DECEMBER 2002
D I G G I N G
PRACTICAL ADVICE WHERE IT’S
CRUCIALLY NEEDED, AT “THE FACE”
Courtesy of one of AMC’s Directors, Perth-based Lawrie Gillett, who cannot recommend
Eden Paki’s work highly enough
Eden Paki is the Drill & Blast Supt at Newcrest
Mining Limited’s Cadia Valley Operations near
Orange in NSW where the current open pit
mining rate is around 80 Mtpa. Eden already
had substantial mining experience before moving
to Cadia, including 7 years D&B work for Roche
at KCGM’s Superpit in Kalgoorlie followed by
working with Macmahon on D&B at the Mt
Todd Gold Mine in the Northern Territory.
Despite his more than full time job at Cadia,
Eden has also been acting as a sounding board
for Newcrest’s Telfer Project Feas Study open
pit mining team in the areas of assessing D&B
requirements for the project and how best to
DEEPER
satisfy those requirements. In the process of
helping the Telfer team, Eden has offered
guidelines based on his experience and these
are summarised below. They include formulae
which have been developed by others (apologies
in advance to authors of the formulae for not
being able to acknowledge them!!!) and these
formulae have gained good acceptance amongst
open pit mining D&B practitioners. Eden asks
that the reader bear in mind that the guidelines
were put together for practical, operations
based in-house assistance to his colleagues and,
as such, do not pretend to be an exhaustive or
scientifically rigorous treatment of the subject.
Eden of course points out that there are always
site specifics which must be taken into account
in any mining determination, but AMC suggests
that Eden’s guidelines provide an excellent start
point. AMC has also found Eden’s guidelines
to be consistent with its discussions with drill
manufacturers and suppliers, blast hole drilling
contractors and drill bit suppliers.
We thank Eden for his cooperation in agreeing
to provide his guidelines to the broader mining
community through Digging Deeper.
Continued page 2
1
 PRACTICAL ADVICE WHERE IT’S CRUCIALLY NEEDED, AT “THE FACE”
Continued from page 1
EDEN’S RULES OF THUMB
There are a number of combinations that can
be used for Burden to Spacing ratios etc,
especially when blasting in unfamiliar territory.
When I encounter this, it is usually prudent to
go back to basics and apply a few well accepted
principles or “rules of thumb”. You will generally
find that most “rules of thumb”, require either
the hole diameter or burden to calculate what
other parameters will fit into the puzzle. The
following are fairly common “rules of thumb”
used throughout the industry when designing
blast patterns.
Burden = 25 to 35 hole diameters.
Spacing = 1.2 to 1.5 burdens (for large
diameters e.g. Greater than 140mm) or around
1.5 to 1.8 for smaller diameters.
Stemming = 0.7 to 1.3 burdens. Keep in mind
that if you select a larger bench height, the
stemming column could have an impact on the
digger’s productivity, especially if you are looking
at digging in flitches. For instance, if you were
to dig a 12m bench in three (3) flitches, then
the loading tool would be digging through the
stemming column. This is the area where you
are more likely to encounter oversize, therefore
productivity would be much lower than the
other two (2) flitches.
Bench Height 4= 0 to 50 hole diameters.
Obviously this can usually change in accordance
with the bench height requirements of the
loading tools.
Subdrill = 8 hole diameters. This can be
increased for the face rows to around 10 to
12 hole diameters.
Powder Factors Governed by budget,
mine to mill processes and, to a lesser extent,
ground hardness.
Hole Diameters Essentially governed by the
required average material size. There are many
different perceptions on what determines the
hole diameter, but I personally select a hole
diameter based on the size of the loading
equipment, and any other material constraints
placed upon me by the milling process (finer
material means higher throughput). You must
find the middle ground between the two –
at which point the higher cost of increased
powder factors, or drill & blast costs outweigh
the savings received from the milling process.
2
As a base, I tend to favour the material size
required to allow for productive mining by the
selective loading tools – given that the hole
diameter determines the burden and spacing.
Until you can substantiate the mine to mill
process at the mine, then ultimately this should
not determine the drilling and blasting practices
(don’t pour money into the process until you
can quantify and accurately measure it). Ground
hardness can also affect the hole diameter
selection process, but this can be addressed
through powder factors. Critical diameter for
explosives can also affect the hole diameter –
but as long as you are looking at larger than
76mm blast holes, then this shouldn’t be an issue.
