Status of draw control

practice and waste Management

at Cullinan diamond mine
Gert van Hout, De Beers Consolidated Mines, Technical Support Services, Operations Geotechnical
Stephen Allen, Mark Breed, John Singleton, De Beers Consolidated Mines, Cullinan Diamond Mine

Abstract
Cullinan Diamond Mine (previously known as Premier Mine) currently employs two mechanized block caves and plans
another extraction level at approximately 900 m below surface. As with all major block cave operations, challenging
situations and difficult events occurred during the implementation phase, unforeseen throughout the project feasibility
study. The panel caves in the kimberlite pipe have experienced problems of various types that caused deviations from the
original planned mining sequences. In combination with (the traditional) production pressures, numerous problems
resulted in not achieving good Draw Control practice. A drastic change to the weekly Draw Control planning was
introduced with the buy-in from production personnel and mine management. In conjunction with the improved Draw
Control practice, an innovative but simple waste determination process has been developed and implemented. Both the
Draw Control and the Waste Management at Cullinan Diamond Mine are currently based on ‘back to basics’ principles,
straightforward and not controlled (yet) by impressive computer programs. This paper describes some of the geotechnical
and practical related difficulties that were encountered during the implementation phase and how those were tackled with
varying degrees of success. The importance and impact of Draw Control and Waste Management on the overall mine
performance is illustrated.

1 INTRODUCTION
Cullinan Diamond Mine (previously called Premier Mine)
started mining diamonds in 1903. The kimberlite pipe, the
largest in South Africa is cut by a flat dipping 75 m thick
gabbro sill at approximately 400 m below surface, shown in
figure 1, together with the position of current mining blocks.
Mining above the sill was initially open cast mining, later
long hole benching (early 60’s) and block caving (late 60’s).
Below the sill, resources in the BA5 and BB1E mining blocks
are currently exploited by retreat panel caving. BA5 and
BB1E presently have a combined production of
approximately 13,000 tons per day. In BA5, mining started
in 1988; 130 m below the gabbro sill and this mining block
has a current life of mine until 2005. It is anticipated that the
BB1E, where production started in 1996 approximately 230
m below the sill, will cease operations in 2009. In 2005, the
mine plans to start producing kimberlite ore from the BB1E
Advanced Undercut Cave providing interim tons until the
Centenary Cut (previously referred to as C-Cut) commences
mining at approximately 900 m below surface and starts
production in 2009.
Draw Control in the current block caves BA5 and BB1E
has always been regarded as strategic (Rood & Bartlett,
1994, Bartlett & Nesbitt, 2000, Nesbitt & Vorster, 2000). A
great deal of effort and capital have been spent over the
years on infrastructure, computer programs and other tools
to monitor the drawn volumes from the cave blocks. There
are several reasons to understand why Draw Control is
considered important, not only at Cullinan Diamond Mine
but also at most caving operations worldwide.
2 VITAL REASONS FOR DRAW CONTROL
Cullinan Diamond Mine hasn’t experienced serious mud
rushes or seismicity and therefore these two supplementary
risks dictating Draw Control at many other sites are not
discussed.
2.1. Avoid premature gabbro dilution
Draw Control is very crucial in avoiding early ingress of
the overlying gabbro waste as this premature dilution would
reduce the overall ore recovery and shorten the life of cave.
Right from the Feasibility Study stage for BA5 and BB1E
onwards, fragmentation of the kimberlite was predicted to
be coarse and that of the overlying gabbro sill to be fine
(Rood and Bartlett, 1994).
At Cullinan Diamond Mine, it is anticipated that a recovery of
85 percent of the in situ ore can be achieved if proper Draw
Control is exercised. Poor draw practice results in a much lower
ore recovery rate as drawpoints will be forced to close earlier
than anticipated for two possible reasons. Firstly, cut-offs due
the influx of gabbro into the drawpoints adjacent to ‘overdrawn’
drawpoints occurs much earlier than planned. Secondly,
inconsistent draw practice stimulates migration of material over
considerable vertical and horizontal distances, inducing the
premature mixing of waste with ore, especially as gabbro
fragments are fine and would thus move through the column
quickly, (Bartlett, 1998). To compound matters, it was found that
the kimberlite fines percentage (a function of kimberlite
accelerated weathering) was underestimated at the time of
initial block cave feasibilities in the mid 80’s (BA5) and early
90’s (BB1E).
2.2. Minimise gabbro into plant headfeed
The gabbro not only sterilises the drawn ore but also
causes problems at the Dense Media Separator in the
diamond recovery plant due to its high specific density.
2.3. Reduce risk of ore recompaction
Lack of good Draw Control results in static columns of
cave rock, resulting in ore re-compaction, generating point

