Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

A novel model for sustainable production scheduling of an open-pit mining

complex considering waste encapsulation
Jingsi Lin a, Mohammad Waqar Ali Asad a, *, Erkan Topal a, Ping Chang a, Jinxin Huang a, b,
Wei Lin c
a
WA School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Australia
b
Rio Tinto Pty Ltd., West Angelas, PO Box 675, Newman, 6753, Australia
c
Mining Group Co., Ltd., Shanghang, 364200, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This work presents a novel mixed integer programming model for simultaneous optimisation of ore production
Open pit mining and waste dumping schedule for an open-pit mining complex. The model maximises net present value and
Optimisation generates an optimal flow of materials from multiple sources (open pits, stockpiles) to destinations (processing
Waste encapsulation
streams, stockpiles, waste dumps) within the supply chain of a mining complex. In addition, the proposed model
Sustainability
implements sustainable mining practices as it ensures the responsible disposal of potentially acid forming waste.
Mixed integer programming
An application of the new simultaneous and the traditional two-step (or sequential) methods confirms that the
proposed method derives higher net present value and reflects a distinct advantage in addressing the acid mine
drainage problem through encapsulation of potentially acid forming wastes. In addition, the results reveal that
the new model requires less waste haulage work leading to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

1. Introduction mineralisation (orebody) that should be mined and transported to the

An open-pit mining complex is an integrated system that constitutes
multiple mines (open-pits), stockpiles, material processing streams, and
waste dumps (Asad and Dimitrakopoulos, 2013; Goodfellow and Dimi­
trakopoulos, 2017). The open-pit produces ore (valuable) and waste
materials, where ore moves from pit to processing streams, waste goes to
the waste dumps, and potential ore moves to the stockpiles for possible
processing during later years. Given that a typical open-pit mining
complex produces and moves millions of tonnes of material within the
supply chain of an operation, the implementation of sustainable mining
practices ensures responsible and cleaner production during the opera­
tional life of an operation. Therefore, an optimal approach towards
production planning or scheduling of a mining complex that defines the
flow of materials within its supply chain is vital towards meeting the
sustainability goals.
Production scheduling of an open-pit mining complex is one of the
critical steps in mine planning and design as it aims to maximise the net
present value (NPV) by satisfying the operational, technical, and envi­
ronmental constraints of the operation. The outcome of production
scheduling model specifies the regions and quantities of the
associated destinations (ore processing facilities, waste dumps, stock­
piles, etc.) each year over a planning horizon (Koushavand et al., 2014).
Based on exploratory drilling data, an application of geostatistical
techniques (Goovaerts, 1997; Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989; Mai et al.,
2019; Remy et al., 2009; Rossi and Deutsch, 2013) generates an ore body
model, i.e., it discretises an orebody into thousands of three-dimensional
and fixed-sized blocks with a unique location (x, y, z coordinates) and
attributes (material grade, rock type, density, etc.) assigned to each
block. Next, the undiscounted value or net profit of each block is esti­
mated considering the financial and metallurgical data. In the process,
the grade threshold (cut-off grade) to achieve positive net profit is
calculated to distinguish ores from wastes. As a result, blocks whose
grades are above the cut-off grade are destined to an ore processing
facility or a stockpile, while the rest of the blocks are discarded into a
waste dump (Dagdelen, 2001; Groeneveld et al., 2019).
In this process, the potentially acid-forming (PAF) waste blocks have
been a major threat to the environment and the communities globally. In
general, the low PH nature of acid mine drainage (AMD) provokes the
solubility of toxic metals when interacting with rocks. Then, the dis­
solved metal contaminates the receiving water and causes severe

