Development and Application of Whittle Multi-Mine at Geita Gold

Mine, Tanzania
T Joukoff
1
, D Purdey
2
and C Wharton
3
ABSTRACT
In the past, life of mine scheduling at Geita Gold Mine, Tanzania, has
been a largely manual process involving the optimisation and scheduling
of each mine as a separate entity. The scheduling has been a
time-consuming process undertaken using spreadsheets. Recent advances
in the Whittle software have enabled multiple mines to be optimised and
scheduled simultaneously, so that the mining sequence that maximises the
NPV (net present value) for the entire set of mines as a whole can be
determined. This case study presents the results of the collaboration
between Gemcom Africa (Pty) Ltd and Geita Gold Mining Limited to
develop and apply the Whittle Multi-Mine module at Geita Gold Mine. It
shows how improvements to the NPV of the life of mine schedule were
achieved by using Whittle Multi-Mine as a tool to help guide the
preferred order of mining. It highlights the contributions from each of the
mines to the overall cash flow of the project and investigates the effect of
time on the NPVs from each mine. The cost of deferring production from
certain mines has become plainly evident, whilst for others there is little
impact. Furthermore, Whittle Multi-Mine has identified areas requiring
more focus in terms of the life of mine plan.
INTRODUCTION
Geita Gold Mine is situated in northwest Tanzania,
approximately 25 km from the southern shores of Lake Victoria.
Historical mining in the area has taken place for many years,
with the last major operation being the Geita Underground Mine,
which operated from the 1930s through to the 1960s and
produced almost 1 Moz of gold. Ongoing small scale mining
continues to this day.
The modern Geita mine has been operating since mid-1999,
with processing of ore commencing in mid-2000. To date, 48
Mbcm of material has been mined from three open pits; 14 Mt of
ore, grading 3.8 g/t, has been processed and 1.5 Moz recovered.
The current Life of Mine Plan indicates a mine life in excess of
ten years and entails the mining of ten individual pits, several of
which are multi-stage. Total mining is expected to exceed 320
Mbcm, producing more than 80 Mt of high-grade ore and
yielding more than 10 Moz of recovered gold.
The open pit mines are operated with conventional techniques
using excavators and trucks on flitches up to 3.5 m high. Most
material requires blasting, ranging from paddock blasting in
soft laterites and oxides, to hard rock blasting in sulfides.
Pit optimisation at Geita has been an ongoing process,
predominantly undertaken using the NPV Scheduler software,
however; from early 2003 Whittle software has been used in
parallel. Although techniques to evaluate multiple orebodies have
existed for some time (Tulp, 1997), each open pit has been
optimised and scheduled as a separate entity rather than
consideration given to whole of mine optimisation and
scheduling. Estimates of the mill throughput likely to be required
from each pit were used to guide the pit life and net present value
(NPV) calculation. Since the ore delivery rate required was
generally not known until the whole mine schedule was finalised
using all the pits, this was obviously a flawed process.
Once the optimal pit for each mine was decided, pit designs
were undertaken, reserves calculated and the entire data set
exported to a spreadsheet for manual scheduling. Various
guidelines and comparisons between the pits and stages were
used to assist with the manual scheduling process, such as strip
ratio, profit per tonne milled, cash cost per ounce, profit per
ounce and break-even time. This introduced another flaw in the
process, where the optimal extraction sequence was not
necessarily followed during the manual scheduling process.
It became apparent that this trial and error scheduling method
was time-consuming and limited the number of alternate life of
mine scenarios that could be evaluated. A need for a technique to
optimise the extraction sequence in this multiple mine scenario
was identified. Such a tool was available as part of the Whittle
suite of mine planning software, but was still in its infant stages,
requiring rigorous testing on a real life scenario. This paper
describes Whittle Multi-Mine and its application at Geita, but
first briefly reviews the traditional and widely applied MOBS
technique.
MOBS
A technique known as MOBS (Multiple Ore Body Systems,
Tulp, 1997) has existed for some time now and has been widely
applied in situations where multiple orebody deposits exist in
proximity. In short, the technique involves agglomerating block
models representing each of these deposits into one super model
(Figure 1), and optimising and scheduling using Whittle
software. The limitations of this method are described following.
To enable the identification of material selected for mining by
Whittle from the different deposits, it was necessary to assign
unique rock codes that were reflective of the different deposit
areas. Furthermore, the rock codes used for Whittle also needed
to capture the actual rock type, so that different mining and
processing costs could be defined if necessary. This required the
assignation of many rock codes and sometimes resulted in the
loss of geological definition due to the restriction in the number
of codes that could be handled by Whittle.