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 491

 2.5. Optimal ore fragmentation
Uneven draw or drawing at too rapid a rate may lead to
very coarse fragmentation, poor grade control and severe
waste dilution. As mentioned before, coarse ore
fragmentation and fine waste fragments induce rapid
gabbro waste movement from the top, through the column,
to the drawpoints, thereby sterilising the drawpoint
prematurely and creating problems at the recovery plant.
It has often been observed that drawpoints with coarse
fragmentation were subjected to draw, far above the call
allowed by the maturity rules. If material is drawn too
quickly, there is not enough ‘residence time’ for the
kimberlite material: there is a lack of mechanical interaction
between the ore fragments and insufficient communition of
primary fragments as material gravitates down the cave
column.

Figure 1: Diagrammatic plan and section of the kimberlite

pipe showing geology and mining blocks.

loads on the extraction level that damage the production

infrastructure. In kimberlite, if the draw of ore occurs more
than three months after the undercut has taken place, the
material in the drawbell and above the major apex may
compact. This ore re-compaction creates uneven loading
conditions on the extraction level or excessive localised
stresses that adversely affect tunnels. This becomes
apparent as support integrity worsens or when tunnels
collapse. Experience in the BA5 and BB1E caves shows
localised re-compaction of kimberlite becoming a major
issue when the drawpoint was closed for rehabilitation for
more than six weeks. Re-opening of compacted drawpoints
requires a high level of secondary blasting, further
damaging the brow area and in some cases it has taken as
long as eight weeks to re-open a drawpoint.

2.4. Maximum Draw Zone Interaction

In both the BA5 and BB1E, the offset herringbone
drawpoint layout (figure 2) was used with the drawpoint
spacing across the major apex ranging between 24.2m to
24.7m, possibly creating interaction problems across the
major apex in some areas as the Isolated Draw Zone (IDZ)
varies from 9m to 11m, depending on the kimberlite rock
type.
Figure 2 shows the zones of draw at the three different
draw interaction modes according to Laubscher (2000). If
drawpoints draw in isolation, (the horizontal section of) the
zone of material affected by this draw can be approximated
by a circle with a diameter equal to the IDZ. If there is even
draw between the two drawpoints within the same drawbell,
the affected area has an elliptical footprint, one and a half
times larger than the IDZ. When there is interaction between
adjacent drawbells, the zone of influence enlarges another
one and half times.
Figure 2: Interaction modes (a: isolated, b: interaction within
drawbell and c: interaction across minor apex)
Large blocks cause high hang-up frequencies in the
drawpoints, create problems in the ore handling system
and have a negative effect on the productivity as well as
on the operating costs. Removal of drawpoint hang-ups
may result in long down-time and are costly because of
the secondary breaking requirements. Oversized ore
blocks in the drawpoints must be reduced to reasonable
sizes that can be handled by the load-haul-dump (LHD)
machines.
Back analysis of hang-up data during the period between
July 1998 and May 2000 (Rahal and Smith, 2000) revealed
that in any given shift, 34 percent of the available