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: waqar.asad@curtin.edu.au (M.W.A. Asad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104949
Received 24 May 2023; Received in revised form 18 March 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024
Available online 29 March 2024
0301-4207/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Lin et al.
impacts on the aquatic life, the health of nearby communities and
degradation (Grout and Levings, 2001). In this context, Asif and Chen
(2016) also highlighted that the primary environmental concern arising
from AMD is the degradation of water quality, posing a threat to aquatic
life. Besides these, once AMD is generated, the incurred remediation
costs are about five times more expensive than that of managing po­
tential acid-forming (PAF) rocks (Qin et al., 2019). In addition, truck
haulage systems accomplish the movement of millions of tonnes of
materials during the operational life of a mining complex requiring
excessive fuel consumption. Therefore, these material handling systems
contribute to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it is important to
note in this context that mineral and metal production and their delivery
to the market accounts for about 10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, i.e., it is one of the key contributor to the climate change
(Oberle et al., 2019). In particular, as waste dumps expand horizontally
and vertically to accept incoming waste rocks, the increasing haulage
distances for a truck fleet require more fuel combustion, producing more
than half of the GHG in a typical open-pit mine (Huo et al., 2023).
Therefore, the long-term environmental and economic sustainability of
mining complexes demands effective and efficient production planning
strategies for handling PAF to eliminate the negative impact of AMD and
reducing waste haulage requirements to minimise costs as well as GHG
emissions.
The production planning optimisation of a mining complex has
evolved into several variants since the 1960s (Fathollahzadeh et al.,
2021a). In the early stages, the problem was simplified as obtaining the
ultimate pit limit (UPL) or the extent of extraction with the aim to
maximise the undiscounted value. Graph theory or network flow based
algorithms are the fundamental methods commonly used to compute
UPL considering the block precedence requirement as the only technical
constraint (Johnson and Barnes, 1988; Lerchs and Grossmann, 1965).
However, to obtain a long-term open-pit production schedule, the de­
cision around timing of block extraction has to be considered together
with one or more of the following constraints: (i) bounds on mining
capacity; (ii) bounds on processing capacities; (iii) cut-off grade; and (iv)
stockpiling (Espinoza et al., 2013). To achieve this, researchers have
explored various types (e.g., linear programming (LP) and mixed integer
programming (MIP)) of pit production scheduling models and their so­
lution techniques (e.g., exact methods and (meta-)heuristic algorithms)
(Bley et al., 2012; Caccetta and Hill, 2003; Chicoisne et al., 2012; Ger­
shon, 1983; Johnson, 1969; Lamghari et al., 2014; Moreno et al., 2017;
Rimélé et al., 2018). However, given the number of variables and con­
straints in an MIP based production scheduling models are computa­
tionally complex, and accordingly, they are categorised as NP-hard
(Gleixner, 2009). Therefore, for the optimisation of mine production
scheduling problems, most previous studies have explored model scale
reduction techniques, making the computation more efficient and
trackable (Askari-Nasab et al., 2011; Gleixner, 2009; Osanloo et al.,
2008; Samavati et al., 2017). Besides, some other researchers addressed
uncertainty around metal prices and grades to manage associated risks
(Boland et al., 2008; Goodfellow and Dimitrakopoulos, 2017; Jamshidi
and Osanloo, 2019; Mokhtarian Asl and Sattarvand, 2016). Nonetheless,
the objective function of these models remains maximisation of the net
present value (NPV) without accounting for the environmental consid­
erations, i.e., these models ignore the sustainable development goals of a
mining operation (Xu et al., 2018).
Despite the challenges in computational complexity, previous studies
have realised the importance of sustainable development through opti­
misation in waste dump scheduling. In this context, few production
scheduling models incorporated the control parameters or variables
related to waste production. Caccetta and Kelsey (2001) developed an
MIP model to design the optimal removal system for waste blocks in
mining operations with the aims to minimise the impact on surface
topography as well as the reduction in costs associated with construction
of waste dumps. Similarly, Ersan et al. (2003) discussed preventing AMD
through careful mine planning by applying eco-based strategic mine
2
Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949
planning practices without sharing any strategy towards achieving this
prevention. More recently, Ben-Awuah and Askari-Nasab (2013) pro­
pose a mixed integer linear goal programming based formulation that
works with mining cuts (clusters or aggregates of mining blocks) and an
initial production plan as an input and generates an ore production
along with a waste management plan for oil sands operations. In addi­
tion, Badiozamani and Askari-Nasab (2014) developed a mixed integer
linear programming model (MILP) to integrate reclamation handling
costs and tailings management into the production planning of oil sands
surface mines. Their study verified the effectiveness of the approach for
sustainable oil sands mining operations.
An important and promising approach for preventing AMD is to
balance or cover PAF waste materials with non-acid forming (NAF)
waste materials (Park et al., 2019). Kumral and Dimitrakopoulos (2008)
attempted to control the PAF contents through a non-linear MIP model
that did not consider dumping placement or PAF covering strategy. Li
et al. (2013) introduced a two-step MIP model that allocates PAF waste
rocks to the centre of the main waste dump for encapsulation using
non-acid forming (NAF) rocks. The waste dump plan generated in this
study not only achieved the full encapsulation of PAF wastes, but also, it
saved the discounted value of costs by 9.5% compared with manual
dump scheduling methods. However, Kumral and Dimitrakopoulos
(2008), Li et al. (2013, 2014) require pre-defined cut-off grade and
extraction sequence, leading to a sub-optimal solution. In this regard, Fu
et al. (2019) proposed a linear MIP model that considers dynamic cut-off
grade strategy and applied an exact method to solve this model for
optimisation of the open-pit production schedules and waste dump
schedules simultaneously. Similarly, Ramezanalizadeh et al. (2020)
presented an MIP model designed to optimise block sequencing and
waste dumping simultaneously by relying on a pre-classified ore and
waste materials. This study aims to maximise the net present value while
minimising the net present cost associated with re-handling NAF to
encapsulate PAF wastes. The authors employed the artificial bee colony
algorithm to solve the model, achieving an optimality gap of less than
2% compared to the results obtained from CPLEX. Furthermore, Vaziri
et al. (2021, 2022) introduced MILP models that blend waste materials
strategically to reduce the formation of acid rock drainage (ARD). The
optimisation process involved blending non-acid forming rocks with
potentially acid forming rocks while considering the acid-neutralizing
properties of materials. Additionally, the models incorporated envi­
ronmental and mineralogical characterizations for an optimized
blending strategy coupled with reduction in waste rock rehandling. It is
important to note that all the above models are limited to an open pit
mining operation with single pit or waste dump, and accordingly, they
are not applicable to mining complexes with multiple pits, processes,
stockpiles, and waste dumps.
A state of the art in the context of mining complexes is the stochastic
models for mining complexes considering metal price and grade un­
certainties (Goodfellow and Dimitrakopoulos, 2016, 2017; Montiel and
Dimitrakopoulos, 2015, 2017, 2018; Paithankar et al., 2021). The
contribution in these studies is not limited only to new stochastic
models, but they propose innovative heuristic and metaheuristic pro­
cedures that solve these computationally complex models. Dimi­
trakopoulos and Lamghari (2022) present an overview of these
state-of-the-art contributions around optimal and risk-quantified solu­
tions for mining complexes. While a majority of these studies solve open
pit production scheduling problem only, i.e., ignore waste dump plan­
ning simultaneously, Levinson and Dimitrakopoulos (2020) presents a
stochastic model with waste management for a gold mining complex.
Levinson and Dimitrakopoulos (2020) considers geological uncertainty
and addresses the risk for potential misrepresentation of the quality and
quantity of waste associated to the deterministic models that ignore
geological unceratinty and thus compromise on the accurate classifica­
tion of NAF and PAF wastes. It is well recognised that inaccurate clas­
sification of these wastes leads to serious implications for the
stakeholders interested in the sustainability and the productivity of a
J. Lin et al.
mining complex. While the stochastic model in Levinson and Dimi­
trakopoulos (2020) produces a risk-quantified ore production and waste
management plan, it does not consider the encapsulation of PAF wastes
and the corresponding waste dump precedence requirements.
In this study, a new simultaneous mixed integer programming
(SimMIP) model is proposed to optimise the ore production and waste
dump scheduling of an operational mining complex. More specifically,
as opposed to the traditional methods that generate ore production and
waste dump schedules separately (i.e., two-step method), SimMIP model
generates both schedules simultaneously. In addition, the proposed
SimMIP model calculates the economic value of all possible paths for a
mining block from a source (one of the pits) to a destination (one of the
processing facilities, stockpiles, or waste dumps). Therefore, it ensures
the application of dynamic cut-off grade strategy as opposed to the pre-
allocation of ore and waste materials in the traditional production
scheduling models. The new model balances the NPV maximisation with
waste dumping strategies considering AMD and GHG emissions, and it
satisfies the production capacity, mining and dumping precedence, and
PAF waste encapsulation constraints. Moreover, this study shares the
implementation of new SimMIP model at the data set from a mining
complex in the Eastern Goldfields, Western Australia. The simultaneous
optimisation results are then analysed and compared with the results
generated from an implementation of traditional two-step method under
similar input settings. The analysis reveals that the SimMIP model is
superior in terms of NPV maximisation, PAF waste encapsulation, and
GHG emissions strategies. An exceptional contribution of the proposed
SimMIP model is the significant (approximately 47%) reduction in GHG
emissions as compared to the traditional approach.
2. The proposed SimMIP model
Fig. 1 illustrates a framework that facilitates the description of the
Fig. 1. Integrated framework of material flows for a mining complex.
3
Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949
proposed model. The example mining complex in Fig. 1 consists of four
open-pit, two categories of stockpiles, two processing plants and two
waste dumps. The destinations (i.e., processing plants, stockpiles, and
waste dumps) of material flow are decided automatically by the model
based on the grade, acid-forming condition, and mining and processing
constraints. PAF ores from the pits may only be sent to one of the two
processing streams (heap leach and carbon-in-leach (CIL) circuit) as
direct feed. While NAF ore may be processed as direct feed to processing
streams, it may also be stockpiled in bins to facilitate the grade blending
requirement or capacity management of processing plants (Danish et al.,
2021). PAF waste must be sent to the allocated dump locations or cells
for encapsulation within the waste dump 2. However, NAF wastes may
either be transported to one of the two waste dumps, or to the waste
stockpile facilitating the full encapsulation demand for PAF wastes at the
end of the project. Materials storage in both stockpiles will incur addi­
tional rehandling costs in later mining stages based on their final des­
tinations. It should be noted that the classification of ores and wastes
varies in each period as the dynamic cut-off grade strategy is applied in
the model.
2.1. Mathematical formulation of the SimMIP model
The proposed mathematical formulation aligns with the framework
given Fig. 1. In addition, Sections 2.3 and 2.4 cover the detailed struc­
ture of stockpiles and waste dumps in the context of inventory man­
agement in stockpiles as well as the precedence and priority of waste
allocation in waste dumps, respectively. The following indices, sets,
parameters, and decision variables form the proposed mathematical
formulation.
2.1.1. Indices and sets
t ∈ T = time periods within the scheduling horizon; 1, ⋯, |T|.
J. Lin et al. Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

m ∈ M = pits; 1, ⋯, |M|. ρ = swell factor (%)

