16
Mine Planning and the Crucial Role of Geology
Ed Holloway,† Quantified Strategies, 40 Isles Road, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia, and
Scott Cowie,† PanAust Limited, 15 James Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006, Australia
Editor’s note: The Geology and Mining series, edited by Dan Wood and Jeffrey Hedenquist, is designed to introduce early-career professionals
and students to a variety of topics in mineral exploration, development, and mining, in order to provide insight into the many ways in which
geoscientists contribute to the mineral industry.
Abstract
Mine planning is the process that deter-
mines the way in which an ore deposit will
be mined over the life of a mining oper-
ation. It necessarily draws on everything
that planning engineers believe will deter-
mine the ultimate success of the proposed
mine and uses as its foundation all of the
geology-related data on the deposit. It is
both a strategic and a tactical process that
first considers a longer-term horizon based
on strategic considerations, followed by
more detailed shorter-term planning pro-
cesses, in this order; the latter are the result
of tactical considerations.
This structured process may also be
referred to as integrated mine planning,
and it is driven by a broader corporate strat-
egy or set of objectives. As such, it is much
more than the mining engineering section
of the mine development process. It has to
include inputs from all related disciplines,
by combining all of the measured proper-
ties of the deposit with mining-associated
parameters. This results in the planning
process incorporating a significant number
of interrelated parameters. If these param-
eters are not used diligently and accurately
or are not well aligned, or if the underlying
data are deficient in either quantity or
quality, the project or operation is unlikely
to achieve its potential, by virtue of failures
in the planning process.
Best-practice integrated planning
incorporates relevant inputs from all min-
ing-related fields: geology, geotechnical,
geochemical, hydrogeological, hydrology,
mining operations, minerals processing,
marketing of product, waste management,
tailings, environmental, social science,
mine closure, etc. It includes all interfaces
in the business-value driver model, from
exploration drill holes to the mine closure
plan. The planning process cannot be
completed successfully by mining engineers
working in isolation from professionals
in other key disciplines. Because geology
provides the foundation on which the
mine plan is built, the quality and accuracy
of the geologic data provided to plan-
ning teams by exploration geoscientists is
crucial.
†
Corresponding authors: e-mails,
Ed.Holloway@quantifiedstrategies.com.au,
scott.cowie@panaust.com.au
doi:10.5382/Geo-and-Mining-04
SEG NEWSLETTER
Introduction
High-quality mine planning is key to
extracting maximum value from an ore
deposit. The process by which a mine is
designed and scheduled (i.e., planned)
requires that a combination of appro-
priate technical standards, guidelines,
and procedures be used to ensure all
mining-related interactions are incorpo-
rated accurately and effectively. For this
to occur each member of the planning
team (geologist, metallurgist, mining
engineer, etc.) must understand what
is required and when it is required. The
quality of output from the planning
process will be significantly influenced
by the quality of the information avail-
able at each stage and by the sequence
in which the information is assessed.
The planning process will be affected
adversely if relevant information is
missing, not of the required standard,
or assessed at an incorrect point in the
process.
Integrated mine planning typically
commences once a mineral resource
estimate is established. This follows
the exploration phase of the project in
which a deposit is identified. The plan-
ning processes evolve during the study
phases (scoping, prefeasibility, and feasi-
bility; Carlson, 2019) before the project
is, hopefully, developed and production
commences. The study phases progress
from lower levels to higher levels of con-
fidence and detail, and they necessarily
involve specialists from a wide range of
technical disciplines. To clarify termi-
nology, a mine development is typically
called a project prior to beginning opera-
tion. Additional geologic data is (gen-
erally) collected during all study phases
and well into the life of the operation.
Geologic teams during exploration,
project work, and mining operations
play a critical role in this process. Cru-
cially, early-stage geologic uncertainty
has the potential to significantly affect
future business decisions. Geologic pro-
grams (such as drilling programs) must
always be designed with due consider-
ation for all aspects of mine planning.
The failure to obtain correct data at the
No 118 • JULY 2019
necessary stage in the planning process
leads to mining uncertainty and can
ultimately lead to less than optimal
project or operational decisions. Cap-
turing the right data at the right time
during the strategic development of a
mining project is essential to maximize
the value of the mining asset.
Geologic properties are unchanged
by the passage of time1. However, the
way engineers apply mine planning
processes within a project constantly
evolves as an increasing amount of
information becomes available, tech-
nology advances within the mining
industry, and new skill sets are intro-
duced to support development of new
approaches to mine planning. This arti-
cle highlights some of the key aspects of
integrated mine planning, including the
data required, typical processes that are
used, and how inherent mining uncer-
tainty is addressed to deliver robust
mine plans that will deliver desired
business outcomes.
What Is Mine Planning and
Its Purpose?
Mine planning considers and incor-
porates all the measurable parameters
collected plus the knowledge of their
interrelationships, which is provided
to the mine planning team by the
various mining-related professionals.
Mine planning is the process that has
the greatest impact on the way an ore
deposit is developed into a mining
operation. In this paper, we use termi-
nology for planning to mine a metallic
ore deposit by open pit. However, the
processes described are equally applica-
ble to planning for mining other com-
modities using other mining methods.
This paper refers to the Australasian
Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC)
Code; there may be some differences in
application where other codes (Carlson,
2019) are used.
During the planning process, all
the factors that can be influenced by
1
Mining engineering time, as opposed to
geologic time.
No 118 • JULY 2019
technical and management personnel
are applied to the one aspect of the
deposit that cannot be changed—its
geology. Fundamental outputs of the
planning process are mine designs,
schedules for the movement (min-
ing) of related material (ore and waste
rock), and then the associated equip-
ment, labor, and cost-based models.
Mine planning is a process and not
an output; referring to a mine plan
can be ambiguous, since the outputs
are designs and schedules. However, a
mine plan can refer to a report, includ-
ing all component details, designs,
schedules, etc. The level of detail
required in mine planning outputs will
depend on factors such as the study
phase or the operational time frame,
i.e., a feasibility study will have more
detail than a scoping study, and a
three-month plan will have more detail
than the overarching life-of-mine plan
for an operation.
Good practice requires consider-
ation of a range of scenarios during the
planning process to provide a deeper
understanding, quantify business
opportunities and alternatives, and
assist in understanding the sensitivity
of a proposed operation to changes
in one or more of the inputs (e.g., ore
grade, commodity prices, discount
rate—which is related to risk, etc.). For
an integrated mine planning process
to be efficient and effective, it must
consider all the interdependencies that
influence the business value model.
This spans an extremely broad spec-
trum, from exploration drilling to the
mine closure plan. Mining profession-
als who are responsible for developing
mine planning systems (models)—
which necessarily incorporate param-
eters derived from other technical
disciplines—have the responsibility
to ensure that all parameters are used
accurately and comply with the design
and strategic intent.
