TAITA TAVETA UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING ENGINEERING

P.O.BOX 635-80300 – VOI, KENYA

DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION OF AN OPEN PIT MINE AT KABINI AREA 5B

CASES STUDY “KABINI” LIMESTONE QUARRY OF EAST AFRICAN PORTLANT

CEMENT COMPANY (EAPCC)

By

WAKABA JAMES
BSc. (MMPE)
Reg. No. TU01-EM211-0043/2012
And
NGETICH VICTOR
BSc. (MMPE)
Reg. No. TU01-EM211-0035/2012

Supervisor: MR. MICHAEL KABUGU

(Lecturer department of mining and mineral processing engineering)

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for award of the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Mining and Mineral Processing Engineering

SEPTEMBER 2017
 DECLARATION
We declare that this project is our own work. It is being submitted in partial fulfilment for the Degree of Bachelor
of Science in Mining and Mineral Processing Engineering in Taita Taveta University (TTU). It has not been
submitted for any degree or diploma in any other University.

Signature: …………………………………… Date: …………………………

(WAKABA JAMES)

Signature: ……………………………………… Date: ………………………….

(NGETICH VICTOR)

SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above students carried out the work detailed in this report, under my supervision

Signature: ………………………. Date: ………………………......

(Mr MICHAEL KABUGU)

ii
 DEDICATION
This research paper is dedicated to our parents, siblings and fellow classmates; MMPE class of 2012

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our deep gratitude to our project supervisor Mr. Michael Kabugu, who has always been a
source of guidance and motivation for carrying out the project. His inspiration and ideas have helped us in shaping
this project. With a thankful heart we acknowledge his tireless efforts even amidst tight schedules to ensure that our
project was a success.
We would, with specialty, like to express our gratefulness to Mr. Kimuyu, production manager in EAPCC for his
tireless support to ensuring that we get the necessary data for the ultimate fulfilment of this project. We are also
thankful to the entire EAPCC fraternity for believing in us and giving us an opportunity to do our project in EAPCC.
We are also acknowledge the support work by all those authors mentioned in the reference section for giving shape
to our thoughts through their path breaking endeavors.
Lastly, we express our heartfelt gratitude to our God for giving us everything that we ever needed especially the
strength to carry on and the inspiration to success and victory.

iv
 ABSTRACT
Today’s mining industry is extremely competitive to earn a maximum profit for the mining company; operations
must be low cost producers in order to compete with global players. This project was undertaken with an aimed of
assisting EAPCC located at Athi River developed an appropriate surface mining method to ensure that the resource
being mined is to be extracted in a safe, efficient, and profitable manner. The main objective of the project was to
address the issue of open pit mine design and its optimization for the exploitation of the limestone in Kabini Hill at
the lowest possible cost with a view of maximizing profits.

The East Africa Portland cement company had a concession with an area of approximately 30 km2 situated 20kms
off the main A109 Nairobi-Mombasa road and approximately 125kms SE of Nairobi, Kenya. Kibini Area 5B has
shown, through adequate exploration, a possible and viable limestone deposit which the company has resolved to be
the next mine site. The exploration data, assembled for area 5a, revealed a potential limestone resource and indicated
that the deposit could be mined by using open pit mining method. The design of this pit would greatly determine the
life of the mine and the production thereof. It would also solve the problem of back stripping (the current problem
in area 7A) and ensure better and stable benches by establishing and putting in place better bench geometry.

In this project, an effort was made to design an optimal open pit to exploit the limestone deposit by using Surpac
and Whittle software. By using the exploration data as the primary input, Surpac software was used to estimate the
resource for ore modeling, export the block model to Whittle software for pit optimization, then export the optimal
pit from Whittle back to Surpac software for detailed pit design incorporating a ramp and berms.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................................................................... ii
SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................................................................ iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS.......................................................................................................................................................................... x
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1. Background to the Study .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Area of Study ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3. Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Open-Pit Design Problem ............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.5. Pit Optimization Problems ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Significance of the Project ............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.7. Scope of Work .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.8. Goal and Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.8.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.8.2. Project Goal .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.8.3. Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.9. Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.9.1. Materials............................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.9.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................10
2.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................10
2.2. The major steps in development of an open pit mine ...............................................................................................11
3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................................................13
3.1. Type of Collected Data ...............................................................................................................................................13
3.2. Data Analysis and Validation ......................................................................................................................................13
3.3. Block Modelling of the Ore body Using Surpac Software ..........................................................................................13
3.4. Creation of Database in Surpac ..................................................................................................................................14
3.5. Basics statistics ...........................................................................................................................................................16