b ∈ Bm = blocks b in pit m; 1, ⋯, |Bm |. vbmp = value ($ per tonne) of material from block b of mine m to
b ∈ Bim = inert (or NAF) blocks of pit m; Bim ⊆ Bm , |Bim | ≤ |Bm |. processing stream p, where vbmp = (p′ − r′) × gbm × rbmp − mbm − hmp ×
b ∈ Brm = reactive (or PAF) blocks of pit m; Brm ⊆ Bm , |Brm | ≤ |Bm |. dmp − pbmp , ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Bm , p ∈ P.
ηb ∈ Bbm = direct precedent blocks over block b of mine pit m; Bbm ⊆ vbms = value ($ per tonne) of material from block b of pit m to
Bm , |Bbm | ≤ |Bm |. stockpile bin s, where vbms = − mbm − hmp × dmp , ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Bm , s ∈ S.
ηb ∈ Bibm = direct inert precedent blocks over block b of mine pit m; vbmdw = value ($ per tonne) of material from block b of pit m to dump
Bibm ⊆ Bbm , |Bibm | ≤ |Bbm |. cell d of waste dump w, where vbmdw = − mbm − hmdw × dmdw , ∀m ∈ M,
ηb ∈ Brbm = direct reactive precedent blocks over block b of mine pit b ∈ Bm , d ∈ Dw , w ∈ W.
m; Brbm ⊆ Bbm , |Brbm | ≤ |Bbm |. vsp = value ($ per tonne) of material from stockpile bin s to pro­
w ∈ W = waste dumps in the mining complex; 1, ⋯, |W|.
cessing stream p, where vsp = (p′ − r′) × gs × rsp − hs − hsp × dsp − psp ,
d ∈ Dw = dump cells d of waste dump w.
∀s ∈ S, p ∈ P.
d ∈ Diw = dump cells of waste dump w that can accommodate only
vsdw = value ($ per tonne) of material from waste stockpile bin s to
inert materials; Diw ⊆ Dw , |Diw | ≤ |Dw |.
d ∈ Drw = dump cells d of waste dump w that can accommodate both cell d of waste dump w, where vsdw = − hs − hsdw × dsdw ,∀s ∈ Sw ,d ∈ Dw ,
reactive and inert materials; Drw ⊆ Dw , |Drw | ≤ |Dw |. w = 2.
ηd ∈ Ddw = direct precedent dump cells to dump cell d of waste dump
w; Ddw ⊆ Dw , |Ddw | ≤ |Dw |. 2.1.3. Decision variables
ηd ∈ Didw = direct precedent dump cells to dump cell d of waste xbmpt = the quantity (tonne) of material extracted from block b of pit
dump w, which can accommodate only inert materials, Didw ⊆ Ddw , m to processor p in period t.
|Didw | ≤ |Ddw |. xbmst = the quantity (tonne) of material extracted from block b of pit
ηd ∈ Drdw = direct precedent dump locations to dump cell d in waste m to stockpile bin s in period t.
dump of dump w, which can accommodate both reactive and inert xbmdwt = the quantity (tonne) of material extracted from block b of pit
materials, Drdw ⊆ Ddw , |Drdw | ≤ |Ddw |, w = 2. m to dump cell d of waste dump w in period t.
xspt = the quantity (tonne) of material from stockpile bin s to pro­
βd ∈ D ̂dw = dump cells with direct higher dumping priority over
cessor p in period t.
dump cell d of waste dump w; D ̂ dw ⊆ Dw , | Ddw | ≤ |Dw |.
̂
xsdwt = the quantity (tonne) of material from waste stockpile bin s to
p ∈ P = processing plants; 1, ⋯, |P|. dump cell d of waste dump w in period t.
s ∈ S = stockpile bins; 1, ⋯, |S|. y =
s ∈ Sl = waste stockpile bins; Sl ⊆ S, |Sl | < |S|. { bmt
1, if all precedent blocks of block b are mined out in periods to t
s ∈ Sh = medium or high-grade stockpile bins; Sh ⊆ S, |Sh | < |S|. .
0, otherwise
y =
2.1.2. Parameters { dwt
1, if all precedent dump cells of dump cell d are filled in periods to t
i = discounted rate (%) .
0, otherwise
p′ = selling price ($ per gram) of metal Given these notations (indices, sets, parameters, and decision vari­
r′ = refining price ($ per gram) of metal ables), Equations (1)–(24) form the proposed mathematical formulation.
mbm = mining cost ($ per tonne of material) of block b from pit m Equation (1) presents the objective function of this proposed formula­
(excluding haulage cost). tion. The objective function maximises the discounted value (NPV) of
pbmp = processing cost ($ per tonne of ore) of block b from pit m at future cash flows over a planning horizon.
processor p. ⎤
⎡
psp = processing cost ($ per tonne of ore) of material from stockpile ∑|M| ∑|Bm | ∑|P| ∑|T| ∑ |M| ∑ |Bm | ∑ |S| ∑ |T|
v v ⎥
bin s at processor p. ⎢ bmp bms
⎢ t xbmpt + t xbmst + ⎥
⎢ m=1 b=1 p=1 t=1 (1 + i) m=1 b=1 s=1 t=1 (1 + i)
⎥
rbmp = recovery (%) of block b from pit m at processor p. ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
rsp = recovery (%) of material from stockpile bin s at processor p. ⎢
⎢ |M| |B | |W|
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ vbmdw
m |D w | |T|
⎥
⎥
⎥
ho1 o2 = haulage cost ($ per tonne-km) from source o1 to destination Max⎢⎢ + t xbmdwt + ⎥
(1 + i) ⎥
o2 , o1 = {M, S}, o2 = {P, S, W}. ⎢
⎢ m=1 b=1 w=1 d=1 t=1 ⎥
⎥
⎢
do1 o2 = distance (km) between source o1 and destination o2 , o1 = {M, ⎢ |S| |P|
∑ ∑ ∑ vsp |T| |S| |W|
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ vsdw |D | |T|
⎥
⎥
⎢ w

S}, o2 = {P, S, W}. ⎣ t xspt + t xsdwt

⎥
⎦
s=1 p=1 t=1 (1 + i) s=1 w=1 dw =1 t=1 (1 + i)
hs = rehandling cost ($ per tonne of material) at stockpile bin s.
gbm = grade (grams per tonne) of block b of pit m. (1)
gs = average grade (grams per tonne) of material taken from stock­
pile bin s. As shown in Fig. 1, the model prohibits flow of materials to certain
CMt = upper bound on mining capacity (tonne) in period t. destinations based on their characteristics. Therefore, Equations (2)–(5)
CMt = lower bound on mining capacity (tonne) in period t. implement these restrictions and Equation (6) forbids any retrieval from
any stockpile bin during time t = 1.
CPpt = upper bound on processing capacity (tonne) of processing
stream p in period t. xbmdwt = 0, ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Brm , d ∈ Diw , w ∈ W, t ∈ T (2)
CPpt = lower bound on processing capacity (tonne) of processing
stream p in period t. xbmst = 0, ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Brm , s ∈ S, t ∈ T (3)
Gpt = lower bound on ore grade (grams per tonne) sent to processing
xsdwt = 0, ∀s ∈ Sh , d ∈ Dw , w ∈ W, t ∈ T (4)
stream p in period t.
Cdw = dumping capacity (m3 ) of cell d in waste dump w.
xspt = 0, ∀s ∈ Sl , p ∈ P, t ∈ T (5)
Cs = stockpiling capacity (m3 ) of bin s.
qbm = available quantity (tonne) of material in block b of pit m. |P|
∑ |W| ∑
∑ |Dw |
σ bm = density (tonne per m3 ) of material in block b of pit m. xspt + xsdwt = 0, ∀s ∈ S, t = 1 (6)
σ s = density (tonne per m3 ) of material in stockpile bin s. p=1 w=1 d=1

4
J. Lin et al. Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

Equation (7) presents the reserve constraint as it ensures the total

extracted quantity of material from a block b does not exceed the
|P| ∑
∑ t |S| ∑
∑ t |W| ∑
∑ |Dw | ∑
t
xbmpt′ + xbmst′ + xbmdwt′ − ybmt qbm ≤ 0,
available quantity of materials in that block over the planning horizon. p=1 s=1 w=1 d=1 t′=1
(17)
t′=1 t′=1