Integrated mine planning has
evolved through improvements in
computer hardware and software,
with computing becoming increas-
ingly important because of the need
to address and offset the challenges of
exploiting lower-grade, higher-cost,
and deeper ore deposits (Valenta et al.,
2019). Mine development and operating
costs continue to increase to meet the
demands of establishing and maintain-
ing a social license to operate. The level
of social and environmental awareness
of mining incidents (e.g., recent iron
SEG NEWSLETTER
ore mining tailings dam failures in
Brazil) and mining-related activities
continues to evolve, with society’s
image of the global mining industry
becoming increasingly important.
Indeed, this aspect ultimately has the
potential to prevent mine development,
if this image fails to meet society’s
expectations.
As a result, the level of effort and
expenditure applied to mine waste
management, for example, has
increased significantly over recent
decades; this includes not only tail-
ings disposal and containment but
also waste-rock storage, particularly
where waste rock is acid producing and
has potential to negatively affect the
environment (Trout and Reid, 2018).
At the same time, the increasing costs
(per unit of production) of mining
operations are often driven by falling
grades of the commodity being mined.
Additionally, remote greenfield projects
also have costs related to installation of
almost all of the infrastructure required
to support the mine. Many of the more
accessible and generally favorable (shal-
low, simple metallurgy) deposits have
already been discovered and developed
into mines, leaving a profile of ever
more economically and physically
challenging deposits for possible future
development (Fig. 1).
These changes to development
opportunity translate into an increas-
ingly challenging environment
for demonstrating that a mining
FIGURE 1. The Frieda River project is a greenfield mine development located in northwest Papua
New Guinea and is one of the largest undeveloped copper-gold deposits in the world. The project
lies in steep terrain with high rainfall and no available infrastructure (photograph of the Frieda River
base camp, 2016).
17
investment is preferable to alternative
nonmining investments. Planning pro-
cesses continue to evolve, to improve
confidence in the quality of the out-
put, and to identify the maximum
potential value from each deposit. To
help achieve this, high-level planning
processes are divided into strategic pro-
cesses and tactical processes. Strategic
planning is the “what,” whereas tactical
planning is the “how.”
Strategy can be defined as “a plan of
action designed to achieve a long-term
or overall aim” according to the Oxford
English Dictionary (https://en.oxford
dictionaries.com/definition/strategy).
On the other hand, “tactics are those
actions that are taken to support a
business strategy” (Hubbard et al., 2008,
p. 237). Succinctly put, tactical mine
planning is focused on executing the
mining strategy established by strategic
mine planning. Tactical planning neces-
sarily incorporates and requires a greater
level of detail and accuracy than does
strategic planning.
Strategic mine planning
Compared to tactical planning, stra-
tegic planning is differentiated by
the analysis of a far greater range of
scenarios. One of the fundamental
outputs of strategic planning analyses
is understanding the value available
to be delivered, based on the options
selected, while also considering
potential variability
to page 18 . . .
in parameters. As an
18
. . . from page 17 Mine Planning and the Crucial Role of Geology (continued)
example, this variability could include
levels of equipment and plant through-
put capacity as a function of a variable
commodity price environment.
Strategic planning necessarily
changes with the level of study con-
ducted. It is good practice to regularly
conduct strategic planning programs of
work; however, the purpose varies. To
illustrate, a project in a scoping phase
may compare open-pit to underground
mining methods, whereas an operat-
ing mine may need to confirm cutoff
grades, mining and processing rates,
and stage designs.
The purpose of strategic planning is
to establish and define those strategies
that best achieve the company’s objec-
tives and, therefore, provide a basis for
more detailed tactical planning. Strat-
egies could include divesting, or not
acquiring or developing, an asset, if it
does not meet the strategic objectives or
requirements of the company that owns
the asset.
The strategic objectives of a company
and, therefore, its strategic planning
processes, will almost always be defined
partly by a financial metric to which it
must be aligned. To this metric, other
objectives will be appended. Financial
objectives are able to be efficiently
described as objective functions for use
in optimization processes and associated
algorithms. Since an objective function
is expressed in mathematical terms,
it can be maximized or minimized in
associated algorithms.
One of the most widely used finan-
cial metrics for strategic planning is
net present value (NPV). NPV is the
difference between cash outflows and
cash inflows over a period of time (with
cash outflows being development and
operating costs and inflows being reve-
nue received from the sale of the mine
product), after applying a discount rate.
When NPV is expressed as an objective
function, the process will solve to max-
imize the result. Internal rate of return
(IRR) is an associated metric, being the
discount rate at which the NPV is zero.
There are numerous shortcomings and
limitations inherent in both metrics;
however, because of the simplicity and
transparency of the underlying calcula-
tions, these remain as two of the most
widely used financial metrics within the
mining industry. Ultimately, a number
of metrics, including all-in sustaining
cost, undiscounted post-tax cash flow,
SEG NEWSLETTER
and payback period, should be consid-
ered to more accurately inform decision
making.
One important output of a strategic
planning process is conversion of an
appropriate proportion of the estimated
mineral resources (determined by explo-
ration drilling) into ore reserves. An ore
reserve is the economically mineable
part of a mineral resource (Joint Ore
Reserves Committee, 2012; Carlson,
2019).
To achieve these outcomes, activi-
ties common to all strategic planning
processes for an open-pit mine devel-
opment include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1. Estimation of the mineral resource
and economic block modeling
2. Pit optimization for the final pit and
staging pits (the latter sequentially
developed as the deposit is mined)
3. Schedule optimization, generally
economic-based sequencing, of
mining of the deposit (subject to any
appropriate constraints)
4. Valuation of the outcome
5. Scenario analysis
The above activities require, for even
the simplest of mining assets, teams of
specialists from technical and financial
backgrounds collaborating effectively
and understanding the interrelation-
ships between disciplines. The geol-
ogy of the deposit is fundamental to
this process, given that it provides all
intrinsic, direct deposit-related data for
the project or mining operation. The
strategic planning process must there-
fore include data well beyond that of
base geology. The now well-established
need to incorporate environmental
management scenarios (such as the
designs of mine waste storage facilities)
in strategic planning illustrates the
range of geologic data that has to be
captured by geologic teams (starting
relatively early in the exploration pro-
cess, upon discovery of an ore deposit)
and made accessible to other technical
disciplines. It is not simply a matter of
focusing on the collection of geologic
data to support the revenue-generating
attributes of a deposit (i.e., the grade of
the mass of contained mineralized rock)
if the deposit is to become a successful
(economic) operating mine.
To provide an example, there are
two types of quantitative geologic data
that need to be collected when logging
No 118 • JULY 2019
rock that will be mined as waste, as they
have direct environmental implications:
1. Sulfide minerals, such as pyrite, in
waste rock that will be mined and
stored onsite have the potential to
produce sulfuric acid when oxidized.
2. Carbonate minerals, such as calcite,
in waste rock will neutralize acid
produced by oxidation of sulfide
minerals in the rock; depending on
the relative quantities of sulfide and
carbonate, the acid produced may be
countered by the carbonate.