vi
 3.6. The Ore Outline (3D Model) .......................................................................................................................................17
3.7. Block Model Creation .................................................................................................................................................19
3.7.1. Modeling of empty block ...................................................................................................................................19
3.7.2. Adding constraints..............................................................................................................................................19
3.7.3. Assigning attribute values ..................................................................................................................................20
3.8. Methods of Grade Estimations Used .........................................................................................................................21
3.9. Pit Optimization..........................................................................................................................................................24
3.10. Pit Design with Surpac ............................................................................................................................................26
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................31
5. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................33
FIRST SEMESTER WORK PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................34
SECOND SEMESTER WORK PLAN ...............................................................................................................................................35
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................................................36
APPENDIX A: VARIOGRAM, BLOCK STATISTICS AND KRIGING REPORT SAMPLES .....................................................................38
APPENDIX B: WHITTLE VALIDATION REPORT AND BLOCK MODEL REPORT. .............................................................................42

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1:1map showing the location of the area of study (Google map)..................................................................... 3
Figure 1:2 A 2-D block model of a mine. .................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1:3 Inter-relationship of multiple parameters involved in open pit optimization (Sevim & Lei 1998). .......... 5
Figure 3:1 drill holes location .................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3:2 drill hole location (3D space) ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3:5 Drill hole display according to limestone percentages and their location in 3D space. ........................... 15
Figure 3:6 Histogram of composited raw data showing the presence of bi-modal distribution of the data. ............. 16
Figure 3:7 Histogram of composited raw data applying a top-cut of 40% ................................................................ 17
Figure 3:8 Digitised Ore Zone Sections..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3:9 Solid Model of the Orebody ..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3:10 block model with constraints .................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3:11 Constraint block model showing extent of deposit ................................................................................ 20
Figure 3:12 Variogram 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3:13A summarized flow chart for the pit optimization process ..................................................................... 25
Figure 3:14 Pit Design with Switchback Road based on the position of the ore body .............................................. 28
Figure 3:15 Pit Design with Switchback Road based on the position of the ore body with ore outline/solid........... 29
Figure 3:16 pit designed with surpac based on the position of the ore body including the surface topography. ...... 29

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3:1 Part of the Collar Text File (Collar.txt) .................................................................................................... 13
Table 3:2 Part of the Survey Text File (Survey.txt)................................................................................................... 14
Table 3:3 Part of the Assay Text File (Assay.txt)...................................................................................................... 14
Table 3:4 Part of the Geology Text File (Geology.txt).............................................................................................. 14
Table 3:5 Statistics of CaCO3 Composites................................................................................................................ 16
Table 3:6 Assigned Attributes ................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3:7 A comprehensive table showing the attributes assigned to the block model. ........................................... 21
Table 3:8 CaCO3 variogram parameters ................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3:9 interpolation parameters ............................................................................................................................ 22
Table 3:10 Table containing the attributes that were to be exported to whittle for optimization. ............................. 24
Table 3:11 Cost Figures and Parameters to be used for Optimization ...................................................................... 26
Table 3:12 parameters used to undertake the final pit design. ................................................................................... 27
Table 4:1 Results from Final Pit Design using Surpac .............................................................................................. 31

ix
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
EAPCC – East African Portland Cement Company

DTM – Digital Terrain Model

CSV – Comma Separated Excel file

VAR – Variogram

BM – Block Model

Max depth – maximum depth

GL – gridline

Hole_id – hole identity

MCAF – Mining cost adjustment factor

PCAF – Processing cost adjustment factor

SG – specific gravity

‘bm_model1_mdl’ – Block model file

Caco3_id – estimation of block value by inverse distance square method.

Caco3_ok – estimation of block value by inverse ordinary kriging method.