Blast Size I always tend to look at going for
the largest achievable blast possible. This means
a reduction in infill drilling, reduction in initiation
costs, reduction in blasting frequency, which
means a reduction in blast affected production
delays. Altogether, a reduction in cost. When
talking blast size, I refer to the overall volume of
the blast. Vibration and timing (scheduling) and
physical restrictions such as the time taken to
load, tie-in and fire the blast play a more limiting
factor on the size blasts that I elect to use.
Blast Width I find this to be more important
than overall blast size. I have a tendency to look
at maximising the blast width, while minimising
the blast depth. Of course this is constrained
by the bench and mine plan, but where the real
estate is available to do so, I would elect to go
with 6–8 row shots that go on for as far as
possible. When looking at minimising the blast
depth, I refer to minimising to around 6 rows in
depth – not fewer. This provides excellent
displacement (if that is the desired result),
delivering excellent muckpile looseness.
Fragmentation is also maintained which means
that productivity is maximised.
Blast Depth Blast depth can get you into
trouble, both through productivity issues and
through the cost required to minimise the effects
on productivity. I have trialed various blast depths
over time, trying various techniques such as
increased powder factors in the back rows, or
altered burdens and spacings, adding delays to
give a second front etc, however have had mixed
success in my efforts. Essentially, the largest
impact of blast depth is muckpile looseness.
Higher powder factors can be introduced to
ensure that fragmentation is maintained in the
back rows of the blast, however it is very difficult
to provide a free face that allows sufficient
displacement to give productive dig rates.
Blast patterns that are greater than 8 rows,
are generally tighter to dig on the back few
rows. The lack of a free face in front, means that
the material is choked therefore becomes tighter
to dig. Additional heave is also a result which,
although providing some relief, is generally
confined to the upper reaches of the muckpile,
and not the lower and middle sections where
the shovel/excavator bucket spends most of its
time. The higher face created from the choked
rows also creates a hazard due to the higher face
height. Larger rocks, generally encountered in the
stemming collar are now higher in the digging
face, meaning that cooler packs on face shovels
become prone to accident damage.
Choke Firing Related to the above, choke firing
has its positives and its negatives. Choke firing
allows for minimal disruptions to the scheduling
process, as a digging unit does not need to free
face a blast and walk away. Instead, the digging
unit can continue digging through the area with
the choke shot being fired prior to the material
in front running out. The negative of choke firing
is muckpile displacement (which is actually a
positive for grade control) and looseness –
or lack of. Higher powder factors are generally
used also, to ensure that fragmentation is
maintained, as due to the confinement of the
blast, the energy tends to vent up and outwards.
This can mean poor fragmentation, especially at
the toe. Maximising free faces is always the best
option (productivity wise) however, choke firing
can be a necessary evil – especially in a gold
mining environment.
Explosives Density As a general rule, the
harder the rock, the higher the explosives density.
You require more shock energy in harder ground.
For rock with a density of around 2.6 to 2.8, I
would look at using an explosive with a density of
1.2 to 1.3. Further, as I am going to a high density
explosive, I would look to maximising the usage
of heavy ANFO based explosives as opposed
to pumped product, as the heave properties of
the augered product allows for better muckpile
looseness.
Number of blasts per blast day Determined
by labour. I would recommend blasting no more
than once per day, with no more that two (2) to
three (3) shots at a time. Any more and you start
to have problems relating to preparing the blast
on the day (tie-ing in the shot), clearing the pit
for blasting, firing the shots and clearing the blasts
after firing. These can be very time consuming
and could result in a delay for blasting taking up
to an hour. I would not recommend planning to
tie in the blast the day before, purely for safety
reasons (also increases the risk of misfire through
human interaction or natural events such as wind
and storm).
Number of blasts per week Once again
I would look to minimise this. I try to schedule
blasting to a maximum of 3 times per week.
Any more and you start feeling the effects of
delays to production caused by blasting, plus the
strain starts to tell on the blast crew through
the frequency of tasks such as tie-ing in a shot.
This means that mistakes tend to creep in, plus
complacency becomes apparent. It is preferable
to dedicate whole days to purely charging and
stemming operations, which also gives the blast
crew adequate relief between each shot. Misfires
Parameter 187 mm Diameter
Pattern Burden x Spacing 5.5 x 6.5
Explosive Density (g/cc) 1.2
Hole Diameter (mm) 187
Burden (m) 5.4
Spacing (m) 6.5
Burden/Spacing Ratio 1.20
Bench Height (m) 12.0
Subdrill Length (m) 1.5
become a rare event, as opposed to a hazard
that is dealt with on a regular basis.
