noer 1987 Current Surface Mining Techniques D.A. Bullivant, United Kingdom Summary 2. Surface Mining vs. Underground Mining ‘The paper looks at the present position regarding the status, of surface mining operations throughout the world compared with underground mining and examines the various con- tinuous conveying techniques available to overcome the pro- bblems encountered in developing various types of geological deposits. A case is put for the employment of a skilled engi- neering suppliericontractor to effectively integrate the various elements into an efficient system of material transportation, 1. Introduction Throughout the Western World within the metallurgical and hard rock mining industry, i.e. excluding coal and building materials, there are nearly 200 open pit mines with Capacities in excess of 3.0 Mila. When compared with the total output of both surtace and underground mines, virtually 60% is produced by surface mining methods. If coal and lignite are included in the evaluation the contribution from open pits is nearer 70% of the world's total mineral pro- duction, Over the past few years improvements in process plant technology have enabled large quantities of low grade ore to be treated economically. This, coupled with the lower initia capital investment compared with underground mines, has led to the increasing interest in the development of surface mines. However, with higher capacities and deepening pits, a situation has been created where the largest single cost ement in open pit mining operations is that of transporta- ion. Whereas it can be argued that the actual mining pro- cess, for example the blasting of the rock, does add value to the material, this cannot be said of transportation. With the modern economic trend of static or even declining world prices, and increasing costs, pressure is being exerted on the producers to reduce wherever possible the cost of the total production cycle. Hence transportation, as the major ‘ost element, is one area where potential operating cost sav- ings can be made. This factor has been the principle reason why in recent times producers have been, and will continue 0 do s0, looking at ways to reduce overall transportation costs in surface mines. Mr. DA. Butvant, Director, Babeack Hysro-Preumatic Li. 10118 Spurgaon ven In general there is seldom scope for competition between the two systems. Where a deposit is accessible to surface min- ing it is often a case of determining the “‘cut off point” at which surface operations are uneconomic and underground methods must be adopted. This is often the case with stockwork type deposits, as well as pipes or steeply declining stratified deposits, when initial surface mining operations may be followed by underground mining, The factors favouring surface mining compared with under- ground mining include the following: Higher productivity, lower capital cost per tonne mined, lower operating costs, exploitation of lower grade reserves, greater geological cer- tainty, loss limitation on size and weight of machines, simpler auxiliary operations, increased recovery of mineral, greater reserves available for mining, and increased safety. As indicated above, for certain types of mineral deposit there is a point when it becomes more economic to use under- ground mining techniques. Within a surface mine the basic Production cost is made up of the cost of excavating the mineral and transporting it to the pit limit Mf and the cost of ‘excavating the waste and transporting it to the pit limit 1. Volume waste recovered Volume mineral recovered the basic production cost = M + S W. With a stripping ratio S = Hf the equivalent cost for underground mining is U, itis clear that the economic limit (cut off value) for the stripping ratio is given by Aue ‘The above expression is a simple determination of the viabili- ty of surface mining operations. It is clear that the actual calculation involves other factors such as the grade of the fore and the determination of the cut off grade, which can be defined as the point when the ore is sent to the waste dump, ‘not to the process plant. It may well be that the viability of the surface mining operation is determined not by the break ‘even stripping ratio, but by the grade of the ore.Miner! deposivmining method classification Fig: 3. Surface Mining Methods Deposits suitable for surface mining can primarily be Classified as follows (Fig. 1): {) Relatively horizontal stratified deposits with thick or thin overburden (i) Stratified and vein deposits dipping at angles greater than the angle of repose ofthe spoil so that overburden cannot bbe deposited within the pit (iy Massive deposits of considerable depth and lateral extent where spoil placement within the pit is not possible. ‘The main methods employed in surface mining may be briefly classified as follows: 3.1 Strip Mining Where the surface and the deposit are relatively horizontal 80 that a wide area may be mined in a succession of strips (Fig. 2A). Typical of this method are those large tonnage reserves (mainly coal) which can be mined in a continuous progression across the mining area and having a gradual change in overburden thickness. The conditions favourable for strip mining are: Relatively thin overburden, relatively thin mineral, “horizontal” or