Another example of a geologic attri-
bute of waste rock that can significantly
affect an open-pit operation is rock
density (specific gravity). If the opera-
tion requires a large amount of waste
rock to be removed, then this will form
a significant proportion of the mining
operating cost. This overall cost will be
determined by the total tonnage, so an
error in determining waste-rock density
will directly translate into an error in
operating cost and, more significantly,
will require additional waste-rock move-
ment capacity. Clearly, if the waste rock
cannot be removed in time, ore sup-
ply to the ore processing plant will be
affected. Therefore, accurate waste-rock
density measurements are critical to the
business of mining. Similarly, the den-
sity of potentially economic mineralized
rock is critical, as this will determine
the total metal mass, which affects the
accuracy of the estimated production
revenue.
Tactical mine planning
Tactical mine planning adds the detail
required to implement the strategic
plan. As such, the associated designs
and schedules that are produced include
significantly greater levels of detail;
however, they do not cover the same
range of scenarios or variations in
inputs. There is always overlap between
strategic planning and tactical planning,
and there is also typically an iterative
process between the two.
To provide a simple example, strate-
gic-level schedules may be constrained
by the total amount of material that
can be moved within a year, whereas a
tactical plan will include the detail of
scheduling each individual load unit by
mining location, ultimately down to an
individual operating shift.
Due to the increased level of detail
required in a tactical planning process,
No 118 • JULY 2019
the time required and the associated
level of effort is significantly greater
than for the equivalent strategic
planning process. With respect to the
interrelationship between geology and
planning, tactical planning is again a
subset of strategic planning, and the
same geologic data or, potentially, a
subset of the data will be required.
Given the increase in the level of
planning detail, these data also have to
be reviewed in more detail, since any
omissions or inaccuracies in the data
will cause a more acute effect.
What Geologic and Other Data
Are Used?
If the required deposit data are not
available as a successive planning stage
is started, either the accuracy and con-
fidence of the output will be reduced,
or there will be time delays and cost
increases to allow the required data
to be obtained. Therefore, it is essen-
tial that data collection programs are
planned and designed to allow the time
and budget to acquire the required data
prior to advancing to the subsequent
planning stage.
When encountered, some data gaps
can be filled relatively quickly, whereas
other gaps require significant time and
expense to resolve. Issues relating to the
accuracy of the data can have the same
impact. For example, if an error or a bias
is identified in the majority of chemical
analyses, the time and cost involved in
remediation will be significant. Another
example is when insufficient rock
density data are collected during the
exploration drilling program (when it
would be a minor incremental cost to
the drilling program to collect the data).
If this occurs and a separate program is
required to acquire the data, then sig-
nificant delays will be experienced and
additional costs incurred for selecting
the samples for density measurements,
transporting the samples from the core
shed to an appropriate laboratory, and
incorporating the additional density
results into the block model.
Geologic data
The level of knowledge available for mine
planning evolves from the first econom-
ically significant result obtained from
exploration drilling to the point of mine
closure. Critically, exploration geoscien-
tists need to provide as much data of the
type required as possible for a mineral
deposit to be developed into a mine.
SEG NEWSLETTER
To expand on this statement, there is
no point to increase the geologic con-
fidence in the known size and average
grade of a mineral deposit that (based
on recoverable metal content) cannot
pay for the infrastructure required to
access and mine the deposit, let alone
recover the metal from the mineral-
ized rock. Feedback to the exploration
team in an evolving situation such as
this (i.e., early in the discovery pro-
cess) should be, for example, that the
deposit needs to be at least twice the
currently anticipated size or grade to be
viable, i.e., requiring step-out drilling
and/or defining higher-grade portions
of the deposit. This will ensure that
further exploration drilling programs
are designed and targeted toward an
aligned business objective—there is no
point in defining the limits of a mineral
deposit that an early mining assessment
has conclusively determined will not
be economic to mine. The strategy and
tactics used in exploration are covered
in more detail in Wood and Hedenquist
(2019).
It is not only the spatial range of data
that is important but also the range of
attributes considered. If the only pur-
pose of an exploration drilling program
is to understand the geology and associ-
ated metal grade(s) of part of a mineral
deposit, then all other parameters can
be ignored without any real detriment.
Conversely, if the purpose is to either
develop or expand a mining operation,
the requirement for data collection is
significantly expanded, and the purpose
of the exploration drilling program has
to support this. It is generally far better
to capture more rather than less data at
every opportunity when investigating
the economic potential of mineralized
rock.
Such data that are determined by the
geology can include the following:
1. Regional geology—regional geologic
maps and historic exploration data
held by regulators
2. Local geology—lithology, miner-
alogy, alteration zones, domains,
faults, structures, geologic losses (in
coal exploration), representative in
situ density, weathering profiles, and
assays for possible mining head grade
(i.e., the metal content expressed per
unit of ore that will be delivered to
a process plant), and a wide suite of
trace elements (particularly useful
for machine learning and predictive
algorithms)
19
3. Geophysical signatures—magnetic,
electromagnetic, induced polariza-
tion, seismic, etc.
4. Deposit geology—lithology, min-
eralogy, alteration zones, fresh and
weathered rock domains, faults,
structures, in situ densities, and
assays for possible head grades
and a wide range of elements that
may affect the value of the deposit,
positively (byproducts) or negatively
(penalty elements such as As, F, etc.)
5. Geometallurgy—geometallurgi-
cal weathering profiles, sufficient
metallurgical test work to inform
grade-recovery relationships by
geometallurgical domain, hardness
parameters, recovery data for delete-
rious elements
6. Geochemistry—ore, waste rock, and
tailings geochemical data (including
nonacid-generating or net acid-pro-
ducing potential and acid-neutral-
izing capacity, plus sulfur, carbon,
metals)
7. Geotechnical—geotechnical domains,
major faults, structures, fractures,
hardness, acoustic televiewer data,
geothermal gradient data, rock stress
data, and pore pressure
8. Hydrogeology—water table lev-
els (packer testing, vibrating wire
piezometers)
The resource-based data set that is
collected must support the requirements
of other technical disciplines, as well
as support likely future requirements
as much as possible. The expectations
from stakeholders, including govern-
ments, shareholders, local communities,
international communities, and others
continues to increase. As a consequence,
as much as possible the data sourced
today should be able to support these
future requirements, including plausibly
anticipated changes.
Other data
The data sets required from other disci-
plines can include the following:
1. Economic parameters—for-
ward-looking metal prices, discount
rates, depreciation schedules, taxa-
tion regimes, etc.
2. Mining parameters—bench height,
productivity rates, haul distances,
geotechnical parameters, etc.
3. Process and metallurgical
­parameters—grade-recov-
ery-throughput relationships,
­primary wash data
(for coal), etc. to page 20 . . .
20
. . . from page 19 Mine Planning and the Crucial Role of Geology (continued)
4. Sales and marketing of product(s)—
costs for freight, treatment and
refining charges, penalty levels
(maximum concentrations and dele-
terious elements) and charges, etc.
5. Survey data—accurate topography
data (photogrammetry data will pro-
vide top of vegetation, which may
not coincide with the topography)
for mine and potential waste storage
facilities, watercourses, villages,
infrastructure, etc.