Stemming Size If you are looking at increasing
the blast hole diameter, I would recommend the
use of crushed rock for stemming. A “rule of
thumb” is that stemming size should be between
10% and 15% of the hole diameter. Drill cuttings
used in holes greater than 127mm tend to eject,
giving minimal confinement. The better
confinement offered by the crushed rock also
gives you the opportunity to reduce the
stemming column, thus improving the overall
fragmentation.
The table below is an example of the above rules
of thumb applied to an example set of project
parameters.
You will note that my Burden to Spacing ratio is
on the low side – I have actually found that
equilateral patterns give a great result (Burden =
0.867 of Spacing) however, they do cost a little
more in the long run. Please also note that I have
elected some fairly simple pattern sizes. Where
possible, I would suggest that you err away from
using dimensions such as 4.1 or 5.9. What tends
to happen is that operations will look for a
simpler dimension working in half metre
increments rather than 0.1 decimals.
Pulldown is another factor that you must
consider when selecting a hole diameter. This is
especially important when drilling rotary (note
that an 8” hammer is the largest commercial
hammer on the market today – other larger
hammers are generally made for specialist
purposes other than production blasthole
drilling). The pulldown requirement is usually
governed by the hole diameter, and the
251 mm Diameter
6 x 7.5 7.5 x 9 9 x 10.5
1.1 1.2 1.2
187 251 251
6.0 7.5 9.0
7.5 9.0 10.5
1.25 1.20 1.17
12.0 12.0 12.0
1.5 2.0 2.0
compressive strength of the rock being drilled.
A basic formula to determine the pulldown
requirements of drilling with rotary is as follows:
P = (D x C) / 5
Where P = Required Pulldown, D = Hole
Diameter in inches and C = The rock uniaxial
compressive strength in PSI.
For example, if you were drilling a 251mm hole
in rock with a UCS of 260 MPa, the following
would apply:
251mm = 97/8”; 260 MPa = 37,710 PSI
P = (97/8 x 37,710) / 5
P = 74,530 lbs
Using this number to assist you in drill selection
should go a long way to ensure that you have the
right drill combination to suit the application.
Imperative in this is selecting a drill that will
achieve your desired targets comfortably, unlike
the mistake made at one project where the drill
selection was aimed around maximising the
output of the drill through minimising the cost of
the initial purchase. Drill manufacturers will state
that their units are capable of drill hole diameters
ranging from 165mm to 270mm however, they
are not recommended to be run under load for
extended periods of time. In order to achieve the
270mm, the engine, pumps and rotary head will
be under maximum load. The unit is capable of
achieving this, however you will find that over
time, in order to sustain this diameter, you are in
fact drastically reducing the life of the drill and its
components. Further, you may find that a drill’s
performance is reduced when operating for long
periods at the upper ranges of the drill’s
capabilities. I cannot provide operating data to
evidence this view, however it is a qualitative
observation made from experience.
The last thing to consider when looking at hole
diameters, is the size of the drill pipe associated
with that hole diameter. Drill pipe affects your
uphole velocity (also bailing or annular velocity)
which, in turn affects the performance of the
drilling consumables and the wear characteristics
of your drill string. A higher uphole velocity,
created by a smaller annulus will drastically
increase the wear on your hammers, subs and
drill rods, however a lower uphole velocity

Stemming Length (m) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 may mean that you’re not sufficiently lifting
the drill cuttings out of the blast hole.
Stemming/Diameter Ratio 24.1 24.1 17.9 17.9
Powder Factor (kg/bcm) 0.70 0.50 0.70 0.50
Explosive Mass (kg per hole) 297 272 564 564

3

I have worked on 7000 to 8000 feet per minute
for fresh rock, going for the upper limits if that
material is also wet and down around 5000 feet
per minute for softer materials. A formula for
calculating uphole is as follows:
V = (Q x 183.33) / (D2 - d2)
Where V = bailing velocity, Q = compressor
output in CFM, D = Hole Diameter in inches and
d in drill pipe diameter in inches.
