used (Potvin & Hudyma, 2000). Another advantage of transverse
stoping is that is generates a low amount of overbreak of waste rock. Primary stopes will
get overbreak from within the orebody and thus minimize dilution. Recovery is high
A/XVI
Figure 9: Transverse bench stoping (Chapman, 2012)
Recovery is 100% for the development and 95% in stope production. Dilution is 0% in
development and 10% in stope production (Sorsa, pers. comm., 2013d).
Table 6: Advantages versus disadvantages of transverse bench stoping (Chapman, 2012)
Large production possible High development of which a part in waste
rock
Flexibility in production Ventilation planning can be difficult
Mechanization easy
Possibility of mining different stopes
simultaneously
Stope length easily adjustable
Backfilling costs lower due to primary and
secondary stoping
A/XVII
Benching with continuous fill
Benching with continuous fill is a modification of bench stoping (see Figure 10). It can
be used in both longitudinal and transverse stoping. The main difference is that instead
of backfilling open stopes when extraction is completed, it is now a continuous process.
This requires access to the back of the stopes. In some cases this is fairly simply done,
but in most cases extra development is needed (Lappalainen, pers. comm., 2012). The
advantage is that every blasted ring is backfilled as soon as mucking is completed. This
gives faster support and creates a smaller void, and thus creates a possibility for longer
stopes.
Figure 10: Sublevel stoping with continuous backfill (Tucker, et al., 1998)
Table 7: Advantages versus disadvantages of sublevel stoping with continuous backfill (Lappalainen,
pers. comm. 2012)
Longer stopes possible High development
Control over stability Development in waste
Mechanization possible
A/XVIII
Appendix D: FAHP approach; the calculations
Table 8: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries
Orebody thickness and ore boundaries (Ā1)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
LBS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
TBS (3/4,5/5) (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4)
SCB (2/3,4/5) (2/3,4/5) (2/3,3/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Next is defined for m=4; [∏ ] and (8): ∑ ; As in this way define
also and , and and and . These parameters are shown in next table.
Table 9: Factor matrix of the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries
i 1 2 3 4 Sum
αi 0.537285 0.537285 2.378414 1.456475 4.91
βi 0.472871 0.472871 2.942831 1.519671 5.41
γi 0.427287 0.427287 3.464102 1.581139 5.9
δi 0.392815 0.392815 3.600206 1.732051 6.12
The fuzzy weight ̅ of each row will be obtained by (11): ̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ ). For

further calculations for ̅ the rows of the factor matrices will be called ̅ with the j
defining the matrix and the i defining the row of that matrix. See next table.
Table 10: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor orebody thickness & ore boundaries
d11 (0.087821999/0.080150115,0.079006608/0.080011792)
d21 (0.087821999/0.080150115,0.079006608/0.080011792)
d31 (0.388764074/0.498800594,0.640522442/0.733320187)
d41 (0.238068403/0.257579519,0.292357159/0.352798677)
A/XIX
Table 11: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor state of stress
State of stress (Ā2)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
LBS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (2/3,4/5) -1
TBS (3/4,5/5) (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4)
SCB (2/3,4/5) (2/3,4/5) (2/3,3/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Table 12: Factor matrix of the factor state of stress
i 1 2 3 4 Sum
αi 0.638943 0.638943 2.059767 1.189207 4.53
βi 0.537285 0.537285 2.632148 1.316074 5.02
γi 0.472871 0.500000 2.783158 1.519671 5.28
δi 0.447214 0.447214 3.162278 1.581139 5.64