492 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

drawpoints are hung up and that the vast majority of these
hang-ups were cleared within one day.
3 THE HISTORY OF DRAW CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMPLOYED AT CULLINAN DIAMOND MINE
To impose Draw Control on the current mining blocks,
various systems and software packages were implemented.
Some systems had more success than others.
A comprehensive Draw Control system should at least
consist of an integrated system of three major components:
an accurate and dynamically updated ore resource
database, a reliable vehicle monitoring system and a
planning system.
3.1. Ore Resource database
The very first version of PC-BC, developed for Cullinan
Diamond Mine in 1988, was cumbersome to use: it took a
long time (2 to 3 hours) to deplete all drawpoint loads on a
daily basis and it did not have the fine graphics displayed by
the present version. After some time, mine personnel moved
towards spreadsheet type applications to store daily
production data from the drawpoints. Later, a Microsoft
Access database was employed to store the drawn volumes
in combination with the status of each drawpoint. A user
interface was then developed to present this data in a
graphical format and to allow management to extract
comprehensive summary reports. This application called
BLOCINFO, also permitted the user also to reconcile the
drawpoint production figures with the tons recorded by the
treatment plant.
In 1999, MinRAS an SQL based product that also
contained the mixing algorithms, enabling the Mineral
Resource Manager to derive a more accurate and auditable
ore reserve statement (Guest et al, 2000).
3.2. Vehicle Monitoring System
Reconciling tons, calculated from the loads that are
recorded by the vehicle monitoring system (VMS) with the
tons from the weightometers at the plant is essential in any
good planning or effective Draw Control program to obtain a
correct and representative mineral resource database.
Various VMS options have been trialled at Premier
including a beacon system using micro-wave technology
(Nesbitt & Vorster, 2000) followed by a gyroscopic based
monitoring system. None of the systems were a hundred
percent satisfactory due to technical problems, as well as
resistance from production personnel who saw it as a
management policing tool.
A combination of the radio-based voice communication
(utilising the leaky feeder to establish contact between
control room at surface and underground) and a manual
recording based information system, currently in use, yields
the best results. However, it requires production crews to
buy into Draw Control.
As Cullinan Diamond Mine has different size LHD units,
there is an issue with the average bucket factor applied to
derive ‘tons mined’ from ‘buckets loaded’ at each drawpoint
and until recently, the total tons hoisted were consistently
larger than the value based on the recorded buckets.
3.3. Planning System
Up until 1998, Production planning at Cullinan Diamond
Mine was founded on empirical geotechnical guidelines
(Bartlett and Nesbitt, 2000) and did not take into account the
full effect of resource and equipment availabilities. The
empirical guidelines were derived from extensive block cave
experience at Cullinan Diamond Mine and have been
described by Bartlett, 1998.
A more pro-active approach was initiated in 1998 when
the weekly planning also incorporated mining constraints
Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004
such as LHD availability, ore pass capacity, haulage and
hoisting capability. The next draw control related concept
established was that of the ‘ideal depletion surface’. A
predetermined ideal depletion sequence up until the life of
draw determines the short-term (week) draw schedule in
that the plan attempts to come as near to the ideal depletion
state as possible. At any stage, mining is in function of the
ideal depletion profile and the call per drawpoint is
influenced by its draw history (corrective call when there
was poor draw in the past).
Planning on a monthly and weekly basis was also carried
out using spreadsheets. These files produced satisfactory
output as it catered for the input of all parties involved in
Draw Control. It was rather cumbersome to use but has
served its purpose to stimulate interaction between
geotechnical, mining and mineral resource management
departments. Regular meetings were held between these
departments to agree upon the monthly production plan
produced by these excel files but adherence to this plan
could be improved.
4 DISCUSSION OF CURRENT
DRAW CONTROL PRACTICE
4.1. The Integrated Draw Control System
In 1999, the ‘Integrated Draw Control System’ (IDCS) with
a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) component
described by Guest et al , 2000 was introduced on mine.
The long and medium term schedule program based on
the MILP was originally developed at Koffiefontein Mine for
its Front Cave (Hannweg and van Hout, 2001), and is
currently being used in the BB1E Advanced Undercut at
Cullinan Diamond Mine. This scheduling module is the first