For example, if you are selecting a drill with a
compressor output of 1150cfm, drilling a 251mm
hole with 8 1/2” drill pipe, the bailing velocity
would be:
251mm = 97/8”
V = (1150 x 183.33) / (97/82 - 81/22)
V = 8,345 ft/min
You can go to a smaller hole diameter to achieve
the same result, however you must ensure that
you have sufficient air capacity on the drill to
achieve an optimal bailing velocity, e.g. 1,450cfm.
Last but not least, when considering varying hole
diameters, consideration must be taken as to the
difference between the hole diameter and drill
pipe combinations available. The 81/2” drill pipe
used in the example above for the 251mm hole,
is too large to drill a 187mm hole. Therefore, in
order to use this configuration you would need
to change your drill string every time you wish to
change hole diameters. This requires labour,
cranes and, most important of all, time. The
optimal drill pipe size required to drill a 187mm
hole, will be too small to effectively run the
251mm rotary bits at the end of the day – this is
due to bailing velocity plus flex on the rods.
MINING AND TUNNELLING UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS
mineABILITY will present a “Mining and
Tunnelling under Extreme Conditions” short
course in Melbourne 14–15 April, 2003. The
course adopts an integrated approach to solving
problems encountered when mining and
tunnelling under extreme conditions. The five
presenters have a wide range of overseas and
local experience and will highlight the inter-
relationships between the rock mass character,
groundwater conditions, effective ground
stresses and feasible construction methods.
Case histories will be analysed that illustrate
MESSAGE FROM
THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR
Redundancy
Redundancy is essential in engineering and
systems design. It is why a jumbo jet can lose an
entire electrical circuit and continue flying. It is
why your car brakes are still effective after losing
a brake circuit.
When we prepare a feasibility study for a
new mine we specify a range of management,
technical and operating positions in an
organisation chart. Traditionally, the redundancy
allowance (sickness, leave and absenteeism)
was around 12% of the complement. This didn’t
really allow for replacement of specialists, who
were required to arrange their work so that they
could take annual leave. We assumed that if
unusual circumstances led to higher absences,
additional appointments would be made to
provide the necessary redundancy.
Most mines today operate on an organisation
chart that is pared to the bone. It shows just
enough people, if they were all available, to run
the mine safely and efficiently. But most mines
don’t have those people available.
It has become common for a mine having a
technical and management complement of,
say, 15 to run chronically three or four positions
the need for timely implementation of the most
appropriate ground remediation.
The course leaders are Dr Nick Barton from
Norway, who developed the widely used Q-
system for classifying rock masses and for
dimensioning rock tunnel and cavern support,
and Dr Eda Quadros from Brazil, who has over
25 years research experience in fluid flow
through jointed rock. Dr Barton has consulted on
numerous tunnel and cavern projects, reservoir
subsidence, rock stress measurement, nuclear
short. The cause is claimed to be outside
management’s control, because there is a general
shortage of experienced professionals and they
are highly mobile. New vacancies arise as quickly
as positions are filled.
This phenomenon, in my opinion, compromises
the safe and effective working of the mine.
Production variability rises due to a lack of
planning and process control, leading to a loss
of profitability and to accidents. Both of these
outcomes should be unacceptable to
management and to boards of directors.
The solution is simple. Build some redundancy
into the management chart. If the “bare bones”
management chart requires 15 technical people,
make it your aim to employ 20. With the chronic
shortage still applying, you may sustain 15. The
same principle applies for operators. And guess
what? Safety and profitability will improve, despite
the higher employee cost.
I have been an expert witness in more than
thirty underground mine accident cases and
I believe that the cultural causes of accidents are
hard to quantify. However, it is easy to prove,
using employee records, that a mine was under-
staffed. I think that the causal link between
under-staffing and safety could be demonstrated.
Some operations are adequately staffed and
can demonstrate this. If your operation is not,
then I think that you are exposed. As a director
or manager you might turn your thoughts to
redundancy.
Merry Christmas.
Peter McCarthy
waste disposal and embankment dam projects
in a total of 26 countries over the last 30 years.
He has received several international awards for
his development work in rock tunnelling and
jointed rock behaviour.
