Advancing Science and Discovery

SEG
OCTOBER 2011
NEWSLETTER

www.segweb.org

NUMBER 83

Mass Underground Mining

VIE e, W 0, 90t
SE

Sil
G

lito

WS itherl h An
19
and the Role of the

20
b

(pg y, Ca
–2

. x th
01

x–x les
Exploration Geologist

x)
DAN WOOD (SEG 2009 F),† GIDEON CHITOMBO, and SCOTT BRYAN, W. H. Bryan

niv
Mining and Geology Research Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute,

ers
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4072

ary
INTRODUCTION
a Blasted
A growing awareness ore
Cut off
exists among many min- slot
ing company executives,
particularly in the world’s
major resources compa-
nies, that the future of
some sections of the met-
alliferous mining industry
(e.g., copper, in particu- to crusher c
lar) is becoming increas-
ingly tied to large, deeply
buried mineral deposits
that can only be mined Drawbed
Major Apex
pillar Potentially
unrecoverable
economically by low-cost, Extraction
tunnel ore

mass (or bulk) under-

ground mining techniques
and/or very deep open
pits. Moreover, many de-
posits presently being eval-
to page 22 . . .
uated for
mining,
FIGURE 1. Schematic comparison of the essential
features of the (a) block-panel caving (BPC), (b)
sublevel caving (SLC) and (c) sublevel open stoping
(SLOS) methods of underground mass mining (after
Logan, 2002 unpub.commun., Newcrest Mining). to crusher

†Corresponding author: e-mail, danwood3844@hotmail.com

Editor’s note: This paper does not necessarily reflect the views of the Society of Economic Geologists.

Special Publ
nto – SEG icatio
Geology and Genesis of
Rio Ti
n SEG
www.segweb.org

Major Copper Deposits and Districts of the World:

A Tribute to Richard Sillitoe
Please send Letters of Intent to Contribute with an outline of the proposed manuscript to cusp@segweb.org
by March 31, 2010. We recommend a maximum length for papers of 8,000 words with 12 figures.
Anticipated target publication date is the second quarter of 2012.
22
... from 1 Mass Underground Mining and the Role of the Exploration Geologist (Continued)
and many of those yet to be discovered
(if developed as underground mines),
may be mined on a scale that is much
larger than used at any present mass
underground mine; in many instances,
these underground mines may be on a
scale approaching that of some existing
open-pit mines.
For most exploration geologists and
many mining engineers, the concept of
mass or bulk underground mining is
something that they have heard of but
know little about. The development of
one of these mines requires a much
larger amount of upfront capital than
does an open-pit mine of equivalent
size and thus can be a very high risk
venture. The financing of these projects
can be difficult, and it requires long
lead times to define, plan, and develop
such deposits. In a bulk underground
mine, much of the development is pre-
production (especially so with a block
cave mine, where almost all of it is pre-
production) and the risk of delay, par-
tial failure, or even total failure is
much higher than in an open pit. In
essence, there is only one chance to get
it right—it must start at the beginning
of the mining concept studies and,
more importantly, during feasibility
study stages. Otherwise, there is a high
risk the investment will be wasted or, at
best, put in severe jeopardy. For geolo-
gists used to the high risk of failure
with mineral exploration, another fac-
tor has been introduced that needs to
be overcome.
Nevertheless, as more and more of
the world’s so-called easy-to-find min-
eral deposits are identified and
exploited and the demand for metals
continues to increase, exploration geol-
ogists are increasingly turning their
exploration effort to the search for
deeper, commonly blind deposits. These
deposits by their very nature carry with
them a diminished chance of discovery.
Increasing environmental and licence-
to-operate issues (e.g., water, energy,
and community) are also combining to
add further pressure on the exploration
geologist to, in effect, discover orebodies
that can be mined in a way that is per-
ceived to have less of a visible impact
than is obvious with a large, open-pit
mine, albeit still with an unfortunate
and significant surface expression in
the form of a subsidence area created
by the underground mining. As a
result, geologists and mining engineers
SEG NEWSLETTER
will have no choice but to adjust to the
increased risk associated with deep
deposits, a number of which can only
be developed economically by mass
underground mining.
Mining engineering and geological
research into mitigating and minimiz-
ing the risks associated with mass
underground mining is essential, and
has been the major focus at the W H
Bryan Mining and Geology Research
Centre at The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia; here, one author of
this article (Chitombo) is leading inves-
tigations into the fundamentals of cav-
ing processes and ways to mitigate and
minimize (mainly) geotechnical risks
during the design, construction, and
operation processes.
Importance of the geologist in
mass underground mining
The importance of the exploration geol-
ogist in mass underground mining is
becoming more critical than may be
understood by many geologists with
traditional training and experience.
Aside from the obvious part played by
the exploration geologist in the discov-
ery process, until a deposit makes the
transition from discovery and resource
definition to mining, the exploration
geologist knows more about the poten-
tial orebody, particularly its shape,
grade distribution, geotechnical charac-
teristics and mineralization style, possi-
ble impediments to development, etc.,
than anyone else. This situation is rein-
forced with a deposit that is a possible
candidate for underground mining by
the fact that, because of the depth to
the deposit and associated very large
cost of its definition, there will be pres-
sure on the geologist to keep the
amount of resource definition drilling
to the minimum required to satisfy the
requirement for ore reserve definition.
As a result, the skill of the geologist in
interpreting the results of the drilling
and in seeking additional information
with further drilling, if necessary, is crit-
ically important.
To properly fulfil the role, the geolo-
gist must be able to think outside the
box and look at the bigger picture, and
focus not only on drilling out the
deposit, but also on those other aspects
that will contribute to determining
whether or not the deposit will become
an orebody. It is essential that the
exploration geologist observe the
No 83 • OCTOBER 2010
surrounding environment and under-
stand the local conditions that are, or
may be, unfavorable to block cave min-
ing. The geologist must understand the
effects upon a potential block cave
mine of such things as rainfall, surface
drainage patterns, groundwater flows,
aquifers, rock type above the ore zone,
terrain, human habitation, etc. These
are the factors that have to be discussed
with management and engineers, as
any one of these could be a project
killer.
This acquired knowledge provides
the exploration geologist with a unique
opportunity to influence mining engi-
neers and mining company senior
management about possible mining
methods. Consequently, in our opinion
it is essential that exploration geolo-
gists have sufficient understanding of
mining methods to be able to discuss
mining options confidently with min-
ing engineers during concept and
prefeasibility studies.
In effect, to properly discharge his
duty in this regard, the exploration
geologist needs to have developed an
understanding of the data used in plan-
ning large underground mining opera-
tions, such as hydrology, rock mechan-
ics, orebody modelling, etc., and how
these parameters interrelate. It is no
longer sufficient for the exploration
geologist to just explore and define
deposits, since optimizing the produc-
tion of these deposits takes account of
all the data available, starting with
geology. By developing this under-
standing the exploration geologist will
be much better placed to plan and exe-
cute the discovery and resource defini-
tion drilling programs and related data
collection.
While parallel efforts are being
made elsewhere to study geotechnical
aspects of mining deep pits (e.g., Read
and Stacey, 2009), the purpose of this
article is to provide exploration geolo-
gists with an introductory description of
the various mass underground mining
options currently being used in the
mining industry. The technology is
being improved and new developments
are being applied that will increase the
scale of future mass underground
mines around the world. We wish to
encourage exploration geologists to
read more widely (see references) on the
topic of mass underground mining and
to expand their knowledge of block
OCTOBER 2010 • No 83 SEG NEWSLETTER 23