6. Environmental baseline data
7. Archaeological situation
8. Social considerations
9. Tailings parameters—density,
geochemical properties, and other
material properties
10. Operating costs—mine, process, gen-
eral and administrative, and other
related costs
11. Capital costs—initial direct and
indirect costs, together with a con-
tingency risk assessment and other
sustaining or expansion capital costs
12. Risk register—material risks identi-
fied with effective controls identified
It is too late to identify omissions
when the data that have been collected
and collated are being compiled and
incorporated into a planning process.
Issues in the underlying data clearly
have the potential to materially affect
the quality of and confidence in the
outputs. This is addressed in the JORC
Code (Joint Ore Reserves Committee,
2012) for the conversion of a mineral
resource to an ore reserve, as discussed
by Carlson (2019).
The data are used to develop appro-
priate modifying factors to convert mea-
sured and indicated mineral resources to
proven and probable ore reserves. The
quantity and quality of the data deter-
mine the level of confidence in strategic
mine planning outputs and significantly
affect the ability to convert mineral
resources to ore reserves.
Expenditure on data collection and
the associated timing of this collection
remain business decisions; justifications
for expenditure are better developed
by multidisciplinary teams but not to
the detriment of further exploration to
discover extensions to a known deposit
or new deposits. Obtaining data of suffi-
cient quality at the right time increases
the likelihood of advancing the project
and, more importantly, of commercial
success. Decisions of this nature need
SEG NEWSLETTER
to be made by personnel with suitable
knowledge from appropriate sections of
the business. Expenditure to collect data
in the early stages of a project is usually
the most cost efficient.
Accuracy, Risk, and Uncertainty
It is impossible to remove all sources of
risk and uncertainty when planning for,
developing, or operating a mine. Incor-
porating risk and uncertainty into the
planning framework allows decisions
to be based on the potential effects
of numerous sources of variability. In
practice, the effects can be complex,
and their mitigation may be difficult
to achieve and challenging to interpret
and distill into a set of informed strate-
gic decisions. Risk and uncertainty anal-
yses provide valuable understanding to
the likely outcomes for a mining project
or operation and are used to guide the
design of risk management programs.
Decisions made under uncertainty or
based on analyses incorporating the
potential impacts of variability often
vary significantly when compared to a
single base-case scenario that provides
limited understanding of the potential
impacts of that uncertainty on value.
On this topic, geologic profession-
als and geostatisticians have through
time developed a suite of skills and
techniques to interpolate and extrapo-
late sparse data to construct a geologic
model. As an example, “if a copper
porphyry deposit is drilled on 100 m by
100 m centres, with half being used for
assays, this would result in 0.00007%
of the deposit having been sampled”
(Vann, 2007, p. 7). From this extremely
small amount of data, the stated
expectation may be that the contained
metal is accurate to ±5%, a common
expectation in operating mines. The
way that these data are then used in a
planning and decision-making sense
often implies that planning teams and
management expect it to be absolutely
accurate with a 0% variation—clearly an
impossibility.
Reducing potential variability comes
at a cost. Such costs can manifest in
many forms, such as requirements for
additional drilling or metallurgical test
work, reduced upside value due to price
hedging, etc. At times, the additional
expenditure of improving the data
on which decisions are based is trivial
compared to the potential for residual
No 118 • JULY 2019
risk to the project or operation if the
data are not collected. As an example, if
arsenic was detected in drilling assays,
but subsequent metallurgical test work
on this topic was inadequate during
the study phases, there may be a cost
to the business. The amount of arsenic
in the concentrate may increase during
the concentration process to a level
that incurs significant penalties from
smelters; this penalty can far outweigh
the cost of appropriate metallurgical test
work in the early stages of assessment.
Open-Pit Mine Planning Process
Anything that will be incorporated in
the planning process must be able to be
assigned either to a period in time or as
a function (either directly or indirectly)
of a field in the geologic model. By this
statement alone it is clear that the geo-
logic model underpins all mine plan-
ning. All planning decisions should be
based on the attributes of the deposit.
Planning outputs can be varied; the
deposit cannot.
Given the scale of even the simplest
integrated mine planning problems, it
is presently not feasible to completely
solve these using brute computational
force. For this reason, integrated mine
planning processes are typically subdi-
vided into discrete subproblems, which
can be solved in reasonable time frames,
using commonly available computa-
tional resources. An iterative approach
is required and applied.
An overview of a planning process
for an open-pit mining operation is
included in Figure 2, with the shaded
blocks denoting those tasks that are
either directly or indirectly affected by
the quantity and quality of geologic
data available for planning purposes.
An integrated planning pro-
cess should consist of the following
subprocesses:
1. Compile corporate, price,
and marketing parameters
2. Develop a geologic model
3. Develop a geotechnical model (or
geotechnical parameters)
4. Develop metallurgical or process
models (or parameters)
5. Compile cost parameters
6. Develop and execute a pit optimiza-
tion model
7. Develop detailed mine or stage
designs
No 118 • JULY 2019 SEG NEWSLETTER 21

NPV is comparatively simple to

calculate and incorporates favorable
Drill hole Metallurgical
Database Test work attributes such as a perspective of time,
risk, and value into a single figure.
NPV is also able to (in theory) be used
to compare different scenarios for the
Metallurgical
Geological Block
Geometallurgical
Performance same project and for different projects.
Model (or
Model
representation)
Parameters Likely because of these reasons, NPV
remains the most widely used financial
metric. As such, it is also widely used
as the basis for the objective function
in planning processes and should be
Mining
External
Operating Cost
Geotechnical Design included in business justifications.
Parameters Parameters
Profile

Pit optimization
Pit optimization is generally one of
Pit Optimization the first planning-based subprocesses,
(LG, pseudoflow, because it informs subsequent subpro-
DBS, other)
cesses. Pit optimization produces pit
shells as outputs. Each pit shell quan-
tifies an incremental value according
to the revenue factor relative to the
input commodity price. This results in
Financial Detailed Mine pit shells that graduate from smaller,
Assessment Designs
higher-margin shells through to larger,
lower-margin shells (Fig. 3). These
outputs therefore identify the areas of
Schedule highest value for a potential open-pit
Financial Optimization mining operation.
Assessment (DP, LP, MILP,
GA, other) Pit shells lack any design detail such
as ramps, benches, berms, etc. They do
consider high-level geotechnical param-
Corporate
Detailed Detailed eters, however, such as an overall pit
Financial slope angle that includes an assumption
Cost Models Schedules
Model
relating to the incorporation of ramps
for removing ore and waste rock from
Detailed the pit.
Metallurgical
Performance Model Once generated, pit shells are then
used as the basis for the ultimate (or
final) pit design and (the intermediate)
FIGURE 2. Typical strategic planning process overview.
staging pit designs (Fig. 4). The ultimate
pit refers to the final pit to be con-
sidered for mining—the contour that
would represent the mine at closure.
