Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Mine operating costs and the potential impacts of energy and grinding
James A. Curry, Mansel J.L. Ismay, Graeme J. Jameson ⇑
Centre for Multiphase Processes, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An understanding of the breakdown of mine costs is an important tool for researchers and developers
Received 29 May 2013 who seek to place novel cost-reducing unit operations in the wider general cost context. This paper pro-
Accepted 22 October 2013 vides a breakdown of operating costs in 63 mines by dividing them into three main categories: mining,
Available online 27 November 2013
milling, and general and administrative (G & A) costs. The study looks at patterns in mining type, mill
processing type, mineral type, and the differences between costs expressed in feasibility studies vs. oper-
Keywords: ating mines. The paper explores the reasons for the relationships observed and then presents a total aver-
Mine operating cost
age mine cost breakdown. It was found that the mean relative mining and milling costs did not differ
Mining
Milling
significantly, and that on average they had equal shares of the total enterprise operating costs. Effects
Flotation of mine and mineral type were observed, with underground milling costs being significantly less than
Cost breakdown open pit milling costs and gold mines occupying a significantly larger share of mine operating costs than
copper-containing mines. The overall relative operating costs were found to be in the ratios between
(43:43:14) and (45:45:10) (Mine:Mill:G & A). A treatment of potential unit operations and innovative
technologies is provided at the conclusion of the paper, including coarse particle recovery by flotation
and novel grinding technologies.
Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.1. Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.2. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.1. Overall distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2. Mine type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.3. Processing type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.4. Ore type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.5. Effect of report type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.6. Effect of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.7. Other effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4. Potential cost savings measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5. Conclusion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Appendix A. List of mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix B. Studied mine reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

1. Introduction through reductions in operating costs. Operating costs of a mining

Technological innovation has played an historically important
role in improving the commercial viability of mining operations
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4921 6181; fax: +61 2 4960 1445.
E-mail address: Graeme.Jameson@newcastle.edu.au (G.J. Jameson).
enterprise are distributed across three broad areas – Mining, Mill-
ing (or processing), and General and Administration (G & A). The
former two constitute the chief technical operating costs of a given
mining project, in which the operating costs are characterised by
equipment operation and maintenance, electricity and fuel use,
chemicals and technical personnel. General and Administration

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.10.020
 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80
Nomenclature
P80 80% passing size (lm)
costs are concerned with management of personnel, legal and
accounting costs, and logistics in addition to other miscellaneous
non-technical expenses.
It is important for researchers and technology developers to
identify the average relative distribution of these costs in a mine
in order to place their own developments in the wider context of
the total enterprise. There is very little work in the literature that
examines the distribution of costs across a series of mining opera-
tions. It may be expected that common trends in the distribution of
costs may be unlikely due to the unique nature of each operation,
when factors are considered such as the mineral type, head grades,
ore competency, local regulations and a range of additional techni-
cal and non-technical factors that determine ongoing costs. In a
review of mine costs and sizes for base metals such as copper
and zinc, Crowson (2003) found that the costs of production per
tonne of metal produced decreased with mine size, and was highly
dependent on ore grade and the technology available for process-
ing. Moreover, Crowson identified these impacts on mine cost as
themselves being sensitive to variable rates of metal recovery,
managerial competence, and national economic conditions. Crow-
son (2012), in a study of copper mining operations, also observed
that the effect of head grade on project costs is further exacerbated
by the typical decrease over the lifetime of a mine.
Costa Lima and Suslick (2006) noted that a number of factors
that influence the balance of costs on a mine project, such as tax-
ation legislation and commodity prices, tend to vary over the dura-
tion of these lengthy projects. These variations contribute to the
project volatility, which tends to be higher than the commodity
price volatility. Crowson (2012) also noted the susceptibility of
long-term projects to changes in the composition of the mined
rock, and commodity price fluctuations. Given these significant
influences, it could be expected that the distribution of costs
among the three major headings for a given project, may vary
throughout its lifetime, as throughputs change in response to
internal and external factors. Alternatively, if Mining and Milling
costs are equally affected by changes in internal and external cir-
cumstances, alterations in the cost distribution may be
insignificant.
The case for commonalities in the distribution of operating
costs might first appear premature due to the combination of
factors that can influence the viability and cost structure of a typ-
ical mining project. Despite this, some of the most significant oper-
ating costs are common to most metal mining operations. Energy
costs typically comprise one of the largest ongoing costs of mining
operations, of which 70% is devoted to the comminution of the ore
(Norgate and Jahanshahi, 2010). Furthermore, the most significant
energy cost occurs in the grinding circuit of the Milling section,
where up to 97% of the energy cost is incurred (Ballantyne et al.,
2012). Indeed, the area of comminution, and particularly grinding,
are flagged as areas where significant savings can be made in min-
eral processing circuits (Evans et al., 2009). If energy costs contrib-
ute such a significant proportion to the ongoing expenses of a
mining operation, then it is likely that the distribution of costs is
more sensitive to these costs and less so to other external and
internal factors already discussed.
Energy costs related to comminution are closely related to head
grade, grind size and mineral type, both of which have in recent
times shown common trends across mining projects globally. In
71
his study of copper mining trends, Crowson (2012) showed that
the typical head grade of copper deposits in the previous 50 years
varied on average between 0.2% and 1%, while Norgate and Jahan-
shahi (2010) noted that the general trend for metal ores has been
towards lower grades, predicting a uniform average copper grade
of 0.7% by 2030 and a reduction in final grind size (P80) from
75 lm to 5 lm during the same period. Given the broad range of
data employed by Crowson (2012) and the substantial increase
in operating costs associated with energy use in grinding over
the next two decades, it is clear that energy costs in mineral pro-
cessing and mining in general will have a strong influence on the
distribution of operating expenses across mine sites.
It is important for developers of innovative technologies in the
mining industry to be able to place potential savings in individual
processes or operations within the wider context of the total enter-
prise. The objective of this study is to investigate the relative dis-
tribution of costs in mining operations apportioned to Mining,
Milling, and G & A, using data from the literature. Where possible,
the factors potentially influencing the overall distribution have
been taken into account, including the effects of ore types, process-
ing type, mine type (e.g. underground vs. open pit), and report type
(e.g. feasibility study vs. study of operating mines).
2. Methodology
2.1. Sample
Data have been collected from 63 publicly available technical
reports relating to mine operations throughout the globe. The
majority of the reports have been written under the National
Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects for
public disclosure of mineral property information in Canada. A
limited number of the reports have been taken from public mar-
keting releases from companies. Two reports (La Parilla, Mexico
and the Osborne Copper/Gold project, Australia) have divided
their open pit and underground operations into separate cost dis-
tributions, and were for the purposes of this report treated as
separate cases.
Enterprise operating costs have been divided into Mining, Mill-
ing, and G & A in this paper. Royalties, cost of transport and
smelting, and other site specific costs are not included in the scope
of this paper. Definitions of the inclusion criteria for each category
are shown in Table 1. A summary table of each report and key data
can be found in Appendix A.
2.2. Data analysis
The raw operating costs for each category (Mining, Milling, G &
A) were summed and converted to percentages of the total. The
resulting percentages were defined as relative costs. The relative
costs were analysed on the basis of their distribution; mean and
median values, range, and the 95% confidence interval of the mean.
Matched-pair t-tests were performed on within-subjects data sets
(i.e. overall Mining vs. Milling costs). Overall costs were evaluated
on a life-of-mine (LOM) average basis as reported.
Relative mine costs were then divided into groups according to
a number of criteria. Data were grouped according to mine type
(open pit vs. underground), processing type (flotation vs. no flota-
72 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80