Once the optimisations had been completed and the pit shells
generated, it was necessary to cut up the super model results file
to separate the individual mines, using the polygon intersection
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 267
1. MAusIMM, C/- Gemcom Africa (Pty) Ltd, PO Box 411689,
Craighall 2024 Gauteng, Republic of South Africa.
2. MAusIMM, C/- MRM Mining Services, PO Box 3193, Halfway
House 1685 Gauteng, Republic of South Africa.
3. 66 Rathmullen Quadrant, Doncaster Vic 3108.
NORTH PIT
WEST PIT
MAIN PIT
SATELLITE 1 SATELLITE 2
FIG 1 - Example super model constructed by merging
MOBS in Whittle.
functionality in Whittle, so that the results could be exported
from Whittle back to a general mining package (GMP). This was
because the original coordinates of the individual deposits were
lost when they were combined into the super model.
Issues arose when scheduling MOBS, since it was not possible
to control the order that the deposits were mined in without
creating complex pit list files with GMPs or by writing scripts
with programming packages. Furthermore, it was necessary to
ensure that the top surface of all of the models lay on the same
Whittle bench level in the combined super model, requiring the
user to offset each individual block model so as to create a
regular surface over the entire model. This meant that when
simulating the mining of a bench in Whittle, the bench was
mined from all of the mines in the super model. It was also not
possible to have different cut-backs in each mine, nor was it
possible to have different final pits per mine. This reduced the
effectiveness of the scheduling and did not allow areas of higher
value to be deliberately targeted.
For more advanced scheduling using the Whittle Milawa
scheduling algorithm, it was necessary to stack groups of pit
shells, representing the nested pits derived for each mine, for
Milawa to work effectively (Figure 2). This was difficult to set up
and comparatively inflexible when evaluating many alternate
mining sequences.
Whilst the technique described above generated results that
added value to mining operations; it was tedious and much time
was spent on manipulating models and data files, thus limiting
the amount of time that could be spent on actually evaluating
different scheduling sequences and the consequent impact on
NPV.
MULTI-MINE
Whittle Multi-Mine provides a much more sophisticated and
flexible means of optimising and scheduling in a multiple mine
situation, as was proven by its successful application at Geita
Gold Mine. The different techniques applied at Geita are
described following, using examples (Joukoff and Purdey, 2004)
to illustrate the results.
With Whittle Multi-Mine it is no longer necessary to use rock
codes to identify material from different deposits. It is now
possible for Whittle model files to carry a mine name, so the
issue of running out of rock codes is no longer a problem. This
allows greater geological detail to be modelled, leading to
increased flexibility and detail when modelling costs, recoveries
and slopes in Whittle, if desired. Furthermore, because each
model can be associated with a mine name, it is possible to view
and export results for individual mines. This reduces the amount
of time required to be spent on data manipulation and provides
more time to deal with strategic issues.
It is possible to optimise all the mines under consideration
either simultaneously or individually, because the Whittle model
files carry a mine name. The advantage of optimising them
together is that the impact of each mine on the combined cash
flows of all the mines can be examined and reported.
Scheduling with Multi-Mine is now also much more
sophisticated than the MOBS technique previously applied. It is
possible to vary the mining rates in different mines and also to
control when mining can occur in a particular mine. This
functionality proved particularly useful at Geita because some of
the mines were remote from the processing plant and ore
production from these mines was limited by the long distance
haulage capacity (Figure 3). Also, due to Geitas environmental
commitment to backfilling completed pits to minimise
disturbance caused by the construction of waste dumps, some
mines were not able to commence until adjacent mines were
completed. Furthermore, either of the Fixed Lead or Milawa
scheduling algorithms can be applied as described following.
268 Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning
T JOUKOFF, D PURDEY and C WHARTON
FIG 2 - Stacked pit shells to enable Milawa to operate
independently on each mine before the development of Whittle
Multi-Mine.
Roberts
Ridge 8
Star/Comet
Geita Hill Pits
Nyankanga
Chipaka
Matandani
Kukuluma
Lone Cone Pits
Legend
Haul Road
Pit
Plant
Schematic of Geita Gold Mine
(Not to scale)
~5 km
~20 km
~19 km
FIG 3 - Schematic of Geita Gold Mine.
