This presentation was delivered by Deswik at the I-M Mining IPCC 2013 conference on 14th October 2013. The presentation outlines a recommended approach for assessing the viability of In Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) for mining operations. The key point is that modelling MUST include both the proposed system as well as other conventional fleet areas of the mine, modelled as a single system. This allows identification of system interactions and fatal flaws that are evident only in a combined mine plan model. In previous years multiple presentations called for development of mine planning software that is capable of effective IPCC planning. Deswik commenced work in February 2013 on addressing this need, and have formed a partnership with industry experts RWE to ensure the result is fit for purpose. This presentation illustrates techniques that use the first results of this endeavour.

1. SCENARIO BASED ANALYSIS OF IPCC TRADE-OFFS
I NEILSEN, N TYSON
IPCC2013 CONFERENCE
14TH OCTOBER 2013
PRESENTER: NEIL TYSON, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

2. Deswik Are Answering Industry Demands For IPCC
Planning Software
Multiple presentations in recent years called for mine
planning software that is capable of effective IPCC
planning
Deswik commenced work in February 2013 on
addressing this need
 Our approach includes forming a partnership with
industry experts RWE to ensure the result is fit for
purpose
 This presentation illustrates techniques that use the
first results of this endeavor

3. Presentation
Summary
More scenarios with greater detail
performed at the early stages of a
study will add value
Models must include all aspects of the
mining system – both IPCC and
conventional
Models must schedule dump
construction and interactions between
fleets and dumps
Find the fatal flaws and value traps
before detailed design & specification
begins

4. Better Planning Will Help IPCC Succeed
Turnbull & Cooper, 2010
“IPCC needs more planning efforts in the equipment selection, the mine
development and the waste dump planning”
Bearman & Munro, 2010
“It is believed that the ability to analyse IPCC to the same degree as the usual
mining methods will provide a fuller picture of the total value proposition for
IPCC and an improved idea of the true comparison against more traditional
mining methods”
 And many more…
Take-Aways
1. Mine Development & Waste Dump Planning
2. Total Value Proposition Is The Key

5. IPCC Study Roadmap
More Effort In Earlier Studies

6. Improving Outcomes By Learning From Iterations
 There is no big red button
 Too many degrees of freedom to reach an optimised solution
in reasonable time using computational techniques
 Learnings from initial scenarios inform further
scenarios
 Not a dartboard or drill pattern of scenarios – learning
and adapting based on results
 Act like a genetic algorithm for optimization:
o Retain high performing components from
scenarios
o Test for variation across a range of starting
conditions
o Benchmark against a common metric – when a
line of enquiry doesn’t perform, register the
lesson and then move on

7. Increasing Detail Of Scenarios Is Valuable
 Find the critical point where high level assumptions meet
the reality of:
o Pit design
o Mine sequencing
o Resource scheduling
o And waste dump progression
 Identify if and when the planned system fails
o Operating sequences become unachievable
o Spoil dump progression interrupts, preventing
mining from progressing at full pace
o Interactions cause unforeseen issues

8. Scenario Construction
The goal is always to construct full-mine scenarios, to compare
apples with apples

9. Considerations & Goals Of Scenario Iterations
 Example global considerations
o Finding fatal flaws
o Eliminating fatal flaws
o Optimising capital expenditure
o Optimising life of mine operating costs
o Capturing implications of all interactions between IPCC
and conventional systems
 Commodity Specific Consideration Examples
o Hard Rock – inclusion of waste in pit-shell vs optimising
conveyor cost and performance
o Hard Rock – bench advance rates, pushback sizes
o Coal – interaction between truck dump and conveyor
dump

10. Considerations & Goals Of Scenario Iterations
Qualitative and quantitative
evaluation of the scenarios is
an important goal:
o How achievable is the
scenario NPV?
o Is the sequencing stable?
o How responsive is the
scenario to variation of input
assumptions?