Table 1
Costs included in each category.

Category Costs
Mining Drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, equipment maintenance and repair, mine overheads, mine specific labour requirements
Milling Power, grinding media and mill linings, consumables, reagents, equipment maintenance and repair, maintenance materials, milling
specific labour, milling overheads
General and Administration Management costs, staffing for human resources, environment, health and safety, training, communications, community relations, camp
(G & A) and catering, mobile equipment, insurance

tion), ore type (all copper, and gold but no copper) and report type
(feasibility vs. preliminary vs. operating). Of course, within each
group, the allocation to Mine, Mill and G & A costs could be influ-
enced by one or more factors within other groups, and there is
insufficient data to test all interaction effects. With the data avail-
able, multivariate between-subjects ANOVAs were performed on
the data containing more than two groups using Type III sums-
of-squares to account for variable sub-sample sizes. For categories
in which there were only two groups for comparison, for example,
processing type or ore type, independent-samples t-tests were
undertaken. Sub-samples of a minimum of nine data points, i.e.
mine sites, were compared, with groupings containing fewer data
points excluded from the analysis. Using this minimum sample
size criterion, analyses by mine location were excluded. Factorial
analyses were also excluded on the basis that combined groupings
produced sub-sample sizes that were too small to yield reliable
Fig. 1. Boxplots indicating distribution of Mining, Milling and G & A. Solid and
inferences concerning interaction effects. dotted lines represent the median and mean respectively.
Reports were defined as containing open pit or underground as
stated. Mines that contained a single set of operating costs for both
underground and open pit mines were defined as ‘both’ (i.e. con-
taining both underground and open pit). Reports in which under-
ground and open pit operations were given two separate sets of
operating costs were treated as separate installations. Operations
containing flotation at some point in the processing were classified
as ‘flotation’, whereas operations containing no flotation were clas-
sified as ‘no flotation’. The aforementioned information was ob-
tained from process flowsheets, or otherwise explicitly stated in
the body of the report.
Ore type was defined by the target elements for saleable pro-
duction. Reports were divided into ‘preliminary’, ‘feasibility’ and
‘operating’ depending upon the status of the project. Pre-feasibility
and preliminary economic reports were classified as ‘preliminary’.
Reports that explicitly stated they were feasibility studies were
classified as ‘feasibility’. Reports were classified as ‘operating’ if
they were based on currently operating mines, as stated in the
report. Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of relative mine cost data.
The annual change in operating costs over the LOM was ana-
lysed on a case-by case-basis for those mine reports that included
them. Selected data sets were correlated to determine if the change
in relative costs varied significantly from zero for the LOM.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overall distribution

A summary of the overall distribution of costs across the sample

can be seen in Table 2. Mean Mining and Milling costs were similar

Table 2
Summary of descriptive statistics for overall relative mine cost distribution (N = 65).

Mean (%) Median (%) Range (%) 95% Confidence interval

Mine 43.2 43.1 57.9 ±3.4
Mill 43.5 43.7 60.3 ±3.8
G&A 13.3 11.0 39.3 ±2.2
Fig. 3. Frequency histogram of relative mill cost data.
 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80 73

similar, centred at 40–50% (relative cost) with similar spreads.

The G & A data was positively skewed, confirming the boxplot
and the data revealed in Table 2.
A second analysis was performed on adjusted data with four
outliers removed, the results of which can be seen in Table 3. As
can be seen, the mean Milling cost as a proportion of total mine
cost increased, with a lesser increase in the mining cost. The most
noticeable difference was the decrease in the proportion of total
cost apportioned to G & A, which was reduced to 11.7%, which
brought it closer to the median value of 10.9%. A matched pairs
t-test on the adjusted data confirmed that the Mining and Milling
proportions of total costs were not significantly different (p = 0.65).
All subsequent analyses in this paper were performed with the ad-
justed data.
Some general conclusions can be drawn from the data on the
Fig. 4. Frequency histogram of relative G & A cost data. overall distribution of costs. On average, the proportion of total
mine costs occupied by Mining and Milling sections appear to be
approximately equal. The removal of outliers had no significant ef-
Table 3
Summary of descriptive statistics for overall relative mine cost distribution with
fect on the differences between the means, the difference was not
outliers removed (N = 61). statistically significant. The plots in Fig. 1 indicate the existence of
extreme values at the lower and upper ends of the Mining and
Mean Median Range 95% Confidence
(%) (%) (%) interval
Milling distributions (respectively) as being likely to have
contributed to the small difference in mean for the two categories.
Mine 43.3 43.6 57.9 ±3.7
Mill 45.0 45.2 55.4 ±3.7
A second broad conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that,
General and 11.7 10.9 26.4 ±1.7 on average, G & A costs are much lower than Mining and Milling
Administration (G & A) costs. The distribution of the G & A costs was positively skewed,
with significant clustering around the mean.