regular topography and seams. The “normal” equipment applied in these instances, par- ticularly for the overburden, is the large capacity stripping ‘machines — drag lines. For those deposits where the over- burden thickness increases with advancement of the pit, here comes a stage when the stripping machine overation Volume 7, Number 6, December 1987 8) DRAGGING’ THE OVERBURDEN TO EXPOSE THE sea 'b) DUMPING SPOIL ON THE SPOIL BANK Fig. 2A: Strip mining operation OVERBURDEN REMOVAL AND SPOIL BACK FILLINGbecomes difficult. At this stage rehandling of the spoil becomes necessary i the drag line is utilised, which tends to make the operation uneconomic. Alternatively “pre-strip- ping” will have to be investigated utilising other types of equipment, 3.2 Terrace Mining (Multi-Bench, Lateral Advance) Where the overburden and/or mineral is to0 thick to permit direct across-the-pit casting of the overburden, the spoil must be transported by other means and dumped either out of the pit or in the void left by previous mining (Fig. 2B) 3.3 Conical Pit This method is used for mining irregular deposits, pipes stockworks and steeply inclined stratified deposits (Fig. 3). Despite the description, the pit shape may deviate con- siderably from the inverted cone to accommodate irregularities due to deposit shape and mineral grade. Tradi- tionally this type of deposit has been excavated by blasting the rock and using shovels and trucks to handle both waste ‘and pay mineral, with the spoil dumps being located outside of the pit boundary. 4. Mining Flow Sheet tis possible to define the transportation flow sheet for all the systems of surface mining outlined above as either discon- tinuous or continuous (Fig. 4). The search for more efficient, land hence more economic methods of transportation, has seen a move from the one extreme of complete discon- tinuous material flow, i.e. shovel truck operation, towards the Continuous system. It is clear that the nature of the deposit the material properties and the quantities of material involved will determine the extent to which full continuous operation can be achieved, and in some instances a com- bination will produce the best compromise solution. Typical of this development are the following examples: () Terrace mining where increasing overburden depth makes the drag line operation uneconomic. In this case @ pre-stripping operation employing an around-the-pit conveyor system in combination with a bucket wheel excavator or mobile crushing plant can be used to Femove the top overburden and permit the drag line to Continue operation in material for which itis ideally suited. (i) The combination of a semi-mobile crusher with a truck operation in those cases where the open pit is worked on. ‘@ multi bench principle. The location of the crusher is Selected to optimise the truck haulage costs by reducing ong haulage distances and steep long inclines. 5. Equipment Selection The ultimate decision to proceed with a continuous handling system within an open pit has to be made on the basis of a full economic assessment of the alternatives available com- ared withthe existing system. This requires a careful plan- hing of the future operation and may immediately encounter the resistance factor associated with the flexibility of opera tion when utilising trucks. While its true that a truck opera- tion is flexible, there is, however, a strong possibilty that this flexibility may have resulted in a mining operation that is not 8 cost effective as it may have been if a more detailed plan- ning operation had been applied. Conventional open pt mine plan SECTION A-8 ‘Cross section of postion AA Fig. 8: Conventional open pit Flo. «: Tramane fetes beg. occ.Hypothetical analyses of pit operations indicate the guide- lines for economic application of continuous handling systems, but it is clear that each pit has its own unique characteristics and the choice of equipment depends upon the nature of the deposit, the properties of the pay mineral and waste, the desired annual capacity, as well as the loca- tion of the process plant and waste dumps. The following outlines the possibilities involved in equipment selection Under the categories extraction, conveying and dumping, Volume 7, Number 6. Extraction Dependent upon the nature of the material to be handled whether pay mineral or waste, there are essentially two ‘methods by which the in-situ-rock can be introduced into the Continuous handling system — bucket wheel excavator and in-pit crushing The bucket wheel excavator is a continuously digging excavator and is well proven on various types of material Box Ue aT SHIFTING WIDTH 2x BLOCK WOTH HEADSTATION Working schedule: Sir block wiaths) le bench operation (siting width = 2 Explanation of Fig. Position 1: ‘Shitting of the bench conveyor by two block widths. Position 2: Advancing of block 1 out of the box. Position 3: Final position of the excavator for block 1 Position 4: Final position of the excavator during a box cut at the head Station for block 2. Fig, 5: Bucket wheel excavator working mode Position §: Start for advancing of block 2 Position 6: Final position of the excavator for block 2. Position 7: Final position of the excavator during box cut at the head station, Position 8 ‘Shifting of the bench conveyor by two block widths.