11. Summary So Far:
 Construct mine plan scenarios comprising both IPCC and
conventional fleet in a single plan
 Calculate the Total Value Proposition
 Build in detail, but replicate across entire LoM
 Iterate scenarios
o Learning from each new set of results
o Discover how the planned systems interact – micro and
macro
o Qualitatively judge scenario ‘achievability’
o Zero in on value drivers, avoid value traps
Identify which scenarios are worthy of
detailed design & optimisation

12. Let’s Look At An Example:
 This is a fictional dataset
 Large OC coal mine, thermal / coking products for export
 A recent acquisition, being reviewed for expansion
potential
 Currently 8 Mtpa, infrastructure sized for CAT793 fleet
 Review 4 broad strategies
o Shovel with fixed IPCC
o Shovel with semi-mobile IPCC
o Shovel with fully mobile IPCC
o Ultra class T&S

13. Pit Section
 D OB avg 28m (range 0.5-100m)  W OB avg 23m (range 0.5-65m)
 S OB avg 50m (range 0.5-90m)  K OB avg 55m (range 14-85m)
D SEAM
S SEAM
W SEAM
K SEAM

14. Pit Layout
 Current pit is approximately
10km long, 8 pit areas
serviced by 10 ramp
sections
 HW ramp arrangement for
D,S seams
 LW ramp with bridge
installed for K seam to W
seam level

15. Seam Sections
D SEAM
 D average depth of 55m up
to 100m
 Raw Ash averages 42%
(Range 24-49%)
 Washed Ash averages 16%
(Range 15-17%)
 Yield averages 42% (Range
27-74%)
 Thickness of 2.1m (max 2.7)
S SEAM
 S average depth of 91m up
to 200m
 Raw Ash averages 39%
(Range 18-52%)
 Washed Ash averages 17%
(Range 16-18%)
 Yield averages 56% (Range
26-92%)
 Thickness of 3.1m (max 3.7)

16. Seam Sections
W SEAM
 W average depth of 110m
up to 220m
 Raw Ash averages 34%
(Range 25-42%)
 Washed Ash averages 12%
(Range 9-15%)
 Yield averages 56% (Range
43-66%)
 Thickness of 2.9m (max 3.1)
K SEAM
 D average depth of 170m
up to 270m
 Raw Ash averages 35%
(Range 27-42%)
 Washed Ash averages 12%
(Range 9-15%)
 Yield averages 58% (Range
44-69%)
 Thickness of 4.0m (max 4.4)

17. Preliminary Scenario List
First Pass Scenario Name
Details
Fully Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per
IPCC Fully Mobile 16Mtpa
year until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed,
9SHV MinRLMinDist
MinRL Min Dist, no highwall ramp
Fixed IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per year
IPCC Fixed 16Mtpa 9SHV
until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL
MinRLMinDist
Min Dist, no highwall ramp
Semi Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench1,2&3. Ramps 2 shv per
IPCC Semi Mobile 16Mtpa
year until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed,
9SHV MinRLMinDist
MinRL Min Dist, no highwall ramp
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL Min Dist, no
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinRLMinDist highwall ramp, 20deg dump
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinDist Min Cycle Time,
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinDistMinCT no highwall ram, 20 deg dump

18. Create T&S Scenario
 T&S case including landform & haulage model
 Includes full reserve set, aggregation, loss and
dilution calculations, through to ROM and Product
tonnages and revenues
 Detailed sequencing at the block level
 Full landform & haulage model determining
detailed truck haulage requirements and costs
over time
 Financial model to calculate NPV

19. Create T&S Scenario

20. IPCC and Conventional Fleet In 1 Model
 IPCC material allocation
 Eg FM IPCC: IPCC takes 2 x 45m horizons
 T&S removes all other coal and waste, above and
below these horizons

21. Schedule Hybrid Scenarios
 Production and dump schedules includes full
interaction between IPCC horizons and
conventional T&S horizons

22. Schedule Hybrid Scenarios
 Production and dump schedules includes full
interaction between IPCC horizons and
conventional T&S horizons

23. Undertake Analysis
 Assess conveyor
requirements
 Deswik Landform &
Haulage models and
reports every source, path
(conveyor or haul) and
destination, as well as
different path detailed
metrics

24. Undertake Analysis
 Assess conventional fleet requirements
 What are the effect of different dumping strategies
on the T&S cases?
Base Case Dump Strategy Comparison
400000
350000
350000
300000
300000
250000
250000
200000
200000
150000
150000
100000
100000
50000
50000
Total Coal Product Tonnes
MinDistMinCTMajor Truck Shovel Truck Hours
1/01/2046
1/01/2045
1/01/2044
1/01/2043
1/01/2042
1/01/2041
1/01/2040
1/01/2039
1/01/2038
1/01/2037
1/01/2036
1/01/2035
1/01/2034
1/01/2033
1/01/2032
1/01/2031
1/01/2030
1/01/2029
1/01/2028
1/01/2027
1/01/2026
1/01/2025
1/01/2024
1/01/2023
1/01/2022
1/01/2021
1/01/2020
0
1/01/2019
0
MinRLMinDistMajor Truck Shovel Truck Hours
Coal Product Tonnes
450000
400000
Truck Hours
450000