(43.2 ± 3.4% and 43.5 ± 3.8% respectively), whereas G & A costs

were lower (13.3 ± 2.2%). Furthermore, the median Mining and 3.2. Mine type
Milling costs differed only 0.1% and 0.2% respectively from the
means, suggesting minimal outlier influence. The G & A median, The operating costs of the adjusted data were divided into three
however, differed 2.3% from the mean and possessed a smaller categories by mine type, which can be seen in Table 4. Most nota-
range compared to the Mining and Milling costs, suggesting the bly, the cost apportioned to the mine operations was notably high-
influence of outliers. er for underground (51.1 ± 11.4%) than for open pit (40.3 ± 4.6%),
A convenient way of representing the statistical distribution of with mines employing both techniques in between (47.9 ± 5.9%).
a data set is in terms of a box plot, similar to that shown in Fig. 1. The median values shown in Table 4 suggest the influence of out-
The bar near the centre of the box represents the median value, liers at the lower end, particularly for the underground mining
while the upper and lower extremes of the box represent the upper operations.
and lower quartiles. The tee-bars represent the upper and lower The mean relative Milling cost for open pit mines (48.9 ± 4.6%)
bounds. Dotted lines have been included to show the position of was larger than both the underground operations (34.1 ± 8.3%)
the mean. A boxplot comparison of the three categories is shown and those incorporating both underground and open pit
in Fig. 1, where it can be seen that the boxes for both the Mining (39.3 ± 6.6%). Median values shown in Table 4 suggest that the
and Milling costs occupy very similar spaces, and the G & A costs Milling values were less sensitive to outliers than the mean Mining
appeared to be influenced by the presence of outliers. The Mining cost values. The spread of costs for G & A were similar to those for
and Milling costs contained considerable overlap, with a matched- Mining, with the underground being the largest (14.4 ± 5.5%), the
pair t-test confirming that they were not significantly different open pit the lowest (10.8 ± 1.9%) and mines employing both min-
(p = 0.94). A comparison of the distributions of each category is ing techniques in between (12.8 ± 4.9%).
provided in Figs. 2–4. The Mine and Mill cost distributions were A multivariate ANOVA revealed a significant mean difference
for the Milling costs, which existed between the open pit and
underground Milling costs only (Tukey’s HSD, p = 0.01). No other
Table 4 significance mean differences were found for the effect of mine
Summary of data by mining type (N = 61). type.
n Mean (%) Median (%) 95% Confidence Interval Table 5
Mine Summary of data by processing type (N = 61).
Both 11 47.9 47.7 ±5.9
n Mean (%) Median (%) 95% Confidence interval
Open pit 41 40.3 42.3 ±4.6
Underground 9 51.5 55.6 ±11.4 Mine
Flotation 37 41.6 42.3 ±4.3
Mill
No flotation 24 46.0 51.5 ±6.8
Both 11 39.3 39.0 ±6.6
Open pit 41 48.9 49.5 ±4.6 Mill
Underground 9 34.1 35.1 ±8.3 Flotation 37 46.3 47.5 ±4.5
No flotation 24 43.0 40.0 ±6.8
General and Administration
Both 11 12.8 11.7 ±4.9 General and Administration
Open pit 41 10.8 9.5 ±1.9 Flotation 37 12.1 10.6 ±2.4
Underground 9 14.4 14.6 ±5.5 No flotation 24 11.0 11.3 ±2.3
74 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80

Since the significant differences observed by mine type did not Table 7
control for additional factors (such as processing type, etc.), no Summary of data by report type (N = 61).

definitive conclusion can be drawn as to the nature of the effect. n Mean (%) Median (%) 95% Confidence interval
It may be reasonably speculated, however, that the significant ef- Mine
fect observed for Milling may be a combination of cost factors, Preliminary 17 45.9 43.6 ±7.4
including the higher cost of underground mines compared to open Feasibility 19 41.2 43.0 ±6.6
pit, and the nature of the ore body. Underground mines tend to in- Operating 25 43.2 45.3 ±6.1

cur greater mining costs than open pit, owing to the comparative Mill
technical complexity of the underground mine and hazard mitiga- Preliminary 17 45.2 44.8 ±7.6
Feasibility 19 47.4 47.5 ±6.1
tion. In addition, underground mines tend to target higher grade Operating 25 43.1 39.8 ±6.5
deposits, whereas open pit mines are prevalent with finely dissem-
General and Administration
inated large ore bodies. In the case of underground mines, a larger Preliminary 17 8.9 7.8 ±2.4
proportion of operating costs may therefore by occupied by the Feasibility 19 11.4 9.5 ±3.7
mine and general and administrative categories. Open pit opera- Operating 25 13.7 13.7 ±2.5
tions, by contrast, focus on lower grade ores that generate a signif-
icant amount of waste, placing additional burdens on the mill. It
can therefore be conjectured that the greater amount of waste
material to be separated from valuable materials in open pit oper- ing mines (15.8 ± 4.3%) were found to be significantly larger than
ations contributes to the significant difference observed in Milling for the gold containing mines (10.9 ± 2.6%; p = 0.038). Although
costs between open pit and underground mining operations, the relative Milling costs for the copper containing mines
although this would require further examination to be conclusively (46.4 ± 7.1%) were higher than for the gold containing mines
determined. (41.0 ± 5.0%), the difference was not significant (p = 0.19).

3.3. Processing type 3.5. Effect of report type

The relative operating costs of mines were divided into those
that incorporated flotation as a separation technique and those
that did not. A summary of the data is provided in Table 5. Mines
employing flotation tended to have lower relative Mining costs
(41.6 ± 4.3%) and higher relative Milling costs (46.3 ± 4.5%) than
those that did not (46.0 ± 6.8% and 43.0 ± 6.8%). G & A costs were
higher on average for mines utilising flotation (12.1 ± 2.4%) than
those that did not (11.0 ± 2.3%). Independent samples t-tests re-
vealed no significant differences between in the mean relative
mine, Mill or G & A costs of flotation and non-flotation mines
(p  0.05 for all cases).
3.4. Ore type
The ores presented in the technical reports were of a highly var-
iable nature, to the extent that it did not permit a useful compar-
ison between the absolute ore types. Despite this shortcoming,
the large majority of reports reviewed were of mines that con-
tained gold, copper or both. Subsequently, the sample was divided
into those (a) containing gold without copper, and (b) all those
containing copper. A summary of the data is presented in Table 6.
As indicated, mines were excluded from elemental analyses if they
did not contain either gold or copper.
The relative Mining costs were much larger for gold containing
mines (48.1 ± 4.4%) than for the copper mines (37.8 ± 5.8%), a dif-
ference that was significant according to an independent samples
t-test (p = 0.005). Conversely, the G & A costs of the copper contain-
The adjusted data were compared on the basis of report type to
examine any systematic bias that may be present. Reports were di-
vided into feasibility, preliminary assessment and reports of oper-
ating mines. A summary of the data can be seen in Table 7.
Relative Mining costs were larger amongst the preliminary
(45.9 ± 7.4%) and operating (43.2 ± 6.1%) mine reports compared
with the feasibility reports (41.2 ± 6.6%). Conversely, feasibility re-
ports tended to have the highest estimates of relative Milling cost
(47.4 ± 6.1%) compared to preliminary (45.2 ± 7.6%) and operating
(43.1 ± 6.5%) mine reports. It is noteworthy that the mean relative
Mine and Mill costs for the preliminary and operating mine reports
were of a similar magnitude to the overall and adjusted data pre-
sented in Tables 2 and 3. The relative G & A costs of the operating
mines were the highest (13.7 ± 2.5%), followed by feasibility report
estimates (11.4 ± 3.7%) and preliminary reports (8.9 ± 2.4%). A mul-
tivariate ANOVA revealed no significant differences between report
types in each category (p > 0.05).
3.6. Effect of time
Analyses of reports providing yearly operating costs was under-
taken to examine the variation in the cost distribution over the life
of the mine. Since the majority of reports did not provide annual

