See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305744550

Large-scale mine production scheduling optimisation with mill blending

constraints at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation:

Article  in  Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Technology · July 2016
DOI: 10.1080/14749009.2016.1212510

CITATION READS

1 103

3 authors, including:

Kazuhiro Kawahata

5 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kazuhiro Kawahata on 17 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mining Technology
Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: Section A

ISSN: 1474-9009 (Print) 1743-2863 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymnt20

Large-scale mine production scheduling

optimisation with mill blending constraints at
Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation

Kazuhiro Kawahata, Paul Schumacher & Kurt Criss

To cite this article: Kazuhiro Kawahata, Paul Schumacher & Kurt Criss (2016): Large-scale mine
production scheduling optimisation with mill blending constraints at Newmont’s Twin Creeks
Operation, Mining Technology, DOI: 10.1080/14749009.2016.1212510

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14749009.2016.1212510

Published online: 29 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymnt20

Download by: [T&F Office Locations], [Kazuhiro Kawahata] Date: 25 August 2016, At: 10:04
Large-scale mine production scheduling
optimisation with mill blending constraints at
Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation
Kazuhiro Kawahata1*, Paul Schumacher1 and Kurt Criss2
This paper discusses the strategic mine planning process at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation.
A multi-period Mixed Integer Liner Programming (MILP) model is utilised to optimise a large scale,
complex operation with multiple open pits and underground mine sources under tight process blending
constraints with the option to stockpile. In addition to life-of-mine production scheduling optimisation
using MILP, the strategic planning process includes cost analysis, phase design validations and sensitivity
to constraints such as mining rates, mill blending or throughput. Through this planning approach, Twin
Creeks Operation is realising significant value from cost reductions and higher near term free cash flow
resulting in increases to life-of-mine net present value.
Keywords:  Open Pit Mining, Production Scheduling, Optimisation

Introduction Production scheduling optimisation at

Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation
Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation, part of its Nevada opera-
tions, produces gold from two large open pit mines, Mega Pit
and Vista Pit. Mined ore is processed at one of three on-site
facilities: a refractory mill with two autoclaves for oxida-
tion pretreatment, an oxide mill and heap leaching facilities.
Twin Creeks also processes various off-site-sourced concen-
trates and ore including high-grade underground ore from the
Turquoise Ridge joint venture with Barrick Gold Corporation
(75% Barrick Gold Corporation, 25% Newmont). Twin
Creeks produced approximately 28% of the Nevada opera-
tion’s 2013 gold production of 1.8 million ounces (Newmont
2014).
Depending on the economic environment, 3–5 phases at
Mega Pit and 2–5 phases at Vista Pit remain to be mined.
Also, an underground exploration project is being evaluated
at the bottom of Vista Pit.
Higher grade oxide ore is processed by conventional mill-
ing and cyanide leaching at Juniper Mill and lower grade
material with suitable cyanide solubility is treated on heap
leach pads. Refractory ores, which require a more complex
and higher cost processing method, are fed through grind-
ing mills followed by autoclaving at Sage Mill. Autoclaves
require blended ore with geochemical characteristics meet-
ing tight operating ranges for sulfide sulfur (SS), carbonate
(CO3) and organic carbon (CORG) contents. Figure 1 pro-
vides an overview of material flows for the Twin Creeks
Operation.
1
Twin Creeks Mine, Newmont USA Limited, P.O. Box 69, Golconda, NV
89414, USA
2
North America Regional Office, Newmont USA Limited, 1655 Mountain
City Highway, Elko, NV 89801, USA
*Corresponding author, email Kazuhiro.Kawahata@surgold.com
Newmont
To optimise mining and process schedules, Newmont devel-
oped in-house production scheduling software called the
‘Optimizer’ (Hoerger et al. 1999; Clark and Dagdelen 2007).
It uses Mixed Integer Liner Programming (MILP) to max-
imise life-of-mine net present value (NPV) under various
operational constraints. This system has been maintained and
operated by a regional planning group working closely with
site engineers and metallurgists. Information for all current
and future gold mines and processes are combined to create
a Nevada-wide model to evaluate various strategic options
while considering synergies between sites, such as interarea
shipping of ore for recovery or blending benefits. The regional
planning group uses results of Nevada-wide strategic planning
activities to provide planning guidance to site engineering
and process teams, who then work on more detailed plans.
This in-house Optimiser is also utilised at Twin Creeks for
more detailed site planning of material flows only affecting
Twin Creeks. Guided by Nevada-wide Optimiser results, the
site planning team at Twin Creeks is able to quickly analyse
various strategic options in more detail.
Production scheduling MILP formula
Globally optimising mining operations has been a challenge
due to the size and complexity of modern operations (Whittle
2009). In order to optimise life of mine production scheduling,
MILP has been applied at various mine operations besides
Newmont such as described in Stone et al. (2004); Ramazan
and Dimitrakopoulos (2004); Kuchta et al. (2004); Dagdelen
and Kawahata (2007, 2008); Askari-Nasab et al. (2010) and
Asad and Dimitrakopoulos (2012). Some recently developed
commercial software packages also utilise MILP to optimise
production scheduling (Huang et al. 2009; Maptek 2009;