Fixed lead
Fixed lead scheduling can operate with or without precedence
controls. By establishing mining precedence rules, different
orders of mining the individual mines can be simulated, making
it possible to investigate which order maximises the NPV to the
company. This technique is particularly applicable in situations
where only one mine will operate at a time, such as when the
mines are very large and where ore control issues can be handled
sufficiently by manipulating the mining sequence within each
mine, without the need to blend material from different mines.
Each mine may have its own process plant and associated
infrastructure but logistically, mining equipment may need to
move from one mine to another. The order of mines to which
equipment moves can be optimised using this functionality.
Alternately, when no particular precedence is required and
mining can occur simultaneously in all mines following the same
bench lead constraints, fixed lead scheduling can also be applied.
These two alternate concepts are illustrated in Figure 4.
Fixed lead scheduling was tried at Geita but with limited
effectiveness because the site wanted to be able to mine from
many pits simultaneously, rather than mine them sequentially.
Although this was possible as described previously, it was not
practical in Geitas case because several of the mines were
already in production and operating on different bench levels.
Furthermore, within the constraints of the existing cut-back
designs at Geita, using fixed lead scheduling did not provide an
optimal mill feed schedule. Geita needed to be able to draw
material from multiple sources to feed the mill, to meet the
appropriate oxide/sulfide blend requirements and also to make
better use of the available mill capacity. Greater flexibility was
required, and to overcome these issues it was necessary to apply
the Milawa algorithm.
Milawa
The majority of the Geita scheduling work in Multi-Mine was
undertaken using the Milawa scheduling algorithm. This was
because Milawa allowed material to be mined from different
mines simultaneously, applying different lead and lag constraints
to the different mines (as opposed to fixed lead scheduling,
which uses the same lead constraint for each mine). There was a
requirement at Geita to limit the maximum highwall height
between cut-backs to 150 m, for geotechnical reasons. The
maximum vertical advance in each mine was also restricted to
either 50 m or 100 m per year, depending on the size of the mine.
For this reason it was necessary to define different constraints for
different mines and this was easily achieved with Multi-Mine.
It would be prudent at this stage to briefly explain the
differences between the various Milawa scheduling algorithms.
In NPV mode, Milawa will seek to maximise the NPV of the
schedule, taking into consideration the number of benches,
cut-backs and time periods in the life of the mine (Wharton,
2000). Milawa NPV schedules generally mine just enough waste
to uncover the ore required to fill the mill and tend to defer waste
stripping as much as possible. Logically, this will lead to
increased NPVs. However, this waste deferral may result in
insufficient ore availability at some time in the schedule, but only
if the cut-backs have not been selected appropriately or if the
mining capacity is not well matched to the selected cut-backs.
The Milawa algorithm in balanced mode provides a solution to
this problem by producing a schedule that completely utilises all
of the available mining and milling capacity where possible. The
general effect of such a schedule is to mine more waste than is
needed to uncover the ore necessary to feed the mill, hence
bringing costs forward and resulting in a reduced NPV. However,
both the mill feed schedule and the total mining schedule will be
well balanced. A diagrammatic sketch of a Milawa mining
sequence is included in Figure 5.
APPLICATION AT GEITA GOLD MINE, TANZANIA
Geita Gold Mining Limited provided a data set representing nine
of the mines planned as at November 2003 (Nyankanga, Lone
Cone, Geita Hill, Kukuluma, Matandani, Chipaka, Ridge 8,
Star/Comet and Roberts). Each model was exported from a GMP
with pre-defined rock types that allowed unique costs and
process recoveries to be assigned to each rock type. Although it
is possible to model costs in Multi-Mine using a Mine variable,
a cost model reflecting the different long distance haulage costs,
defined for different rock types, already existed. As well as this,
the existing cut-back positions were exported as pit list models,
allowing the cut-backs within each mine to be differentiated
during subsequent analysis. These pit lists were agglomerated in
Whittle to create a results file suitable for use with the
Multi-Mine scheduling tools. Some of the required operational
constraints have already been described previously in this paper.
Before undertaking any further scheduling in Whittle, a
baseline schedule was developed with Multi-Mine that mimicked
the existing Life of Mine (LoM) Plan as much as possible. This
was so that subsequent NPV calculations for alternate mining
sequences would be comparable. An iterative process was used
in defining this baseline schedule, using modifications to the
min/max lead and max benches constraints to force Multi-Mine
to mine in a similar sequence and with similar quantities as
defined in the LoM Plan. Concurrent with this work in
Multi-Mine was the recalculation of the LoM Plan NPV because
this included the effects of many cash outflows that were not
applicable in pit optimisation.