caving techniques and the role of the tpd. The Deep Ore zone (DOZ) mine, SLOS mines typically produce in the
geologist in a block cave operation. operated by Freeport McMoRan in range of 10,000 to 50,000 tpd (Brown,
Papua, Indonesia, is presently the 2007; Chitombo, 2010). The highest
largest single mining sector operation, rate so far (approaching 90,000 tpd)
MASS MINING METHODS producing at a rate approaching was recently (2010) recorded at the
90,000 tpd of mainly ore. DOZ block cave mine, Indonesia
The precursor to mass underground
With open-pit mines, the increase in (Sahupala et al., 2010).
mining, as presently applied to many
production rates is due in large part to The attraction of BPC methods for
of the world’s larger and lower grade
increased mechanization in mines and the mining industry lies with the fact
copper and copper-gold deposits, was
to the increased capacities of mining that they can be used to mine deep,
the development of open-pit mining in
equipment such as shovels, loaders and very large, low-grade orebodies safely
the iron ore mines of Michigan, USA, in
trucks, and blasthole drills—assisted and profitably, with very low mining or
the late 1800s, to provide the raw mate-
significantly by the development and operating costs when compared to
rial for the country’s burgeoning steel
application of rock mechanics, or geo- other underground methods. Caving
industry. Mass (bulk) mining in the
mechanics, to open-pit slope engineer- methods are now applicable to mining
copper industry essentially started in
ing and to slope stability research. orebodies in circumstances that were
1903, when Daniel Jackling initiated
Similarly with mass underground mines, once thought to be restrictive—even for
the world’s first open-pit mining system
the increases in production rates are inherently strong deposits with uni-
at the Bingham Canyon porphyry cop-
linked to improved equipment or mech- axial compressive strengths up to 320
per deposit in Utah, at a mining rate of
anization; contributions have also come Mpa, where hydraulic fracturing can be
6,000 tonnes per day (tpd) of ore. His
from the development of geomechanics used as a preconditioner to caving
prediction that the mining cost per ton
as a discipline, and to research into its (Laubscher, 1994, 2001; Moss et al.,
would be low was verified in 1907
application to mass underground min- 2004; Araneda and Sougarret, 2007).
when 2 percent Cu ore, which previ-
ing in the areas of rock mass character-
ously had been regarded as waste
ization, caving mechanics and seismic-
because it was not economic, was
ity, gravity flow, confined blasting, and
mined and concentrated profitably.
subsidence predictions.
COMPARISON OF
Since then, the scale of open-pit MINING METHODS
mass mining has increased dramati-
Under suitable circumstances, BPC min-
cally, with the Escondida and
ing has the lowest cost of the three
Chuquicamata open pits in Chile, MASS UNDERGROUND mass underground mining methods
presently the world’s largest open-pit MINING METHODS (Table 1, schematically in Fig. 2). It is
mines, currently producing at a rate of
Mass or bulk underground methods estimated that mining costs are reduced
about or slightly greater than 1 M tpd
(Fig. 1, see page 1) range from block by 50 percent in moving from SLOS to
of ore and waste. Over the life of the
and panel caving (bpc) to sublevel cav- SLC mining and by an additional 50
Escondida large open pit, the waste/ore
ing (slc) and sublevel open stoping percent by using the BPC method.
stripping ratio will average about 1.7:1,
(slos), with a new generation of bpc Moreover, the BPC method has advan-
whereas that of the Chuquicamata will
mines, the super bpc (sbpc), either just tages in terms of operating cost and
be about 0.5:1. Concomitant with this
starting or in the planning stage. These cutoff grade over other forms of under-
increase in production scale has been a
latter operations will produce at mining ground mass mining (Table 1, Fig. 2),
similar increase in open-pit depth. For
rates of up to 700,000 tpd or more from and compares favorably with open-pit
example, the Chuquicamata mine
a single mining panel (typically there mining when waste-to-ore ratios are 5:1
increased in depth from 280 m in 1970
will be a number of panels mined in a or greater. An additional attraction of
to 930 m in 2007 and is projected to
to page 24 . . .
single cave mining operation), whereas BPC mining is the abil-
become 1,050 m deep over the coming
large BPC, SLC and to a lesser extent ity to economically
seven or eight years. Current plans are
to convert the mine to underground
panel caving and this transition or con- TABLE 1. Indicative Production Rates, Site and Mining Costs and Equivalent Cutoff Grades
version will occur when the pit reaches for Four Types of Mass Mining (after Logan 2002)
a depth of approximately 1,100 m.
Panel & Block Open Pit
A similar but less well-known
Caving 5:1 Strip Ratio SLC Stoping
increase in the size of mass under-
ground mines has occurred over the Mining Rates (Mtpa) 5-16-50 17 1-5-25 1-3-14
past century. At present the world’s
largest mass underground mine in Site Costs (A$/t ore) 7-9-12+ 11 13-16-20+ 14-20-15+
terms of total production is Codelco’s El
