Super Caves – Benefits,

Considerations and Risks
C deWolfe1 and I Ross2

ABSTRACT
Block caving has been the favoured mining method for large underground hard rock mines for the
last few decades. The orebody must be of a size large enough to cave and generally amenable to a
caving method. Typically, these mines ranged from 15 000 to 50 000 tonnes per day (50 kt/d) and
have been some of the largest and most productive underground mines in the world.
Now mining companies, in the quest for improved shareholder return, are looking for higher
production rates from new underground mines. Whether a ‘Greenfields’ development, or a
replacement for ageing large open pit mines, minimising capital and maximising production has
been a focus of project teams. These new block cave mines are what have become known as ‘super
caves’. These caves range from 80 kt/d to over 150 kt/d and are being planned or constructed by
several major mining companies including Codelco, Freeport-McMoRan, Newcrest and Rio Tinto.
Issues facing these super caves include high initial capital costs, very long development periods
and significant technical challenges. These issues tend to make it difficult to present an attractive
business case for such a project.
This paper will discuss some of the potential benefits as well as the technical challenges and
risks of operating a mine with the block or panel caving method at these very high tonnage rates.
Considerations including geotechnical conditions, development rates, panel widths and ore
column heights are discussed. The risks associated with these technical challenges and potential
benefits for successful approaches will also be discussed.

INTRODUCTION
Block caving and panel caving are mining methods that are
used in massive orebodies that have a large enough footprint
to allow the initiation of caving and a sufficient vertical
component to sustain production operations. The methods
are not new as the first recorded examples are from around
1907 (Peele, 1918). These have been some of the largest and
most productive underground mines in the world with
production tonnage rates ranging from 10 kt/d to 50 kt/d.
However, in the 21st century, many mines are considering
even larger underground operations, in the quest to improve
shareholder value. For example, Wellman et al (2012) noted
that the Grasberg Block Cave was conceptually planned at
50 kt/d, and by 2003 was studied in prefeasibility at 110 kt/d.
At the end of the Feasibility analysis this had increased to
160 kt/d.
Brown (2007) classifies ‘super caves’ as those cave mines
producing more than 25 Mt per annum and this equates to
around 70 kt/d. Several major mining companies such as
Codelco, Freeport-McMoRan, Newcrest and Rio Tinto are
studying, planning or building super caves with tonnage
rates from 80 kt/d to over 160 kt/d. These caves are also
planning to extract ore column heights from 300 m to as much
as 1000  m from a single production level. Codelco is planning
super caves at El Teniente and Chuquicamata (Chile);
Freeport-McMoRan is planning two caves at the Grasberg
complex (Indonesia) and Rio Tinto also is planning two, at
Resolution (Arizona, USA) and Oyu Tolgoi (Mongolia).
Newcrest has recently developed a super cave at Cadia East
(Australia). Freeport has been operating the Deep Ore Zone
(DOZ) mine since 2000 and in 2010 the annual production rate
reached 80 kt/d.
Given the long lead times on establishing a block cave,
and the large capital costs involved, it may appear counter-
intuitive that the fundamental reason for considering super
caves is to improve value. Casten, Acton and Johnson (2012)
indicate that the estimated capital cost for the Grasberg Block
Cave (GBC) is US$3.7 billion and has a 12 year lead time from
commencement of initial access development through to the
production of the first tonne of caved ore. This mine is planned
to ultimately produce 160 kt/d. Other mines mentioned in
the same paper, Deep Mill Level Zone (DMLZ) and Kucing
Liar (KL), each have approximate costs of US$2.0 billion and
will produce up to 80 kt/d and 100 kt/d respectively. These
are all ‘brownfields’ projects as the treatment facility and
infrastructure already exist – the mine site in Indonesia has
been operating since 1973.
BENEFITS
In order for these projects to be financially attractive, it is
important to achieve high rates of development advance, in
order to reduce lead time, and strive for correspondingly high

1. Mining Consultant, Golden CO, USA. Email: cdewolfe1@msn.com

2. MAusIMM, General Manager – Underground Mine Design and Operation, Rio Tinto, Brisbane Qld 4000. Email: iain.ross@riotinto.com