25. Undertake Analysis
 Assess capital, operating cost and revenue
differences between scenarios

26. Find Value Drivers & Value Traps
 Eg Value Trap: T&S – dump build progression is deemed
too steep for depth of pit – extra layback will be
required for access ramps and other dump build
considerations

27. Find Value Drivers & Value Traps
 Eg Value Trap: Conveyor Cases – Dump design
maximises dump room near conveyor bridge. This in
turn requires a steep conveyor change in direction,
which will greatly degrade system performance

28. Identify Fatal Flaws
 Eg Value Trap: FMIPCC Initial Scenario– Dumping
sequence fails towards the deeper parts of the deposit.
o When the waste allocation changes proportion, the
stripping sequence no longer releases enough
dump room each strip
o The IPCC spreaders ‘catch’ the advancing dump face
o 100Mbcm ‘overflows’.
o The systems are mismatched, and adjustments are
required

29. Identify Fatal Flaws

30. Summarise Learnings From Scenarios
 What did we learn from the first iterations?
First Pass Scenario Name
Details
Fully Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per
IPCC Fully Mobile 16Mtpa
year until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed,
9SHV MinRLMinDist
MinRL Min Dist, no highwall ramp
Fixed IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per year
IPCC Fixed 16Mtpa 9SHV
until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL
MinRLMinDist
Min Dist, no highwall ramp
Semi Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench1,2&3. Ramps 2 shv per
IPCC Semi Mobile 16Mtpa
year until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed,
9SHV MinRLMinDist
MinRL Min Dist, no highwall ramp
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL Min Dist, no
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinRLMinDist highwall ramp, 20deg dump
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinDist Min Cycle Time,
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinDistMinCT no highwall ram, 20 deg dump
Fatal Flaw?
NPV
(AU$M)
N
n/a

460

607
N
604
N
793

31. Iterate Using Learnings As Basis
First Pass Scenario Name
Second Pass Scenario Name
IPCC Fully Mobile 16Mtpa
9SHV MinRLMinDist
IPCC Fully Mobile 16Mtpa 9SHV
MinRLMinDist Mod Dumps
IPCC Fixed 16Mtpa 9SHV
MinRLMinDist
IPCC Semi Mobile 16Mtpa
9SHV MinRLMinDist
IPCC Semi Mobile 16Mtpa 9SHV
MinRLMinDist ModSched
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinRLMinDist
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinDistMinCT
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinRLMinDist
TS 16Mtpa 9SHV MinDistMinCT
Centre Ramps
Details
Fully Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per year
until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL
Min Dist, no highwall ramp
Fully Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per year
until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL
Min Dist, no highwall ramp, modified dump design
Fixed IPCC on Conv Bench2&3. Ramps 2 shv per year until
peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL Min
Dist, no highwall ramp
Semi Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench1,2&3. Ramps 2 shv per
year until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed,
MinRL Min Dist, no highwall ramp
Semi Mobile IPCC on Conv Bench1,2&3. Ramps 2 shv per
year until peak 8-9shv, 16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed,
MinDist Min CT, no highwall ramp, mod schedule
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinRL Min Dist, no highwall
ramp, 20deg dump
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run ramps closed, MinDist Min Cycle Time, no
highwall ram, 20 deg dump
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run centre ramps open, MinRL Min Dist, no
highwall ramp, 17 deg dump
T&S scenario. Ramps 2 shv per year until peak 8-9shv,
16Mpta. LHS run centre ramps open, MinDist Min Cycle
time, no highwall ramp, 17 deg dump
Fatal Flaw?
NPV
(AU$M)
N
n/a

598

460

607

750
N
604
N
793

651

872

32. Map Value Across Scenarios – Other Analysis Options
 Iterate modified pit design suited to IPCC strengths and
deposit material balance e.g. change direction of mining,
mine along strike
 Re-iterate Lerchs-Grossman or pit margin ranks
o Write actual costs from schedule back onto reserve
block solids
o Re-calculate margin rank, &/ or re-run solids-based LG
 Examine sensitivity of scenarios to truck, conveyor,
sequencing performance
o How vulnerable is the scenario to changes in inputs?
o Cost + overall scenario breakdown

33. Thank You
 Thanks to our partners RWE for advice and guidance
 Questions?

34. Our future
Though Deswik is a relatively young company, our heritage of 20+
years of delivering mine planning software solutions means that
we have come a long way in a short period of time.
And We Have Only Just Begun
Our culture of high performance and innovation will ensure we
remain a formidable force in the industry for a long time to come.