© 2016 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and The AusIMM

Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
Received 12 October 2015; accepted 10 July 2016
DOI 10.1080/14749009.2016.1212510 Mining Technology   2016 1
Kawahata et al.  Large-scale mine production scheduling optimisation at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation

k ∈ 𝕂: Set of all increments k.

• 
d ∈ 𝔻: Set of all destinations d.
• 
n ∈ ℕ: Set of all stockpiles n.
• 
t ∈ 𝕋 : Set of all time periods t.
• 
Cost and revenue models are developed to keep track potential
economics for wide range of possible mining, stockpiling and
processing options.

Cost and revenue parameters

• xi,j,k,d
t
: Discounted revenue minus operating costs per ton
of material mined from source i, sequence j, increment
k and sent to destination d in time period t.
1 Overview of Twin Creeks Operation
• zi,j,k,n
t
: Discounted operating costs per ton of material
mined from source i, sequence j, increment k and sent
Minemax 2012). In addition, more recent MILP applications to stockpile n in time period t.
incorporate geologic uncertainties and applied at various atn,k,d : Discounted revenue minus operating costs per ton
• 
operations (Goodfellow and Dimitrakopoulos 2013, 2015; of material rehandled from stockpile n, increment k and
Montiel and Dimitrakopoulos 2015; Montiel et al. 2015). sent to destination d in time period t.
The MILP formula used in Newmont’s Optimiser was
originally developed at Colorado School of Mines (Dagdelen
Decision variables
1996; Urbaez and Dagdelen 1999) and implemented at
Newmont by Hoerger et al. (1999). The model consists of a Xi,j,k,d
t
 = Tons mined from source i, sequence j, increment k,
set of 𝕀 sources where materials are originally located, such as sent to destination d in time period t.
open-pit mines and their phases or underground mines both of Zi,j,k,n
t
 = Tons mined from source i, sequence j, increment
which must be in minable shapes. Sources are divided into a k, sent to stockpile n in time period t.
set of 𝕁 sequences (mineable volume per time period) where Atn,k,d  = Tons rehandled from stockpile n, increment k, sent
sequencing prerequisites have to be followed. All previous to destination d in time period t.
(prerequisite) sequences j � ∈ 𝕁prev (j) must be completely Yi,jt  = 1 if source i, sequence j is mined out in time period t.
mined before mining a given sequence j ∈ 𝕁. Each sequence   = 0 otherwise.
is subdivided into a set of increments k ∈ 𝕂 which provide Ik,n
t
 = Tons of stockpile inventory at the end of time period
the model’s finest level of resolution, as shown in Fig. 2. t for stockpile n, increment k.
Increments uniquely define all materials within sequences by Pi,jt = Cumulative proportion of source i, sequence j, that
metallurgical types and/or grade intervals and are mined pro- has been mined by the end of time period t.
portionately as their sequence is mined. In the MILP model,
blocks in the resource model belonging to the same source
and sequence are aggregated into these increments. Constraint parameters
As materials are mined, they are either sent to a destination
• Resi,j,k: Total available tons in source i, sequence j, incre-
d ∈ 𝔻 for ore processing or handled as waste, or are sent to
ment k.
a stockpile n ∈ ℕ for later rehandling and processing. Each
• Mton_minti , Mton_maxit: Lower and upper limit of min-
stockpile is associated with a given increment k ∈ 𝕂 to main-
ing capacity at source i in time period t.
tain the finest level of resolution. This allows the model to
• Pton_mintd , Pton_maxdt : Lower and upper limit of pro-
selectively rehandle ore with the increment level to optimise
cess capacity at destination d in time period t.
blending and process cutoffs. The actual stockpile scheme in
• Gi,j,k , Gk′ : Grade of gold or other attributes such as SS,
the field follows the strategy from the Optimiser. The model
CO3 and CORG in source i, sequence j, increment k, or
considers life-of-mine time periods of t ∈ 𝕋 .
in a stockpile with increment k.
All material flows are associated with discounted eco-
• Gmintd , Gmaxdt : Lower and upper limit of process blend-
nomic values. The objective function is formulated to max-
ing constraints at destination d in time period t.
imise life-of-mine NPV.
Objective function is to maximise the life of mine NPV:
[
Indices and sets Max xi,j,k,d
t
Xi,j,k,d
t
∑∑∑∑∑
(1.1)
i∈I j∈J k∈K d∈D t∈T
i ∈ 𝕀: Set of all sources i.
• 
• j ∈ 𝕁: Set of all sequences j.
]
zi,j,k,n
t
Zi,j,k,n
t
atn,k,d Atn,k,d
∑∑∑∑∑ ∑∑∑∑
• j � ∈ 𝕁prev (j): Set of all sequences that must be mined out + +
before mining sequence j. i∈I j∈J k∈K n∈N t∈T n∈N k∈K d∈D t∈T