planning optimisation tool in block cave operations that is
able to optimise over the life of mine as well as over multi-
time periods. It incorporates all geotechnical, mining and
financial constraints, in a unique way.
Long term production planning for the older BA5 and
BB1E blocks is still done by the use of spreadsheets and
does not incorporate all ore flow constraints or geotechnical
rules, except for the draw rate limits. The reason for the
implementation of the excel files instead of MILP is
threefold. Firstly, those panel caves are considered too
depleted to optimise according to the principles within the
MILP. Secondly, the main focus of those caves currently is
avoiding tunnel collapses occurring from vertical loading
and keeping porosity in the areas that hasn’t experienced
destructive stress levels. And lastly, the MILP version
allowing remote access only became available late 2003.
The current Draw Control system at Cullinan does not
cater for planning based on maximising NPV as the grades
in the ore columns are set to an average column value and
the mixing algorithms do not cater for vertical mixing within
an ore column. The choice of an average column grade is
justified, as there is generally very little resolution in the
assumed grade profile vertically across the massive
orebody.
An optimal (and in South Africa legally prescribed) plan for
all mining operations should be based on maximum ore
recovery, thus maximising tons instead of maximising NPV,
the last being a method relying rather on grade and revenue
per carat. Block cave mining is a massive mining operation
where principles of selective mine planning, based on
financial parameters, cannot determine the production plan.
These principles may constrain the schedule but an optimal
plan is primarily based on geotechnical considerations.
The mixing algorithms mentioned in section 3.1 were
developed on site to simulate the ore movements within the
cave and the parameters were calibrated successfully: the
predicted time of drawpoint closure in the BA5 cave was
within one month from the actual date of closure. These
493
mixing algorithms are still being used but it is expected that
REBOP,(Pierce et al, 2004), will be used as the standard
tool to update the ore resource database. This tool should
then also provide an accurate production waste ingress and
grade profile (or carat production graph).
4.2. The back to basics approach
Towards the end of 2002, a major drive from
management, the ‘back to basics’ principle occurred, not
only in terms of ‘keeping it simple’ but of increased
adherence to the basic Draw Control rules outlined in the
Cullinan Diamond Mine Code of Practice, (Bartlett, 2003)
and ameliorating interaction between Draw Control and
Production Departments. Some of the simple but critical
procedures for a successful Draw Control Practice are
discussed in this section. With issues of interaction being
inherited from design (see section 2), the main aim of the
current BA5 and BB1E Draw Control system is to draw
equally throughout the caves with all drawpoints in
production at one time and to minimise dilution from the
gabbro sill. Future optimising codes such as the MILP are
seen to be not applicable simply due to the maturity status
of the BA5 and the BB1E and past Draw Control practices.
The key to the whole short-term Draw Control process
(figure 3) is the accumulation, storage, processing and
presentation of data. The key relationship is between Draw
Control and Production. The culmination of the whole
process is presented at the weekly meetings that are held
where all parties "strategise" key loading and tunnel or
drawpoint rehabilitation patterns around Draw Control.
Production and short-term planning understand that Draw
Control needs alignment to the official annual production
plan, therefore by applying correct Draw Control principles
long-term cave management and production targets can be
achieved.
Figure 3: Process flow chart on Draw Control at Cullinan
Diamond Mine.
Draw Control Observers gather the occurrence and type
of drawpoint hang-ups and record it into the Draw Control
494 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004
system daily (Bartlett & Nesbitt, 2000). This information, in
combination with daily production data, enables the Draw
Control engineer to analyse the effect of the draw rates and
draw history on the frequency and type of hang-up as well
as waste entry parameters.
Extraction rate limits at Cullinan Diamond Mine have
hence been determined in terms of tonnage per day using a
maturity classification, based on the accumulative
production or life of draw from a drawpoint. Four classes
were established and the associated draw rates increased
from a maximum of 50 tons per day for a new drawpoint to
a maximum of 200 tons per day for a mature drawpoint.
As can be seen in figure 4, since the end of 2002, adherence
to Draw Control has improved significantly (the average
deviation in 2000 was approximately 73%). The graph displays
the deviation (actual production - planned), averaged over all
BB1E drawpoints with the weighting factor being the planned