|P| ∑
|T| |S| ∑
|T| |W| ∑
|Dw | ∑
|T|
∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Bim , t ∈ T
∑ ∑ ∑
xbmpt + xbmst + xbmdwt ≤ qbm , ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Bm ⎡ ⎤
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑ ∑ |M| ∑|Bm | ∑ ∑
P=1 t=1 s=1 t=1 w=1 d=1 t=1 t
xbmηd wt′ ∑ t
xbmηd wt′
(7) ⎢
⎢ m=1 b=1 η ∈Di t′=1 σbm
+
σ bm
+⎥
⎥
⎢ d dw
m=1 b=1 ηd ∈Drd t′=1 ⎥
w
Equations (8)–(11) maintain the upper and lower bounds on mining ρ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
and processing production capacities. Equations (12) and (13) enforce ∑|S| ∑ ∑ t
⎣ xsηd wt′ ⎦
the inventory balance in each stockpile bin for every period. Equation s=1 ηd ∈Ddw t′=1
σs
(14) restricts the swelled volume of disposed materials within the dump ∑
− ydwt cηd ≥ 0, ∀w ∈ W, d ∈ Dw , t
cell capacity in each waste dump. Equation (15) guarantees PAF rock ηd ∈Ddw
encapsulation upon closure of the mining operation.
∈T (18)
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|P| |M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|S| |M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|W| ∑
|Dw |
xbmpt + xbmst + xbmdwt ≤ CM t ,∀t ∈ T [ |M| ∑
|Bm | ∑ |S| ∑
]
∑ t
x ∑ t
x
M=1 b=1 p=1 m=1 b=1 s=1 m=1 b=1 w=1 d=1 bmdwt′ sdwt′
ρ + − ydwt cdw ≤ 0, ∀w ∈ W, d ∈ Dw , t ∈ T
(8) m=1 b=1 t′=1
σ bm s=1 t′=1
σs
(19)
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|P| |M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|S| |M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|W| ∑
|Dw |
xbmpt + xbmst + xbmdwt ≥ CM t ,∀t ∈ T Aligning with Equations (18) and (19) dumping precedence con­
M=1 b=1 p=1 m=1 b=1 s=1 m=1 b=1 w=1 d=1 straints, Equation (20) maintains a dumping cell priority to avoid
(9) impractical dumping gaps, i.e., these equations ensure continuity of
dumping.
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | |S|
∑ [ |M| |Bm | ]
xbmpt + xspt ≤ CPpt , ∀p ∈ P, t ∈ T (10) ∑∑ ∑ ∑ t
xbmβd wt′ ∑ |S| ∑ ∑ t
xsβd wt′ ∑
m=1 b=1 s=1 ρ + − ydwt cβd
σ σ
m=1 b=1 βd ∈Dˆd t′=1
w
bm s=1 βd ∈Dˆd t′=1
w
s
βd ∈Dˆdw (20)
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | |S|
∑ ≥ 0, ∀w ∈ W, d ∈ Dw , t ∈ T
xbmpt + xspt ≥ CPpt , ∀p ∈ P, t ∈ T (11)
m=1 b=1 s=1 Equation (21) controls the minimum average grade of ore flowing to
the processing facilities, and finally Equations (22)–(24) maintain the
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
t |P| ∑
∑ t |W| ∑
∑ |Dw | ∑
t
integer variables required for precedence constraints and the continuous
xbmst′ − xspt′ − xsdwt′ ≥ 0, ∀s ∈ S, t ∈ T
variables required to define the flow of materials from sources to des­
m=1 b=1 t′=1 p=1 t′=1 w=1 d=1 t′=1
tinations within the mining complex.
(12)
|M| |B
∑ ∑ m| |S|
∑
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
t |P| ∑
∑ t |W| ∑
∑ |Dw | ∑
t xbmpt gbm + xspt gs
(21)
m=1 b=1 s=1
xbmst′ − xspt′ − xsdwt′ ≤ Cs , ∀s ∈ S, t ∈ T ≥ Gpt , ∀p ∈ P, t ∈ T
|M| |B
∑ ∑ m| |S|
∑
m=1 b=1 t′=1 p=1 t′=1 w=1 d=1 t′=1
xbmpt + xspt
(13) m=1 b=1 s=1

[ ]
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|T| |S| ∑
∑ |T| ybmt binary, ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Bm , t ∈ T (22)
xbmdwt xsdwt
ρ + ≤ Cdw , ∀w ∈ W, d ∈ Dw (14)
σbm σs
m=1 b=1 t=1 s=1 t=1 ydwt binary, ∀w ∈ W, d ∈ Dw , t ∈ T (23)
[ ]
|M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|Dw | ∑
|T|
xbmdwt
|S| ∑
∑ |Dw | ∑
|T|
xsdwt
|Dw |
∑ xbmpt , xbmst , xbmdwt , xspt , xsdwt ≥ 0, ∀m, b, p, s, w, d, t (24)
ρ + = Cdw , w = 2 (15)
m=1 b=1 d=1 t=1
σbm s=1 d=1 t=1
σs d=1

Equations (16)–(19) regulate the precedence requirements in pits
and waste dumps. Specifically, Equations (16) and (17) relate to the
extraction precedence of mining blocks within the pits as well as
Equations (18) and (19) maintain the dump cell precedence within the
waste dumps, respectively.
2.2. Stockpile design
This study considers a linearised structure of the stockpiles as prac­
ticed in the mining industry (Fathollahzadeh et al., 2021b). More spe­
cifically, stockpiles are split into a succession of stockpile bins, each of
which accepts materials with a non-overlapping grade range and a
specific rock type (i.e., oxide rocks, fresh rocks, and transitional rocks).

|P| ∑
∑ ∑ t |S| ∑
∑ ∑ t
xηb mpt′ + xηb mst′ +
ηb ∈Bbm p=1 t′=1 ηb ∈Bbm s=1 t′=1
|W| |D
(16)
∑ ∑ ∑ rw| ∑
t |W| ∑
∑ ∑ |Dw | ∑
t ∑
xηb mdwt′ + xηb mdwt′ − ybmt qηb m ≥ 0, ∀m ∈ M, b ∈ Bm , t ∈ T
ηb ∈Brbm w=1 dw =1 t′=1 ηb ∈Bib w=1 d=1 t′=1 ηb ∈Bbm
m

5
J. Lin et al. Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

Each ore stockpile bin is associated with a lower bound Ls and an upper
bound Ls of grade and maintains an equal grade interval c for each rock
type presented in Equations (25) and (26). In addition, Equation (27)
represents the feature of waste stockpile bins that store NAF waste
materials for a possible PAF encapsulation requirement in the waste
dumps. Furthermore, Equation (28) controls the linearisation of the
model assuming an average grade gs of the materials coming out of a
stockpile bins.
Ls = Ls+1 , s = 1, ⋯, S − 1
Ls − Ls = c, s ∈ Sh
Ls = Ls = 0, s ∈ Sl
gs = (Ls + Ls )/2
2.3. Waste dump design
A waste dump is constructed with a vertical expansion while
ensuring a stable slope between lifts (Puell Ortiz, 2017). Like the block
models, a waste dump is composed of multiple three-dimensional dump
locations or cells in each lift. Therefore, the proposed model assumes
that sufficient space for creation of waste dumps is always available at
the mining complex under consideration. Given the framework in Fig. 1,
the dumping rules and sequence based on the material (waste) compo­
sition are detailed as follows.
2.3.1. Dumping rules
Dump 1 – only NAF waste rocks are allowed to be disposed in this
dump.
Dump 2 – both NAF and PAF waste rocks may be disposed in this
dump.
These rules ensure that the PAF waste rocks are only allowed allo­
cation to the dump cells fully enclosed by the dump cells that accom­
modate NAF rocks. Moreover, the complete encapsulation of the PAF
wastes under these rules may incur additional haulage costs associated
to the movement of NAF rocks from waste stockpiles.
3. Case study
This Section presents the implementation of the proposed model at a
data set from an operational gold (Au) mining complex in Eastern
Goldfields of Western Australia. The mining complex follows the
framework given in Fig. 1, i.e., it constitutes four pits, two processing
streams (heap leach and CIL plant), two waste dumps (Dump 1 for NAF
waste only and Dump 2 for both NAF and PAF wastes) and a set of
stockpile bins.
(25) The orebodies at this mining complex contain a total of 36,661
mining blocks. However, computational complexity of the open-pit
(26)
production scheduling formulations is well established (Fathollahza­
deh et al., 2021a), which confirms the complexity in solving the large
(27)
instances of the proposed simMIP model that would constitutes even
higher number of decision variables and constraints compared to a
(28)
traditional MIP model that entertains pit production plan exclusively (Fu
et al., 2019). Owing to these computational limitations, we consider the
workflow practised in mining industry (Caccetta and Hill, 2003; GEO­
VIA Whittle (Dassault Systems); Whittle, 1998) and a subset of blocks
within the orebodies (with a total of 1592 mining blocks) has been
generated through an ultimate pit limit analysis using the nested pit
shell scheme available in a commercial mining software that applies
Lerchs-Grossmann and Pseudo-Flow algorithms (Hochbaum, 2008;
Lerchs and Grossmann, 1965). Therefore, the proposed model considers
this subset of blocks within each of the pit limits for pit production and
waste dump scheduling. Table 1 lists the block model details related to
all four pits. Similarly, Table 2 provides information about the structure
of two waste dumps. Table 3 summarises the applicable economic and
technical parameters for this case study. It is evident that the processing
regimes and location of the heap leach and CIL circuit require different
processing costs, recovery rates, and haulage distances. In this case
study, the CIL circuit has the potential to recover more gold at higher
processing and haulage (transportation) costs. Accordingly, CIL circuit
will be more suitable for high-grade ore. Table 4 presents the opera­
tional parameters, i.e., production capacities for each component of the
mining complex including the pits, processing plants, stockpiles, and
waste facilities.