Once the Multi-Mine baseline schedule was constructed, the
constraints were selectively relaxed to allow Multi-Mine to begin
to optimise the schedule. Alternate orders of mining were tested
by simply adjusting the preferred order of mining and the mine
start and stop times, and the resultant NPV, ore delivery schedule
and total mining schedule evaluated.
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 269
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF WHITTLE MULTI-MINE AT GEITA GOLD MINE, TANZANIA
M1 M2
M3
M1 M2
M3 M1
M2 M3
M1
M2 M3
A. B.
FIG 4 - Diagrammatic representation of two different fixed lead scheduling sequences in Whittle Multi-Mine. A. Mining precedence applies
and equipment moves from one mine to another on completion of each mine (Wharton, 2000). B. No mining precedence applies and all
mining occurs simultaneously in all mines, following specified bench lag constraints (Wharton, 2000).
In total, twenty-four different LoM scheduling scenarios for
Geita were considered using the Milawa algorithm in
conjunction with Multi-Mine. Comparison of the NPV of each of
these schedules with the baseline schedule showed that the NPVs
ranged from 87 per cent to 103 per cent of the baseline NPV.
Whilst a three per cent improvement in NPV may seem small, in
Geitas case it represented an increase in NPV in excess of 1500
times the cost of undertaking the Multi-Mine work. An ore
schedule representative of the results generated with Multi-Mine
is displayed in Figure 6.
The most significant difference between the Whittle
Multi-Mine results and the existing site LoM Plan was that the
Milawa algorithm preferred to mine Star/Comet as early as
possible, rather than later in the project life as had been
previously scheduled. This gave some indication as to the
significance of the Star/Comet mine to the overall project NPV.
When run unconstrained, Multi-Mine also preferred to mine
Matandani in early years, but this was not a favoured option as
the waste from Matandani was planned to be backfilled into the
Kukuluma mine.
Investigation of the contribution to NPV from each mine for
each scheduling scenario helped to determine which mines the
overall NPV was most sensitive to. Table 1 contains a
representative set of results showing these cash flow
contributions for various scenarios. It is clear that for some of the
mines changes to the order of mining had little or no effect on
their contribution to total NPV, whilst for others the change in
contribution to NPV was considerable.
The effect of delaying production from any mine can be seen.
The cost of deferring Nyankanga is very evident; the NPV
contribution being as much as 67 per cent (Scenario 14) or as
little as 46 per cent (Scenario 3). This represents a 21 per cent
improvement in cash flow contribution from Nyankanga for
Scenario 14 compared with Scenario 3. In fact, in Scenario 3 the
NPV from Nyankanga approaches that of worst case mining.
As a further example consider Chipaka mine; if this is mined last
(Scenario 14) the NPV contribution erodes to just 0.5 per cent,
but if it is mined first (Scenario 17), the NPV contribution can be
as much as two per cent. However, when considering the NPV of
all of the mines concurrently, delaying Chipaka gives the project
a better overall NPV. This clearly demonstrated how the order of
mining can have a serious impact on the value of the project.
It was concluded from all of the scenarios that the NPV was
relatively insensitive to changes in the order of mining from the
Chipaka, Kukuluma and Ridge 8 mines. This suggested that it
was not worthwhile to further optimise the timing of these mines.
Conversely, there was substantial gain to be made by optimising
the mining sequence from Nyankanga, Geita Hill, Matandani and
Star/Comet. For this reason, the order of mining from these
mines was the focus for the remainder of the scenarios and
yielded higher value schedules.
Examination of the bench schedules produced by Whittle
Multi-Mine helped to understand how much material was mined
from each bench, each cut-back and each mine in each period
and hence made it possible to determine whether Multi-Mine
was adhering to the required operational constraints. The
resultant schedules were both safe and practical. Furthermore, by
making comparisons between the benches mined in different
scheduling scenarios it was possible to understand where the
material was being mined from, and the subsequent contribution
of that material to the overall value of the schedule. An example
bench schedule is given in Table 2.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has reviewed the techniques available in Whittle to
optimise and schedule multiple orebody models and multiple
mines. The application of Whittle Multi-Mine at Geita Gold
Mine, Tanzania, has demonstrated how improvements to the
NPV of the life of mine schedule were achieved, using
Multi-Mine to help optimise the mining sequence. The Milawa
algorithm in both NPV and balanced mode was able to guide the
order of mining benches from the various cut-backs of the
various pits, within the operational constraints at Geita.
