MANAGING COAL LOSS USING BLAST

MODELS AND FIELD MEASUREMENT

August 2015
Murali Nagarajan, Specialist Engineer
Anthony Green Senior Blast Technician
Paul Brown Blast Technician
Peter Dare-Bryan Senior Mining Engineer
FRAGBLAST11
BACKGROUND
• Coal Loss was an issue with losses
from
– Coal roof
– Coal edge
• Reduced amount of coal being
uncovered
• Increased operating cost
• Developed a 5 step process:
– Develop a baseline and understand
the coal loss mechanisms
– Implement a QA/QC system
– Model the coal loss
– Develop a coal loss reduction
program
– Implement the program and
measure

2 © Orica Limited Group

BASELINE
• Correlate damage zones with drill
hole location

• Backfilling what is better drill

cuttings or gravel?

• What is touch coal?

• What is the true stand off?

• What is the variation between

design and actual?

• Need to implement a QA/QC

process

3 © Orica Limited Group

 IMPLEMENT A QA/QC PROCESS
• Calibrate the touch coal holes by gamma
logging and give feedback to the drillers as to
their accuracy

• Update the coal model

• Use the new model for drill depth

• Tighten redrill variation limits

• Backfill with gravel Lost coal

Parting band
• Develop load sheets for each blasthole and
filled out with actual information. Damaged coal

• Audit the process and use continuous

improvement

• Losses – 11.5% edge loss and estimated 2%

required washing

4 © Orica Limited Group

MODELLING - BASELINE

Strip width – 60m

Bench height – 20-25m
Void – 12-18m

© Orica Limited Group

COAL LOSS REDUCTION
• Issues
– Coal edge buffering
– Environmental

• Risk Assessment
– Dynamic buffering

• Options to be evaluated
– 'Baby' deck
– Stratablast™

• Minimise complexity of in the drill & blast processes

• Minimise changes is the mining process

6 © Orica Limited Group

 COAL LOSS – ‘BABY’ DECK
• Initial option due to minimise complexity and
changes to the mining process

• Initially used:
– 100ms between decks
– Main charge firing first
– 4 rows

• Variations occurred depending on the dip of

the coal

• Aim was to reduce the risk shearing of the

coal edge

• Need to evaluate:
– the extra time for drill and blast
– Mine plan changes
– Mine process changes

7 © Orica Limited Group

COAL LOSS – ‘BABY’ DECK

© Orica Limited Group

COAL LOSS – ‘BABY’ DECK

© Orica Limited Group

‘BABY’ DECK RESULTS
• A variety of options trialled

• Little variation in results

• Coal loss measured was 8.5%

• Reduced coal loss by 33% from

baseline

• Increase in loading time was small

• Minimal changes in mine plan or

the mining process.

10 © Orica Limited Group

COAL LOSS - STRATABLAST™
• Option of Stratablast™ implemented
to investigate further improvement in
coal loss

• Stratablast divides the horizon into

layers that are drilled, loaded and
blasted in one cycle.

• Each layer is treated separately with

different powder factors and
timing/movement

• Need to evaluate:
– the extra time for drill and blast
– Mine plan changes
– Mine process changes

11 © Orica Limited Group

COAL LOSS – STRATABLAST™

© Orica Limited Group

COAL LOSS – STRATABLAST™

© Orica Limited Group

 STRATABLAST™ RESULTS
• Coal loss was reduced to less than 1%;

• Dig rates and dozer advance rates were

achieved;

• Design variations occurred:

– Dip of coal;
– Strata changes; and
– Product changes.

• The following changes in the mining process

were required:
– Drill preparation;
– Survey control;
– Drilling;
– Recording;
– Area to be blasted (mining block); and
– Extra 15% time taken for drill and blast;
14 © Orica Limited Group
CONCLUSIONS
• Drill and blast cost increased by 10% and it took 15% longer.

• 100,000 tne coal that was previously not recovered as bypass.

• Coal loss can be reduced by both methods but need to understand what
and why it is occurring.

• Important aspects were:

– Training of people;
– Feedback to people for good and the areas for improvement;
– Maintaining the equipment productivity; and
– Compromises along the whole mining process.

• Which method?

15 © Orica Limited Group