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 51
C deWolfe and I Ross

caving ramp-up rates to maximise early return as these will

ensure maximum value.
It is generally accepted that block/panel caving mining
has the lowest operating cost for any underground mining
method and it is only natural to seek to extend those operating
cost benefits in an effort to gain further economies of scale.
On that point, it is interesting to note the parallels with the
changes in scale of open cut mining over the last 70 years or
so (Brown, 2007, pp 1–4), see Figure 1.
In order to consider mines with capacities of 70 kt/d or
greater, the orebody must be large. This invariably means
that the active footprint will be large and the panel will be
long, or alternatively will necessitate multiple active blocks.
Thus there will be a requirement to move significant tonnage
underground over a relatively large distance. Bulk haulage
systems such as rail generally offer low operating costs
although do have significant upfront investment. One such
example of this is the rail haulage planned for the GBC
(Brannon et al, 2012) which will have over 20 km of standard
gauge track and move 160 kt/d under automated control
(see Figure 2). The automated control system offers efficiency FIG 2 – Rail haulage layout at Grasberg Block Cave (after Brannon et al, 2012).
advantages which should further improve the operating
cost position when compared with conventional manual lowers the capital cost per tonne and combines the benefit of
rail operations. low operating cost. It follows that increased tonnages provide
Once run-of-mine cave ore has been gathered, it is then increased revenue, and that all combines into providing an
crushed in preparation for being removed from the mine attractive business case.
through either a shaft or inclined conveyor system. These As mines such as Newcrest’s Cadia East and Freeport’s GBC
parts of the ground handling flow sheet are where engineers and DMLZ mines have publicly declared Reserves (as per
also attempt to benefit from economies of scale. In an JORC code), they are founded on positive economic analyses
underground crusher installation, the bulk of the costs are for and these operations form a large part of their respective
the large excavation that houses the crusher rather than the organisation’s future for the next decade or two. Rio Tinto’s
direct cost of the crusher itself. By way of example, the crusher Oyu Tolgoi (OT) mine has also declared a JORC compliant
chamber described by Ross (2004) at Northparkes (Lift 2) was reserve for the first lift of the Hugo North underground deposit.
approximately 10 000 m3 and this housed a crusher sized for
an 18 kt/d operation. The installation of DMLZ’s first crusher
required almost 15 000 m3 (Hernandez, Kusumohastuti and CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUPER CAVES
Agustian, 2014) and is sized for 40 kt/d. Similarly, for an
inclined conveyor system, the major cost is the excavation Geology
of the decline rather than the cost of the conveyor itself. It Irrespective of potential benefits from large-scale cave mining,
stands to reason that the 1.8 m wide conveyor belt (72 inch) the underlying fundamental issue for consideration is the
for the DMLZ’s 80 kt/d does not require a significantly geology, and geometry, of the mineralised area of interest.
larger excavation (7 m wide in cross-section) that the As a general comment, most of the known large orebodies
1 m wide conveyor belt at Northparkes Lift 2 (for 18 kt/d) that have mineralisation within a few hundred metres
did (6 m  wide). It is items such as the examples above that of surface (or outcrop on surface) have been or are in the
drive engineers to plan as high a tonnage as possible through process of being mined by open pit methods. At some point,
‘normal’ sized infrastructure and excavations. This effectively it will become more attractive to mine these large orebodies

FIG 1 – Evolution of production rates (in tonnes per day).