Table 6
Summary of data by ore type, divided into copper and gold ores (N = 54).

n Mean (%) Median (%) 95% Confidence interval

Mine
Gold 30 48.1 49.5 ±4.4
Copper 24 37.8 38.5 ±5.8
Mill
Gold 30 41.0 40.0 ±5.0
Copper 24 46.4 47.5 ±7.1
General and Administration
Gold 30 10.9 9.5 ±2.6
Copper 24 15.8 13.0 ±4.3
Fig. 5. Donlin Creek time series of operating costs.
 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80
Fig. 6. Hosco time series of operating costs.
Fig. 7. Miraflores time series of operating costs.
Fig. 8. Amulsar time series of operating costs.
breakdowns, the analysis was performed on a case-by-case basis
for the reports that did provide annual breakdowns. Only those re-
ports that provided a minimum of ten years of annual breakdowns
were included. The resulting cases are provided in Figs. 5–9, in
terms of scatter plots, in which the y-axis is the proportion of total
cost and the x-axis is the time in years.
Three notable patterns can be seen in the date shown in Figs. 5–9.
The first is that relative Mine costs are generally greater than Milling
costs during the early and middle stages of the mine. The second pat-
tern observed is that as the end of the mine life nears, relative Mine
costs decrease and relative Milling costs increase. The third pattern
is that the relative G & A costs do not appear to change appreciably
for the duration of the mine life.
75
Fig. 9. Cerro Maricunga time series of operating costs.
Greater relative Mine costs during the early and middle stages
of the mine life may be explained in light of stockpiling. Mines typ-
ically produce more ore during these stages than the mill is able to
process, in order to maintain a constant stockpile for the mill in the
event of disruptions in the mine operations. The end of mine pat-
tern, where relative Milling costs increase and relative Mining
costs decrease, may be explained in light of the phase-out of min-
ing operations. During this period, mining activities are gradually
decreased, as the mill continues to process the stockpiles built up
over the life of the mine. Strip ratios may improve for open pit
mines, as there is less waste material to move, reducing the rela-
tive cost of the mine side. If the data are split between this
phase-out period and the preceding normal operations, it can be
seen that during normal operations the relative Mining and Milling
costs follow a slope that does not differ significantly from zero
(p > 0.05). The same is observed with the relative G & A costs,
which remain constant throughout the life of the mine.
3.7. Other effects
The relative contributions of Mining, Milling and G & A to enter-
prise costs produce distributions, the variances of which may be
attributed to the specific circumstances of each mine. Analyses of
mine location and head grade, that are proposed to exert an effect
on the distribution of mine costs, were omitted from the present
study due to insufficient data subsets. The lack of these analyses
makes it difficult to generalise the findings across different loca-
tions and head grades, and it is suggested that these be the focus
of future research aiming to identify common trends in the distri-
bution of mine costs.
4. Potential cost savings measures
This study has found that in general the relative Mining and
Milling costs of a given operation do not significantly differ, and
generally fall within the range of 43:43:14 to 45:45:10 (Mine:-
Mill:G & A). In addition, G & A costs were found to be consistently
lower than both Milling and Mining costs. Due to the significant
proportion of Mine and Mill costs, cost saving measures should be
focussed on these areas. Milling in particular represents an area
of potential savings due to increased attention in recent times fo-
cussed on the reduction in comminution costs in mineral process-
ing (Daniel and Lewis-Gray, 2011). In a summary of comminution
needs for reduced energy use, Daniel and Lewis-Gray indicated that
pre-concentration, greater emphasis on crushing, improved grind-
ing technologies and mineral separations at coarser grind sizes
are required to achieve significant savings in overall comminution
costs. This section will examine potential savings to Mine and Mill
costs, with a special reference to coarse particle recovery. Other pa-
76 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80
pers in the literature analyse the impact of other areas where po-
tential improvements can be made, both economically and environ-
mentally (La Nauze and Temos, 2002; Norgate et al., 2007; Evans
et al., 2009; Norgate and Haque, 2010; Norgate and Jahanshahi,
2010; Norgate and Jahanshahi, 2011; Gunson et al., 2012).
Mine automation and tele-operation are two areas that may
bring about a step-change in the reduction of mining operating
costs (Fisher and Schnittger, 2012). The chief benefits of automation
include potential savings in energy and consumables (such as
explosives), labour savings, greater efficiency and improved main-
tenance with reduced downtime. The development of semi-auton-
omous drills, for example, has improved the ability to engineer rock
fragmentation whilst minimising the generation of waste material
and the need to redrill. In addition, a number of sites, including El
Teniente and Kurina have begun to implement driverless trucks,
which are claimed to reduce route efficiency and driver downtime.
Pre-concentration is a technique that has been employed in the
past to recover liberated minerals at coarser grind sizes. The most
notable techniques include gravity separation and flash flotation,
which are currently in use at a number of mills (e.g. Butcher
et al., 2011). The former is limited to minerals that are significantly
denser than the gangue material, such as gold, whereas the latter
relies on well liberated fast-floating material. A number of other
ore sorting techniques have recently been proposed to be imple-
mented in underground mines, including X-ray transmission, opti-
cal material recognition and the use of induction sensors (Murphy
et al., 2012). It has been estimated that effective ore sorting
techniques may improve mine efficiency by 20% (CSIRO, 2012).
The extent of savings obtained from these technologies in pre-
concentration remains an active area of research that may improve
the cost structure of both mine and mill.
Innovation in particle reduction technologies has been an
area of active research for some time, with new grinding tech-
nologies such as the IsaMill and high pressure grinding rolls
(HPGRs). HPGRs in particular show promise in improving the
efficiency of grinding at the head of the circuit, where the
greatest savings may be made. Daniel et al. (2010), for example,
showed that the replacement of a SAG mill with a HPGR in a
conventional SAG-Ball circuit may reduce grinding energy con-
sumption by 15–20%. Taking into account additional savings,
such as media and liner wear, the authors found that a grinding
cost saving of 25–35% was potentially achievable with the use
of HPGRs in such conventional circuits. Other studies have
found the applicability of HPGRs dependent on ore characteris-
tics (e.g. Amelunxen and Meadows, 2011). HPGR technology re-
mains a fertile area for achieving significantly reduced
comminution costs.
Savings to milling operations will ultimately be limited by the
particle size at which effective separations may occur. The recovery
of base metal sulphide minerals relies extensively on the use of flo-
tation as the key separation technique, which, until recently, has
been typically limited by P80 values of the range 100–200 lm.
The advantage of separating particles at such a large size is that
the costs of grinding energy and associated elements such as mill
linings and grinding media, are closely related to the final grind
size. Thus if it is possible to grind the ore to a coarse size, in the
range for example of 400–1000 lm, separate the particles contain-
ing valuable minerals, and then regrind only these particles to a fi-
nal size suitable for conventional flotation machines, there would
be very significant cost savings. From the results obtained in the
current survey, where the cost ratio of (Mining:Milling:G & A) is
(43:43:14), Table 2, a 20% saving in the cost of running the mill will
result in a 9% saving in the running costs of the whole enterprise.
Step changes in coarse particle separation technology have re-
cently been published. Both suggest that the upper limit of flota-
tion may be extended up to 1 mm. Jameson (2010) showed
results for the flotation of galena in a fluidized bed flotation col-
umn, demonstrating that it was possible to obtain high recoveries
at particle sizes of up to 1 mm approximately. The feed to this col-
umn, known as the NovaCell, is in the range 400–1000 lm top size.
Coarse particles settle in the base of the vessel, where they are flu-
idised by an upflow of aerated liquid. The flow in the vessel is slow,
which favours the formation of stable bubble-particle aggregates.
The NovaCell has a conventional froth layer, which assists in the
drainage of entrained particles back into the cell. More recently,
Awatey et al. (2013) have described experiments with the Hydro-
Float, an air-assisted teeter-bed separator. High recoveries have
been achieved with the separation of sphalerite particles up to
1 mm in diameter. In both studies, the valuable mineral was fully
liberated. The true test of these new coarse particle technologies
will be in the flotation of composites. Currently there exists no con-
clusive evidence that these technologies can achieve the same
recoveries with poorly liberated sulphide minerals up to 1 mm,
although recent research suggests that the effect of composites
on recovery in gentle environments may be less than previously
thought. There is good evidence to suggest that the poor perfor-
mance of conventional flotation machines with coarse particles
owes less to poor liberation and more to the effects of machine
hydrodynamics (Jameson, 2012). Thus, the effect of mineral
liberation on the effectiveness of new coarse particle flotation
technologies is a key area requiring attention.
It is likely that a combination of the aforementioned technolo-
gies across the mine and mill will be required to achieve significant
savings for a given operation. Of the technologies discussed, each
will be amenable to specific conditions of a given mine, and may
not necessarily extend to all potential operations. However, it has
been shown in this study that the average proportion of mine
and mill operating costs for a given operation do not differ signif-
icantly, so it can be expected that on average, savings to either the
mill or mine are likely to translate well to the overall economics of
a given mining operation.
5. Conclusion and recommendations
Analysis of published data has shown that overall relative
mine and mill costs on average are not significantly different
for hard rock mining operations in general, and constitute the
bulk of the overall mine cost. G & A costs were found to occupy
a much smaller proportion of the total mine cost compared with
the mine and mill. In general, the overall breakdown of costs was
estimated to be within the range of (43:43:14) and (45:45:10)
(Mine:Mill:G & A). Significant differences in relative Milling costs
were found to exist between underground and open pit mines,
and in Mining and G & A costs, between gold-only mines and
all mines containing copper. No significant differences were found
between relative costs on the basis of processing type or report
type. Despite diverging Mine and Mill costs at the beginning
and end of the mine life, these relative costs were found to be
constant throughout a large fraction of the life of the operation.
G & A costs remained constant throughout the life of the mine.
This study has provided a basic overview of the distribution of
operating costs across 63 mines. Although significant differences
were found to exist between mine type and ore type sub-samples,
further research is required to clarify these effects. Furthermore,
detailed simulations examining the potential savings in operating
costs are recommended to better clarify the benefits of the technol-
ogies discussed in this paper.
 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80 77