For further details, contact David Pollard (phone
08 8362 5545, email dpollard@ausmin.com.au)
or Marnie Pascoe (phone 03 9670 8455, email
mpascoe@ausmin.com.au)
4
RESOURCE MODELLING:
DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR
COMPOSITING OF RAW SAMPLE
INTERVALS IN DRILLHOLE DATA
By Ingvar Kirchner & John Tyrrell
One aspect of resource modelling that is
commonly misunderstood, or underestimated,
in terms of its significance, is the issue of
compositing of raw sample intervals in drillhole
data. Compositing is done specifically, to provide
common sample “support” for geostatistical
evaluations and grade interpolations.
Some of the issues that AMC routinely
considers when determining an appropriate
composite size are:
■ The common raw sample lengths.
■ Data quantity issues.
■ Average zone/lode estimated true widths
and degree of internal definition required
from the estimates.
■ Block size and bench heights (support issues).
■ Data variability and the potential amount of
“pre-estimation smoothing” of the data.
■ Loss of data at zone/domain margins.
■ Selectively sampled/assayed intervals.
Generate a histogram of the raw
sample lengths in each zone/domain
Quite often the bulk of the sampling will occur
at some common interval (eg 0.5/1.0/2.0 metre
intervals etc). It would be unwise to use
a composite interval that splits up (or is smaller
than) the larger common raw sample intervals –
termed “decompositing”. Decompositing of
larger intervals tends to cause a downward bias
in the data variance and causes some bias in the
rest of the statistical results. The initial effects can
be seen in variography (lower variance values,
increased ranges) and lower coefficient of
variations, and this can lead to other
“downstream” problems.
If the composite size is too large, the amount
of data available for the statistical analysis,
variography and grade interpolation will be
significantly reduced – with a corresponding drop
in the quality of the results.
SPEED UP YOUR SEARCH
AMC’s website (www.ausmin.com.au) now has a
comprehensive consultant search facility which
provides a detailed and accurate listing of AMC’s
consultants, who can be selected on the basis of
profession, expertise, commodity experience and
Consider the geological aspects
Narrow reef/lode type structures are often too
narrow to require or retain any estimated grade
variation across the width of the zone. Therefore,
composites should span the entire width of the
zone with a single interval. It may be suitable to use
service variable methods for interpolation in order
to address the issue of variable sample support.
Where broader or mixed zones are being
modelled, the block dimensions become more
of a factor. It is rarely appropriate for the
composites to be larger than the relevant block
dimensions, given the requirement for similar
support between block and composites.
However, composites can be smaller than
the block dimensions. In this case, the support
issues can be addressed through appropriate
discretisation parameters – an array of points
within each block are used to generate individual
estimates which are then averaged to provide
the block estimate.
Compositing, through combination of data,
inherently “smooths” the data and alters its
statistical characteristics. Sometimes compositing
is used to intentionally reduce the variance of
the data to reasonable levels, and hence improve
the quality of the variogram. The degree of
smoothing imposed by the compositing process
needs to be monitored. Before and after
compositing histograms of the grade data will
help to visualise the changes to the grade
distributions.
This is especially critical where the zone/domain
being modelled is marginal to lower cut-offs likely
to be applied later on for reporting.
Standard compositing routines tend to allow
specification of a minimum composite size to
retain, with some software defaulting to a value
that is half of the chosen composite length.
Where downhole compositing is used with
country experience (hyperlinks to email
addresses are provided). This new search facility
complements the full range of resumes available
on the website. Go to “Staff ” on the sidebar and
click on “Consultant Search”
Comparison of Raw versus 2m Composites
Log Histogram 14/11/2002
composite runs controlled by zone/domain
boundaries, it is possible that critical data may be
lost at those boundaries. Narrow vein, lode, or
reef type zones may also inadvertently lose data
where the short length composite intervals fall
below the minimum composite length threshold
due to the narrow width of the zone. There are
“residual retention” type compositing processes
that can be used to overcome these issues
without resorting to very small minimum
composite lengths, which can produce a
negatively skewed distribution of sample lengths
and corresponding sample support problems.
A major issue is the effect of compositing on
selectively sampled or selectively assayed data.
Where data is incomplete and biased towards
higher grades (a common feature of the selective
sampling process), compositing has a nasty habit
of inflating those high grades and then causing
“hot spots” in the model, particularly where
those high grades are not bound by adjacent low
grades in the same hole. Dealing with selective
sampling/assaying issues is always hard, but
sometimes unavoidable. In this case, the best
strategy is probably to avoid using composite
intervals that are significantly larger than the
common sample intervals, thereby attempting
to minimise the inflation of those grades over
multiple/larger composite intervals.