52 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016

from underground using a caving mining method. The
specific issues of orebody geometry, as well as factors such as
geography, climate and proximity to infrastructure, will affect
the transition point from open pit to underground (Ross, 2014).
As stated above, orebodies must have both sufficiently large
footprints to allow sufficient numbers of drawpoints as well
as sufficient vertical height in order to sustain high production
rates. The various super caves have differing approaches,
with Chuquicamata planning relatively short columns of
216 m (Aguayo, Uribe and Pedrero, 2012), through 390 m at
OT (Sinuhaji, Newman and O’Connor, 2012) to over 800 m at
Cadia (Dunstan et al, 2012). The norm appears to be around
the 500 m mark at GBC, DMLZ and Resolution (Pascoe, Oddie
and Edgar, 2008).
Design issues
Access – shafts or declines
The orebodies for the currently planned super caves are very
large and are either very deep, or have unfavourable terrain for
easy access. As a result, they require numerous shafts, adits or
declines to provide access, ventilation and material handling
paths (both logistics for men and materials as well as ground
handling facilities) for the mine. Much of this mining and
construction must be done prior to first production resulting
in preproduction development periods of anywhere from ten
to 14 years (if no additional delays are encountered). This is
far from ideal from a financial analysis viewpoint; however,
it is a real constraint. There is a limit to what advance can
be achieved through a single access point (shaft or decline)
and each access point represents a major investment. There is
still significant debate about the limitations of decline access
compared with shaft access for deep mines.
The old rule of thumb of 500 m being the depth at which
shafts surpass the decline access appears to be redundant.
This is probably due to the changes in inclined haulage
technology, whether it be trucks or conveyors. Both have
improved in terms of power and efficiency, allowing steeper
declines to be designed. This in turn reduces the distance to be
developed (to reach the same depth). In the context of super
FIG 3 – Cadia East (after Dunstan et al, 2012).
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Super Caves – Benefits, Considerations and Risks
caves, given that most of them are at depth, the basic decision
that must be made is whether to hoist ore in a vertical shaft or
convey through a decline.
The current trend is to opt for conveyor systems through
declines. Cadia East, for example, has selected a conveyor
system, even though the Lift 2 extraction level (PC2 S2)
is almost 1500 m below surface (Dunstan et al, 2012) (see
Figure 3). This may seem ‘unconventional’ to convey from this
depth, but the issues associated with hoisting over 70 kt/d
are even more daunting. The depth and payload limitations
imposed by current hoist rope technology mean that multiple
winders need to be installed in a shaft and also multiple shafts
are required to allow the levels of production required from
those depths. Hoisting requires buffering capacity between
flights, which necessitates the excavation of storage bins,
as it is essentially a batch system (Spreadborough, 2015).
Buffering also requires additional feeders and mechanical
infrastructure, which add to cost and potentially reduce
availability, by requiring regular planned maintenance of
wearing parts. Conveying appears to be more cost efficient
irrespective of depth when compared directly with hoisting.
Issues of ventilation, geotechnical risk during excavation
and travel times may be the ultimate factors that determine
whether shafts or inclined conveyor systems are employed.
Further improvements in conveyor technology, have the
potential to reduce the number of flights (and transfer points)
required for a given depth.
In short, hoisting appears to have been overtaken by
improvements in conveyor technology. This could be the key
enabler for increased capacity for super caves.
Extraction level layout
When designing the layout of the extraction level of a super
cave, consideration should be given to the geology/geometry
of the orebody. Two basic approaches that are used are either
long, moving panels or discrete blocks.
Panel
A panel cave has the advantage of concentrating mining activity
and only requires a single undercut face to be advanced. This
53
C deWolfe and I Ross
has been the approach planned at Resolution (Pascoe, Oddie
and Edgar, 2008). However, depending on the width of the
panel, column heights and the planned output (discussed in