Appendix A. List of mines

Project Country Mine Mill G&A Mine type Process Ore type Report type
(%) (%) (%) type
Agbaou Ivory Coast 67.4 20.7 11.9 Open pit No Au Feasibility
flotation
Amulsar Armenia 64.1 31.1 4.8 Open pit No Au–Ag Feasibility
flotation
Aurizona Brazil 48.7 40.3 11.0 Open pit No Au Operating
flotation
Authier Canada 55.2 32.9 11.9 Open pit Flotation Li Preliminary
Bushranger Australia 13.2 75.9 10.9 Open pit Flotation Au–Ag–Cu Preliminary
Cadia Valley Australia 60.4 27.9 11.7 Both No Au Operating
flotation
Cañariaco Norte Peru 43.6 49.5 6.9 Open pit Flotation Au–Ag–Cu Preliminary
Cerro Casale Chile 35.3 39.0 25.7 Both Flotation Au–Cu Feasibility
Cerro Maricunga Chile 54.3 37.9 7.8 Open pit No Au Preliminary
flotation
CMD Chile 36.8 56.9 6.3 Open pit Flotation Au–Ag–Cu Operating
Copler Turkey 21.7 69.3 9.0 Open pit No Au–Ag–Cu–S Operating
flotation
Cordero Mexico 27.9 64.1 8.0 Open pit Flotation Au–Ag–Pb–Zn Preliminary
Cortez Chile 54.2 37.8 7.9 Open pit No Au Operating
flotation
Deer Horn Canada 53.0 37.6 9.3 Open pit Flotation Au–Ag–Te Preliminary
Del Toro Mexico 55.6 40.1 4.2 Underground Flotation Au–Ag–Pb–Zn Feasibility
Didipio Phillipines 47.7 37.3 15.0 Both Flotation Au–Cu Feasibility
Donlin Creek USA 45.4 49.3 5.2 Open pit Flotation Au Feasibility
Duncan Lake Canada 59.6 28.4 12.0 Open pit No Fe Preliminary
flotation
Eagle’s Nest Canada 38.9 37.4 23.7 Underground Flotation Au–Cu–Ni–Pt– Feasibility
Pd
El Morro Chile 36.1 46.6 17.3 Open pit Flotation Au–Cu Feasibility
Fosterville Australia 56.1 34.4 9.6 Both Flotation Au Operating
Goldstrike USA 55.1 39.8 5.1 Both No Au Operating
flotation
Gosowong Indonesia 49.7 19.2 31.1 Underground No Au–Ag Operating
flotation
Hasbrouck USA 31.6 60.1 8.3 Open pit No Au–Ag Feasibility
flotation
Hosco Canada 47.9 49.7 2.4 Open pit Flotation Au Feasibility
Hycroft USA 31.0 64.2 4.8 Open pit No Au–Ag Operating
flotation
Kamoa DR of Congo 68.5 21.0 10.5 Underground Flotation Cu Preliminary
Kansanshi Zambia 37.7 56.6 5.7 Open pit Flotation Cu Feasibility
Kemco Thailand 64.9 29.4 5.7 Underground Flotation Ag–Pb–Zn Preliminary
Kwanika Canada 43.1 51.3 5.6 Both Flotation Au–Ag–Cu–Mo Preliminary
La Encantada Mexico 41.9 17.9 40.2 Underground Flotation Ag–Pb–Zn Operating
La Parilla Mexico 36.3 45.2 18.5 Underground Flotation Au–Ag–Pb–Zn Operating
(Combined)
La Parilla (Oxide Mexico 26.6 68.9 4.5 Open pit No Au–Ag–Pb–Zn Operating
OP) flotation
Lac a Paul Canada 29.1 65.8 5.1 Open pit Flotation P Preliminary
Lagunas Norte Peru 54.2 32.1 13.7 Open pit No Au–Ag Operating
flotation
Lihir Papua New Guinea 40.5 30.8 28.7 Open pit Flotation Au Operating
Los Filos Mexico 58.7 23.1 18.2 Both No Au–Ag Operating
flotation
Los Santos Spain 10.6 71.1 18.3 Open pit Flotation W Operating
Lumwana Zambia 42.5 3.9 41.6 Open pit Flotation Cu Operating
Marcona Peru 23.8 10.5 6.7 Open pit Flotation Cu Feasibility
Miraflores Colombia 40.8 54.3 4.9 Both Flotation Au Preliminary