8. Develop and run schedule optimiza- in further detail; the sequence follows A pit shell, typically referred to as the
tion models the order of the planning process. ultimate pit shell, will be selected as the
9. Develop detailed schedules basis of this final pit design. Equally, the
10. Develop detailed models outlining Financial metrics
staging shells are used as a basis for the
equipment requirements, labor Before any potential mine can become a design of mine stage designs. Design
numbers, consumables, costs, etc. mine, it must be a business, i.e., profit- stages are used to bring ore (value) for-
11. Load the results of these subpro- able. The corollary of this is that it must ward, and push waste (expenses) back in
cesses into the corporate financial be assessed using financial metrics. time, where possible. This results in an
model The NPV financial metric has a range increase in NPV.
of recognized shortcomings that are The process of pit optimization
Many of these steps will be iterated beyond the scope of this paper but are requires the following key inputs as a
individually or in groups. In doing well understood and remain as topics of minimum:
this it is common for multiple ongoing discussion and research (Samis
scenarios to be considered and com- et al., 2005; Taheri et al., 2009; Espinoza 1. Geologic model
pared for a wide range of these sub- and Morris, 2013; Espinoza and Rojo, 2. Geotechnical parameters pre-
processes and as a function of the 2017; Lilford et al., 2018; and many sented in the form of mine design
associated inputs. others). NPV is, nevertheless, well recog- parameters
The remainder of this section nized and conceptually well understood 3. Metallurgical or pro-
analyzes a number of these subprocesses by industry stakeholders. cess parameters to page 22 . ..
22
. . . from page 21 Mine Planning and the Crucial Role of Geology (continued)
FIGURE 3. Cross section illustrating nested pit shells as produced by a pit optimization process.
Also shown is the original topography (orange).
FIGURE 4. Cross section illustrating the relationship between designed stages and the shell upon
which the designs were based. Note the detailed stage designs in the light-blue lines have larger
mining widths (as compared to the pit shells in Fig. 3) and include ramp designs.
4. Inputs from finance, marketing, and
operations departments: price and
cost parameters
5. Inputs from operations and logistics
departments: high-level constraints
The pit optimization process will
often be the first insight into the poten-
tial scale and profitability of a deposit.
Prior to implementing this process,
potential methods for estimating scale
or value are rudimentary. A pit opti-
mization will typically be determined
on a deposit for the first time during
a scoping study. A scoping study is an
order-of-magnitude investigation of
how a mineral deposit might be mined
and the ore processed (Carlson, 2019).
It is usually completed fairly early in
the discovery and resource definition
process.
Pit optimizations for open pit
mines are frequently based on the
Lerchs-Grossmann (Lerchs and Gross-
man, 1965) (LG) algorithm, or a variant
of it. The pseudoflow algorithm (Hoch-
baum, 2008) is a modern variant of the
SEG NEWSLETTER
LG algorithm and delivers the same
results more rapidly.
LG and/or pseudoflow algorithms
feature in the majority of general mine
planning packages, and all produce
similar outcomes. The algorithm returns
the highest value (smallest shell) at the
center of the nested shells that graduate
outward toward shells that are not com-
mercially viable. The shells are generally
reported as a function of the associated
revenue factor which, as the name
implies, varies the revenue streams by a
factor and reports the largest shell that
remains incrementally profitable at that
revenue factor.
The ultimate pit will generally be
selected based on a stated revenue fac-
tor. It is critical to verify the ultimate pit
selection using schedule optimization,
since the optimal revenue factor will
vary as a function of a number of the
input factors and is particularly influ-
enced by the deposit itself, vis-à-vis the
geologic model.
The accuracy of the geologic model
will materially affect the results of the
No 118 • JULY 2019
pit optimization process. The cause(s)
of the effect(s) may include any one of
the attributes described in the geologic
model (e.g., head grade, lithological
boundaries, density, etc.). For example,
if a high-grade ore deposit has a portion
that is unfavorably offset by a fault,
significantly less metal may be available
for mining, thereby affecting the results
of a pit optimization and subsequent
planning processes.
Pit optimization outputs are also
often sensitive to geotechnical parame-
ters. Geology-based inputs to geotech-
nical domain models are critical for the
geotechnical parameters to be accurately
incorporated.
Although the mathematics support-
ing the LG-based pit optimization
process are well understood, the out-
comes of applying the process have a
series of shortcomings, including the
following:
1. Limited ability to incorporate time
and, therefore, financial adjustments
(such as discounting) as required in
the production of financial metrics,
including NPV
2. Disconnect between the time-­
adjusted cost of waste mining and
removal, generally at the start (top)
of a pit shell, relative to gaining
access to material that will generate
revenue at the bottom (end) of the
same shell
3. Limited ability to incorporate
blending of materials (this can be
particularly relevant for a range
of deposit types that are typically
affected by product qualities, such as
coal and iron ore deposits, and for
those operations that are constrained
by an environmental metric, such
as contained sulfur, or levels of dust
production)
4. Shell gapping, where such large gaps
exist between successive shells that
they do little to inform
planning processes
There are a number of approaches to
assist in overcoming these shortcom-
ings, but they generally remain funda-
mental to the structure of optimization
algorithms. However, despite these
shortcomings, LG-based pit optimiza-
tions presently are the most widely used
for open-pit mine optimization prob-
lems, and they serve to provide valuable
insight and input into the planning
processes.
No 118 • JULY 2019
Direct block scheduling (DBS) is
another approach that can be used for
pit optimization, and in certain cases it
can produce useful results. Based on the
original algorithms developed by Thys
Johnson (Johnson, 1968), a number
of commercially available software
packages provide variants, all of which
attempt to reduce the sequential nature
of the planning processes. DBS is fun-
damentally different from the LG-based
approaches in terms of both the algo-
rithm and outputs. The DBS output is a
schedule, albeit preliminary in nature,
as opposed to LG-based nested shells,
which do not produce a schedule.
The DBS approach presents the
potential to overcome a number of the
LG-based shortcomings, such as the
incorporation of discount rates and
blending constraints and the preven-
tion of shell gapping. Such algorithms
continue to evolve and at times can be
more powerful than LG-based algo-
rithms, but there are limitations in the
types of inputs and levels of complexity
that typically can be loaded into sched-
uling algorithms.
Regardless of whether an LG-based
or a DBS approach has been used, there
remains a significant amount of plan-
ning work to be completed, including
selecting the ultimate and staging pits.
It is common for pit optimization
(and also mine design processes) to be
based on only measured and indi-
cated mineral resources as defined by
the JORC (or other) Code, since only
these two classes of mineral resource
are able to be converted to ore reserves
under the JORC Code. Any inferred
mineral resources that fall within the
pit optimization shells or stage designs
will typically be included in the sched-
uling subprocesses and potentially
be scheduled as mill feed. Because of
this, the pit optimization process is a
powerful tool to direct geologic drilling
programs that are intended to increase
the level of geologic confidence in an
inferred mineral resource. A typical
process would be to run a pit optimiza-
tion based on measured and indicated
resources only and select the ultimate
pit shell; this can then be compared to
the same revenue factor shell, includ-
ing material of lower geologic confi-
dence (i.e., inferred mineral resources).
The difference between the two shells
is therefore the material that has only
been excluded by the optimization due
to geologic confidence. Thus, if mate-
rial is upgraded in geologic confidence
SEG NEWSLETTER
to an indicated or measured mineral
resource category (in part or whole),
as typically would be expected, it can
then be expected that this same mate-
rial would be converted from a mineral
resource to an ore reserve. The pur-
pose of this is to identify high-priority
resource drilling targets.