Minint Costs (A$/t) 3-4-6 7-8 6-8-12+ 10-13-20+
Teniente Division in Chile, which has
increased its production rate tenfold Eq Cut-Off Grades
since 1905 when it started, from about Au g/t 0.65 0.75 1.15 1.45
15,000 tpd in 1920 to an anticipated %Cu 0.55 0.6 0.85 1.05
140,000 tpd in 2010. This production
comes from as many as eight mining The rates and costs (in AUD$) show the typical range, with the larger font number indi-
sectors, with production rates from each cating the typical industry value for some methods. BPC = block and panel caving, SCL
sector ranging from 10,000 to 45,000 = sublevel caving.
24
... from 23 Mass Underground Mining and the Role of the Exploration Geologist (Continued)
FIGURE 2. Economic grades and cash costs for a number of caving and stoping mines
(Logan, 2002).
mine low-grade ore underground that
previously could have been mined only
by open pit.
A potentially limiting factor of mass
underground mining, in terms of eco-
nomics and profitability, is the up-front
capital cost. This will be less restrictive,
in many cases, where mass under-
ground mining is being undertaken at
a brownfield site, as a transition from a
mature (and deep) open pit to an
underground caving mine (e.g.,
Grasberg, as well as the older mines of
Chuquicamata and Bingham Canyon).
For an exploration geologist in the
process of discovering a mineral deposit
that will be mined initially by open pit,
there is value for both the geologist and
mining engineer in drilling at least a
few very deep holes, beyond the
expected pit bottom, to test the full
depth extent of the mineralization, in
anticipation that the ore deposit may
eventually undergo a transition into a
mass underground mine. Not surpris-
ingly, knowledge of this possibility
should be of interest to the mining
engineer who is planning the open-pit
mine.
Figure 2 presents cash costs (US
cents/lb of Cu equivalent) plotted
against equivalent recovered Cu grade
(%) for a number of active caving and
stoping mines; a range of open-pit cash
costs (in 2002) is shown by the length
of the thick arrow on the vertical axis.
SEG NEWSLETTER
The future use of mass underground
mining is apparent in situations where
there are large and deep deposits that
are continuous, or there is significant
barren material from the surface to the
top of the orebody that will incur signif-
icant stripping costs if mined by open
pit. In these instances, mass under-
ground mining may be the only viable
mining option. If so, the additional
capital expenditure imposed by under-
ground mining will need to be justified
by the scale of operation and the aver-
age grade of the orebody, so as to pro-
vide an acceptable payback period and
return on the capital invested.
THE FUTURE OF UNDER-
GROUND MASS MINING
A radical evolution in mass under-
ground mining is presently underway
with the development of super block
and panel caving (SBPC) mines. Mines
of this type are currently being planned
for orebodies at El Teniente and
Chuquicamata, Chile; Bingham
Canyon and Resolution, United States;
Grasberg, Indonesia (which will be
almost the same size as the present
DOZ, at 100,000–110,000 tpd); Oyu
Tolgoi, Mongolia; and Cadia East,
Australia, among others. These are a
mixture of new mines and old mines
previously worked from open pit. Some
No 83 • OCTOBER 2010
of these mines will have footprints as
large as 250 hectares, with planned
extraction levels as deep as 2 km, with
attendant geothermal gradient issues.
In general terms, the attributes of
the various SBPC mines that are
presently being planned include the
following:
1. A target production rate
approaching 100,000 tpd from a single
mining unit or sector; equivalent of 35
to 40 M tpa of ore from underground.
2. A mining block height of greater
that 500 m, approaching 800 m, where
block height (Brown, 2003, 2007) is the
height of the block to be caved, mea-
sured from the extraction level to one
or other of the following: the surface,
the base of a preexisting open pit, a
predetermined level, a mined-out area
above the material to be caved, or as
determined by the life of the drawpoint
brow. At present the maximum mined
block height is in the range of 500 to
600 m.
3. A depth to the undercut level of
greater than 1,500 m, and in some
instances approaching 2,000 m.
4. A footprint or panel size in plan
(e.g., 2 · 2 km) requiring up to (or
more than) 1,000 drawpoints (e.g.,
using conventional extraction level lay-
outs) to remove the ore from the cave.
An early SBPC to be approved for
development is the Cadia East panel
cave, with the following attributes and
design parameters (Newcrest Mining
Limited, 2009, 2010):
• Ore reserve: 961 Mt at 0.61g/t Au
and 0.33 wt percent Cu in a low-
grade, gold-copper porphyry
deposit.
• Mining method: Panel caving.
• Maximum production rate: 26
Mtpa.
• Mine life: >30 years.
• First panel lift at ~1,200 m depth
(extraction level).
• 200 km underground develop-
ment.
The Cadia East orebody will be
mined using a number of panel caves
with block heights expected to range
from 400 to 825 m. Newcrest expects
that “the Cadia East cash cost over the
first 10 years of production will be
below A$100 per ounce with a total
production cost of less than A$250 per
OCTOBER 2010 • No 83 SEG NEWSLETTER 25

ounce” (Newcrest Mining Limited,
2010). The reported ore reserve for the
Cadia East deposit contains 18.7 Moz
gold and 3.16 Mt copper, included
within a reported Mineral Resource of
33.2 Moz gold and 6.59 Mt copper
(Newcrest Mining Limited, 2009).
As knowledge of these mines, once
in operation, and the opportunities pre-
sented by this mining method spreads,
it is our opinion that other deep
deposits will inevitably be considered
for possible SBPC mining. There are
also opportunities for the industry to
start defining the requirements of the
next underground mass mining inno-
vation to supplement the super caving
method for even lower grade deposits.
Ultimately, it is expected that mass
underground mining methods will be
employed to recover metals using differ-
ent techniques and technologies from
those presently used in mining; these
are likely to include in-situ recovery of
metal.
ROLE OF THE
EXPLORATION GEOLOGIST
Exploration geologists have a key role
to play in adopting this evolving, large-
scale, mass underground mining tech-
nology. In doing this, they have a piv-
otal role to play in defining exploration
targets and in identifying permissive
styles of mineralization, additional to
those presently being exploited by this
form of mass mining. Moreover, a bet-
ter understanding of successful mass
underground mining methods and
knowledge of the average grade that
can potentially be mined with these
methods will encourage exploration
geologists to explore and probe deeper
(1–2 km), for large and possibly rela-
tively low grade mineral deposits. The
newer block cave operations currently
being financed and developed show
that the mining technology exists and
can be used economically on similar
deposits. In addition, the software that
is now available to estimate mineral
resources and ore reserves is being used
successfully to optimize production
from block caves (Diering, 2000).
It is our contention that the success-
ful exploration or mine geologist is, or
certainly should be, the keeper of the
orebody until a feasibility study into
mining has been completed.
Furthermore, we contend that man-
agers and engineers need to be taught
this, and all exploration geologists
must remember this.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank N. Belluz, M. Blythe,
J. Hedenquist, S. Hughes, and J.
Thompson for their reviews and con-
structive comments, which have
improved the quality of the article.
REFERENCES
Araneda, O., and Sougarret, A., 2007,
Keynote address: Lessons learned in cave
mining, El Teniente 1997–2007: Cape
Town, South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, Cave Mining, p. 59–71.
Brown, E.T., 2003, Block caving geomechan-
ics: Brisbane, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, 516 p.
——2007, Block caving geomechanics:
Brisbane, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, 696 p.
Brown, E.T., and Chitombo, G.P., 2007,
Underground mass mining by caving: The
way of the future: Brisbane, Australia,
Sustainable Minerals Institute, University
of Queensland, 104 p.
Chitombo, G.P., 2010, Cave mining—16
years after Laubscher’s 1994 paper “Cave
mining – state of the art”: Caving 2010,
Perth, Australia, p. 45–62.
Diering, T., 2000, PC-BC: A block cave design
and draw control system, in Chitombo,
G.P., ed., MassMin 2000: Brisbane,
Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne, Proceedings, p.
469–484.
——1994) Cave mining—the state of the art,
Journal of the South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, v. 94, no. 10, p.
279–293.
Laubscher, D.H., 2001, Cave mining—the
state of the art, underground mining meth-
ods: Engineering Fundamentals and
International Case Histories, in Hustrulid,
W.A., and Bullock, R.L., eds., Littleton,
Colorado, Society for Mining, Metallurgy
and Exploration, p. 455–463.
Moss, A., Russell, F. and Jones, C., 2004,
Caving and fragmentation at Palabora:
Prediction to production, in Karzulovic, A.,
and Alfaro, M., eds., MassMin 2004,
Chilean Engineering Institute, Santiago,
Proceedings, p. 585–590.
Newcrest Mining Limited, 2009 Annual
Report, Melbourne, Australia.
——2010, Australian Stock Exchange Market
Release, 9 April 2010.
Read, J., and Stacey, P., 2009, Guidelines for
open-pit slope design: CSIRO (Common-
wealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization) Publishing, 496 p. 1

Geoffrey C. Oldroyd PhD Avrom E. Howard, MSc, PGeol, FGA

Mining & Mineral Resources Consultant Professional Geologist & Certified Gemologist

• Research & Prospect Generation

• Strategic Analysis
• Property Evaluation
• Mine Engineering • Technical Reports
• Project & Mine Evaluations • Project Management

31 Lyndale Road Tel: (61-7) 3374 4457 Email: avromeric.howard@utoronto.ca • Tel: +1-970-234-9757
Pullenvale, Brisbane Fax: (61-7) 3374 4458 2347 Sundial Road • Grand Junction, CO 81505 USA
Qld, Australia 4069 E-mail: oldroyd@gil.com.au

PAID ADVERTISEMENT PAID ADVERTISEMENT