Seq 1
Seq 2
… Met type 1, Grade interval 1
Source i Increment k Met type 1, Grade interval 2
Seq j …
Sequence j etc.

2 Source, sequence and increment

2 Mining Technology   2016

 Kawahata et al.  Large-scale mine production scheduling optimisation at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation

The followings are some of key constraints in Newmont’s

Optimiser MILP model:

Pton_mintd ≤ Xi,j,k,d
t
∑∑∑
i∈I j∈J k∈K
(1.2)
A t
≤ Pton_maxdt ∀ d ∈ 𝔻, t ∈ 𝕋
∑∑
+ n,k,d
n∈N k∈K

Mton_minti ≤ Xi,j,k,d
t
∑∑∑
j∈J k∈K d∈D
(1.3)
Zi,j,k,n
t
≤ Mton_maxit ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, t ∈ 𝕋
∑∑∑
+
j∈J k∈K n∈N

Xi,j,k,d
t
(Gi,j,k − Gmintd )
∑∑∑
i∈I j∈J k∈K (1.4) 3 Twin Creeks optimisation model
A t
(G − Gmin ) ≥ 0 t
∀ d ∈ 𝔻, t ∈ 𝕋
∑∑
�
+ n,k,d k d
n∈N k∈K
Objective function (1.1) maximises NPV. Because Newmont’s
Optimiser considers the life-of-mine time period, short-term
Xi,j,k,d
t
(Gi,j,k − Gmaxdt )
∑∑∑
goals are optimised without compromising long-term goals.
i∈I j∈J k∈K Constraints (1.2) and (1.3) enforce minimum and maxi-
Atn,k,d (Gk� − Gmaxdt ) ≤ 0 ∀ d ∈ 𝔻, t ∈ 𝕋 mum process and mining capacity constraints. Constraints
∑∑
+
n∈N k∈K (1.5) (1.4) and (1.5) enforce minimum and maximum process
blending constraints. These can be used for gold, SS, CO3 or
CORG. Constraints (1.6) ensure stockpile inventory balance
Ik,n
t
= Ik,n
t−1
Zi,j,k,n
t
Atn,k,d ∀ k ∈ 𝕂, n ∈ ℕ, t ∈ 𝕋 at each time period by tracking the previous time period’s
∑∑ ∑
+ −
i∈I j∈J n∈D stockpile ending inventory and the current period’s incom-
(1.6) ing and rehandled tons. Constraints (1.7) and (1.8) define
cumulative proportion variables and ensure material mined
does not exceed what is available in a deposit. Constraints
( )
Xi,j,k,d
t
Zi,j,k,n
t
∑∑∑ �
∑∑∑ �
+ (1.9) enforce each increment within a sequence is mined at
k∈K d∈D t � ≤t k∈K n∈N t � ≤t (1.7) the same rate as the overall sequence.
−P t
Resi,j,k = 0 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, t ∈ 𝕋 Constraints (1.10) and (1.11) ensure sequence j can-
∑
i,j
k∈K not be mined in time period t unless all its prerequisite
sequences j � ∈ 𝕁prev (j) are mined out at or before time period
Pi,j0 = 0, Pi,jt ≤ 1, Pi,jt ≤ Pi,jt+1 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.8) t. Constraints (1.12) through (1.16) restrict non-negativity
and (1.17) ensures binary.
Since many of processing facilities have relatively large
Xi,j,k,d
t
Zi,j,k,n
t
∑ ∑
+
fixed costs, the Optimiser has an option to handle fixed and
d∈D n∈N (1.9) variable costs separately. To keep a given facility open, mate-
= Pi,jt − Pi,jt−1 Resi,j,k ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, k ∈ 𝕂, t ∈ 𝕋
( )
rials processed need to cover both fixed and variable costs,
but incremental tons only need to generate revenue sufficient
Pi,jt � − Yi,jt � ≥ 0 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j � ∈ 𝕁prev (j), t ∈ 𝕋 (1.10) to pay for variable costs. This allows the Optimiser to make
a more appropriate process shut down and start-up decisions.
Details are discussed in Hoerger et al. (1999).
Pi,jt − Yi,jt � ≤ 0 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, j � ∈ 𝕁prev (j), t ∈ 𝕋 (1.11)

Twin Creeks production scheduling

X t
i,j,k,d
≥ 0 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, k ∈ 𝕂, d ∈ 𝔻, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.12) model
Twin Creeks’ production scheduling model consists of 5–10
sources and each source is divided into 3–6 sequences; with
Z t
i,j,k,n
≥0 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, k ∈ 𝕂, n ∈ ℕ, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.13) sequences being further subdivided into increments. To
model varying chemistries and gold grades in Twin Creeks’
Atn,k,d ≥ 0 ∀ n ∈ ℕ, k ∈ 𝕂, d ∈ 𝔻, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.14) deposits, more than 60 increments are currently utilised in the
Optimiser to optimise timing of material flows and cut-off
grades while achieving mill throughput and blending con-
Ik,n
t
≥0 ∀ k ∈ 𝕂, n ∈ ℕ, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.15) straints (Kawahata et al. 2013). Figure 3 shows the conceptual
Twin Creeks production scheduling optimisation model as set
Pi,jt ≥ 0 ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.16) up in the Optimiser.
For a typical Twin Creeks-only problem, there are more
than 30 000 linear variables, 500 binary variables and 18 000
constraints in the MILP model. Once the MILP is formulated
Yi,jt ∈ {0, 1} ∀ i ∈ 𝕀, j ∈ 𝕁, t ∈ 𝕋 (1.17) in the Optimiser, the problem is solved using CPLEX 12.5

 Mining Technology  2016 3
Kawahata et al.  Large-scale mine production scheduling optimisation at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation

(IBM 2014) on a 64-bit workstation with two Intel processors Cumulative Discounted CF Delta (vs. Base)

Discounted CF Delta to Base (% change)

40%
at 2.93 GHz with 48 GB RAM. Model formulation takes
35% Slower Rate (-20%)
approximately 5 min and solving the model in CPLEX takes
30% Slower Rate (-15%)
approximately 2 min. Slower Rate (-10%)
25%
Slower Rate (-5%)

Strategic Planning Under Newmont’s 20%

15%
Full Potential Programme
10%
To enhance operational excellence and deliver improved lev- 5%
els of operating cash flow, Newmont implemented a struc-
0%
tured and integrated programme called ‘Full Potential.’ At

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Twin Creeks, the Full Potential programme commenced in
early 2014. Its goal is to sustainably improve operating cash
flow, with a specific focus on improving the first three-year 4 Theoretical mine rate analysis (discounted cash flow
cash flow without compromising life-of-mine NPV. delta to the existing mine plan)
Newmont’s main focus of strategic planning under Full
Potential is to identify and provide a high-level estimate of
benefits from any fundamental mine planning and processing Yearly Mined Tons (New Mine Plan vs. Base Plan)
70
changes that can be made to improve performance. Using

Millions
Pit 1, Phase 1
the Optimiser model as a platform, this work included phase 60 Pit 1, Phase 2
Pit 1, Phase 3
design evaluations and validation, production scheduling
50 Pit 1, Phase 4
optimisation, and investigations of potential additional ore Pit 2, Phase 1

Mined Tons
sources. Additionally, the team evaluated alternative pro- 40 Pit 2, Phase 2
cessing methods, mill blending strategies and variations in Pit 2, Phase 3
30
offsite-sourced concentrate additions to help unlock the value Base Mine Rate

in low-grade stockpiles with high CO3 that present challenges 20

due to current mill blending constraints.
10
Because strategic planning must consider all future impli-
cations simultaneously, it is important that the Optimiser’s 0
formulas from (1.1) through (1.17) are set up with time peri- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Years
ods t ∈ 𝕋 covering the life-of-mine. Following are some of
the key steps of Full Potential strategic planning.
5 Full Potential optimised mining rate compared to the
baseline model

Ultimate pit and phase design

Based on available geological information, long-range mine
engineers begin the planning process by determining ultimate
pit limits and nested pits using Newmont’s in-house soft-
ware (Seymour 1996). By breaking an ultimate pit shell into
mineable phases, it is possible to mine higher value volumes
earlier, deliver a higher grade to the mill and delay waste
mining costs. Pit shells at various gold prices are created and
the ordering of lower to higher gold price shells guide designs
of mine plan phases that result in higher NPV.
Phase characteristics and economics, including geochem-
istry, tonnage, gold grade, contained and recoverable ounces,
and cost per ounce are analysed to rate and rank phases and this
determines which phases should be included at various price
assumptions in the next optimisation step. Geochemistry of
certain ore types, such as those having high SS, generate extra
value compared to other ore types (high CO3 or high CORG).
Defined phases are set up as sources i ∈ 𝕀 in the Optimiser
which helps determine their optimal production schedule.
Production scheduling optimisation
Prior to the Full Potential programme, Twin Creeks’ mine plan
was mainly developed using a commercial mine optimisa-
tion scheduler that is geared to optimise near-term scheduling
rather than life-of-mine and engineers had to heuristically
solve scheduling problems. Now using in-house Optimiser,
a baseline model mimicking the existing mine plan (fixed
mining and processing) is developed for evaluating schedul-
ing changes. Then alternate life-of-mine production scenarios
from the Optimiser are compared against the baseline for key
metrics such as near-term free cash flow, life-of-mine NPV,
internal rate of return and cost per ounce.
Use of the life-of-mine optimisation model in Newmont’s
Optimiser greatly improved production scheduling results.
Also, using the Optimiser allowed the team to easily assess
regional impacts described in the next section.
During Full Potential’s optimisation step, an opportunity
was identified to slow down near-term mining compared
to the existing mine plan to reduce near-term costs. This
is mainly because the existing mine plan was heuristically
generated based on a local optimisation approach using the
commercial software. Although various mine plans were gen-
erated and evaluated, the heuristic approach failed to achieve
optimum solution.
Near term cash flows were shown to be greatly improved
from reduced costs of a slower mining rate and this more
than offset lower revenue from slower delivery of some
high-grade ore. Various mining rates were analysed using
the Optimiser to assess sensitivities and robustness of the
recommendation. An example of the mine rate analysis is
shown in Fig. 4.
The Optimiser’s results were reviewed for operability and
the desired schedule was manually adjusted where neces-
sary to be an achievable plan. Equipment availability, bench
advance rate, and year-by-year swings in mining rate are some
items considered in this step. Figure 5 shows results of opti-
mised mining rates compared to the baseline mining rate (pre
Full Potential mine plan).

4 Mining Technology   2016

 Kawahata et al.  Large-scale mine production scheduling optimisation at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Operation
Regional impact
Due to interdependencies between sites in Newmont’s Nevada
operations, the site planning process should also consider broader
regional impacts to make sure improvements at a site level do
not adversely affect results at the regional level. With help from
the regional planning group, Twin Creeks’ mine plan changes
and various blending strategies are validated by running the full
Nevada-wide Optimiser model that includes the Carlin opera-
tions. This process must confirm that additional value from Twin
Creeks’ plan improvements is realisable in the regional portfolio.
Conclusion
The Twin Creeks team has successfully utilised Newmont’s
MILP-based Optimiser in Full Potential strategic planning.
Scenario analysis performed using this type of life-of-mine
optimisation model allowed strategic changes to be evaluated
in terms of their impact on the whole Nevada-wide system by
considering all future implications simultaneously. Strength
of this approach also came from being able to evaluate more
than 50 scenarios quickly and then selecting only a few viable
scenarios for more detailed work. This optimisation process
provided more confidence in the resulting production sched-
ule and helped planners to better understand plan sensitivity.
In addition to the strategy work stream discussed here,
application of Full Potential to the performance improvement
work stream is identifying several operational opportunities.
Through these combined efforts, Twin Creeks has so far
improved the life-of-mine NPV by $120M and projects reduc-
ing operating costs by up to $50M over the next three years.
Acknowledgements
Authors thank Twin Creeks Site Leadership Team and
Newmont North America Leadership Team for their support
and willingness to publish this work. We also thank Dr. Terry
Bush for his help and Dr. Conor Meagher for reviewing this
paper.
References
Asad, M. W. A. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. 2012. Performance evaluation of a
new stochastic network flow approach to optimal open pit mine design-
application at a gold mine, Journal of the Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, 112, (7), 649–655.
Askari-Nasab, H., Awuah-Offei, K. and Eivazy, H. 2010. Large-scale open
pit production scheduling using mixed integer linear programming,
International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering, 2, (3), 185–214.
 Mining Technology  2016
View publication stats
Clark, L. and Dagdelen, K. 2007. Finding added value at Newmont, Mining
Magazine, 196, (4), 29–35.
Dagdelen, K. 1996. Formulation of open pit scheduling problem including
sequencing as MILP, Internal Report. Golden, CO, Mining Engineering
Department, Colorado School of Mines.
Dagdelen, K. and Kawahata, K. 2007. Opportunities in multi-mine planning
through large scale mixed integer linear programming optimization, 33rd
International Symposium on Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industry (APCOM), Santiago, Chile, 337–342.
Dagdelen, K. and Kawahata, K. 2008. Value creation through strategic mine
planning and cutoff grade optimization, Mining Engineering. Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), 60, (1), 39–45.
Goodfellow, R. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. 2013. Algorithmic integration of
geological uncertainty in pushback designs for complex multiprocess open
pit mines, Mining Technology, 122, (2), 67–77.
Goodfellow, R. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. 2015. Global optimization of open pit
mining complexes with uncertainty, Applied Soft Computing, 40, 292–304.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.038.
Hoerger, S., Bachmann, J., Criss, K. and Shortridge, E. 1999. Long term
mine and process scheduling at Newmont’s Nevada operations, 28th
International Symposium on Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industry (APCOM), 739–747.
Huang, Z., Cai, W. and Banfield, A. F. 2009. A new short- and medium-term
production planning tool – Minesight® Schedule Optimizer (MSSO), SME
Preprint 09-079, Denver, Colorado.
IBM. 2014. IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimizer. www.ibm.com.
Kawahata, K., Schumacher, P. and Hufford, R. 2013. Mine production
scheduling optimization at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Mine, Mining
Engineering. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), 65,
(6), 49–54.
Kuchta, M., Newman, A. and Topal, E. 2004. Implementing a production
schedule at LKAB’s Kiruna Mine. Interfaces, 34, (2), 124–134.
Maptek. 2009. Chronos scheduler, Sydney, Maptek Software.
Minemax. 2012. Minemax scheduler strategic mine schedule optimisation
white paper, Perth, Minemax.
Montiel, L. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. 2015. Optimizing mining complexes with
multiple processing and transportation alternatives: An uncertainty-based
approach, European Journal of Operational Research, 247, (1), 166–178.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.002.
Montiel, L., Dimitrakopoulos, R. and Kawahata, K. 2015. Globally optimising
open-pit and underground mining operations under geological uncertainty,
Mining Technology (TIMM A), 125, (1), 2–14. doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1179/1743286315Y.27.
Newmont. 2014. 2013 Newmont Annual Report and Form 10-K, Greenwood
Village, Colorado, Newmont Mining Corporation.
Ramazan, S. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. 2004. Traditional and new MIP models
for production scheduling with in-situ grade variability, International
Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 18, (2), 85–98.
Seymour, F. 1996. Pit-limit parameterization from modified three-dimensional
Lerches-Grossmann algorithm, SME Transactions, 298, 1860–1864.
Stone, P., Froyland, G., Menabde, M,Law, B., Rasyar, R. and Monkhouse,
P. 2004. “Blasor – Blended iron-ore mine planning optimisation at Yandi”.
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium, 285–288, Preprint, Carlton, Victoria: AIMM.
Urbaez, E. and Dagdelen, K. 1999. Implementation of linear programming
model for optimum open pit production scheduling problem, SME Annual
Meeting Preprint, Denver, Colorado, 99–108.
Whittle, J. 2009. The global optimizer works – what next?. Advances in
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning I. The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, 3–5.
5