Table 13: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor state of stress
d12 (0.113331114/0.101841458,0.094145011/0.098791116)
d22 (0.113331114/0.101841458,0.099546229/0.098791116)
d32 (0.365346622/0.498919214,0.554105705/0.698558677)
d42 (0.210932971/0.249459607,0.302555109/0.349279339)
A/XX
Table 14: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor flexibility for securing production
Flexibility for securing production (Ā3)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) (2/3,4/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
LBS (1/2,2/3)-1 (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/5)-1 (1/2,2/3)
TBS (2/3,4/4) (2/3,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/4)
SCB (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) -1 (2/3,4/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Next is defined for m=4; [∏ ] and (8): ∑ ; As in this way
define also and , and and and . These parameters are shown in next table.
Table 15: Factor matrix of the factor flexibility for securing production
i 1 2 3 4 Sum
αi 0.840896 0.840896 1.681793 0.840896 4.2
βi 0.903602 0.759836 2.279507 0.638943 4.58
γi 0.840896 0.707107 2.828427 0.594604 4.97
δi 0.930605 0.66874 2.990698 0.537285 5.13
The fuzzy weight ̅ of each row will be obtained by (11): ̅̅̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ ). For
Table 16: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor flexibility for securing production
d13 (0.164002862/0.181773455,0.183526189/0.221336384)
d23 (0.164002862/0.152852647,0.154326514/0.159054146)
d33 (0.328005724/0.45855794,0.617306057/0.711311764)
d43 (0.164002862/0.128533243,0.129772613/0.127788621)
A/XXI
Table 17: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor selectivity on ore type
Selectivity on ore type (Ā4)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/4) -1 (5/5,6/7) -1 (1/3,3/5) -1
LBS (2/3,4/4) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,4/5) -1 (2/3,4/5)
TBS (5/5,6/7) (2/3,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/5)
SCB (3/3,4/5) (2/3,4/5) -1 (3/4,5/5) -1 (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Table 18: Factor matrix of the factor selectivity on ore type
i 1 2 3 4 Sum
αi 0.427287 1.189207 2.340347 0.840896 4.8
βi 0.386097 1.316074 2.783158 0.707107 5.19
γi 0.319472 1.414214 3.309751 0.66874 5.71
δi 0.290715 1.414214 3.637136 0.66874 6.01

Table 19: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor selectivity on ore type
d14 (0.071086486/0.067591995,0.061526336/0.060594259)
d24 (0.1978449/0.230398002,0.272360333/0.294766743)
d34 (0.38935672/0.487232452,0.637417775/0.758093892)
d44 (0.139897471/0.123789382,0.12879125/0.139386587)
A/XXII
Table 20: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor dilution & recovery
Dilution & recovery (Ā5)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (3/4,5/6) -1 (1/2,3/4) -1
LBS (1/1,1/1) (1/1,1/1) (4/4,5/5) -1 (1/2,3/4) -1
TBS (3/4,5/6) (4/4,5/5) (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4)
SCB (1/2,3/4) (1/2,3/4) (1/3,3/4) -1 (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Next is defined for m=4; [∏ ] and (8): ∑ ; As in this way
define also and , and and and . These parameters are shown in next table.
Table 21: Factor matrix of the factor dilution & recovery
i 1 2 3 4 Sum
αi 0.759836 0.707107 2.213364 0.840896 4.52
βi 0.59404 0.594604 2.632148 1.07457 4.9
γi 0.508133 0.508133 2.942831 1.316074 5.28
δi 0.451801 0.472871 3.309751 1.414214 5.65

Table 22: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor dilution & recovery
d15 (0.13451666/0.112717411,0.103786872/0.099929384)
d25 (0.125181857/0.112717411,0.103786872/0.104589604)
d35 (0.391840389/0.498969283,0.601077613/0.732050988)
d45 (0.148867155/0.203703357,0.268810081/0.312795875)
A/XXIII
Table 23: Pair wise comparison matrix of the factor health & safety
Health & safety (Ā6)

CSS LBS TBS SCB
CSS (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (4/5,6/6) -1 (3/4,4/5) -1
LBS (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) -1 (1/1,1/1)
TBS (4/5,6/6) (1/2,2/3) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3)
SCB (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,2/3) (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Table 24: Factor matrix of the factor health & safety
i 1 2 3 4 Sum
αi 0.408248 1.316074 1.414214 1.316074 4.45
βi 0.33437 1.189207 2.114743 1.189207 4.83
γi 0.319472 1.189207 2.213364 1.189207 4.91
δi 0.285744 1.136219 2.710806 1.136219 5.27

Table 25: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the factor health & safety
d16 (0.077481336/0.0680825,0.066177063/0.064145694)
d26 (0.249777342/0.242139416,0.246338785/0.255065965)
d36 (0.268403221/0.430591538,0.458488141/0.608539487)
d46 (0.249777342/0.242139416,0.246338785/0.255065965)
A/XXIV
Table 26: The pair wise comparison matrix between the different key factors (Ē)
OB SOS FSP SOT D&R H&S