2.3.2. Dumping precedence and priority

Table 1
Fig. 2 presents the dumping precedence and priority strategies The block model details of four pits within the mining complex.
adopted in this study. For dumping precedence (Fig. 2(a)), each dump
Description Pit 1 Pit 2 Pit 3 Pit 4
cell d in upper lifts may be considered for dumping only after filling a
maximum of 9 dumping cells in the lift below. Similarly, the model Pit type cutback cutback new pit cutback
Number of blocks 166 398 336 692
applies a dumping priority on a lift (Fig. 2(b)), as it ensures a consecutive
Number of NAF Blocks 144 345 330 658
and practical filling of the dumping cells. In addition, this dumping Number of PAF Blocks 22 53 6 34
priority serves the objective function of the model by minimising the Block dimension (x, y, z) 10 × 20 × 10 × 20 × 10 × 20 × 20 × 20 ×
haulage cost. 5 5 5 5
Grade range (gram per 0–2.312 0–2.619 0–1.733 0–1.398
tonne)

Fig. 2. (a) An example of the dumping precedence for a multi-lift dumping strategy; (b) An example of the dumping priority at a dumping lift with a 3 × 3 dumping
cell arrangement.

6
J. Lin et al. Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

Table 2 Table 7
The structure of the waste dumps. Quantity and grade of ore to processing plants using SimMIP model.
Explanation Waste Dump 1 Waste Dump 2 Year Ore Processed (tonnes) Average Grade of Ore Stripping Ratio
(gram per tonne)
Number of dump lifts 2 3
Number of dump cells 74 116 Heap Leach CIL Circuit Heap Leach CIL Circuit
Dump cell dimension (x, y, z) 15 × 15 × 10 15 × 15 × 10
1 350,000 100,000 0.803 1.370 0.312
Number of dump cells that can accept PAF – 20
2 330,800 68,400 0.675 1.252 0.528
wastes
3 350,000 18,000 0.559 1.047 0.426
4 264,200 10,600 0.597 1.810 0.307
5 92,250 0.450 1.015
Table 3
The economic and technical parameters for the case study.
Parameters Value simultaneous schedules of mining production and waste dumping, and
Discount rate (%) 10
NPV. In addition, Table 6 provides a summary of the plan in Table 5 in
Gold price ($ per gram of Au) 70.732 the context of NAF and PAF rocks production and their destination
Refining cost ($ per gram of Au) 4 within the system.
Base mining cost ($ per tonne of material) 3.07–3.91 The schedule proposes mining a total of 2,269,850 tonnes of material
Processing cost – CIL circuit ($ per tonne of ore) 11.9
over 5 years planning horizon, and then distributes the excavated ma­
Processing cost – heap leach ($ per tonne of ore) 22.4–30.9
Recovery rate – CIL circuit (%) 93 terial to the processing plants (1,562,329 tonnes), stockpile bins (21,921
Recovery rate – heap leach (%) 70 tonnes), and waste dumps (685,550 tonnes), respectively. In addition,
Base haulage cost ($ per tonne-km) 0.3 the schedule stores potential ore in stockpile bins 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17
Incremental haulage cost ($ per tonne-km) 0.1 with a grade range from 0.262 g per tonne to 0.432 g per tonne during
Rehandling cost ($ per tonne) 0.8
years 1 and 3, due to full utilization or bottleneck of the processing
streams. This stockpiled ore is then rehandled to the processing streams
Table 4 in the following year. Overall, the NPV is maximised to $21,377,628. A
Facility (or production) capacities for the case study. summary of this production plan in Table 6 confirms that a majority of
Facility Capacity Lower Limit Upper Limit
NAF waste moves to the waste dumps directly and it provides cover for
the PAF waste with a possibility of avoiding the movement of NAF waste
Mining (tonne per year) 0 600,000
from the stockpiles.
Processing – CIL circuit (tonne per year) 0 100,000
Processing – heap leach (tonne per year) 0 350,000 Table 7 summarises an annual quantity, the average-grade of ore
Stockpiling (tonne per year in each bin) 0 10,000 processed and the applicable stripping ratios (the ratio of quantity
Waste dump (m3 per dump cell) 0 2250 (tonnes) of waste moved for one tonne of ore mined). Table 7 reflects
that the highest stripping ratio appears in the last year of operation,
which is quite different from the normal mining projects where the
3.1. Numerical results
stripping ratios peak in the beginning. The reason for this peak stripping
ratio during the final year of operation is the structure of the three out of
3.1.1. The SimMIP model
four pits in this study (pits 1, 2 and 4). These pits are in fact cutback
Using Python API of CPLEX based on deterministic algorithms (CU
projects based on existing old pits, indicating no pre-stripping re­
Manual, 1987), the proposed model has been programmed for the
quirements. Therefore, it provides the opportunity to access more high-
objective function, variables and sets of constraints described in Section
grade ores in the preliminary stages, which explains the downward
2.2. Then a local computer with 2.60 GHz and 32 GB installed memory
trends in both the quantity and the average grades of the material sent to
RAM solves the model. The solver generates results after 41 h of
the processing plant.
execution time, which is 7 h longer than the one without considering the
Beyond that, the extraction of fewer quantities of high-grade ores
dumping priority. Table 5 demonstrates the production schedule
flowing to the CIL circuit also results in the decline of total mining
generated through this implementation of the SimMIP model for
tonnage over time and the mining capacity not being fully utilised

Table 5
Production schedule and cash flow using SimMIP model.
Year Material Mined in Pits Material from Pits (tonnes) Material From Stockpiles (tonnes) Average Grade of Ore (gram NPV ($)
(tonnes) per tonne)
To Processing To To Waste To Processing To Waste
Streams Stockpiles Dumps Streams Dumps

1 600,000 450,000 9821 140,179 0 0 0.949 10,596,758

2 600,000 389,379 0 210,621 9821 0 0.803 6,110,924
3 537,150 368,000 12,100 156,750 0 0 0.580 2,664,243
4 347,100 262,700 0 84,400 12,100 0 0.650 1,924,691
5 185,850 92,250 0 93,600 0 0 0.450 81,011
Total 2,269,800 1,562,329 21,921 685,550 21,921 0 21,377,628

Table 6
A summary of the NAF and PAF rocks produced using SimMIP model.
Year NAF mined PAF mined NAF to waste dumps PAF to waste dumps NAF to processing plants PAF to processing plants NAF to stockpile bins
(Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)

2 510,571 89,429 206,421 4200 304,150 85,229

3 507,800 29,050 154,100 2650 341,600 26,400 12,100
4 322,800 24,300 84,400 238,400 24,300
5 173,050 12,800 91,500 2100 81,550 10,700

7
J. Lin et al.
Fig. 3. Block extraction sequence from year 1–5.
Fig. 4. Waste dumping sequence from year 1–5.
starting from Year 3, when the benefit of delaying waste mining starts
exceeding the benefit of bringing ore mining forwards.
Figs. 3 and 4 display a graphical view of the block extraction
sequence for each pit and the waste dumping sequence for two waste
dumps over 5 years, respectively. It shows a different mining focus in
each year: year 1 relates mainly to the extraction of materials from Pits 2
and 4, as year 2 focuses on mining from Pits 1 and 2. By the end of year 2,
about 64% and 70% of the mining work have been completed for Pits 1
and 2, respectively. Starting from year 3, Pit 4 delivers materials with
60% of blocks left. The mining progress reveals the SimMIP model’s
ability to distribute resources among pits, as it results in gaining an
economic advantage. Likewise, the yearly movement of waste materials
to waste dumps indicates the satisfaction of a continuous dumping
8
Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949
sequence and an entire filling in dump # 2, where PAF rocks move in
years 2, 3 and 5 to dump cells 20, 28, 46 and 86 coloured in black.
3.2. The traditional two-step method
To evaluate the performance of our proposed model, we imple­
mented the traditional two-step method using the same parameters
indicated in Tables 1–4 In this case, a cut-off grade, also referred to as
the lowest acceptable grade (Hosseini et al., 2020), is calculated to
determine whether materials are sent to a processing plant or a waste
dump in each period. Firstly, a linear MIP model with a stockpiling
decision is implemented to generate a mining sequence (Tabesh et al.,
2015). Then, based on the generated mining sequence, a waste disposal
plan is scheduled subsequently aiming at minimising the discounted
haulage costs. Table 8 reflects the scheduling results of the two-step
method. The NPV generated for this method is $21,116,593.4. The
two-step method schedules to move 1,602,950 tonnes of ore to the
processing plants and 1,176,800 tonnes of waste to the waste dumps
directly from the open-pits over 5 years. It is also found that ore stock­
piles are not used as the processing plants handle the incoming ores
directly. Meanwhile, the constantly increasing quantity of waste causes
a significant rise in the mining cost of producing ores and a drop in the
NPV over time, thereby radically reducing the processing quantity of ore
just above the processing threshold in year 4. On the other hand, moving
wastes to specific dump cells incurs a total haulage cost of $165,254 in
the second step.
4. Insights into the SimMIP and traditional models
A comparative study is introduced to validate the proposed model by
measuring the performance between the SimMIP model and the two-
step method. The model complexity, the running time, the mining,
processing, and dumping quantities, cut-off grade strategies, and the
control of GHG emissions and AMD are analysed.
4.1. Features and performance of the model
Table 9 presents a comparison of the computational performance of
the proposed and traditional methods. As shown in Table 9, the model
size in terms of the number of variables (continuous and binary) presents
a significant difference between the SimMIP model and the two-step
method: the SimMIP model contains more than 150 million variables,
which is 65 and 11 times higher than the variables size for block
J. Lin et al. Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

