A transition from a large open pit into a novel “macroblock variant” block caving geometry at Chuquicamata mine, Codelco Chile

Flores, German; Catalan, Alex

doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.010

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of structures to the cave surface subsidence footprint is emphasized by many authors, as highlighted by Vyazmensky et al (2008). Flores & Catalan (2019) discuss the importance of structure and mitigation strategies to prevent dilution from the large West Fault in the Chuquicamata Open pit. Wellman et al (2008) discuss the analysis of potential pit slope stability issues for the Grasberg Open pit to underground transition.…”

Section: Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues with transitioning from open pits to underground caving mines

Ross¹,

Stewart²

2020

MassMin 2020: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference &Amp; Exhibition on Mass Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper covers the issues and trends associated with transitioning from an open pit operation to an underground caving mine. The decisions made on the timing of the transition affect many parameters including the Mineral Resources (Resources) and Ore Reserves (Reserves), the timing and costs associated with the studies required to support the change. Fundamental issues such as the size of the underground operation and the anticipated ramp-up are discussed as well as the options afforded by Hybrid Caves (a Sub-Level Cave (SLC) later converting to a Block or Panel Cave (BC, PC)). The economics and risks of these strategies are discussed as well as the resultant impacts on traditional financial metrics. The authors believe that an holistic approach to evaluating the transition from open pit to underground is required, not simply an open pit optimisation, followed by a transition to an underground mine. Operations generally do not allow sufficient time, or plan the pre-requisite drilling programmes early enough, to make properly informed decisions about the transition.

show abstract

Section: Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues with transitioning from open pits to underground caving mines

Ross¹,

Stewart²

2020

MassMin 2020: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference &Amp; Exhibition on Mass Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies [2,3] substantiate the optimal depth of transition from open to underground mining, which is 150-200 m, depending on the type of mineral and mining conditions. The practice of using combined open and underground mining at some mining enterprises [1] also shows the effectiveness of the transition from open to underground mining when the open pits reach depths of 100-150 m. However, study [21] notes that the transition to a combination of open and underground mining can be effective at an open-pit depth of 1100 m.…”

Section: Open-pit Mining and Technical System's Sustainable Developme...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of Open-Pit Mining and Technical System’s Sustainable Development Strategies Based on MCDM

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mining of the extensive, steeply dipping ore deposit takes several decades. An open-pit mining method is more often used in the early years of such a mining enterprise (ME). The management of the enterprise is faced with the problem of changing the mining method as the depth of the quarry increases. Untimely solution of this issue or the choice of the wrong strategy for the development of ME leads to a decrease in profitability, and the emergence of environmental and social difficulties. We studied the functioning of one hundred and seven MEs from different countries and substantiated four main sustainable development strategies for ME and its main system—the open-pit mining and technical system (MTS): adjustment of the current stage of mining indicators, transition to a new stage of mining, transition to a combined open–underground mining, and mine closure. The result of our research is an original methodology for selecting a strategy for MTS sustainable development. Our methodology is based on a new system of parameters and indicators for evaluating the sustainability of the opening-up of an opencast system (OOS). This assessment system includes twenty-three indicators that characterize the technical, technological, economic, social, and environmental factors of sustainable development. We propose to select a strategy for MTS sustainable development using combined fuzzy AHP-MARCOS multicriteria decision method (MCDM). The result of our case study for the Malyi Kuibas ore deposit was the choice of a mine closure strategy. The reliability of the obtained result is confirmed by a multilateral sensitivity assessment using nine other known MCDMs, while changing the criteria weights and composition of strategies. The results of the study prove the need for a timely decision to change the MTS development strategy as the depth of production increases. In addition, we have shown the effectiveness of the selection methodology based on the multicriteria assessment of the OOS sustainability.

show abstract

“…Inevitably this translates to caves with large block heights (usually in excess of 400 m) and hence the mining method lends itself to block caving. However, because the footprints are large, the cave engineers are often tempted to design a 'high column panel cave' rather than construct multiple block caves adjacent to each other (such as the Chuquicamata Macro-Block concept, described by Hormazabal et al (2010) and Flores & Catalan (2019).…”

Section: The Design Conundrum Of High Column Panel Cavesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The design & operating philosophies of panel vs block caving

As¹,

Guest²

2020

MassMin 2020: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference &Amp; Exhibition on Mass Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modern trend of designing large underground cave mines according to their desired production throughput rather than utilizing appropriate, geotechnically driven mine design parameters, has caused considerable confusion and ultimately, culminated in poor cave performance. There is a growing tendency for caves with large footprints to be designed as panel caves regardless of their Footprint to Block height ratio. The misconception that a "panel cave" with high block height (Block height / Footprint >2) can be designed and operated no differently to that of a conventional panel cave, with smaller block height (Block height / Footprint < 2) has led to numerous geotechnical problems, including; poor cave propagation and adverse cave shape resulting in ore losses, early dilution entry, large fragmentation, ore recompaction and point loading of the extraction level, to name but a few. This paper serves to define and describe the fundamental design and operating philosophies that are characteristic of successful block and panel caves and highlights the dangers of mixing the two. It further offers an alternative for these horizontal cave layouts, namely the incline cave layout.

show abstract

A transition from a large open pit into a novel “macroblock variant” block caving geometry at Chuquicamata mine, Codelco Chile

Cited by 30 publications

References 1 publication

Issues with transitioning from open pits to underground caving mines

Issues with transitioning from open pits to underground caving mines

Selection of Open-Pit Mining and Technical System’s Sustainable Development Strategies Based on MCDM

The design & operating philosophies of panel vs block caving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About