OB (1/1,1/1) (3/4,4/5) -1 (5/6,7/8) -1 (1/2,3/4) -1 (3/4,5/6) -1 (7/8,8/9) -1
SOS (3/4,4/5) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,3/3) -1 (1/2,3/4) (1/1,1/1) (4/5,6/7) -1
FSP (5/6,7/8) (1/2,3/3) (1/1,1/1) (4/5,6/6) (3/3,4/5) (2/2,3/4) -1
SOT (1/2,3/4) (1/2,3/4) -1 (4/5,6/6) -1 (1/1,1/1) (2/3,3/4) -1 (3/4,5/6) -1
D&R (3/4,5/6) (1/1,1/1) (3/3,4/5) -1 (2/3,3/4) (1/1,1/1) (1/2,3/4) -1
H&S (7/8,8/9) (4/5,6/7) (2/2,3/4) (3/4,5/6) (1/2,3/4) (1/1,1/1)
⁄
Table 27: Factor matrix between the different key factors (Ē)
i 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sum
αi 0.38337 0.95318 1.76273 0.58880 1.12246 2.34901 7.16
βi 0.29440 0.96349 2.11693 0.50541 1.12246 2.93560 7.94
γi 0.25839 0.93466 2.34901 0.47238 1.03789 3.59536 8.65
δi 0.22076 0.99190 2.37618 0.43679 1.03085 4.26843 9.32
The fuzzy weight ̅ of each row will be obtained by (11): ̅ ( ⁄ ⁄ ). There is

also the comparison matrix between the factors from which a ̅ is calculates. This will
be called ̅ with the j defining each row of this matrix.
Table 28: Calculated fuzzy numbers for the different key factors (Ē)
c1 (0.041112143/0.034043547,0.032549908/0.030833897)
c2 (0.102219107/0.111416199,0.117740109/0.13854233)
c3 (0.189034938/0.244797565,0.295908784/0.331888947)
c4 (0.063142242/0.058444206,0.059506704/0.061008024)
c5 (0.120372386/0.129799098,0.130744867/0.143982899)
c6 (0.251906912/0.339466303,0.452913504/0.596187228)
A/XXV
Now for every ̅ and ̅ calculate ̅ ̅
Table 29: Multiplication of the calculated fuzzy numbers
c1*d11 (0.003610551/0.002728594,0.002571658/0.002467075)
c1*d21 (0.003610551/0.002728594,0.002571658/0.002467075)
c1*d31 (0.015982924/0.016980942,0.020848947/0.022611119)
c1*d41 (0.009787502/0.008768921,0.009516199/0.010878158)
c2*d12 (0.011584605/0.011346788,0.011084644/0.013686751)
c2*d22 (0.011584605/0.011346788,0.011720584/0.013686751)
c2*d32 (0.037345405/0.055587683,0.065240466/0.096779947)
c2*d42 (0.02156138/0.027793841,0.035622872/0.048389973)
c3*d13 (0.031002271/0.044497699,0.054307011/0.073459099)
c3*d23 (0.031002271/0.037417956,0.045666571/0.052788313)
c3*d33 (0.062004542/0.112253867,0.182666285/0.236076512)
c3*d34 (0.031002271/0.031464625,0.038400856/0.042411631)
c4*d14 (0.00448856/0.003950361,0.003661229/0.003696736)
c4*d24 (0.012492371/0.013465428,0.016207266/0.017983136)
c4*d34 (0.024584856/0.028475914,0.037930631/0.04624981)
c4*d44 (0.00883344/0.007234772,0.007663943/0.0085037)
c5*d15 (0.016192091/0.014630618,0.013569601/0.014388122)
c5*d25 (0.015068439/0.014630618,0.013569601/0.015059114)
c5*d35 (0.047166763/0.064765763,0.078587812/0.105402823)
c5*d45 (0.017919495/0.026440512,0.035145538/0.045037257)
c6*d16 (0.019518084/0.023111715,0.029972485/0.038242844)
c6*d26 (0.062920639/0.082198172,0.111570162/0.152067071)
c6*d36 (0.067612627/0.146171317,0.207655471/0.36280347)
c6*d46 (0.062920639/0.082198172,0.111570162/0.152067071)
A/XXVI
Now to get to the final fuzzy weight U for every criterion (13): ̅ ∑ ̅ ̅
Table 30: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the Wombat orebody
based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method
Fuzzy number
̅ Conventional Sublevel stoping (0.0864/0.1003,0.1152/0.1460)
̅ Longitudinal Bench Stoping (0.1367/0.1618,0.2013/0.2541)
̅ Transverse Bench Stoping (0.2547/0.4242,0.5929/0.8699)
̅ Stoping with Continuous Backfill (0.1520/0.1839,0.2379/0.3073)
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
Conventional Sublevel
Stoping
0.6000 Longitudinal Bench Stoping
Transverse Bench stoping
0.4000 Stoping with Continuous