Table 8
Production schedule and cash flow using the traditional two-step method.
Year Material Mined in Pits Material from Pits (tonnes) Waste Haulage Costs Average Grade of Ore (gram per NPV ($)
(tonnes) ($) tonne)
To Processing To To Waste
Streams Stockpiles Dumps

1 600,000 418,300 0 181,700 31,637 1.013 11,389,032

2 593,250 413,750 0 179,500 32,845 0.786 6,094,946
3 575,350 370,650 0 204,700 25,045 0.603 2,657,366
4 422,100 207,400 0 214,700 22,508 0.533 671,245
5 589,050 192,850 0 396,200 53,221 0.559 310,097
Total 2,779,750 1,602,950 0 1,176,800 165,254 21,116,593

NAF waste in stockpiles to ensure PAF encapsulation, which leads to

Table 9
extra computation time coupled with lower NPV.
Model characteristics and computational performance from SimMIP and tradi­
The SimMIP model achieves an overall $261,034 higher NPV (1.2%
tional models.
increase) as compared to the two-step method in this study. It is obvious
Indicators Models
that NPV difference will be significant in largescale block models,
SimMIP Two-Step Method especially when rescheduling is required in two-step method, which did
Model not happen in this case.
Block Extraction Waste Dump
Scheduling Scheduling

Number of continuous 1,440,030 14,325 121,749 4.2. Significance of cut-off grade

variables
Number of binary 8910 7960 1595 The better performance of the SimMIP model in obtaining a higher
variables
Number of constraints 19,089 16,931 4647
NPV is also linked to the use of a dynamic cut-off grade strategy. It is
CPU time 41.03hr 81.05s 18.09s evident from Fig. 5 that the minimum grade of materials moving to
Optimality gap (%) 4.99 4.83 1.77 processing plants each year is varied in the SimMIP model, whereas it
NPV ($) 21,377,628 21,116,593 hardly changes in the two-step method. In addition, the SimMIP model
accepts low-grade ores entering processing plants starting from year 2,
indicating a more beneficial schedule for certain mid to low-grade of
extraction scheduling and waste dump scheduling in the two-step materials (referred to as mineral waste) to be processed in the processing
method, respectively. Therefore, incorporating a detailed waste dump plants rather than sent to the waste dumps, in contrast to the two-step
schedule, the SimMIP model must deal with significantly higher number method.
of variables and constraints regulating material flows to waste dumps. Moreover, the dynamic cut-off grade in the SimMIP model results in
Besides, cutback pits have a tendency towards increasing the dispersion 40,621 fewer tonnes of ore processed but saves 491,250 tonnes of waste
of ore, which adds a computational complexity given a large model size haulage work, resulting in a much lower stripping ratio compared to the
(Hochbaum and Chen, 2000). Therefore, the SimMIP model requires two-step model presented in Fig. 6 (the overall stripping ratio is
much longer solution time as compared to the two-step method. 0.43–0.73). Furthermore, the excavated blocks in the two-step method
Nonetheless, SimMIP model presents a unique advantage in dealing have only one choice between the processing plant and the waste dump
with PAF waste. In SimMIP model, waste stockpile bins are considered due to a pre-classification as ore or waste. On the contrary, the SimMIP
as a destination from the beginning. Hence, the encapsulation of PAF model considers the rock grade, facility capacities and costs simulta­
waste is ensured by the coverage of NAF waste from both pits and waste neously, ensuring the movement of ore to the processing streams within
stockpile bins concurrently as demonstrated in Equations (14) and (15). the lower and upper bounds of the production capacities as indicated in
However, the traditional two-step method does not have the waste Equations (10) and (11). Therefore, it schedules some blocks to a pro­
stockpiling option when scheduling a mining sequence in the first step as cessing plant and a waste dump with a portion at one time, manifesting a
it conflicts with the objective of maximising the NPV. Therefore, greater potential to achieve an integrated and profitable solution.
whether to have enough NAF waste to fully encapsule PAF highly de­
pends on the distribution of the PAF rocks. No feasible solution will be 4.3. Control of GHG emissions and AMD
achieved in the second step if there is an excessive quantity of PAF waste
to handle in the later production periods. This defect requires two-step The plans in Tables 5 and 7 confirm that while SimMIP model
method to reschedule a mining sequence and manually store enough maintains a lower production horizon, it manages significantly less
waste and maintains a lower stripping ratio over 5 years as compared to
the traditional two-step method. To further analyse the impact of the
generated mining and waste dumping sequences on the environment,

Fig. 5. Minimum grade of ore to processing plants using SimMIP model and
two-step models. Fig. 6. Year-by-year stripping ratio of the SimMIP and two-step models.

9
J. Lin et al. Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949

Table 10 than the two-step method. As the waste dump in this case is close to the
Haulage work and quantities of NAF and PAF waste in SimMIP and traditional pits, ore haulage accounts for the tonne-kilometers. Even though the
models. SimMIP model requires only half of the waste haulage as compared to
Measures Models the two-step method, the total carbon footprint from fuel consumption
SimMIP Model Two-Step Method
reduces by 3.96% only. However, for the mine sites with long hauling
distance for waste, the total emission will drop significantly by adopting
Total (ore + waste) haulage (tonne-km) 10,513,234 10,946,779
SimMIP model.
Ore haulage (tonne-km) 10,160,840 10,273,092
Waste haulage (tonne-km) 352,394 673,687 Regarding the quantity of NAF and PAF waste moved, the two-step
GHG emissions (kgCO2 e) 630,794 656,807 method accounts for handling significantly higher quantities of NAF
NAF waste quantities (tonnes) 676,600 1,157,250 and PAF waste as compared to the proposed SimMIP model. This is
PAF waste quantities (tonnes) 8950 19,550 because the two-step method ignores the characteristics of overlying
waste blocks if the value of extracted ore blocks pays for the mining,
the haulage work and quantities of NAF and PAF waste using the Sim­ haulage, and processing costs. Meanwhile, a higher stripping ratio by
MIP model and the two-step method are presented in Table 10. the two-step method demands more waste to be removed, posing a
It is worth noting that this study considers only ex-pit haulage as greater risk to AMD generation in the presence of more PAF wastes.
mining cost captures the in-pit haulage cost already. Equation (29) es­ Instead, the simultaneous structure of SimMIP model makes it capable of
timates the GHG emissions from ex-pit by multiplying the averaged gas weighing waste dump scheduling against open-pit scheduling to maxi­
emission per tonne-kilometer and the total material movement mise NPV and minimise environmental impact jointly.
measured in tonne-kilometer.
5. Conclusions
⎡∑
|M| ∑
|Bm | ∑
|P| ∑
|T| |M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|S| ∑
|T| ⎤
xbmpt dMP + xbmst dMS + ⎥
⎢
⎢ m=1 b=1 p=1 t=1 ⎥ This study presents a new model to simultaneously optimise the ore
m=1 b=1 s=1 t=1
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ production and waste dumping schedule in a mining complex with
⎢
EF ×FC ⎢ |M| ∑
∑ |Bm | ∑
|W| ∑
|Dw | ∑
|T| ⎥
⎥ multiple open-pits, processing plants, stockpiles, and waste dumps.
⎢ ⎥
E(GHG) = ×⎢
v×PL ⎢
+ xbmdwt dMW + ⎥ CPLEX in Python implements and solves the SimMIP and two-step
⎥
models. The SimMIP model considers a dynamic cu-off grade strategy
m=1 b=1 w=1 d=1 t=1
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣ ∑|S| ∑
|P| ∑|T| ∑|S| ∑|W| ∑|Dw | ∑
|T| ⎥
⎦ and case study confirms that it facilitates the choice of best processing
xspt dSP + xsdwt dSW destinations for valuable material and allows the productive utilization
s=1 p=1 t=1 s=1 w=1 dw =1 t=1
of non-active waste for encapsulation of PAF wastes. Compared to the
(29) two-step methods, SimMIP model achieves higher NPV, lower stripping
Here, EF is the emission factor, FC is fuel consumption, v is average ratios, and less waste haulage work. In addition, the model reduces the
speed, and PL is the payload. waste haulage requirement along with the associated GHG emissions up
Assuming a standard CAT777 fleet performs the haulage task at a to 47.69%. This reduction in waste haulage requirement and corre­
fuel consumption (FC) of 70 L per hour, average speed of 35 km per hour sponding GHG emissions relates to the objective function terms that
and a payload of ninety tonnes. The emission factor is estimated to be derive a negative value associated with the waste haulage. However, we
recommend that a sustained reduction in GHG emissions applicable to
2.70 kgCO
liter by the Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting
2e