It is apparent that different zones/domains may
require different compositing methods. Similarly,
different elements may require different
compositing methods within the same model.
When choosing composite intervals and method,
a very considered, careful approach is required.
For further information, contact John
or Ingvar on jtyrrell@ausmin.com.au or
ikirchner@ausmin.com.au respectively
5
GETTING WHAT YOU ARE PAYING FOR –
A HALF FULL GLASS IS 50% UTILISATION
In today’s world the concept of 24/7 is
well established. Airlines talk about seat
utilisation factors, supermarkets are open
24 hours, and the local milk bar has been
replaced with a 7-Eleven, which never closes.
Why?
It’s all about utilisation, the ability to use available
capacity fully. For airlines it means selling cheap
seats on the midnight flight, for supermarkets it
means dodging the shelf packers late at night,
and the 7-Eleven is well known for the midnight
munchies. So what does capacity utilisation mean
for mines?
In Optimisation we spend a lot of time talking
about capacity costs. Capacity costs are those
costs that you incur when adding a unit of
capacity. Buy an additional loader and you have
to pay for manning, supervision, maintenance,
insurance, leases and ventilation. All these things
must be paid for, in full, before you can use the
loader. These upfront costs are the capacity costs
for the loader. That is they are the costs you have
to pay, to create the option of using the loader.
They are not as most people think, fixed costs.
If instead of adding a machine you take away a
machine, capacity costs become potential savings.
Fixed costs don’t go away.
When we benchmark a mine one of the areas
we look at is production variability. We look at
two features, variability relative to budget, and
the variation on a month to month basis relative
to the peak monthly tonnage.
Figure 1 is the distribution of monthly tonnage
relative to peak monthly tonnage for the 25
underground mines on our database. The data
set ranges from Beaconsfield at 100 ktpa, to
Olympic Dam at 9 Mtpa.
The average is 83%. That is, on average,
underground mines use 83% of their
demonstrated capacity. Alternatively, in
Australian underground mines, there is on
average an opportunity to reduce capacity
costs by 15%. Our experience in benchmarking
is that demonstrated capacity is normally a lot
less than theoretical capacity.
The budget story is not much better. On
average, at the 3 standard deviation level,
mines deliver ±20% of what they planned
to do. This is illustrated in Figure 2.
There are many causes for the level of variability.
However, they all boil down to a need to better
forecast actual production, and making sure that
alternative sources of ore are available to cover
for unexpected problems.
What does this mean to the consultant? Two
things. Firstly, when designing a mine and making
equipment selection, be aware of capacity
constraints. Try to avoid over sizing. Make sure in
schedules that multiple ore sources are available.
We normally find for the average mine (1.0 to 1.5
Mtpa), a minimum of 3 to 4 stopes are needed
to be available to bog at any one time. Less than
that, equipment tends to have lower utilisation.
The second is that when a client asks how they
can improve their performance, have a look at
their variability. It might not solve everything, but
it sure is a good start.
If you want to know a bit more about capacity
costs and variability, look up John’s paper entitled
“Why Cost Cutting Fails to Deliver” under Mine
Planning in AMC’s Reference Library at
www.ausmin.com.au
Or for more information, contact
John de Vries, Principal Mining Engineer
with AMC, at jdevries@ausmin.com.au

Figure 1: Production Relative to Peak Monthly Production – 25 Underground Figure 2: Ratio of Actual to Planned Tonnage – 25 Underground Mines 2000–2002
Mines 2000–2002

Australian Mining Consultants Pty Ltd ABN 58 008 129 164 Website: http://www.ausmin.com.au
MELBOURNE PERTH BRISBANE UNITED KINGDOM
Level 19 Ground level Level 8 Hampton Business Centre
114 William Street 9 Havelock Street 135 Wickham Terrace 7 Mount Mews, Hampton-on-Thames
Melbourne 3000 West Perth 6005 Brisbane 4000 Middlesex, TW12 2SH, UK
Telephone +61 3 9670 8455 Telephone +61 8 9481 6611 Telephone +61 7 3839 0099 Telephone +44 20 8213 5881
Facsimile +61 3 9670 8311 Facsimile +61 8 9481 6622 Facsimile +61 7 3839 0077 Facsimile +44 20 8979 2187
amcmelb@ausmin.com.au amcperth@ausmin.com.au amcbris@ausmin.com.au amclondon@dial.pipex.com