Backfill
0.2000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0600
0.1200
0.1800
0.2400
0.3000
0.3600
0.4200
0.4800
0.5400
0.6000
0.6600
0.7200
0.7800
0.8400
0.9000
0.9600
Figure 11: Final fuzzy numbers resulting from the mining method selection for the Wombat orebody
based on the FAHP approach using Buckley’s method
A/XXVII
Appendix E: Q-classification support charts
Table 31: Q-classification tables
A/XXVIII
A/XXIX
A/XXX
Appendix G: Ground support requirements for the Wombat orebody
Appendix G: Ground support requirements for the

Wombat orebody
The Q-values were determined for the different rock types that were encountered in the
development and mining of the Wombat zone. It is possible to calculate the ground
support that is needed. There are five different setups during the development:
1) Decline in a straight line
2) Decline in a curve
3) Development and ore drifts
4) Development and ore drifts crossings
5) Intersection of decline and P1
The ground support needed is given by the support chart that Barton made
accompanying his Q method and is given in Figure 12. Here the equivalent diameter is
plotted against the Q value. This gives a reinforcement/ground support requirement
which is one of 9 categories.
Figure 12: Rock classes and reinforcement categories (Mawdesley, et al., 2001)
Calculations resulted in the support categories shown in Table 32.
A/XXXI
Table 32: Ground support recommendation for the 5 setups
Roof Wall
De De Rock Q
Span Height ESR support support
back wall type value
category category
TRESKA
711.1 (1) (1)
max
TRESKA
44.4 (1) (1)
min
QRTZ
6.8 (3) (3)
min
Decline in a QRTZ
5.5 5.5 1.3 4.23 4.23 711.1 (1) (1)
straight line max
SP/SS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SP/SS
0.9 (5) (5)
min
BS max 426.7 (1) (1)
BS min 4.1 (3) (3)
TRESKA
711.1 (1) (1)
max
TRESKA
44.4 (1) (1)
min
QRTZ
6.8 (4) (3)
min
Decline in a QRTZ
9.0 5.5 1.3 6.91 4.23 711.1 (1) (1)
curve max
SP/SS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SP/SS
0.9 (5)/(6) (5)
min
BS max 426.7 (1) (1)
BS min 4.1 (4) (3)/(4)
SMS-MS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SMS-MS
16.7 (1) (1)
min
TRESKA
Development 711.1 (1) (1)
max
and ore 4.5 4.5 1.6 2.81 2.81
TRESKA
drifts 44.4 (1) (1)
min
SP/SS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SP/SS
0.9 (4) (4)
min
A/XXXII
SMS-MS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SMS-MS
16.7 (1) (1)
min
Development TRESKA
711.1 (1) (1)
and ore max
6.4 4.5 1.3 4.92 3.46
drifts TRESKA
44.4 (1) (1)
crossings min
SP/SS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SP/SS
0.9 (5) (4)
min
TRESKA
711.1 (1) (1)
max
TRESKA
44.4 (1) (1)
min
QRTZ
6.8 (4) (3)
min
Intersection
QRTZ
of decline 7.1 5.5 1.0 7.10 5.5 711.1 (1) (1)
max
and P1
SP/SS
711.1 (1) (1)
max
SP/SS
0.9 (5) (5)
min
BS max 426.7 (1) (1)
BS min 4.1 (4) (4)
Using this empirical method the majority of the areas will be stable if left unsupported.
In reality the rock is not as uniform as this data suggests. There is always chance of local
unstable areas, and blocks can be loose and will cause a hazard. If a patch of poor rock is
encountered it is better to prevent any damage to the drift especially in areas as
frequently used as the decline. Ground support requirements used in the Wallaby
orebody are also based on the weakness zones. Therefore this requirement scheme seen
in Table 33 can be maintained.
A/XXXIII
Table 33: Support requirements for four rock classes based on Q-value (Theron, 2007)
Bolts per ring Bolt spacing Ring spacing Shotcrete