270 Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning
T JOUKOFF, D PURDEY and C WHARTON
M1
M2 M3
M1
M2 M3
FIG 5 - Diagrammatic sketch of a Milawa mining sequence in
Whittle Multi-Mine (Wharton, 2000).
MILL FEED SCHEDULE
T
O
N
N
A
G
E
G
R
A
D
E
YEAR
FIG 6 - Representative ore schedule, Geita Gold Mine case study. Different shades represent different mines.
Many alternate scheduling sequences were very quickly
investigated using Whittle Multi-Mine. This process identified
which mines demonstrated greater sensitivity to the order in
which they were extracted and subsequently stressed the effect of
time on the cash flow contribution of these mines to the overall
project NPV. It also assisted in highlighting a potential mismatch
between the required material movement and the available
mining capacity. If the mining capacity is well matched to the
selected cut-backs then it will be possible to achieve a balanced
schedule together with an improved NPV.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper describes work undertaken by co-author David
Purdey whilst employed as Chief Mining Engineer Geita Gold
Mining Limited and is presented with Geita Gold Mining
Limiteds permission. The authors would like to thank Geita
Gold Mining Limiteds management for their permission to
present this paper and also thank the members of the Mining
Department at Geita who contributed to the preparation of the
data used in the Multi-Mine analyses.
The opinions expressed in this paper are not necessarily those
of Geita Gold Mining Limited.
REFERENCES
Joukoff, T and Purdey, D P, 2004.
http://www.whittle.ca/whittle-multimine.asp Improved life of mine
scheduling with Gemcom Whittle Multi-Mine at Geita Gold Mine,
Tanzania (Gemcom Software International Inc: Vancouver).
Tulp, T, 1997. Multiple Ore Body Systems (MOBS), in Proceedings
Optimising with Whittle, Perth, pp 149-163 (Whittle Programming
Pty Ltd: Melbourne).
Wharton, C, 2000. Add value to your mine through improved long term
scheduling, in Proceedings Whittle North American Strategic Mine
Planning Conference, Breckenridge, Colorado.
Wharton, C, 2003. Multi-pit analysis and advanced pit scheduling,
Development notes (unpublished), Melbourne.
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 271
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF WHITTLE MULTI-MINE AT GEITA GOLD MINE, TANZANIA
Pit Bench Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Tonnes Ore t Waste t Ore t Waste t Ore t Waste t
Kukuluma 69 1496 - - 341 1155 - -
Kukuluma 68 1131 - - 306 825 - -
Kukuluma 67 772 - - 244 527 - -
Kukuluma 66 453 - - 194 259 - -
Kukuluma 65 20 - - 12 9 - -
Kukuluma 64 142 - - - - 105 37
Kukuluma 63 56 - - - - 44 12
Kukuluma 62 11 - - - - 9 2
Subtotal
Lone Cone 66 1266 161 1105 - - - -
Lone Cone 65 1176 201 975 - - - -
Lone Cone 64 1015 154 861 - - - -
Lone Cone 63 901 111 789 - - - -
Lone Cone 62 788 - - 73 715 - -
Lone Cone 61 653 - - 44 609 - -
Lone Cone 60 532 - - 37 495 - -
Lone Cone 59 401 - - 43 358 - -
Subtotal
TABLE 2
Example extract from bench schedule generated using Whittle Multi-Mine.
Matan' Chipaka Geita Hill Kuk' Lone Cone Ridge 8 Roberts Star Comet Nyank' Total
Scenario 2 5% 1% 17% 4% 3% 1% 1% 4% 63% 100%
Scenario 3 5% 2% 28% 5% 4% 1% 3% 6% 46% 100%
Scenario 7 5% 1% 17% 4% 3% 1% 1% 9% 57% 100%
Scenario 14 3% 0% 16% 4% 2% 1% 2% 6% 67% 100%
Scenario 15 3% 1% 18% 4% 3% 1% 1% 8% 60% 100%
Scenario 16 4% 1% 17% 4% 3% 1% 2% 8% 60% 100%
Scenario 17 3% 2% 16% 4% 3% 1% 1% 6% 65% 100%
Scenario 19 4% 1% 18% 4% 4% 1% 2% 8% 59% 100%
Scenario 21 5% 1% 22% 5% 4% 1% 2% 7% 55% 100%
Scenario 23 5% 1% 20% 5% 1% 1% 3% 9% 56% 100%
TABLE 1
NPV contributions by pit by scenario, Geita Gold Mine case study.
272 Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning