ROTARY BLAST HOLE DRILLS

A COMPARISON
By
JAMES D HUMPHREY

production but two smaller drills are

required. This is not unexpected since
This data IS intended to provide the reduced pattern required by the
a quantatlve cost comparison of one smaller drills involves the drilling of
40 800 kg. pull down rotary blast hole ~.~ times more meters of hole when
drill versus two smaller drills in the compared wIth la~ger drill.
18 100 kg. pull down class. While this The capital cost of two 18 100 kg
cost analysis is affected by blast pul.l down class drills costing A$ bOO
des-ign, this paper is not intended to 000 each still shows a saving of more
be a treatIse on blasting theory and than A$400 000 over one 40 800 kg pull
therefore places more emphasis on costs down class drill (A$l 750 000).
than on blast design. All costs,
prices and production rates in this
paper are estimates and should be used 'fable 1
for comparison purposes only.
The drills are sized in order to Yearly Drilling Hequirements
maintain a production rate sufficient
to stay ahead of a dragline that is Dragline Capacity 6
11.5 x 10 BCM/yr
excavating in an average overburden Average Overburden 30.5 meters
(sandstone and shale). The large drill Surface Area to be Drilled 376 300 m2 /yr
wIll use ~70mm bit and penetrate at a
rate of 0.012 m/s (scheduled basis). Large Drill Small Drill
The small drill will use l70mm bit and
penetrate at a rate of 0.010 m/s Hole dia. (nun) 270 170 250.80
(scheduled basis). Pattern (rnxm) 7.6 x 8.5 4.9 x 5.8
Holes per year 5 786 13 322
Hole length (m) 30.5 30.5
Meters/yr 176 500 406 300
A common mine planning dilemma Drilling rate (72%
imposed by larger surface mining Utilization) (m/s) 0.012 0.101
equipment is that, whilst this type of Scheduled hours/yr 4 133 11 100
equipment has larger capital costs, it Weeks/year 50 50
most assuredly has lower operatIonal Scheduled h/~lk 82.7 222
costs. If capital is available for Scheduled h/shift 7.25 7.25
purchase of larger machines then a Shifts/wk 11.4 30.6
major factor in equipment selection is,
"How long does it take my operating
cost savIngs to offset my addItIonal
eapI tal expense". In the case of
rotary blast hole drills, this can be a What then of the opera~ing costs?
surprisingly short perIod of time. Generally, blastIng operations can be
separa tect int 0 three cos t areas: the
Initially, equipment selection drilllllg, the explosives, and the
is decided on by general operatin~ labour.
parameters. As Table 1 shows, one DurIng the preparation of this
large arlll IS adequate to maintain _paper, the drillIng and the explosives
cost so dramatically show~d a savings
that the labour used for explosives
Chief Engineer - Mining Applications hUlldJIDff and blast preparation was
Marion Division Dresser Ind. Inc. discounted entirely. These other two
Marion Ohio U.S.A. areas then therefore merit further
d~~tai l.

The AuslMMIIE Aust Newman Combined Group, Large Open Pit Mining Conference October 1986

109
110 J D HUMPHREY

Table :3

As Tables 2 and 0 show, drilling Small drill 0&0 costs

costs are generally classlfied into t~o o &0 A$
categories: the ownership costs and the
operating costs (0&0). The ownershIp +Budget price A$660 000
costs are primarily depreciatlon Depreciation life
together with a combined taxe~ luterest years 10
and insurance cost. The operat tug hours/yr 5 550
costs consist of maintenance, bits,· Total/hrs 55 500
fuel and operating labour. The Larger Depreciation/year 66 000
drill shows advantages in the latter Avg. Investment A$/yr 363 000
three items. *1',1&1 rate 26%
The 270mm bit is markedly more 1',1&1 cost/yr 94 400
expensive (l70%l than a 170mm bit. 'l'he Total ownership cost/yr A$160 400
larger bit, however, gains advantages
in that it usually has a longer life l1aintenence cost/yr 46 200
and is required to drill only 43% of Bit cost (A$ each) 3 200
the meters to be drilled by the smaller Meters/bit 5 000
bit. The result is that 0.4 times more Bits/year 41
small bits will be consumed. Additio- Bit cost/yr 131 200
nally, because the large drill need Fuel (liters/hr) 32
only be scheduled to operate 37% of Fuel cost (A$/liter) 0.40
small drills (combined) time, there is Fuel cost/yr 71 000
an advantage in fuel consumption and Wages ~2 men) (A$/hr) 54.00
labour costs. Wages/year 299 700
Total Operating cost/yr A$548 100
Table 2
Total 0&0 cost/yr A$708 500
Large drill 0&0 costs Total A$ 3·.49
0.& 0 A$
Total 0&0 cost TWO DRILLS A$/yr 1 417 000
+Budget price (11.$) 1 750 000
Depreciation life All hours are scheduled hours
years 15 +Price delivered and erected
Hours/yr 4 133 *Taxes interest and insurance rate.
Total/hrs 62 000
Depreciation/yr 116 700
Avg. investment (A$/yr) 933 300
*1',1 & I rate 26%
1',1 & I cost/yr 242 700
Total ownership cost/yr A$359 400

Maintenance cost/yr 122 500

Bit cost (A$ each) 5 400
Meters/bit 7 500
Bits/yr 24
Bit cost/yr 129 600
Fuel litres/yr 52
Fuel cost A$/litres 0.40
Fuel cost/yr 86 000
Wages (2 men) (A$!hr) 54
Wages/yr 223 200
Total operating cost/yr A$561 300

Total 0 & 0 cost/yr A$920 700

Total 0 & O/meter A$ 5.22

All hours are scheduled hours

+Price delivered and erected
*Taxes interest and insurance rate

The AuslMM/lE Aust Newman Combined Group, Large Open Pit Mining Conference October 1986
 J D HUMPHREY 111

Table 5

Blasting costs are broken down Miscellaneous Blasting requirements

into ANFO (Table 41, and miscellaneous
ITabie 51, which consist of the costs Surface Area to be
for mi 11 i--second (M::i) delays, drilled 376 300 m2 /yr
detonating curd and prImers
(boosters i . The advantages of the Large Drill Small Drill
largA drIll in pattern size, number of
holes and total lenf.th of hule extend Pit width (m) 30.5 34.1
themselvps rather naturally here too. Length of pit (m) 12 300 11 000
PrImarily though It is the extra number Pattern (mxm) 7.6 x 8.5 4.9 x 5.8
of hules I~.~ .tlmeS) required in the Number of holes 5 786 13 322
small drill pattern which contrIbutes Blasting block (rnxm) 30.5 x 93.9 34.1 x 92.7
to the hi"her custs No. of block required 131.5 119
Rows of holes 4 x 11 7 x 16

TabLe 4 MS Delays Requirements

ANFO Hequirements Delays/block 14 22

Total delays 1 841 2 620
Large Drill Small Drill +TOTAL DELAY COST (A$) 5 520 7 860
Holes/yr 5 786 13 322 +Delays price 300 A$/100 delays
Hole dia. (mm) 270 170
Hole length (m) 30.5 30.5
*Stemming (m) 5.5 3.4 Detonating Cord Reguirements
Powder Column (m) 25.0 27.1
+Kg ANFO/m 45.75 19.87 Trunk line/block (m) 646 1 128
Kg ANFO/hole 1 140 6 539 6 Trunk line/yr ~m) 84 980 134 200
Kg ANFO/year 6.6 x 10 6 7.2 x 10 6 +Trunk line cost (A$) 30 200 47 600
·fANFO cost (A$) 2.97 x 10 3.24 x 10 Down line/hole (m) 33.5 33.5
Down line/yr (m) 194 000 446 700
*Down line cost (A$) 90 000 207"300
*Stemming 65mm/m of burden TOTAL CORD COSTS(A$) 120 200 254 900
~LNFO cost at 450 A$/tonne
+ANFO loading density (poured) 0.80 g/cc +25 grain trunk line at A$ 355/1000 meter
*50 grain down line of A$46411000 meter

Primer Reguirements

No. of holes 5 786 13 322

Primers/hole 5 4
No. of primers 28 930 53 288
+TOTAL PRIMER COSTS (A$) 104 100 191 800

+0,5kg cost booster primers at A$3.60 each

Miscellaneous Cost Summary (A$/yr)

Delays 5 520 7 860

Detonating cord 120 200 254 900
Primers 104 100 191 800
TOTAL 229 820 454 560

The AuslMMIIE Aust Newman Combined Group, Large Open Pit Mining Conference October 1986
112 J D HUMPHREY

A comparison of primary
differences shows advantages for tbe
large drill in every category except
capital cost (Table 0).

Table b

Drill Comparison

One Two
Large Drill Small Drills

Holes/yr 5 780 13 3~2

Meters/yr 176 500 406 30U
AN~'O (A$/yr) 2 970 000 3 240 000
Mise. (A$/yr) ~2!:J 000 454 500
0&0 (A$/yr) 920 700 1 417 000
Total (A$/yr) 4 119 700 5 111< 560
Capital cost 1 750 000 1 320 000

This capital cost difference was

expected and although at first
A$430 000 appears significant, when
compared to an accumulated operating
cost. saving of over A$990 000, (Table
7) it can be shown that the larger
drill reaches a return on investment
(R.O.I.) in less than six months.

Table 7

Drill cost comparison

Drill & Blast

cost savings (A$/yr) 991 860
Capital cost
Difference 430 000
H.O.l. period (months) 5.~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer would like to thank

Dr. Richard Ash and Dr. Norman Smith of
the UniversIty of MissourI - Holla,
Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy
fur their assistance.

The AuslMMIIE Aust Newman Combined Group, Large Open Pit Mining Conference October 1986