You are on page 1of 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MINE PLAN STUDIO I

(TA-4124) MINE PLAN I

1st Semester, 2017/2018

LIMESTONE GROUP NUMBER 2

1. Calvin Leonard 12114022


2. Nabila Khairunnisa Ansory 12114029
3. Darius Armando Sinaga 12114052
4. Samuel Alfa 12114089

Mining Engineering Major

Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering

Bandung Institute of Technology

December 2017

1
1.1 ALTERNATIVE OF ULTIMATE PIT LIMIT
N

N S

UPL 1 (Facing South) UPL 1 (Plan View & Cross Section)

S N

UPL 2 (Facing South) UPL 2 (Plan View & Cross Section)


Figure 1. Plan View and Cross Section View of Alternative of Ultimate Pit Limit

Table 1. Recapitulation of Reserves from Alternative of Ultimate Pit Limit


Topsoil Grade
UPL Limestone Volume SR
Volume CaO (%)
1 186,498 m3 4,135,084 m3 0.028 47.26
2 97,669 m3 4,004,249m3 0.016 50.88

2
1.2 ALTERNATIVE OF PUSHBACK

Table 2. Recapitulation of Mining Progress from Scenario 1


Grade
-Year Topsoil Volume Limestone Volume SR
CaO (%)
1st 26667 m3 387,441 m3 0.0441 50.798
2nd 12146 m3 410,416 m3 0.0189 47.486
3rd 14223 m3 417,988 m3 0.0218 46.408
4th 11405 m3 425,996 m3 0.0171 46.483
5th 29318 m3 378,411 m3 0.0496 45.869
6th-10th 21188 m3 1,979,747 m3 0.0063 47.26

1st year (Facing South) 1st year (Plan View & Cross Section)

2nd year (Facing South) 2nd year (Plan View & Cross Section)

3rd year (Facing South) 3rd year (Plan View & Cross Section)

3
4th year (Facing South) 4th year (Plan View & Cross Section)

5th year (Facing South) 5th year (Plan View & Cross Section)

10th year (Facing South) 10th year (Plan View & Cross Section)

Figure 2. Plan View and Cross Section View of Mining Progress from Scenario 1

4
Table 3. Recapitulation of Mining Progress from Scenario 2
Topsoil Grade
-Year Limestone Volume SR
Volume CaO (%)
1st 38966 m3 399662 m3 0.062 50.557
2nd 12427 m3 409054 m3 0.019 51.158
3rd 7406 m3 382361 m3 0.012 51.595
4th 7980 m3 415993 m3 0.012 51.92
5th 1675 m3 401198 m3 0.003 52.13
6th-10th 29216 m3 1995980 m3 0.015 50.294

1st year (Facing South) 1st year (Plan View & Cross Section)

2nd year (Facing South) 2nd year (Plan View & Cross Section)

3rd year (Facing South) 3rd year (Plan View & Cross Section)

5
4th year (Facing South) 4th year (Plan View & Cross Section)

5th year (Facing South) 5th year (Plan View & Cross Section)

10th year (Facing South) 10th year (Plan View & Cross Section)

Figure 3. Plan View and Cross Section View of Mining Progress from Scenario 2

6
1.3 MINE LAYOUT

The following pictures are mine plan layout with supporting facilities in mining
activities:

Figure 4. Mine View Layout from Scenario 1

Figure 5. Mine View Layout from Scenario 2

7
Figure 6. Contour Map

1.4 BLASTING DESIGN AND EXPLOSIVE NEEDS

Blasting was done using ANFO and blasting pattern of Center lift patterns. The
explosive hole as much as 25 holes (5 rows x 5 columns) with diameter of 0.1 m each
hole.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Figure 7. Blasting Design

Table 4. Recapitulation of Explosive Needs and Its Blasting Accessories from Scenario
1
Pushback Target Peledakan (BCM/Tahun) Bahan Peledak Powder Factor (kg/m3)
Jumlah BP (Kg/hari) Jumlah BP(Kg/Tahun)
1 387440.7 ANFO 0.599 1460.97 362320.4208
2 410416.4 ANFO 0.529 1448.59 359251.5237
3 417988.3 ANFO 0.509 1444.52 358240.1342
4 425996.1 ANFO 0.488 1440.20 357170.5209
5 378411.6 ANFO 0.630 1465.83 363526.4506
6-10 1979746.9 ANFO 0.036 8134.96 2017469.619
Total BP = 15395.08 3817978.669

8
Table 5. Recapitulation of Explosive Needs and Its Blasting Accessories from Scenario
2
Pushback Target Peledakan(BCM/tahun) Bahan Peledak Powder Factor (kg/m3) Jumlah BP (Kg/hari) Jumlah BP (Kg/Tahun)
1 399662 ANFO 0.560012428 1454.387114 360688.0043
2 409054 ANFO 0.532732199 1449.328635 359433.5014
3 382361.4 ANFO 0.615756306 1463.705122 362998.8701
4 415993.1 ANFO 0.513779327 1445.591274 358506.6359
5 401198.2 ANFO 0.555415878 1453.559725 360482.8119
6-10 1995980.6 ANFO 0.627801995 8133.209463 2017035.947
Total BP = 15399.78133 3819145.77

1.5 MINE DRAINAGE

In this mine, the system of mine drainage needs perimeter drainage, ditch, and settling
pond. The following data is rainfall data in Cilacap regency:

Table 6. Rainfall Data


BULAN
Tahun
Jan Feb Mar Apr Mei Jun Jul Agt Sep Okt Nov Des
2007 154 365 237 336 486 316 13 15 13 143 865 515
2008 239 307 177 97 39 0 0 4 35 402 587 475
2009 553 259 0 263 273 322 146 1 21 618 423 550
2010 263 192 393 206 629 452 342 336 673 602 391 570
2011 206 405 262 465 564 117 50 2 1 76 496 323
2012 406 236 251 410 243 20 4 2 0 108 647 659
2013 254 - 240 236 - 457 507 85 - - 836 232
2014 362 307 292 304 182 347 655 93 4 47 625 598
2015 293 461 248 228 242 108 5 6 0 0 382 419
2016 168 382 159 366 328 325 626 235 625 717 450 288
Rata-Rata 289.77 323.7 225.96 291.13 331.6222 246.45 234.85 77.63 152.3889 301.4222 570.14 462.84

From the data above, we obtained the planned rainfall with a 10 year return period of
207.43 mm.

The runoff data and catchment area data for scenario 1 and scenario 2 can be seen in the
following table:

Table 7. Runoff from Scenario 1

9
Area Catchment Area (km2) Intensitas Hujan (mm) Koefisien Limpasan Konversi Debit Limpasan (m3/s)
Outpit 0.586281219 45.30 0.6 0.278 4.430196095
Tahun 1 0.129341861 45.30 0.9 0.278 1.46604511
Tahun 2 0.166152138 45.30 0.9 0.278 1.883276814
Tahun 3 0.187514262 45.30 0.9 0.278 2.125409079
Tahun 4 0.205077512 45.30 0.9 0.278 2.324482423
Tahun 5 0.216579119 45.30 0.9 0.278 2.454849152
Inpit
Tahun 6 0.387168015 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.38841508
Tahun 7 0.387168015 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.38841508
Tahun 8 0.387168015 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.38841508
Tahun 9 0.387168015 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.38841508
Tahun 10 0.387168015 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.38841508
Wastedump 0.038153967 45.30 0.9 0.278 0.43246197

Table 8. Runoff from Scenario 2

Area Catchment Area (km2) Intensitas Hujan (mm) Koefisien Limpasan Konversi Debit Limpasan (m3/s)
Outpit 0.586281219 45.30 0.6 0.278 4.430196095
Tahun 1 0.167013479 45.30 0.9 0.278 1.893039821
Tahun 2 0.179746569 45.30 0.9 0.278 2.03736498
Tahun 3 0.221692928 45.30 0.9 0.278 2.512812397
Tahun 4 0.284610509 45.30 0.9 0.278 3.225961339
Tahun 5 0.331145231 45.30 0.9 0.278 3.753416265
Inpit
Tahun 6 0.361773204 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.100573712
Tahun 7 0.361773204 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.100573712
Tahun 8 0.361773204 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.100573712
Tahun 9 0.361773204 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.100573712
Tahun 10 0.361773204 45.30 0.9 0.278 4.100573712
Wastedump 0.038153967 45.30 0.9 0.278 0.43246197

Design of perimeter drainage :

Figure 8. Design of Perimeter Drainage

Design of settling pond :

Table 9. Dimension of Settling Pond

10
Dimensi UPL 1 UPL 2
Panjang (m) 120 130
Lebar (m) 40 45
Kedalaman (m) 4 4.12
Volume (m3) 19200 23000

1.6 LIMESTONE PROCESSING

Limestone in the stockpile will be taken to the crusher area to pass the comminution
process. Comminution is a process to minimize the size of the material. Comminution is
divided into two main processes namely crushing and grinding. But in this mine, we done
only with crushing process in the aim of minimizing the size of the material as the size
we wish for.

11
1.7 MINE EQUIPMENT

Lime Hemstone mine company is using effective working hours of 3720 hours/year
with the following calculations:

Table 10. Calculation of Effective Working Hours


Working Hours
Working Days/Year 5 x 52 = 260
Holiday Celebration 11 = 11
Loss of Working Days/Year 1 = 1
Effective Working Days/Year 260 - 11 - 1 = 248
Shift/Day 2 = 2
Hours/Shift 12 = 12
Loss of Working Hours/Day 4 = 4
Effective Working Hours 2 x 12 - 4 = 20
Time Efficiency 75% = 75%
Effective Working Hours/Year = 3720 Hours/Year

The equipment used in either scenario 1 or scenario 2 consists of a loader such as Komatsu
WA 320-5 wheel loader, Komatsu HD 255-5 dump truck, and Komatsu D 275A bulldozer
to collect materials. Productivity tool can be seen in table below:

Table 11. Equipment Productivity

Equipment for Materials Productivity (Ton/hour)


Dozer Komatsu D 275A 992.02
Excavator and Loader Komatsu WA 320-5 311.13
114.60
Haul Transport Komatsu HD 255-5

Table 12. Match factor for Scenario 1


Match Factor
Year
Limestone
1st 0.73
2nd 0.82
3rd 0.96
4th 0.97
5th 0.84
6th 0.93
7th 0.95
8th 0.90
9th 0.85
10th 0.81

12
Table 13. Match factor for Scenario 2
Match Factor
Year
Limestone
1st 0.93
2nd 0.82
3rd 0.81
4th 0.79
5th 0.75
6th 0.87
7th 0.84
8th 0.79
9th 0.75
10th 0.71

Table 14. Recapitulation of Equipment Needs from Scenario 1

Table 15. Recapitulation of Equipment Needs from Scenario 2

13
1.8 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Table 10. Assumption for Cash Flow Calculation

Number Parameter Value Explanation


1 Primary Year of Calculation 0 Begin from Year 0
2 Operating Year 1-10 Begin from Year 1 to 10
3 Currency $ USD
4 Exchange Rate USD to IDR 13573
5 Cost Escalation 5.7% Indonesia’s Inflation
6 Selling Price Escalation 1.8% USA’s Inflation
7 Debt Ratio 50%
8 Equity Ratio 50%
9 Cost of Debt 9.95% Mandiri Bank
10 Cost of Equity 14%
11 Discount Rate 12%
12 Income Tax 30%
13 Limestone Royalty 3%

Table 11. Capital Cost from Scenario 1

14
Table 12. Capital Cost from Scenario 2

15
Table 13. Operating Cost from Scenario 1
Number Cost Average Unit Cost ($)
1 Topsoil Stripping Cost
Excavating and Loading 87,373 /year
2 Limestone Stripping Cost
Excavating and Loading 172,795 /year
Hauling to Stockpile 215,663 /year
3 Supporting Equipment
Water Truck 9,025 /year
Motor Grader 47,689 /year
Bulldozer 30.5 /hour
4 Limestone Crushing Cost 74,400 /year

16
Number Cost Average Unit Cost ($)
5 General and Administration Cost /ton
Wage 298 /hour
Administration 16,500 /year
Health, Safety, and Environment 21,296 /year
Community Development 3,315 /year
OPERATING COST TOTAL 15,572,564 /10 years

Table 14. Operating Cost from Scenario 2


Number Cost Average Unit Cost ($)
1 Topsoil Stripping Cost
Excavating and Loading 87,373 /year
2 Limestone Stripping Cost
Excavating and Loading 172,795 /year
Hauling to Stockpile 215,663 /year
3 Supporting Equipment
Water Truck 9,025 /year
Motor Grader 47,689 /year
Bulldozer 30.5 /hour
4 Limestone Crushing Cost 74,400 /year
5 General and Administration Cost /ton
Wage 298 /hour
Administration 16,500 /year
Health, Safety, and Environment 21,296 /year
Community Development 3,315 /year
OPERATING COST TOTAL 15,292,219 /10 years

Table 15. Gross Revenue from Scenario 1

Table 16. Gross Revenue from Scenario 2

17
Table 17. Cash Flow from Scenario 1

18
Table 18. Cash Flow from Scenario 2

Table 19. Sensitivity Analysis

19
From the graph, it can be seen that the largest slope / gradient in both scenarios is indicated
by the change in selling price. This indicates that the company's NPV and IRR are most
influenced by the selling price. Thus, the selling price is what affects the feasibility or
inadequacy of the mining company's economy.

Based on the calculation of NPV and IRR then, Liam Hemstone mine company has NPV
value of $ 3,271,337 with IRR 30% and payback period of 4 years for Scenario 1. While
for scenario 2 has NPV for $ 3,375,091 with IRR 30% and Payback Period of 3 years. In
conclusion, we choose scenario 2 for our best mining plan for 10 years ahead based on
economic analysis.

20