the ‘Technical Issues’ section), the panel may need to advance
in both directions to provide sufficient capacity, as indicated
at OT (Sinuhaji, Newman and O’Connor, 2012) (see Figure 4).
This was also the approach originally planned at GBC until
2008 but this was subsequently changed and analysed in
2011 (Wellman et al, 2012). The combination of advance rate,
draw bell construction rate and cave width all indicated that
multiple blocks would provide a more appropriate solution.
The main disadvantage with a large panel cave is that there are
no alternatives should problems be encountered. The undercut
face needs to keep moving, and draw bells constructed. Also
the open drawpoints need to be pulled regularly in accordance
with sound cave management principles.
Blocks
Codelco have been a leading exponent of the use of multiple
blocks (or mines) combining into high production operations
(or Divisions) at El Teniente (Araneda and Sougarret, 2008).
This approach has been used for many years and appears to
be continued in the future plans for Chuquicamata (Aguayo,
Uribe and Pedrero, 2012).
This approach means that there is inherently more flexibility
as each individual block (or mine) can be designed, constructed,
A between the blocks. There remains much debate about how
B Resolution, the virgin rock temperature around the planned
FIG 4 – (A) Planned panels at Resolution, (B) planned panels at Oyu Tolgoi.
54 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
operated and managed independently. However, there are
limits to the ‘independence’ of the blocks as there will be a
degree of interaction, based on the separation distance. Where
the ‘macro block’ approach is considered, sequencing and
stress considerations will be critical to success. Additionally,
the need for common infrastructure to support the blocks is
key to keeping costs down and improving efficiency.
The use of separate blocks as opposed to continuous panels
has advantages. Each block can be positioned such that any
higher grade zones can be exploited which will improve
project finances, whereas with a panel, the sequence and
direction will be fixed.
The blocks can even be on different levels and this can take
advantage of grade variance or trends with depth. The use of
multiple elevations will undoubtedly complicate sequencing,
but it may provide a significant value lever.
The most significant advantage is that with multiple blocks,
there is an opportunity to ramp up production in phases.
If sufficient consideration is given to common infrastructure,
items such as ventilation shafts and fans, additional crushers
and even modules in the processing/recovery plants can be
phased to suit. This has the advantage of phasing the capital,
which may make an investment decision easier. There is
also an opportunity to learn from the first block and ensure
that improvements are made or challenges overcome before
subsequent blocks and increases in production are planned.
The disadvantage of the block approach is the tonnage in
to treat the interface between blocks. It is likely that in most
cases, there will be mineralised material that will be ‘lost’
between the boundaries and there are more boundaries with
blocks than panels.
Drawpoint layout
The two main layouts in general use are the offset herringbone
or straight-through (or El Teniente) style drawpoints. The
selection remains a topic of debate but the general consensus
appears to be that for super cave panels, the straight-through
layout offers more advantages during construction:
•• footprint is readily expandable
•• easier construction access
•• easier to develop.
However, Resolution is planning an offset herringbone
layout. A key reason for this is the planned use of electric
load-haul-dump units (LHDs) for heat considerations. At
extraction level horizon is approximately 80°C. It is thought
that the use of electric LHDs will require less cooling to be
applied to meet their nominal reject temperatures. The design
team also believes that electric LHDs will not be as productive
in a straight-through (El Teniente) style drawpoint layout due
to the number of moves that would be required.
Fundamentally, there is no real difference in the development
metres for either layout style and any differences in relative
construction efficiency would be almost negligible in the
contribution to upfront capital cost.
Underground haulage
In either a panel cave, where the mining front may move
hundreds of metres, or in a multiple block scenario on the
same footprint, there will be a requirement to gather the ore
and get it out of the mine. The three main options for the
haulage systems are trucks, rail haulage or conveyor.

Trucks
The use of trucks, specifically designed for underground
operation, probably provides the most flexible option for
haulage. They provide a tried and proven approach to
material movement in an underground environment. The
truck fleet may be expanded gradually to meet the planned
tonnage ramp-up and also readily accommodate a phased
or staged approach. The haulage routes may be extended as
required. Trucks only need to be purchased in time for when
they are required and capital purchases can be deferred.
Of the three options discussed in this section, diesel trucks
require the most ventilation, in order to meet the variously
regulated emissions levels. This will impact on the total
ventilation infrastructure required and the associated cost of
additional ventilation should not be ignored. One possible
alternative is the use of electric (or hybrid) trucks although
this is not part of most suppliers ‘offerings’. Given that some
of the super caves are likely to be operating for many decades,
more thought should be given to future technologies, even if
not fully developed, in order to build in the ability to adapt to
those new opportunities. Even though the ability to automate
the trucking function has been possible for over a decade, as
demonstrated at Finsch mine in South Africa (Burger and
Cook, 2008), few mines plan to utilise this technology option.
Rail
Rail transport has traditionally been considered to have the
lowest operating cost per tonne/kilometre of any transport
method. Rail has been used extensively in underground mines
in the past but does not appear to be an automatic choice for
the planned super caves. Rail has a relatively high, upfront
capital cost and this is probably the most relevant reason for
the lack of uptake.
Some mines had considered using rail systems and have
more recently changed to either trucks or road-trains (DMLZ
and OT). Rail operations are easier to automate than a truck
fleet although still present some challenges (Brannon et al,
2016).
Conveyor
Conveyor systems are relatively inflexible (not unlike rail)
although the real advantage is that once the ore is on the
conveyor system, it can be removed from the mine. Rail and
truck haulages only present a ‘gathering’ capability that must
then be used to feed either a shaft arrangement or a crusher/
inclined conveyor system. Since ore generally requires
crushing prior to being loaded onto a conveyor, it means
that crushers (or mineral sizers) must be located at a point
close enough to the production areas that LHDs can operate
efficiently. If the geometry of the orebody and panel or blocks
permit, this can be a cost-effective option as at Cadia East.
Capacity
In the authors’ experience from examining multiple caving
studies at various levels, an approximate correlation of
1 km of preproduction development is required for each
kilotonne of production capacity per day. This implies that
a 90 kt/d panel cave will require approximately 90 km of
preproduction development. Naturally, there will be factors
that will vary and influence the actual design. There is a
fundamental requirement for sufficient ventilation, access for
men and materials, workshops and haulage infrastructure.
This is combined with the development of drives covering
sufficient area of extraction level and undercut level necessary
to support the operation. When aggregated, the linear metres
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Super Caves – Benefits, Considerations and Risks
of development required is approximately proportional to the
expected output. Bigger mines need more air, larger footprints
and more ground handling infrastructure.
In addition to the development indicated above, the
associated infrastructure and machinery for material
handling systems, ventilation systems, dewatering systems,
people moving systems etc are all large. These often have
long lead times on manufacture and delivery, and are time-
consuming to install. Much of this needs to be in place prior to
commencement of production. This adds to the upfront capital
cost. As mentioned above, the preproduction capital costs for
these super caves can easily exceed two billion US dollars
or more. This does not include major cost items such as ore
concentrators, surface haulage systems or power generation
facilities (it is not usual for an existing power supply network
to have sufficient capacity to absorb the demand of an
underground super cave and associated treatment facilities).
Technical issues with super caves
Slow cave advance rates have historically been problematic in
all types of caving. The prolonged abutment stresses associated
with a slow moving cave front (or undercut) frequently cause
stress or weight problems on both the extraction and undercut
levels. To combat this, large orebodies are broken into either
panels or blocks to minimise the width of the cave front. This
will allow an acceptable cave advance rate with a given draw
bell development rate to be maintained.
Ovalle and Pesce (2004) conclude that the maximum
production capacity of a cave depends only on the column
height and the undercutting rate. With super caves it is critical
to design panels that allow an acceptable rate of cave advance.
This takes careful consideration in order to achieve a balance
between the cave front width, the varying column heights
and draw bell development rate. The high production rates
planned for super cave panels require high draw columns,
or else the required draw bell construction rate increases to
unachievable levels.
Ore column heights
In a continuous super cave panel, the tonnage above all the
draw bells developed in a month must equal the production
rate for the month. Otherwise the cave will soon become too
large (excessive number of drawpoints that must be pulled)
or too small (insufficient drawpoints to maintain production).
However, draw bell development rates are of more than five
or six per month are difficult to maintain, particularly when
confined to the area of the stress shadow in an advanced
undercut arrangement. If the tonnage in the draw columns
above those draw bells must equal the production tonnage for
the month, the need for high columns is obvious.
Low column heights with a high production rate require
too many draw bells per month. At the same time, a low
production rate with high columns requires too few draw
bells per month resulting in a slow moving cave.
Figure 5 illustrates a typical bell with 18 m drawpoint
spacing, 30 m drift spacing and a high column height of
450 m. Assuming a 2.8 t/m3 specific gravity and ten per cent
dilution, this bell will supply 748 000 t to the cave.
Similarly, with 300 m column heights, each drawpoint
would have about 500 000 t in the column above it. Table 1
shows the bell development per month for various daily
production rates for bells with 450 m and 300 m column
heights. Note – 30 days per month has been used in the
calculation of the table.
55
C deWolfe and I Ross