Class 1 (Q>10) Spot bolts 4 per 4m N/A No
advance
(1<Q<10) thick on roof
starting m
above floor
(0.1<Q<1) thick on roof
starting m
above floor
Class 4 (Q<0.1) 8 1.5 m 1.2 m 125 mm from
thick on roof
from floor to
floor
Minimum bolt length
The minimum bolt length is calculated using the formula (20) and the results are shown
in Table 34.
Table 34: Recommended bolt length for the 5 different setups
Excavation Minimum bolt

ESR
width (B) length
Decline in a
5.5 1.3 2.2 metre
straight line
Decline in a curve 9 1.3 2.6 metre
Development and
4.5 1.6 1.7 metre
ore drifts
Development and
ore drifts 6.4 1.3 2.3 metre
crossings
Intersection of
7.1 1.0 3.1 metre
decline and P1
As this is the minimum length necessary to ensure stability it is good practise to use at
least 4 metre long bolts (Malmberg, pers. comm., 2013b). Cement grouted rock bolts in
the decline and swellex friction bolts in more temporary areas such as ore drives. The
intersections and loading areas should be reinforced with additional cable bolting for
extra stability.
A/XXXIV
Appendix F: Sections used for Q-classification
The lithologies used for the different rock types in logging are: MSM ore zone (SMS or
MS), tremolite skarn (TRESKA), blackschist (BS or SULBS if high in sulphur), ultramafics
consisting of serpentenite and talc schist (SP and SS) and vein quartz (QRTZ). Sections
used are shown in Table 35 - Table 39.
Table 35: Sections used for the MSM ore zone
Drill hole ID Section Lithology

OKU-909 597.80-604.15 SMS
619.60-623.00 SMS
635.60-647.25 SMS-MS
654.00-655.00 MS
673.75-675.25 SMS
OKU-914 590.01-595.24 MS
OKU-919 524.72-529.42 MS
OKU-923 522.14-525.56 SMS
Table 36: Sections used for the tremolite skarn rock mass

OKU-909 595.00-597.80 TRESKA
627.25-632.15 TRESKA
OKU-914 576.3-590.01 TRESKA
OKU-917 404.58-420.20 TRESKA
426.00-433.70 TRESKA
OKU-919 534.00-547.95 TRESKA
OKU-923 457.00-463.80 TRESKA
Table 37: Sections used for the blackschist rock mass

OKU-917 421.10-426.00 SULBS
OKU-920 498.60-511.00 BS
519.47-534.00 BS
542.00-549.50 BS
584.50-600.00 SULBS
OKU-934 487.69-491.65 BS
494.50-503.05 SULBS
A/XXXV
Table 38: Sections used for the vein quartz rock mass

OKU-909 587.25-595.00 QRTZ
OKU-914 518.56-522.58 QRTZ
OKU-919 464.17-466.50 QRTZ
469.17-480.70 QRTZ
518.33-521.60 QRTZ
OKU-923 444.21-453.27 QRTZ
518.25-520.50 QRTZ
Table 39: Sections used for the ultramafic rock mass