both ore and waste haulage would require a modified model with
(Wong, 2008).
objective function terms accounting for the minimisation of GHG
Fig. 7 presents the cumulative waste haulage work and the corre­
emissions, and this modified version of the model will deliver reduced
sponding GHG emissions from the production plans generated through
GHG emissions in all instances of the future implementations. Further­
the proposed and two-step methods. The SimMIP model requires less
more, the proposed SimMIP model shows distinct advantages in PAF
waste haulage work coupled with less GHG emissions as compared to the
encapsulation as compared to the two-step method, noting that in few
two-step method. The two-step method excavates more waste to gain
cases, two-step method may lead to infeasible solutions owing to its
access to higher grade ore over time, and this aspect contributes to
sequential planning approach.
excessive GHG emissions. This confirms the outstanding advantage of
Despite all the benefits outlined in this study, SimMIP model solved
the SimMIP model in cutting down GHG emissions from the excavation
using exact or deterministic algorithms shows its limitation in dealing
and haulage of less waste.
with large scale problems due to the computational complexity. In
As summarised in Table 10, SimMIP model saved 47.69% in total
addition, unlike few state-of-the-art studies discussed in Section 1, the
waste haulage as compared to the two-step method. Accordingly, as
proposed model ignores the geological uncertainty, and therefore,
given in Equation (29) similar savings (47.69%) will apply towards GHG
future studies may investigate the methods that resolve responsible
emissions. In addition, Table 10 indicates that the ore haulage in Sim­
waste management under geological uncertainty. Furthermore, while
MIP model is close to that of the two-step method, i.e., it is 1.09% less
some studies (Bley et al., 2010; Lotfian et al., 2021; Mai et al., 2018)
have explored the clustering techniques for mining block aggregation
leading to a reduction in the number of variables. These techniques
come with serious limitations towards reconciliation of the generated
production plans after declustering, and therefore, for an acceptable
solution time and quality for relatively large-scale instances of this
problem, future studies may focus on the development and imple­
mentation of (meta-)heuristic algorithms similar to the recent works
shared in (Goodfellow and Dimitrakopoulos, 2016, 2017; Levinson and
Dimitrakopoulos, 2020; Montiel and Dimitrakopoulos, 2015, 2017,
2018).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Fig. 7. The cumulative waste haulage work and GHG emissions by SimMIP and
the two-step models. Jingsi Lin: Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, Formal