Ore-waste differentiation
The JORC Code (Joint Ore Reserves
Committee, 2012, p. 36), as an exam-
ple, defines cutoff grade as “the lowest
grade, or quality, of mineralised material
that qualifies as economically mineable
and available in a given deposit. It may
also be defined on the basis of economic
evaluation, or on physical or chemical
attributes that define an acceptable
product specification.”
This definition is a reasonable start-
ing point for what is ultimately a com-
plex concept for which, at the next level
of detail, one definition is not adequate.
The purpose of the cutoff grade is to
quantify the quality of the material that
should be sent to the waste-rock dump,
as opposed to a product stream of ore
for processing and recovery of metals.
Some further definitions that are nec-
essary to understand when differentiat-
ing between ore and waste rock include
the following:
Break-even cutoff grade: Break-even
cutoff grade is the grade at which the
revenue received from processing a
FIGURE 5. The complex geology at the Ban Houayxai gold-silver operation in Laos was captured
in the geologic model, which enabled optimization of the life-of-mine plan using a variable cutoff
grade to extract high-grade narrow veins on open-pit benches (photograph of the Ban Houayxai
open cut looking south, 2017).
23
parcel of material is equal to the total
cost of its mining and processing,
including mining and storing waste
rock; that is, the cost of producing the
revenue-generating material.
Optimized cutoff grade: Optimized cut-
off grade is a cutoff grade that has been
selected based on the application of a
stated objective function (of the mining
operation).
Fixed cutoff-grade profile: This is an
operating policy (of a mine) whereby
the cutoff grade used to guide the
operation remains fixed. As such it does
not respond to changes in price of the
commodity, operating costs, nature of
the waste produced, availability of alter-
native ore sources, etc. Therefore, it has
not been optimized.
Variable cutoff-grade profile: This is
an operating policy whereby the cutoff
grade is varied through time. A variable
cutoff grade will generally have been
optimized as a function of the input
parameters and an objective function
(e.g., at the Ban Houayxai deposit;
Fig. 5).
The concept of cutoff grade arguably
commenced with mining itself, whereas
the mathematics of how this should be
applied to the planning process were
first outlined in detail by Lane (Lane,
1964, 1988). Since then, innumerable
papers have been written analyzing
cutoff grade and its
to page 24 . . .
application.
24
. . . from page 23 Mine Planning and the Crucial Role of Geology (continued)
To assist in providing a basis for
understanding the concept, the formula
for break-even cutoff grade is as follows:
break even grade (units/tonne) =
cost ($/tonne)
payable% ⋅ product price ($/unit)
⋅ recovery.
It should be stressed that a break-
even cutoff grade should not be used
in most planning applications. This
will generally reduce the value of the
business and increase the risk profile
significantly. Further discussion of such
risks can be found in Poniewierski and
Hall (2016). One of the major issues
with using a break-even cutoff grade is
the effect that a small error in calcu-
lation can have on the size of the ore
reserve.
There is no simple equivalent equa-
tion to calculate an optimized cut-
off-grade profile to determine material
destination, ore to mill or waste rock
to dump. The central reason is that
one of the key drivers of cutoff-grade
theory is the opportunity cost, which
can only be considered as a function of
alternative available ore sources within
a given period. This is one of the main
reasons an optimized cutoff grade will
present as a profile that varies through
time as material is mined. It can
therefore only be created as an output
of a schedule optimization algorithm
with an appropriately defined objective
function.
The variations in an optimized cut-
off grade are thus strongly affected by
the geologic model, for both the grade
attributes and spatial accuracy. Each
mining stage will typically be designed
to access the next area of highest
value, with mine-stage designs aimed
to achieve this access. As this mate-
rial becomes available to the mining
operation, an optimized cutoff grade
will increase, and material that would
previously have been categorized as ore
may be reclassified and sent to waste
or stockpiled for possible processing in
the future.
Assuming a financial metric has
been selected as the objective function,
it is mathematically more efficient to
optimize the cutoff grade (or material
destination, i.e., process plant versus
waste dump) policy by using a calcu-
lated field, which is referred to as a
cash flow grade (King, 1999). This will
SEG NEWSLETTER
use as the numerator an equation simi-
lar to the following:
block value =
(value of the block as ore)
– (value of the block as waste).
The block value then has value per
tonne as its unit. Note that the value of
the block as waste will mainly be a neg-
ative value, serving to offset the mining
cost expense that is common between
ore mining and waste mining.
To allow any algorithm to optimize
more efficiently, the block value is then
converted to a cash flow grade by incor-
porating the primary system constraint
as the denominator. For example, for a
metallic mine the constraint is often the
semiautogenous grinding mill capac-
ity (tonnes of material per hour), used
during the first stage of the ore grinding
circuit. This results in the following
equation used to calculate cash flow
grade:
cash flow grade =
(block value)
⋅ (system capacity constraint)2.
This formula results in a field with
units of value/hour, which is the most
efficient field to use mathematically for
optimization.
Cutoff-grade optimization can
involve additional material quality
elements, even when an efficient pri-
mary metric such as a cash flow grade
is used. This is referred to as a multi­
dimensional policy. Examples include
the presence of a deleterious element
such as arsenic in a copper concentrate
or a key differentiator in the cost of
waste management, such as contained
sulfur. In these instances, it may be
necessary to include additional dimen-
sion(s) to facilitate solutions in a
schedule optimization model. The
inclusion of these additional fields as
dimensions in the cutoff-grade optimi-
zation means that they become funda-
mental to the differentiation between
product and waste, as well as
to resultant cost profiles. Accuracy
of the geologic inputs is once again of
paramount importance.
The sensitivity of an operation to
changes in cutoff-grade (or material des-
tination) policy will vary significantly.
Certain deposit types can be more or
2
($/tonne) ⋅ (tonne/hr) = ($/hr)
No 118 • JULY 2019
less sensitive, often largely depending
on the grade profile. As an example, a
large porphyry copper deposit may have
significant tonnages of material in sev-
eral ranges of grade, so changes in the
cutoff grade can affect large tonnages of
material. In contrast, a high-grade gold
deposit hosted in narrow quartz veins
may be insensitive. Therefore, if the
geologic model is updated or additional
geologic data become available, the
analyses should be revisited and the
process rerun fully to ensure all assump-
tions are updated. Updating only one
element of the cutoff grade without
updating another element can result in
a significant error in the calculation and
result in uneconomic material being
sent to the process plant or economic
material (ore) being sent to the waste-
rock dump.
Schedule optimization
For a schedule to have been optimized
it will almost exclusively need to have
been generated using an algorithm,
with a range of algorithms and software
solutions used for this purpose. The
following overview examines the impor-
tance of schedule optimization and how
this is integrated within a planning
framework.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines
the verb to “optimize” as “to make the
best or most effective use of (a situation
or resource)” (https://en.oxford
dictionaries.com/definition/optimize).