Constructing more than five bells per month in a panel can

be very difficult. Issues that can impede progress include:
•• unfavourable ground conditions
•• excess water
•• congestion in the construction area (especially with an
advanced undercut)
•• poor blasting practices in the undercut resulting in
remnant pillars.
Many mines underestimate the issues around logistics.
The problems in getting supplies of concrete and shotcrete
from a batching plant to the drawpoints under construction
at the right time and quantity should not be underestimated.
Also, other disruptive incidents such as strikes, major ground
collapse or accidents can limit the ability to shoot the targeted
FIG 5 – Tonnes within a draw column. number of bells each month.
If the draw bell development rate necessary to support the
TABLE 1 production rate, and cave advance rate, cannot be maintained,
Draw bell development required for various production targets will suffer. The undercut face advance
production rates and column heights. rate will either reduce to match the achieved draw bell
construction rate or it will advance well ahead of the draw
Production Draw bells per month Draw bells per month bells, creating a veranda ahead of the active caving zone.
rate (kt/d) (450 m column height) (300 m column height) Both of these situations can lead to significant problems. Slow
80 3.2 4.8 moving faces can lead to weight problems which can produce
a snowball effect with catastrophic effects on the integrity of
100 4.0 6.0 the extraction level. Should the undercut face lead the active
120 4.8 7.2 cave area by a significant distance, this can lead to issues with
150 6.0 9.0 re-compaction ahead of the draw bells or even seismicity if
the stress suddenly redistributes.
Panels also pose a risk of excessive dilution or stresses at
Draw bell development and cave advance rate panel interfaces. This is a problem that must be dealt with
An acceptable cave advance rate is critical to avoid weight creative draw control methods as well as planning for ore loss
due to higher than normal dilution in these areas. Additional
damage and loss of undercut rings and drawpoints in any
ground support must also be engineered for excavations
cave. Geotechnical engineers typically recommend a cave
around these panel interfaces.
advance rate in the order of 10 m per month, depending on
anticipated stress levels and ground conditions. Panel widths While these are real problems, ore losses can be replaced,
govern the number of drifts in which bell development and if planned for, in these very large orebodies. Without panels,
undercutting are taking place. These panels must be set at the potential problems from long cave fronts resulting in slow
widths that allow an acceptable cave advance rate with the moving cave advance rates are much worse and can often result
number of bells that are blasted each month. in losses of large areas of the mine. The Esmeralda sector at El
Teniente, for example, experienced major problems resulting
Table 2 below shows the cave advance rates for panels of from long cave fronts (Araneda and Sougarret, 2008).
various sizes with the bells blasted per month. Note – draw
bell area is based on 30 m extraction drive (drift) spacing and
RISKS
18 m drawpoint spacing, and 30 days in a month.
With high column heights of 450 m, panel widths are Studies
best kept no wider than ten drifts or 300 m. If the column Struthers (2004) notes some of the technical challenges of
heights are lowered more bells are required and a wider feasibility studies as applied to caving projects. He also
panel can be used, although this may have implications for highlights some risk areas which can impact on the success
undercut management. of a project. While this is a decade old, most of what was
highlighted remains true today. In fact, given the long lead
TABLE 2 times, and the scale of the planned projects, the risks to the
Cave advance rates with various panel widths and bell development rates. shareholder’s value are significant and need to be recognised.
The development time is so long, that it is common to see
Draw bells Cave advance Cave advance Cave advance delays resulting in large cost overruns. These delays can be
per month rate (m/month) rate (m/month) rate (m/month) caused by optimistic schedules, poor contractor performance,
8 drift wide 10 drift wide 12 drift wide unforeseen technical issues or changes in the political or
panel panel panel economic climate. These mining projects are rarely completed
on time and within budget.
3.2 7.2 5.8 4.8
In an effort to make projects attractive, there is a risk that
4.0 9.0 7.2 6.0
the study team produces development and construction
4.8 10.8 8.6 7.2 schedules that are too optimistic. Such schedules, combined
6.0 13.5 10.8 9.0 with any technical issues encountered, introduce a high risk
of failure to achieve production ramp-up targets and hence
7.2 16.2 13.0 10.8
anticipated return on investment.