tons. A value around 10% is considered to be very good. A
Production Factor (van Hout & Guest, 2000), based on this
data has not been implemented at the mine as it is felt that
average weighted deviation is adequate enough to
communicate how well Draw Control is adhered to.
Figure 4: Weighted Average Deviation (datapoints and
trendline) from the weekly Draw Control plan for BB1E cave.
Cullinan Diamond Mine personnel are confident that the
present recording, storage and presentation of actual mined
tonnages in the MinRAS is satisfactory. Initially, the actual
production per drawpoint was entered into the system on a
weekly basis. This data is now imported on a shift to shift
basis, in combination with other information associated with
the drawpoint status (produced volume, hang-up type,
waste content, remedial support status, etc.).
Presentation of the draw data is usually in graphical
format, accessible for all people involved in Draw Control to
get a clear idea of the mined tonnage profile over a user
defined period as well as of the actual drawpoint status.
Figure 5 shows an example of the weekly Draw Control plan
that has been derived on a Friday afternoon, after
consultation between Draw Control and Production. Copies
of this sheet are given to the Draw Control Officers (who
enter it into MinRAS) and Production Mine Overseers (who
distribute it to the Shift Bosses). The Mine Overseers also
write this information onto ‘Draw Control loading’
whiteboards and compare the planned tons with the actual
production data on a shift to shift basis.
Listed below are some of the more important Draw
Control production principles developed with the "back to
basics approach" that are vigorously implemented with the
aim of achieve correct block cave management:
Massmin 2004
• Drawpoints closest to the orebody perimeter (highly
depleted or not), are continually loaded, at a reduced rate
if necessary. This allows for porosity in the caves and
prevents the movement of groundwater from the contact
areas to the centre of the ore body.
• A strict minimum (120 tons) and maximum (1,200 tons)
weekly call per drawpoint is implemented with a maximum
daily call of 300 tons. This prevents the loading of all
planned production from a drawpoint in a single shift, with
no loading during the remainder of the week.
• A target for the weighted average deviation (figure 4) has
currently been fixed at ten percent with acceptance from
both production crews and senior management.
• It is strived to achieve equal draw across the major apex
and continuous production per drawpoint throughout the
week. This ensures achieving a maximum zone of
influence (as in figure 2c).
• Frequent interactions between Draw Control and
production to communicate clearly the availability, waste
content and status of drawpoints to anticipate correct
loading calls.
• Reducing the closure/maintenance time from six to three
weeks where possible, to avoid re-compaction.
Figure 5: Weekly Draw Plan for the BB1E block cave.
The implementation of above principles should
dramatically improve fragmentation across the caves,
creating further reductions in secondary blasting and the
possible achievement of monthly "production" targets at
acceptable waste percentage.
A secondary function of Draw Control was developed in
Feb 2002 and consists of a qualitative assessment of the
physical state of drawpoints. The system involved a monthly
rating of each drawpoint on the basis of condition, stress
damage, water and LHD damage. The ratings are
transferred onto mine plans for future analysis.
Fragmentation data in line with Laubscher’s, (2000), Rock
Mass Rating classification were added to the data
collection. The data is currently used in back analysis for the
fragmentation analysis programs in order to model future
block caves within the same ore body.
Another Draw Control function is to maintain waste levels
at twelve percent or below. Past sampling practices did not
record levels of gabbro in each drawpoint. A waste
management system developed by the Mineral Resource
Management department assists in the prediction of waste
tons and is discussed below.
Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004
5 WASTE CALCULATION ON SURFACE
5.1. Current practice
For the last five years the official measurement of global
waste percentage has been determined by taking a sample
of approximately 50 kilograms with a plough sampler per
shift on the Sortex tailings stream. The size fraction on this
belt is -65mm, +32mm. The sample is washed and hand-
sorted into three different piles: internal waste, external
waste and kimberlite. The piles are then weighed and their
relative percentages calculated. Different tests have been
carried out to ascertain that this process of waste
determination is appropriate as the following underlying
assumptions could be questioned:
• The waste percentage in the -65mm to +32mm range is
representative for the total size distribution of the
headfeed.
• One sample of 50kg material per shift is an adequate
representation of the entire volume fed into the plant
during that shift.
• The waste percentage does not depend on the person
who performs the test.
The first test involved the waste analysis in the +4mm size
distribution classes. It is impossible to quickly and
accurately recognise rock types in fragments smaller than
4mm by manual visual methods. Results for this analysis
were very similar to those of the -65mm to +32mm range. It
can therefore be concluded that waste is evenly distributed
across the different size fractions and the current fragment
size range is adequate.
During the second test, samples were taken every 15
minutes from the -65mm +32mm stream. The results from
this test did not indicate that the current practice of one
sample per shift needed to be adjusted.
The last test consisted of an identical series of samples
given to four different laboratory assistants. As can be seen
in figure 6, results may vary depending on the lab assistant
but would not justify the extra cost of additional personnel.
Figure 6: Analytical bias due to different lab assistants
5.2. Research and future technologies
Research was undertaken to identify technology that
could recognise waste accurately in - and possibly remove
it from - the ore flow within a short time span. Providers of
technology based on Microwave Attenuation, Infra red,
Laser Induced Fluorescence, Natural Gamma Emission
were approached and three different optical sorters
underwent testing and extensive assessments.
495
 All applications were successful in differentiating between
waste and kimberlite to some degree on surface (conveyor
belts) but none were suitable for underground application.
Optical sorter technology, widely used in the food and glass
industries, proved to be the most effective method in
recognising and ejecting waste from an ore stream. The
ability to eject waste from an ore stream offers obvious,
additional advantages in ore processing, allowing improved
flexibility, an increased ore extraction ratio by recovering
more diamonds from previously considered non payable
drawpoints, lower crushing costs and ultimately improved
revenues.
6 WASTE CALCULATION UNDERGROUND
To manage waste effectively, an accurate means of
measuring the waste percentage in each drawpoint must be
established but the following factors complicate this
process:
• Dust, generated by LHD’s, makes visual observations
extremely difficult.
• Washing the ore in the drawpoint with water to get rid of
the dust settled on the muckpile can result in rapid
disintegration of the ore, thereby biasing the sample taken
to determine the waste content.
• There are different types of waste and different
percentages of waste within different size fractions of ore,
making the derivation of an average waste value rather
difficult.
• The finer the fragment size the more difficult it is to
differentiate between the different waste and kimberlite
types. The ore fragment sizes depend largely on the rock
type and the maturity of the cave.
At Cullinan Diamond Mine waste is classified as either
internal or external waste. Internal waste is that which
slumped back into the pipe during volcanic emplacement of
the kimberlite pipe and consists mainly of felsite, Waterberg
quartzite, norite and metasediments. The internal waste
also includes barren late stage carbonatite dykes. In the
metallurgical process these "floats" are separated from the
ore stream via a process of dense media separation, as
these rock types have a lower specific gravity.
External waste consists of the country rock norite and the
gabbro sill. These two rock types are mineralogically similar
and can differ only slightly in texture. The norite enters the
cave through the boundary drawpoints when country rock
blocks detach, slump down, and cuts off or sterilizes parts of
the resource It also enters the ore flow through the tipping
of waste development into ore passes. External waste
fragments are known in the metallurgical process as "sinks".
Their specific gravity is similar to that of diamond bearing
kimberlite, and it therefore reports to the concentrate of the
dense media separation.
Before 2002, the waste content was measured by visually
estimating the waste in each drawpoint on a daily basis. Loss
of historical waste data combined with the inaccuracy of visual
estimates made it impossible to compare waste estimates from
underground with the surface measurement of waste.
The test work described in section 5 showed that the
sampling methodology used on surface yields adequate
waste percentage values. It was therefore decided to
change the underground waste determination process from
the visual estimation to one similar as applied on surface.
This involves samples taken from a drawpoint, transported
to a lab analysed and results are entered into a database.
7 WASTE MANAGEMENT UNDERGROUND
AND BENIFTS THEREOF
As mentioned above, the waste percentage of the
headfeed needs to be kept below a critical level, above
496 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004
which the plant recovery would be less optimal. Waste at
Cullinan Diamond Mine has become increasing challenging
over the last few years, as the current block caves become