(continued on next page)

78 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80

(continued)

Project Country Mine Mill G&A Mine type Process Ore type Report type
(%) (%) (%) type
Mount Hope USA 43.0 47.5 9.5 Open pit Flotation Mo Feasibility
Osborne (OP) Australia 50.2 35.6 14.2 Open pit Flotation Au–Cu Operating
Osborne (UG) Australia 64.2 21.2 14.6 Underground Flotation Au–Cu Operating
Oyu Tolgoi Mongolia 36.4 48.2 15.4 Both Flotation Au–Ag–Cu Feasibility
Passendro Central African 44.3 43.7 12.0 Open pit No Au Feasibility
Republic flotation
Pirquitas Argentina 31.5 50.3 18.2 Open pit Flotation Ag–Sn–Zn Operating
Pueblo Viejo Dominican Republic 12.2 76.1 11.7 Open pit No Au–Ag–Cu Feasibility
flotation
Rainy River Canada 48.3 45.4 6.3 Both No Au–Ag Feasibility
flotation
Sabodala Senegal 40.2 48.2 11.6 Open pit No Au Operating
flotation
San Jorge Argentina 32.1 29.9 38.0 Open pit Flotation Au–Cu Feasibility
San Martin Mexico 30.2 52.3 17.5 Underground Flotation Ag–Pb–Zn Operating
Santa Rita Brazil 45.3 35.6 19.1 Open pit Flotation Ni Operating
Shymanivske Ukraine 47.3 50.1 2.6 Open pit Flotation Fe Feasibility
Springpole Canada 35.7 52.8 11.5 Open pit No Au–Ag Preliminary
flotation
Taca Taca Argentina 49.2 44.8 6.0 Open pit Flotation Au–Cu–Mo Preliminary
Tasiast Mauritania 29.3 50.6 20.1 Open pit No Au Operating
flotation
Telfer Australia 45.6 32.1 22.3 Both Flotation Au–Cu Operating
Tenke Fungurume DR of Congo 20.2 51.7 28.1 Open pit No Cu–Co Feasibility
flotation
Toroparu Guyana 42.3 51.0 6.7 Open pit Flotation Au–Cu Preliminary
Trinidad/Taunus Mexico 58.6 36.0 5.4 Open pit No Au Preliminary
flotation
Veladero Argentina 63.2 21.4 15.4 Open pit No Au–Ag Operating
flotation
Wafi–Golpu Papua New Guinea 41.1 35.1 23.8 Underground Flotation Au–Ag–Cu Preliminary
Wasamac Canada 63.6 25.4 11.0 Underground No Au Operating
flotation
Zaldivar Chile 26.6 62.8 10.6 Open pit Flotation Cu Operating