56 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016

There is also a concern that in some studies there appears to
be a tendency to work backwards to determine the required
cave capacity that will satisfy the required financial metrics.
Study managers are cautioned that it is the geology and
geometry of the orebody that will ultimately dictate the limits
of operations and not the Excel spreadsheet. The fundamental
approach should be to design along logical, demonstrated
principles and then determine what realistic capacity results
from those designs. It should also be remembered that when
looking at key value levers, higher grades early in a project
can negate the need for overly ambitious tonnage targets.
Another key issue with financial models is that with these
large-scale long-life projects, commodity prices will vary
significantly during the life of the mine. All too often, the
financial assumptions, such as future commodity price, have a
disproportionate impact on the results. The level of confidence
(and reliability) of those inputs do not match the engineering
effort and level of accuracy of the rest of the study.
Drawpoint and orepass life
A risk inherent to the high tonnages expected from a super
cave is the ability of key infrastructure in the footprint of the
cave such as drawpoints and orepasses to last for the life of
the associated draw column heights.
A drawpoint, as considered in Table 1, with a 450 m column
will need to deliver about 374 000 t over a period of over five
years at an average draw rate of 250 mm a day. The brows,
steel sets, concrete floors, bullnoses, etc will undoubtedly need
to be repaired at least once and possibly more. Sometimes
drawpoints cannot be repaired and are lost. This risk was the
main reason that in weak ground such as Kimberlites and
‘secondary ore’ (Araneda and Sougarret, 2008) many mines
kept column heights to 200 m or less.
The orepasses, and associated loading chutes, will need
to handle over 7.5 Mt if they serve 20 drawpoints or more
if they are used to handle development or undercut swell
muck. Orepass erosion, liner replacements and chute repairs
are costly and time-consuming. This can result in lengthy
shutdowns of extraction drives, which can cause both
production capacity issues as well as draw management
issues, which may result in weight or even convergence
problems on the extraction level.
Dilution from high column heights
It is debatable whether tall draw columns will result in higher
or lower levels of dilution. Some engineers are concerned
that the dilution will be higher. The standard tools for
producing production schedules (which include dilution) are
generally based on the classic work from Laubscher (Brown,
2007; pp 409–413). These were based on studies of relatively
low lift (<200 m) and lower daily production rate caves
(<30 kt/d). Can these tools be extrapolated to high-lift, high-
production caves? The answer will only be available when
these caves are built and operated for several years or until
recovery data is available.
Lack of benchmarking
The only super cave with any real history is the DOZ, which
reached the expanded capacity of 80 kt/d in 2010 (Casten,
Acton and Johnson, 2012) but has since suffered some setbacks
with problems associated with wet muck and has also been
affected by labour issues. It is scheduled for completion in 2021.
Whilst El Teniente has been producing between 97 and
140 kt/d for almost two decades, the production has been
generated from separate caves such as Esmeralda, Diablo
Regimiento, Pipa Norte and Reservas Norte. They individually
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Super Caves – Benefits, Considerations and Risks
produce anything from 10 kt/d to 45 kt/d. Today there are
no super caves producing the defined minimum of 70 kt/d.
There are no clear examples of success or failures for reliable
benchmarking. The development schedules, ramp-up rates,
dilution estimates, cave integrity, infrastructure life, etc are all
engineered for these caves by very capable teams. However,
they cannot demonstrate any current examples of active super
caves to convince the relevant decision makers.
CONCLUSIONS
Risks are inherent in any underground mining project.
However, the risks associated with super caves are magnified
due to the scale of the projects and the inability to benchmark
the outcomes, or all of the key aspects.
A delicate balance must be maintained between production
rate, drawpoint development rate, column height and
undercut advance rate to successfully operate a high tonnage
caving mine. If any of these aspects do not go according
to plan, there will be an adverse impact on the project.
Many caves have been damaged or lost due to long slowly
advancing cave faces, excessive weight and stress problems
or the inability to maintain the drawpoints and draw bell
development (construction) rate.
As a result, there is significant risk that the indicated value,
and hence shareholder return, may not achieve the levels
implied during the feasibility studies of the projects.
A more prudent approach to building successful mines is to:
•• look for opportunities to construct in phases
•• demonstrate value by starting with an option that is
readily manageable
•• remain within the bounds of good practice and then look
for opportunities to grow.
Such an approach requires less upfront capital and puts
less at risk until the technical challenges associated with a
particular project are known and addressed. It then paves the
way for future expansion. This will greatly reduce the risk of
destroying shareholder value.
Super caves can succeed and generate a significant revenue
stream that could last for decades. There are several exiting
projects on the drawing board, or in development/execution.
The underground mining industry is on the threshold of a new
era where massive projects have the potential to provide value
to their shareholders although there is a commensurate level
of risk. The risks will reduce as more projects find solutions to
traditional limitations. There are some that factors that simply
cannot be changed. Nature created the deposits and nature
will ultimately dictate how readily they can be exploited.
REFERENCES
Aguayo, A, Uribe, G and Pedrero, J, 2012. Multi-lift production
scheduling at the Chuquicamata underground project, in
Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Mass Mining (MassMin
2012) (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum:
Montreal).
Araneda, O and Sougarret, A, 2008. Lessons learned in cave mining
at the El Teniente mine over the period 1997 – 2007, in Proceedings
Fifth International Conference on Mass Mining (MassMin 2008)
(eds: H Schunnesson and E Nordlund) (Luleå University of
Technology: Luleå).
Brannon, C A, Firdausi, H H, Pascoe, N D and Yuniar, A T, 2016.
Development and construction update of the Grasberg block cave
mine, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition
on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 625–634 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
57
C deWolfe and I Ross