older and the reserves in the block are depleting fast.
Keeping the average waste content below a threshold has
historically been addressed by stopping underground
drawpoints with waste content higher than 15% but this has
sterilised large portions of the kimberlite resource. Waste
problems can be controlled to some degree by blending, ore
from various sources underground and on surface can
assist to draw higher waste drawpoints longer, thereby
maximising extraction.
Prediction and control of waste tons is a task performed
by Draw Control. Multiplying drawn tons per drawpoint with
a waste percentage and adding this for all drawpoints
across the two caves represents a value that indicates the
expected waste tons. Initially (2002) there was an extremely
close match between the predicted waste tons and the
actual recorded waste tons. But of late, differences of 4% -
5% have been observed, with the predicted values based
on the underground results always exceeding the on
surface determined results.
Benefits of the current waste management system are
listed below:
• The greatest benefit from a mineral resource perspective
is that more accurate forecasts and estimates can be
made. Financial contribution of drawpoints can be
established and assist in the decision making process,
together with geotechnical factors, whether or not
drawpoints or tunnels need to be closed.
• When production planning is done, the expected waste
tons can be calculated for each draw scenario. On the
basis thereof, optimal draw and waste percentage can be
derived. The estimated waste percentage is of great value
to the metallurgical department as unexpected and
excessive high density waste negatively affects recovery
efficiencies.
• A third benefit lies in the improved understanding of the
migration of gabbro sill material as the cave depletes. The
drawpoint waste data recorded since 2002 is still too
scarce but correlation between the column depletion
status and waste percentage will be analysed to
determine waste ingress curves that can be used in future
ore depletion planning.
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Cullinan Diamond Mine has experienced Draw Control
challenges, resulting in early waste ingress and serious
loading onto production tunnels. After a drive from senior
management for ‘back to basics’, Draw Control adherence
and ground conditions have improved drastically. Several
Draw Control procedures are outlined in this paper.
Waste is and always will be a mining and treatment
constraint requiring constant management to ensure
optimum extraction of ore.
The introduction of a system that recognises and can
eject waste from the ore flow will reduce the constraint of
waste on Draw Control and treatment efficiencies. Cullinan
Diamond Mine and the greater De Beers Group are
vigorously pursuing the implementation of optical sorting
technology, having completed extensive testing. A full
feasibility study of the project is being undertaken.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to all their colleagues who helped
and supported them during the development and
implementation of this work, in particular AR Guest, M
Preece, C Baltus, HP Grobler and PJ Bartlett. The authors
acknowledge the permission of the Director Operations and
Massmin 2004
the Cullinan Diamond Mine, General Manager to publish
this technical paper.
REFERENCES
• Bartlett, P.J. 1998. Planning a mechanised cave with
coarse fragmentation in kimberlite. PhD. Thesis.
University of Pretoria, South Africa.
• Bartlett, P.J. & Nesbitt, K. 2000. Draw Control at Premier
Mine. Proc. MassMin200, Brisbane. Vol 1: pp, 485-493.
• Bartlett, P.J. 2003. Block Cave Code of Practice for
Cullinan Diamond Mine.
• Guest, A.R., van Hout, G.J., von Johannedis, A &
Scheepers, L.F. 2000. An application of linear
programming for block cave Draw Control. Proc.
MassMin2000, Brisbane. Vol 1: pp, 461-468.
• Hannweg, L.A. & van Hout, G.J 2001. Draw Control at
Koffiefontein Mine. Proc. VIth International Symposium on
Mine Mechanisation and Automation, SAIMM, 2000, Vol
1:pp, 93-96.
• Laubscher, D.H.L 2000. Block Cave Manual.
Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004
• Nesbitt, K & Vorster, J.A. 2000. Premier mine Draw
Control and underground vehicle monitoring and control
system. Proc. VIth International Symposium on Mine
Mechanisation and Automation, SAIMM, 2000, Vol 1:pp,
93-96.
• Pierce, M., van Hout, G.J. & Singleton J 2004. Draw
Control of the BA5 cave Cullinan Diamond Mine: Back
Analysis with REBOP. Proc. MassMin2004, Santiago.
• Rahal, D.C. & Smith, M.L. 2000. De Beers Site Visit,
unpublished internal report. Corporate Head Quarters, De
Beers Consolidated Mines.
• Rood, H.R. & Bartlett, P.J. 1994. Mechanized Caving at
Premier Mine. Proc. XVth CMMI Congress,
Johannesburg, SAIMM, 1994, Vol 1: pp, 219-225.
• van Hout, G.J. & Guest A.R. 2000. Production Factor and
Draw Control Factor, presentation to the International
Caving Study.
• Malope, P. 2001, Waste distribution in different size
fractions of the kimberlite ore at Premier Mine,
unpublished internal report, Premier Mine, De Beers
Consolidated Mines.
497