Appendix B. Studied mine reports
Addison, R., & Lopez, L. (Pincock Allen & Holt). (2009). Technical
Report for the La Encantada Silver Mine, Coahuila State, Mexico, NI
43-101.
Addison, R., & Lopez, L. (Pincock, Allen & Holt). (2011). Technical
Report for the La Parilla Silver Mine, Durango State, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Arseneau, G., Dance, A., Duncan, J., Elliott, C., Liskowich, M.,
Murphy, B., Mackie, D., Rykaart, M., & Pilotto, D. (SRK Consult-
ing). (2013). Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole
Gold Project, Ontario, Canada.
Axmin. (2012). Near-term Gold Production in the Central African
Republic – Additional exploration assets in Senegal and Mozambique.
Bascombe, L., Mach, L., Altman, K., Shoemaker, S., & Benbow, R.
(2012). Technical Report on the Copler Mineral Resource Update,
NI-43-101.
Belanger, M. (2012). Los Filos Gold Operation, Guerrero State,
Mexico, NI 43-101 Technical Report.
Bergen, R.D., Gareau, M.B., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Asso-
ciates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Cortez Joint Venture
Operations, Lander and Eureka Counties, State of Nevada, U.S.A.
Berry, M., & Moorhead, C. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada)
Ltd.). (2011). Technical Report on the Lihir Property in Papua
New Guinea.
Bilodeau, M., Buchanan, M., Buro, Y., Cauchon, C., Gagnon, D.,
Gaudreault, R., Houde, D., Ibrango, S., & Rivard, S. (2013). Preli-
minary Economic Assessment of the Duncan Lake Iron Property,
Quebec, Canada, NI-43-101.
Board, W., Kennedy, R., & Yeomans, T. (2011). Technical Report
on the Pirquitas Mine, Jujuy Province, Argentina, NI 43-101.
Borst, R., Moore, C., & Villeneuve, A. (Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Pueblo Viejo Project, Sanchez
Ramirez Province, Dominican Republic.
Burgess, H., Gowans, R., Jacobs, C., Murahwi, C., & Damjanovic, B.
(Mining Industry Consultants Ltd). (2012). Feasibility Study Eagle’s
Nest Project James Bay Lowlands Ontario, Canada, NI-43-101.
Chesher, M., Moorhead, C., & Cantrell, R. (AMC Mining Consul-
tants (Canada) Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Telfer Prop-
erty in Western Australia Australia.
Dorricott, M., Nice, R., & Moorhead, C. (AMC Mining Consultants
(Canada) Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Gosowong Property
in North Maluku Province Indonesia.
 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80
Dupere, M., Gagne, J., Gagnon, G., & Baril, F. (SGS Canada Inc.).
(2013). Preliminary Economic Assessment of Authier Lithium Prop-
erty, Quebec, Canada, NI-43-101.
Duplessis, C., Cassoff, J., Rivard, S., Bilodeau, M., Buchanan, M., &
Skiadas, N. (2013). Technical Report – Phosphate Resource Estima-
tion update 2013 of the Lac a Paul Property Deposit, NI
43-101.
Ebbels, A-M., Fairfield, P., Lewis, R., & Munro, P. (SRK Consult-
ing). (2012). Technical Report for Osborne Copper-Gold Project
located in northwest Queensland region of Australia, NI
43-101.
Elfen, S., Davis, B., & Scott, K. (Ausenco). (2013). Taca Taca cop-
per/gold molybdenum project: Preliminary economic assessment.
Evans, L., Ehasoo, G., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Lagunas Norte Mine, La Lib-
ertad Region, Peru.
Evans, L., Ehasoo, G., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Veladero Mine, San Juan
Province, Argentina.
Evans, L., & Lambert, R.J. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012).
Technical Report on the Zaldivar Mine, Region II, Chile.
Fisher, A., Moran, A., Spiller, D.; Evans, D., Yang, D., Garcia, D.,
Rodrigues, F., Daviess, F., Marrou, J., Mountjoy, K., Clarke, P., &
Chapel, T. (SRK Consulting). (2013). Prefeasibility Study of the
Toroparu Gold Project, Upper Puruni River Area, Guyana, NI 43-101.
Flint, D.C., Kunkel, K., Gorman, M.G., Moore, D.B., & Wilson, S.E.
(Allied Nevada Gold Corp. & Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc.).
(2012). Technical Report Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Hasbrouck
Property, Tonopah, Nevada, USA.
Flint, D.C., Gorman, M.G., Harris, D., Moore, D.B., Peterson, A.T.,
& Wilson, S.E. (Allied Nevada Gold Corp. & Scott E. Wilson Con-
sulting, Inc.). (2012). Technical Report Allied Nevada Gold Corp.
Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA.
Gauthier, J., Galarneau, Y., Lavigne, M., Adam, D., Lance, S., &
Hardie, C. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical
Report on the Wasamac Project, Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, Canada.
Grandillo, A., Live, P., Thomassin, Y., & Dupere, M. (BBA). (2012).
Feasibility study of the Hosco deposit – Joanna Gold Project NI 43-
101.
Gray, J., & Robillard, H. (Moose Mountain Technical Services).
(2013). Technical Report for the Kwanika Property, Preliminary
Economic Assessment, NI 43-101.
Greig, D.D., Board, W., Oliver, R., Johnston, A., Schlitt, J., David,
D., Yang, D.Y., Kerr, T.F., Grbovic, B., & Sanford, A. (GRD Min-
proc). (2009). Marcona Copper Property Mina Justa Project Defin-
itive Feasibility Study Technical Report NI 43-101.
Greig, D., de Brito Mello, R., Miranda, D., Vargas G., & Fuentas, J.
(GRD Minproc). (2009). San Jorge Copper Concentrator Project
Preliminary Assessment Technical Report.
Greig, D.D., & Manfrino, A. (GRD Minproc). (2003). The Kansanshi
Copper Project Northwestern Province Zambia.
Guzman, C., Magri, E., & Wells, J. (2013). Preliminary Economic
Assessment for the Cerro Maricunga Oxide Gold Project, III Region,
Chile, NI-43-101.
Hanson, K., Seibel, G., Allard, S., Wortman, G., & Kozak, A. (AMEC
Inc). (2009). Nova Gold Resources Inc. Donlin Creek Gold Project,
Alaska, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report.
Hardie, C., Runnels, D., Live, P., Daniel, S., Ritchie, D., Coulson, A.,
Cole, G., El-Rassi, D., & Tolfree, D. (BBA). (2013). Feasibility study
of the Rainy River gold project, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101.
Henderson, R.D. (Kinross Gold Corporation). (2008). Cerro Casale
Project Northern Chile NI 43-101 Technical Report.
Huss, C., Snider, J., Marek, J., Parshley, J., & Drielick, T. (2008).
Mount Hope Project – Molybdenum Mine and Process Plant Feasi-
bility Study, NI 43-101.
79
Inwood, N., Smith, R., & Guzman, C. (Coffey Mining Pty Ltd).
(2011). Santa Rita Project, Brazil Technical Report.
Keller, G., Patrick, G., Welhener, H., Kiel, R., Lemke, P., Eyre, J., &
Keane, J. (AMC Consultants Ltd). (2013). Amulsar Gold Project,
Armenia: Technical Report Mineral Resource Update and Reserve
Estimate Update, NI 43-101.
Lambert, R., Gow, N., Hampton, A., & Gochnour, L. (Roscoe Postle
Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the El Morro Project,
Region III, Chile, NI 43-101.
Lane, R., Giroux, G., & Meintjes, T. (2013). Preliminary Economic
Assessment for the Deer Horn Gold-Silver-Tellurium Property, NI
43-101.
Llorca, J., & Schunke, N. (Mining Plus Pty Ltd). (2012). Fosterville
Technical Report, Victoria, Australia, NI 43-101.
Lopez, L. (Pincock Allen & Holt). (2012). Technical Report for the
Del Toro Silver Mine, Zacatecas State, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Lopez, L. (Rune Pincock Minarco). (2013). Technical Report for