10
J. Lin et al.
analysis, Conceptualization. Mohammad Waqar Ali Asad: Writing –
original draft, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology,
Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Erkan Topal: Writing – review
& editing, Validation, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Ping Chang:
Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Funding acquisi­
tion, Data curation. Jinxin Huang: Writing – review & editing, Vali­
dation, Data curation. Wei Lin: Writing – review & editing, Funding
acquisition, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia (MRIWA) and
Norton Gold Fields Limited provided the funding and data (Grantor ID:
MRIWA M10430; Curtin University Reference: RES-SE-WAS-RP-63793-
1) for the work contributed to this paper. The collaboration between the
authors would not have been possible without the financial and tech­
nical support from MRIWA and Norton Gold Fields Ltd. The authors are
thankful to the MRIWA and technical staff at Norton Gold Fields for their
valuable collaboration. In addition, the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre
supported this work for computing resources with funding from the
Australian Government and the Government of Western Australia.
References
Asad, M.W.A., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2013. A heuristic approach to stochastic cutoff grade
optimization for open pit mining complexes with multiple processing streams.
Resour. Pol. 38, 591–597.
Asif, Z., Chen, Z., 2016. Environmental management in North American mining sector.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 23, 167–179.
Askari-Nasab, H., Pourrahimian, Y., Ben-Awuah, E., Kalantari, S., 2011. Mixed integer
linear programming formulations for open pit production scheduling. J. Min. Sci. 47,
338.
Badiozamani, M.M., Askari-Nasab, H., 2014. Integration of reclamation and tailings
management in oil sands surface mine planning. Environ. Model. Software 51,
45–58.
Ben-Awuah, E., Askari-Nasab, H., 2013. Incorporating waste management into oil sands
long term production planning. Min. Technol. 122, 33–45.
Bley, A., Boland, N., Fricke, C., Froyland, G., 2010. A strengthened formulation and
cutting planes for the open pit mine production scheduling problem. Comput. Oper.
Res. 37, 1641–1647.
Bley, A., Gleixner, A.M., Koch, T., Vigerske, S., 2012. Comparing MIQCP Solvers to a
Specialised Algorithm for Mine Production Scheduling, Modeling, Simulation and
Optimization of Complex Processes. Springer, pp. 25–39.
Boland, N., Dumitrescu, I., Froyland, G., 2008. A multistage stochastic programming
approach to open pit mine production scheduling with uncertain geology. Optim.
Online 1–33.
Caccetta, L., Hill, S.P., 2003. An application of branch and cut to open pit mine
scheduling. J. Global Optim. 27, 349–365.
Caccetta, L., Kelsey, P., 2001. Models for mine site rehabilitation. Int. Congr. Model.
Simul. 4 (2001), 2155–2160.
Chicoisne, R., Espinoza, D., Goycoolea, M., Moreno, E., Rubio, E., 2012. A new algorithm
for the open-pit mine production scheduling problem. Oper. Res. 60, 517–528.
CU Manual, 1987. Ibm Ilog Cplex Optimization Studio. Version 12, 1.
Dagdelen, K., 2001. Open pit optimization-strategies for improving economics of mining
projects through mine planning. In: 17th International Mining Congress and
Exhibition of Turkey, vol. 117, p. 121.
Danish, A.A.K., Khan, A., Muhammad, K., Ahmad, W., Salman, S., 2021. A simulated
annealing based approach for open pit mine production scheduling with stockpiling
option. Resour. Pol. 71, 102016.
Dimitrakopoulos, R., Lamghari, A., 2022. Simultaneous stochastic optimization of
mining complexes - mineral value chains: an overview of concepts, examples and
comparisons. Int. J. Min. Reclamat. Environ. 36, 443–460.
Ersan, H., Dagdelen, K., Rozgonyi, T., 2003. Environmental issues and eco-based mine
planning. Proceeding of the 18th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of
Turkey (IMCET). The Chamber of Mining Engineers of Turkey Press, Ankara,
pp. 11–17.
Espinoza, D., Goycoolea, M., Moreno, E., Newman, A., 2013. MineLib: a library of open
pit mining problems. Ann. Oper. Res. 206, 93–114.
Fathollahzadeh, K., Asad, M.W.A., Mardaneh, E., Cigla, M., 2021a. Review of solution
methodologies for open pit mine production scheduling problem. Int. J. Min.
Reclamat. Environ. 35, 564–599.
11
Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949
Fathollahzadeh, K., Mardaneh, E., Cigla, M., Asad, M.W.A., 2021b. A mathematical
model for open pit mine production scheduling with Grade Engineering® and
stockpiling. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 31, 717–728.
Fu, Z., Asad, M.W.A., Topal, E., 2019. A new model for open-pit production and waste-
dump scheduling. Eng. Optim. 51, 718–732.
GEOVIA Whittle (Dassault Systems), https://www.3ds.com/products/geovia/whittle
(accessed 9 February 2024).
Gershon, M.E., 1983. Optimal mine production scheduling: evaluation of large scale
mathematical programming approaches. Int. J. Min. Eng. 1, 315–329.
Gleixner, A., 2009. Solving Large-Scale Open Pit Mining Production Scheduling Problems
by Integer Programming. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin.
Goodfellow, R., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2017. Simultaneous stochastic optimization of
mining complexes and mineral value chains. Math. Geosci. 49, 341–360.
Goodfellow, R.C., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2016. Global optimization of open pit mining
complexes with uncertainty. Appl. Soft Comput. 40, 292–304.
Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Applied
Geostatistics.
Groeneveld, B., Topal, E., Leenders, B., 2019. Examining system configuration in an open
pit mine design. Resour. Pol. 63, 101438.
Grout, J., Levings, C., 2001. Effects of acid mine drainage from an abandoned copper
mine, Britannia Mines, Howe Sound, British Columbia, Canada, on transplanted blue
mussels (Mytilus edulis). Mar. Environ. Res. 51, 265–288.
Hochbaum, D.S., 2008. The pseudoflow algorithm: a new algorithm for the maximum-
flow problem. Oper. Res. 56, 992–1009.
Hochbaum, D.S., Chen, A., 2000. Performance analysis and best implementations of old
and new algorithms for the open-pit mining problem. Oper. Res. 48, 894–914.
Hosseini, N.S., Ben-Awuah, E., Pourrahimian, Y., 2020. A two-step approach to
incorporate cut-off grade and stockpiling in oil sands mine planning optimization
framework. Comput. Oper. Res. 115, 104659.
Huo, D., Sari, Y.A., Kealey, R., Zhang, Q., 2023. Reinforcement learning-based fleet
dispatching for greenhouse gas emission reduction in open-pit mining operations.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 188.
Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava, R.M., 1989. Applied Geostatistics. Oxford university press, New
York, pp. XIX–561.
Jamshidi, M., Osanloo, M., 2019. Reliability analysis of production schedule in multi-
element deposits under grade-tonnage uncertainty with multi-destinations for the
run of mine material. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 29, 483–489.
Johnson, T.B., 1969. Optimum open pit mine production scheduling. In: Proceedings of
the 8th International Symposium on Computers and Operations Research,
pp. 539–562.
Johnson, T.B., Barnes, R.J., 1988. Application of the Max Flow algorithm to ultimate pit
design. Eng. Des.: Better Results Through Oper. Res. Methods 518–531.
Koushavand, B., Askari-Nasab, H., Deutsch, C.V., 2014. A linear programming model for
long-term mine planning in the presence of grade uncertainty and a stockpile. Int. J.
Min. Sci. Technol. 24, 451–459.
Kumral, M., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2008. Selection of Waste Dump Sites Using a Tabu
Search Algorithm, vol. 108. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, pp. 9–13.
Lamghari, A., Dimitrakopoulos, R., Ferland, J.A., 2014. A variable neighbourhood
descent algorithm for the open-pit mine production scheduling problem with metal
uncertainty. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 65, 1305–1314.
Lerchs, H., Grossmann, I., 1965. Optimum design of open-pit mines. Trans. CIM 58,
47–54.
Levinson, Z., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2020. Simultaneous stochastic optimisation of an
open-pit gold mining complex with waste management. Int. J. Min. Reclamat.
Environ. 34, 415–429.
Li, Y., Topal, E., Williams, D., 2013. Waste rock dumping optimisation using mixed
integer programming (MIP). Int. J. Min. Reclamat. Environ. 27, 425–436.
Li, Y., Topal, E., Williams, D.J., 2014. Optimisation of waste rock placement using mixed
integer programming. Min. Technol. 123, 220–229.
Lotfian, R., Gholamnejad, J., Mirzaeian Lardkeyvan, Y., 2021. Effective solution of the
long-term open pit production planning problem using block clustering. Eng. Optim.
53, 1119–1134.
Mai, N., Topal, E., Ertent, O., 2018. A New Open-Pit Mine Planning Optimization Method
Using Block Aggregation and Integer Programming, vol. 118. Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 705–714.
Mai, N.L., Topal, E., Erten, O., Sommerville, B., 2019. A new risk-based optimisation
method for the iron ore production scheduling using stochastic integer
programming. Resour. Pol. 62, 571–579.
Mokhtarian Asl, M., Sattarvand, J., 2016. Commodity price uncertainty propagation in
open-pit mine production planning by Latin hypercube sampling method. J. Min.
Environ. 7, 215–227.
Montiel, L., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2015. Optimizing mining complexes with multiple
processing and transportation alternatives: an uncertainty-based approach. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 247, 166–178.
Montiel, L., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2017. A heuristic approach for the stochastic
optimization of mine production schedules. J. Heuristics 23, 397–415.
Montiel, L., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2018. Simultaneous stochastic optimization of
production scheduling at twin creeks mining complex, Nevada. Min. Eng. 70, 48–56.
Moreno, E., Rezakhah, M., Newman, A., Ferreira, F., 2017. Linear models for stockpiling
in open-pit mine production scheduling problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260, 212–221.
Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H., Clement, J., 2019.
Global Resources Outlook: 2019. International Resource Panel, United Nations
Envio, Paris, France.
J. Lin et al.
Osanloo, M., Gholamnejad, J., Karimi, B., 2008. Long-term open pit mine production
planning: a review of models and algorithms. Int. J. Min. Reclamat. Environ. 22,
3–35.
Paithankar, A., Chatterjee, S., Goodfellow, R., 2021. Open-pit mining complex
optimization under uncertainty with integrated cut-off grade based destination
policies. Resour. Pol. 70, 101875.
Park, I., Tabelin, C.B., Jeon, S., Li, X., Seno, K., Ito, M., Hiroyoshi, N., 2019. A review of
recent strategies for acid mine drainage prevention and mine tailings recycling.
Chemosphere 219, 588–606.
Puell Ortiz, J., 2017. Methodology for a dump design optimization in large-scale open pit
mines. Cogent Eng. 4, 1387955.
Qin, J., Cui, X., Yan, H., Lu, W., Lin, C., 2019. Active treatment of acidic mine water to
minimize environmental impacts in a densely populated downstream area. J. Clean.
Prod. 210, 309–316.
Ramezanalizadeh, T., Monjezi, M., Sayadi, A.R., Mousavi, A., 2020. Development of a
MIP model to maximize NPV and minimize adverse environmental impact—a
heuristic approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 192, 605.
Remy, N., Boucher, A., Wu, J., 2009. Applied Geostatistics with SGeMS: A User’s Guide.
Cambridge University Press.
Rimélé, M.A., Dimitrakopoulos, R., Gamache, M., 2018. A stochastic optimization
method with in-pit waste and tailings disposal for open pit life-of-mine production
planning. Resour. Pol. 57, 112–121.
12
Resources Policy 91 (2024) 104949
Rossi, M.E., Deutsch, C.V., 2013. Mineral Resource Estimation. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Samavati, M., Essam, D., Nehring, M., Sarker, R., 2017. A local branching heuristic for
the open pit mine production scheduling problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257, 261–271.
Tabesh, M., Askari-Nasab, H., Peroni, R., 2015. A comprehensive approach to strategic
open pit mine planning with stockpile consideration. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-
Seventh International Symposium on Applications of Computers and Operations
Research in Mineral Industry. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration,
pp. 326–332, 2015.
Vaziri, V., Sayadi, A.R., Mousavi, A., Parbhakar-Fox, A., Monjezi, M., 2021.
Mathematical modeling for optimized mine waste rock disposal: establishing more
effective acid rock drainage management. J. Clean. Prod. 288, 125124.
Vaziri, V., Sayadi, A.R., Parbhakar-Fox, A., Mousavi, A., Monjezi, M., 2022. Improved
mine waste dump planning through integration of geochemical and mineralogical
data and mixed integer programming: reducing acid rock generation from mine
waste. J. Environ. Manag. 309, 114712.
Whittle, J., 1998. Four-X User Manual. Whittle Programming Pty Ltd, Melbourne.
Wong, P., 2008. National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement)
Determination, 2008.
Xu, X.-c., Gu, X.-w., Wang, Q., Gao, X.-w., Liu, J.-p., Wang, Z.-k., Wang, X.-h., 2018.
Production scheduling optimization considering ecological costs for open pit metal
mines. J. Clean. Prod. 180, 210–221.