Brannon, C, Wynn, E, Vergara-Lara, P and Andriyanto, R, 2012.
Design update of the Grasberg Block Cave Mine, in Proceedings
Sixth International Conference on Mass Mining (MassMin 2012)
(Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum:
Montreal).
Brown, E T, 2007. Block Caving Geomechanics, second edition, pp 1–4
(JKMRC, University of Queensland: Brisbane).
Burger, D and Cook, B, 2008. Equipment automation for massive
mining methods, in Proceedings Fifth International Conference
on Mass Mining (MassMin 2008) (eds: H Schunnesson and
E Nordlund) (Luleå University of Technology: Luleå).
Casten, T, Acton, T and Johnson, M, 2012. PT Freeport Indonesia
– transitioning to 240 000 tpd from underground mining – an
overview, in Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Mass
Mining (MassMin 2012) (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum: Montreal).
Dunstan, G, Catalan, A, Morgan, M, Green, S, Jorquera, M and
Thornhill, T, 2012. An “intensive” preconditioning methodology
developed for the Cadia East panel cave project, NSW, Australia,
in Proceedings Sixth International Conference and Exhibition on Mass
Mining (MassMin 2012) (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum: Montreal).
Hernandez, E, Kusumohastuti, W and Agustian, I, 2014. Excavating the
first underground gyratory crusher at the Deep Level Mill Zone,
PT Freeport Indonesia, in Proceedings 12th AusIMM Underground
Operators Conference 2014, pp 43–50 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Ovalle, A and Pesce, J, 2004. Production capacity of a mass caving,
in Proceedings Fourth International Conference and Exhibition on
Mass Mining (MassMin 2004) (eds: M A Alfaro and A Karzulovic)
(Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile: Santiago).
Pascoe, C, Oddie, M and Edgar, I, 2008. Panel caving at the Resolution
copper project, in Proceedings Fifth International Conference and
Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2008) (eds: H Schunnesson
and E Nordlund) (Luleå University of Technology: Luleå).
Peele, R, 1918. Mining Engineers Handbook, first edition, pp  634–635
(John Wiley and Sons: New York).
Ross, I, 2004. Northparkes Lift 2 development, in Proceedings Innovative
Mineral Developments Symposium, pp  53–69 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Sydney Branch).
Ross, I, 2014. Transition from open pit to underground mining,
Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimation – The AusIMM Guide
to Good Practice, second edition, pp  409–414 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Sinuhaji, A, Newman, T and O’Connor, S, 2012. The development
of Lift 1 mine design at Oyu Tolgoi underground mine’, in
Proceedings Sixth International Conference and Exhibition on Mass
Mining (MassMin 2012) (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum: Montreal).
Spreadborough, J, 2015. The power of steel in hard rock haulage by
hoist and belt conveyor, in Proceedings International Conference on
Hoisting and Haulage (Hoist and Haul 2015), pp 353–365 (Society for
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration: Englewood).
Struthers, M, 2004. Feasibility studies for caving operations – the
‘state of the art’, in Proceedings Fourth International Conference and
Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2004) (eds: M A Alfaro and
A Karzulovic) (Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile: Santiago).
Wellman, E C, Killian, J R, Brannon, C A and Ross, I, 2012. Grasberg
block cave drawpoint opening and production block sequencing,
in Proceedings Sixth International Conference and Exhibition on Mass
Mining (MassMin 2012) (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum: Montreal).

58 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016