For a schedule to be optimized it
must be solved according to an objec-
tive function. Typical mathematical
optimization approaches applied to
schedule optimization problems include
dynamic programming, linear program-
ming, mixed-integer linear program-
ming, and genetic algorithms.
As an individual schedule is opti-
mized, the process is focused on
the sequencing of the rock material
available, subject to the constraints
and parameters for that scenario. The
process does not dynamically vary
the constraints, the mine designs,
the underlying geology, or any of the
numerous other input parameters. How-
ever, it does vary the timing, the areas
of the mine to be accessed, the cutoff
grade, the destinations to which each
parcel of material are sent, and, in some
instances, the timing of certain capital
decisions. To understand the impact of
factors that are not solved dynamically
No 118 • JULY 2019
within schedule optimization, scenario
analysis is used.
Schedule optimization generally
requires the development of relatively
complex modeling solutions. These
should accurately represent the inputs
of the other disciplines, the effects of
strategic and management decisions,
and the impact of external factors such
as commodity price changes. Objective
functions for schedule optimization
models typically are based on a financial
metric, such as NPV. These will gener-
ally, although not always, be on a real3,
pretax basis. As such the schedule opti-
mization model should calculate the
cash flow for all relevant inputs except
for tax, depreciation, and amortization
(which typically are considered in the
corporate financial model).
A schedule optimization model
should produce an outcome based on
the inputs, parameters, and constraints
used to define the scenario. As such,
these factors are of fundamental impor-
tance to the generation of accurate and
reliable results that can lead to sound
strategic decisions. Schedule optimi-
zation models that are inaccurate, are
over- or underdetailed, or are based on
underlying data sets deficient in either
quality or quantity will produce results
that may lead management teams
to make poor strategic decisions. In
extreme cases, this will lead to project
or mine operation failure.
Schedule optimization is the first
time in the planning process that the
timing of activities, expenditures, and
access to each area that will be mined
are considered in detail. Given the
complexity involved in optimizing this
sequence and the destination of mate-
rial, schedule optimization processes
require a number of attributes, includ-
ing spatial data. This process typically
will use as an input either pit optimi-
zation shells or, more often, detailed
stage designs. These are then queried
across the geologic model to report
the tonnes, grades, and other relevant
attributes required for strategic planning
3
The term “real,” as opposed to “nominal,”
expresses the value of something after
making adjustments for various factors in
creating a more accurate measure (Investo-
pedia, https://www.investopedia.com/
terms/n/nominal.asp, accessed March 1,
2019). This can include factors such as
inflation. In a mining valuation context,
real figures will exclude the effects of
inflation, whereas nominal figures will
include an adjustment for inflation to
support accurate depreciation and taxation
calculations.
SEG NEWSLETTER
and scheduling purposes. This process
also needs to consider any social or
environmental constraints significant at
a strategic level (e.g., lease boundaries,
heritage or cultural elements, noise pro-
duction, levels of dust produced, etc.).
Schedule optimization is the critical
process that considers the geology, mine
design, process and marketing, finan-
cial, risk/uncertainty, waste manage-
ment, and time for any given strategic
scenario. This process then enables a
valuation for each scenario to be devel-
oped inclusive of an appropriate level of
supporting calculations. The outputs of
this process thereby provide results for
sound strategic decision making, based
on the consideration of an appropriate
number of strategic options and sce-
nario analysis. As such, it is not uncom-
mon for hundreds, if not thousands, of
cases to be run in a schedule optimiza-
tion model, to enable selection of the
preferred scenario.
As an example, a schedule optimiza-
tion model could be used to understand
the relationship between the processing
rate, the mining rate, the bench turn-
over constraint, and the (optimized)
cutoff grade for an operation.
Given that schedule optimization
models typically will be used to assess
strategic-level factors, they often will
have a granularity that will be rather
ineffective at resolving detailed or tacti-
cal scenario variations. However, to be
effective and efficient in rapidly cover-
ing an adequate range of strategic vari-
ables, this is preferred. Schedule periods
will often be annual, with inputs of
entire benches within a stage. Such
models should include all the detail
and functionality necessary to provide
answers to the required questions and
no more. As with many other areas of
modeling, this results in more reliable,
useful, and transparent models.
Detailed mine design
The process of developing detailed
designs is a simple concept, yet it
remains a very time-consuming pro-
cess for engineers. Significant value lies
in the quality of this work and in the
capability of the teams involved, as this
work delivers the design basis required
to realize the value identified in the
strategic planning processes.
Detailed pit designs must incorpo-
rate designed ramps, drainage berms,
electrical cable accesses, access between
stages, and an efficient haulage network
in order to provide access to crushers,
25
stockpiles, waste dumps, etc. Detailed
pit designs must consider not only
geotechnical design parameters but also
whether major geologic structures will
be undercut, which may affect ground
stability. Designs must consider sec-
ondary accesses (or secondary egresses)
and how to maintain major ramp
functionality between stages or mining
areas and ensure that a consistent and
adequate ore supply can be maintained.
It is this point that links mine and stage
design back to schedule optimization,
resulting in a significant effect on the
product selection—or cutoff grade—
profile and, therefore, the profitability
of the scenario. It is common to iterate
numerous stage designs through the
schedule optimization model to ensure
that the designs result in an acceptable
outcome (such as at the Phu Kham
deposit; Fig. 6).
From an ore-quality perspective, if
there are long periods of time with lim-
ited access to quality ore as the stages
are mined, an optimized cutoff-grade
profile will be forced to lower the cutoff
grade, thereby producing less or a low-
er-value product, which will generate
less revenue and lower the overall value
of the scenario. All other things being
equal, this scenario will be expected
to also be higher risk. Such a scenario
may have access to a reduced number
of ore sources and be more exposed to
any adverse movements in costs (up) or
commodity prices (down).
Detailed design work often resides in
tactical planning. There is an import-
ant feedback loop from detailed designs
particularly to schedule optimization.
As the stage design process is focused
on introducing the required design
detail necessary to preferentially access
areas of future higher-grade ore, the
entire process must be focused on the
location and associated value defined
by the geologic model. Variations in
the geologic model thus have a direct
impact on the detailed design of the
mine stages.
Detailed schedules
Detailed schedules are a fundamental
outcome of tactical planning processes.
These schedules identify the material
that will be mined from a location, the
destination to which it will be sent, and
in what time period and by what equip-
ment it will be mined.
The transition from a structured
schedule optimiza-
tion output into a to page 26 . . .
26
. . . from page 25 Mine Planning and the Crucial Role of Geology (continued)
FIGURE 6. The geologic model at the Phu Kham copper-gold operation in Laos has been devel-
oped from exploration through to today. Eight operational stages are mined concurrently, the
designs for which were based on pit optimizations (photograph of the Phu Kham open cut looking
south, 2017).
deterministic, equipment-constrained
schedule can be a challenging process.
Deterministic schedules base decisions
on the current position and then look
to mine the most appropriate area that
is available. Equipment-based con-
straints typically schedule at the level
of individual load units, and detailed
schedules must consider the availability
and use of each unit, as well as its relo-
cation between mining areas, weather
delays, and numerous other operational
factors. Detailed schedules may include
tens or hundreds of individual units of
equipment.