the San Martin Silver Mine, State of Jalisco, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Lowe, A., Leach, T., & Serra, B. (SRK Consulting Inc.). (2012). Pre-
liminary economic assessment of Miraflores property, Quinchia dis-
trict, Colombia, NI 43-101.
Mah, P., Reyes, A., Lindeman, D., Mach, L., & Haggan, T. (2013).
Technical Report: Aurizona resource and reserve update – Brazil,
NI 43-101.
Moore, C.M., Bergen, R.D., Valliant, W.W., Collins, S.E., & Altman,
K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on
the Goldstrike Mine, Eureka and Elko Counties, State of Nevada,
U.S.A.
Moore, C.M., Danio, J.R., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associ-
ates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Lumwana Mine, North
Western Province, Republic of Zambia.
Moorhead, C., & Cantrell, R. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada)
Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Wafi-Golpu Property in
Morobe Province Papua New Guinea.
Nilsson, J., Simpson, R.G., & McKenzie, W. (2011). Technical
Report Expansion Feasibility Study for the Tenke Fungurume Mine,
Katanga Province, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Parker, H., Seibel, G., David, D., Peters, B., Jakubec, J., & Lawson,
M. (SRK Consulting/ AMC Consultants Pty Ltd). (2013). Kamoa
Copper Project – Technical Report on Updated Mineral Resource
Estimate, NI 43-101.
Parker, R., Brady, B., Hayden, A., & Watts, G. (A.C.A. Howe Inter-
national Ltd). (2013). Technical Report and Preliminary Economic
Assessment of the Kemco Project, Thailand.
Peters, B., Jackson, S., Chance, A., Jakubec, J., & David, D. (AMC
Consultants Pty Ltd). (2012). Oyu Tolgoi Project IDOP Technical
Report.
Peters, B., Sylvester, S., Bridges, M., & Riles, A. (AMC Consultants
Pty Ltd). (2013). 2013 Oyu Tolgoi Project Technical Report Tur-
quoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Redden, R., & Moore, J. (2011). Technical Report for the Didipio
Project, Luzon, Phillipines, NI 43-101.
Sedore, M., & Masterman, G. (Kinross Gold Corporation). (2012).
Tasiast Mine Mauritania 43-101F1 Technical Report.
Senior, N., Bundo, P., & Swart, H. (2011). Passendro Gold Project
Bankable Feasibility Study Optimisation and Update Summary
Report.
Spiering, R., Gorjian, M., Ehsani, R., Burris, P., Puritch, E., Risto, R.,
& Kociumbas, M. (Worley Parsons). (2012). Feasibility Study of
the Shymanivske Iron Ore Deposit, NI 43-101.
Stephenson, P.R., Shannon, J.M., O’Connor, B., Riles, A., & Ebrah-
imi, A. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd). (2010). Sabodala
Gold Project Senegal, West Africa Technical Report.
Stewart, R., & Fazzini, J. (Dundee Securities Ltd). (2012). Lachlan
Star Limited – A Season for CMD.
80 J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 70–80
Swanson, B., Johnson, M., Olin, E., Nowak, M., & Willow, M. (SRK
Consulting). (2012). Preliminary Economic Assessment of Trini-
dad/Taunus Project, Sinaloa, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Thomas, D., Melnyk, J., Lipiec, T., & Kozak, A. (Amec). (2011).
Cañariaco Project Technical Report on Pre-Feasibility Progress
Report, NI 43-101.
Thomas, M., & Moorhead, C. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada)
Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Cadia Valley Operations
Property in New South Wales Australia.
Wanless, M., Theart, H., Sturgeon, M., Senior, N., Grant-Stuart,
D., & Rowland, A. (SRK Consulting). (2012). Agbaou Gold Mine
Technical Report, NI 43-101.
Welhener, H. (Independent Mining Consultants Inc.). (2012).
Cordero Project June 2012 Mineral Resource Update, Chihuaha,
Mexico.
Wheeler, A. (2012). Technical Report on the Mineral Resources
and Reserves of the Los Santos Mine Project, Spain, NI 43-101.
References
Amelunxen, P., Meadows, D., 2011. Not another HPGR trade-off study! Minerals and
Metallurgical Processing 28 (1), 1–7.
Awatey, B., Thanasekaran, H., Kohmuench, J., Skinner, W., Zanin, M., 2013.
Optimization of operating parameters for coarse sphalerite flotation in the
HydroFloat fluidised-bed separator. Minerals Engineering 50–51, 99–105.
Ballantyne, G.R., Powell, M.S., Tiang, M. (2012). Proportion of energy attributable to
comminution. In: Proceedings of 11th Mill Operators’ Conference 2012, Hobart,
October 2012, pp. 25–30.
Butcher, A., Cunningham, R., Edwards, K., Lye, A., Simmons, J., Stegman, C., Wyllie,
A., 2011. Northparkes Mines. AMMOP.
Costa Lima, G.A., Suslick, S.B., 2006. Estimating the volatility of mining projects
considering price and operating cost uncertainties. Resources Policy 31 (2), 86–
94.
Crowson, P., 2003. Mine size and the structure of costs. Resources Policy 29 (1–2),
15–36.
Crowson, P., 2012. Some observations on copper yields and ore grades. Resources
Policy 37 (1), 59–72.
CSIRO, 2012. Ore sorting: sound technology making waves. <http://www.csiro.au/
Portals/Publications/Magazines/resourceful/Issue-2/2-sound-technology.aspx>.
(Wednesday, 28th August, 2013).
Daniel, M., Lewis-Gray, E., 2011. Comminution efficiency attracts attention. The
AusIMM Bulletin, October, 20–30.
Daniel, M., Lane, G., McLean, E. (2010). Efficiency, economics, energy and emissions
– emerging criteria for comminution circuit decision making. In: International
Mineral Processing Congress, 6–10 September, 3523–3531.
Evans, C.L., Coulter, B.L., Wightman, E., & Burrows, A.S. (2009). Improving energy
efficiency across mineral processing and smelting operations – a new approach.
In: Proceedings of SDIMI Conference, Gold Coast, July 2009, pp. 9–13.
Fisher, B., Schnittger, S. (2012). Autonomous and remote operation technologies in
the mining industries: Benefits and costs. BAE, Report 12.1: Canberra.
Gunson, A.J., Klein, B., Veiga, M., Dunbar, S., 2012. Reducing mine water
requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production 21 (1), 71–82.
Jameson, G.J., 2010. New directions in flotation machine design. Minerals
Engineering 23 (11–13), 835–841.
Jameson, G.G., 2012. The effect of surface liberation and particle size on flotation
rate constants. Minerals Engineering 36–38, 132–137.
La Nauze, R.D., & Temos, J., 2002. Technologies for Sustainable Operations. In: CMMI
Congress, Cairns, May 2002, pp. 27–33.
Murphy, B., van Zyl, J., Domingo, G. (2012). Underground preconcentration by ore
sorting and coarse gravity separation. In: Narrow Vein Mining Conference, 26–
27 March.
Norgate, T., Haque, N., 2010. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and
mineral processing operations. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (3), 266–274.
Norgate, T., Jahanshahi, S., 2010. Improving the sustainability of primary metal
production – the need for a life cycle approach. In: Proceedings of XXV
International Mineral Processing Conference (IMPC) 2010, Brisbane, September
2010, pp. 3575–3584.
Norgate, T., Jahanshahi, S., 2011. Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary
metal production: where should the focus be? Minerals Engineering 24 (14),
1563–1570.
Norgate, T.E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W.J., 2007. Assessing the environmental impact
of metal production processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (8–9), 838–848.