OKU-909 419.70-434.80 SP
434.80-440.70 SP
449.20-466.50 SS
469.60-473.60 SS
OKU-914 331.00-342.23 SS
OKU-919 581.90-590.30 SS
OKU-927 668.90-684.30 SS
OKU-934 554.83-560.00 SP
A/XXXVI
Appendix H: Measured displacement of the LVDT-cell
These results are taken from the in situ stress measurement result by Stress
Measurement Company Oy (2007).
Figure 13: WAL300P1: Convergence and temperature during the overcoring measurement R1
Table 40: Explanatory action with figure 13-1
Time Observation
12:16 Shake test
12:30 Flushing water on
12:35 Overcoring started, convergences reset to zero (OC_Start)
12:53 Overcoring finished (OC_end)
12:57 Reading off (cable disconnected)
13:06 Reading on (cable reconnected)
A/XXXVII
Time Observation
8:14 Shake test
8:32 Drill bit reconditioning
9:38 Overcoring finished (OC_end)
A/XXXVIII
Time Observation
22:34 Shake test
23:45 Core break, overcoring terminated (OC_End)
A/XXXIX
Time Observation
9:08 Shake test
10:38 Core break. overcoring stopped at 30.5 cm (OC_end)
A/XL
Time Observation
15:50 Cell reoriented
15:58 Shake test
16:19 Overcoring finished at 43 cm (OC_end)
A/XLI
Appendix I: Stability zones on the Mathews graph
Appendix I: Stability zones on the Mathews graph
Depth of 500 metres:

Depth at 600 metres
Figure 18: Mathews graph, N' = 16 - 33



A/XLII

Underground Mining Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Underground Mining Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AES/RE/13-36 Underground mining method

selection and preliminary techno-

30/08/2013 T.W. Peskens

Title : Underground mining method selection and

Author : T.W. Peskens

Date : 30 August 2013

TA Report number : AES/RE/13-36

Postal Address : Section for Resource Engineering

Copyright ©2013 Section for Resource Engineering

All rights reserved.

Abstract……………. ............................................................................................................................ III

6.3.2 State of stress: .....................................................................................................................79

9 Financial analysis for the Wombat orebody............................................................... 137

Appendices: table of contents ………………………………………………………………………………….A/I

Appendices: table of figures ………………………………………………………………………………...…A/II

Appendices: table of tables ………………………………………………………………………..………….A/III

Appendix A: Overview map of the Polvijärvi area ……………………………………………………A/V

Appendix B: Support charts for traditional MMS tools ……………………………………………A/VI

Appendix C: General description of stoping methods …………………………………………….A/XII

Appendix D: FAHP approach; the calculations ……………………………………………………...A/XIX

Appendix E: Q-classification support charts …………………………………………………….A/XXVIII

Appendix G: Ground support requirements for the Wombat orebody …………………A/XXXI

Appendix F: Sections used for Q-classification …………………………………………………..A/XXXV

Appendix H: Measured displacement of the LVDT-cell ……………………………………A/XXXVII

Appendix I: Stability zones on the Mathews graph ……………………………………………...A/XLII

Figure 3-9: Resource model from section B (6973000mN)..........................................................34

Figure 7-5: Position of different measurements in relation to the horizontal (Hakala,

Figure 8-29: TBS sequence of mining phase 5................................................................................. 135

σ1 Pa Minor principal stress

Abbreviations for mining methods

CSS Conventional Sublevel Stoping

Abbreviations for factors

D&R Dilution & Recovery

1.2 General locality

1.3 Problem statement

1.4 Aim and objectives

1.5 Research questions

 Objective 2: Describe how the mining method is implemented

 Objective 3: Determine the economic return of the selected mining method

1.6 Report outline

1.7 Research scope and limitations

Table 1-2: Scope of thesis

Rock Mass Q-classification Other classification

2.1.1 Structural geology

2.1.2 Outokumpu type ore

2.1.3 Outokumpu assemblage

2.1.4 The Kylylahti deposit

1) A massive to semi-massive (MSM) sulphide mineralization that has the sharp

Cu ppm Zn ppm Co ppm Ni ppm Au ppb Ag ppm S wt %

2.2 Kylylahti underground copper mine

The Kylylahti underground copper mine is a multi-metal deposit mined by Kylylahti

2.2.1 Kylylahti mining area and license

2.2.2 The Kylylahti deposit

2.2.3 Resource and reserve estimates

Tonnes (Mt) Cu (%) Co (%) Ni (%) Zn (%) Au (g/t)

2.2.4 Different types of ore in the mineral deposit

2.2.5 Rate of production

2.2.6 Ore boundaries of the ore and host rock mass

2.2.7 Gap between Wallaby and Wombat

3 Wallaby orebody versus Wombat orebody

3.1 Orientation of the orebody

3.2 Shape of the orebody

3.3 Orebody thickness

3.4 Thickness and shape of orebody shown by resource and block