Some of the outcomes of schedule
optimization can be difficult to transfer
to detailed schedules. As an example,
variable cutoff-grade policies are not
always easy to transfer. This is particu-
larly the case if a multidimension
cutoff-grade optimization has been
used.
It is generally expected that the same
input parameters will be used for an
entire planning cycle, i.e., the block
model used for the pit optimization and
schedule optimization will be the same
one used to produce the next version
of the detailed schedule. At the level
of producing a detailed schedule, any
variations in the accuracy of the input
data sets can become acute and have
adverse effects on decision making.
SEG NEWSLETTER
Departmental key performance indica-
tors will be based directly or indirectly
on the outputs of detailed schedules.
Detailed schedules will almost always be
the basis for site operational budgets.
Conclusion
Integrated mine planning processes and
their associated models are necessarily
complex and iterative and require input
from all other mining-related disci-
plines. An integrated mine planning
process that is not based on the geologic
data provided to engineers is substan-
dard and will not result in maximum
value for stakeholders.
Consequently, the quantity and
quality of geologic data provided is not
only fundamental to mine planning but
also of crucial importance to making
investment decisions in mining.
Ultimately, the quality of mining
investments and mining operations is
underpinned by close working relation-
ships between multidisciplinary teams
involved in the study programs and
planning cycles that establish the strate-
gic direction for any mining operation.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Julian Poniewierski,
John Ashton, Tim Arnold, and Chris
No 118 • JULY 2019
Alford for their constructive reviews,
as well as Dan Wood and Jeff Heden-
quist for their feedback, guidance, and
advice on many fronts, including how
to improve the paper’s relevance to the
audience.
REFERENCES
Carlson, R., 2019, Understanding geologic
uncertainty in mining studies: SEG News-
letter, no. 117, p. 21–29.
Espinoza, D., and Morris, J.W.F., 2013,
Decoupled NPV: A simple, improved
method to value infrastructure invest-
ments: Construction Management and
Economics, v. 31, no. 5, p. 471–496.
Espinoza, R.D., and Rojo, J., 2017, Towards
sustainable mining (Part I): Valuing invest-
ment opportunities in the mining sector:
Resources Policy, v. 52, p. 7–18.
Hochbaum, D.S., 2008, The pseudoflow algo-
rithm: A new algorithm for the maximum
flow problem: Operations Research, http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?-
doi=10.1.1.125.118&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Hubbard, G., Rice, J., and Beamish, P.W.,
2008, Strategic management: Thinking,
analysis, action, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.:
Australia, Pearson Education Australia,
237 p.
Johnson, T., 1968, Optimum open pit mine
production scheduling: Berkeley, California,
University of California Berkeley, 131 p.
Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC), 2012,
Australasian code for reporting of explo-
ration results, mineral resources and ore
reserves (the JORC Code): www.jorc.org.
King, B., 1999, Cash flow grades—scheduling
rocks with different throughput character-
istics: Strategic Mine Planning Conference,
Technological Resources Pty. Limited, Perth,
Australia, 1999, p. 1–8.
Lane, K., 1964, Choosing the optimum cutoff
grade: Golden, Colorado, Colorado School
of Mines, p. 811–829.
——1988, The economic definition of
ore: Australia, Comet Strategy Pty. Ltd.,
p. 57–61.
Lerchs, H., and Grossman, L., 1965, Opti-
mum design of open-pit mines: Joint
CORS and ORSA Conference, Montreal,
May 27–29, 1964: The Canadian Mining
and Metallurgical Bulletin, January 1965,
p. 17–24.
Lilford, E., Maybee, B., and Packey, D.,
2018, Cost of capital and discount rates
in cash flow valuations for resources
projects: Resources Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.
resourpol.2018.09.008.
Poniewierski, J., and Hall, B., 2016, Break-
even is broken: Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) Bulletin,
June 2016, p. 68–71, www.ausimmbulletin.
com/feature/break-even-is-broken/.
Samis, M., Davis, G.A., Laughton, D., and
Poulin, R., 2005, Valuing uncertain asset
cash flows when there are no options: A
No 118 • JULY 2019 SEG NEWSLETTER 27

real options approach: Resources Policy, v.

30, no. 4, p. 285–298.
Taheri, M., Irannajad, M., and Ataee-Pour,
M., 2009, Risk-adjusted discount rate
estimation for evaluating mining projects:
JASSA, no. 4, p. 36–42.
Trout, L., and Reid, D., 2018, PanAust Lim-
ited’s approach to mine waste and tailings
stewardship: Mine Waste and Tailings
Stewardship Conference 2018, Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Aus-
IMM), Brisbane, 2018, Proceedings, p. 7–8.
Valenta, R.K., Kemp, D., Owen, J.R., Corder,
G.D., and Lèbre, É., 2019, Re-thinking com-
plex orebodies: Consequences for the future
world supply of copper: Journal of Cleaner
Production, v. 220, p. 816–826.
Vann, J., 2007, Applied geostatistics for min-
ing professionals: Quantitative Group, Ok
Tedi, Tabubil, Papua New Guinea, Internal
course presentation, p. 7–8.
Wood, D., and Hedenquist, J., 2019, Mineral
exploration: Discovering and defining ore
deposits: SEG Newsletter, no. 116, p. 1,
11–22. 1
Ed Holloway is a mining engineer with 20-plus years of expe-
rience across a wide range of operational, planning, corporate,
and project roles. Ed has worked on some of the largest green-
field and brownfield projects and operations in Australia, the
Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Argentina, Peru, South
Africa, Brazil, and Russia. He has significant experience in a
range of base metals as well as coal, gold, and iron ore. Ed cur-
rently works as a consultant for Quantified Strategies focusing
on larger and more challenging strategic planning problems.
Scott Cowie is a mining engineer with over 15 years of expe-
rience in open-pit and underground mine engineering, study
management, and environmental permitting in corporate,
operational, and consulting engineering roles. Scott is respon-
sible for technical support and studies for PanAust’s mining
operations and projects. This includes progressing concepts to
feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, life of
mine planning, operational improvement programs, tailings
storage facility stewardship, and mine closure planning.

SEG Publication on Geology and Mining—Call for Papers:

Dan Wood and Jeffrey Hedenquist, editors

The aim of the series on Geology and Mining is to educate early career professionals and students
about applied economic geology, i.e., mining. Extra articles for the series are sought to complement the
invited papers on exploration, feasibility studies, mine planning, metallurgy, geotechnical studies, cav-
ing, ­narrow-body mining, and environmental and social implications. Case study articles are strongly
­encouraged, both positive and negative.

Please advise the series’s co-editors of the title of your proposed contribution and provide a 200-word out-
line by October 1, 2019, specifically indicating how the article will inform young geoscientists. Approved
proposals will have a deadline of March 31, 2020, for a review-ready manuscript (<7,000 words plus 30
references and a 250-word abstract, with eight figures).

PAID ADVERTISEMENT