Caco3_nn– estimation of block value by nearest neighbor method.

x
 CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION

1
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the Study
The essence of any mining operation in extracting minerals from the earth is to construct an opening that will serve
as a means of entry from the surface to the ore deposit. The design of these openings is achieved by using scientific
principles, technological knowledge, and managerial skills to brings a mineral deposit through the four stages in the
life of a mine which are prospecting, exploration, development, and exploitation. These mineral deposit can be
extracted from the earth crust by either surface mining methods or underground mining methods depending on their
location and economic consideration. Surface mining operations can be classified into open pit, opencast, strip,
alluvial and in-situ mining, depending on method of mining being considered (Hartman, 1987)

Strip mining is the practice of mining a seam of mineral, by first removing a long strip of overlying soil and
overburden. It is most commonly used to mine coal and lignite (brown coal). It is only practical when the ore body
to be excavated is relatively near the surface. Alluvial mining is the mining of stream bed deposits (also known as
alluvial deposits) for minerals. These alluvial deposits are formed when minerals are eroded from their source, and
then transported by water to a new locale. When the sediments are deposited, they settle according to their weight,
with heavier, more valuable minerals like gold, diamonds and platinum often being deposited at the same time. In-
situ mining, which is primarily used in mining uranium, involves dissolving the mineral resource in place then
processing it at the surface without moving rock from the ground.

Open pit mining is a method of mining a near surface ore deposit by means of a surface pit excavation using one or
more horizontal benches. It starts off with a small pit and over time gradually develops to take the final shape of pit
called as ultimate pit. These ores in an open pit mine are overlaid by overburden and usually removed in benches
ranging from height 9 m to 30 m. A thin deposit may require one or few benches but a thick deposit requires more
number of benches and the pit in its production stage takes the shape of an inverted cone. At present open pit mining
has proved to be the best method of total ore production in Kenya, owing to the advancement in technology which
has increased the rate of production while ensuring safety of manpower

Over the years, East African Portland Cement Company had made some progress in its pit design in the extraction
of Limestone, but it had encountered extreme challenges due to: inadequate design consideration (long term vs. short
term), Failure to generate mine plans and lack of modern technology for surface mine design.

Kabini Area 5B had shown, through adequate exploration, a possible and viable limestone deposit which the
company resolved to be the next mine site. The exploration data, assembled for area 5B, revealed a potential
limestone resource and indicated that the deposit could be mined by using open pit mining method. Open pit mining
method is generally considered to provide better recovery, grade control, flexibility, safety, and working
environments than the other methods mining. The design of this pit would greatly determine the life of the mine and
2
the production rates thereof. It would also solve the problem of back stripping (the current problem in area 7a) and
ensure better and stable benches by establishing and putting in place better bench geometry.

1.2. Area of Study

The study area is situated 20kms off the main A109 Nairobi-Mombasa road and approximately 125kms SE of
Nairobi. It lies between latitudes 2° 1' 0" South, and longitude 37° 22' 0" East. It covers an area of approximately 30
km2. It lies at an altitude of 1264m above sea level. Several dry weather roads and footpaths serve the area including
the murram road that connects the quarry to the main highway.

Figure 1:1map showing the location of the area of study (Google map)

1.3. Research Questions

The project sought to answer the following research questions:

How and where do we improve our productivity?

What design parameters can be put in place to optimize open pit mining?
How do we get an optimal pit model that presents a pit design with a reduced unit cost, an optimal mine plan,
an increase in production and an increased mine life?

3
 1.4. Open-Pit Design Problem
In 2004, Picard and Smith explain that an open-pit design problem is a problem of choosing an ultimate contour
whose total profit, that is, the sum of the profits of all the blocks in the contour, is maximal among all possible
contours. In 1965, Larch’s and Grossmann made an earliest attempt of solving this problem by presenting an
algorithm to determine the optimum design for an open-pit mine.

In order that the walls of an open-pit shall not collapse during mining operations, miners are always mindful of how
to dig the blocks from the ground. The slope requirement is the main physical restrictions in that all blocks on top
and preventing the mining of a given block must be removed. In Figure, if the safe slope angles are assumed to be
450 and block 7 is to be removed, then we have to remove blocks 2, 3, and 4 first. The main aim here is to mine only
the profitable blocks.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

Figure 1:2 A 2-D block model of a mine.

4
 1.5. Pit Optimization Problems
Open pit mine planning is a multi-parameter optimization problem which requires simultaneous solution (Sevim &
Lei, 1998). The parameters involved in open pit production planning are interrelated hence if one parameter is
affected it affects all other related parameters, so without determining the value of one parameter the next parameter
cannot be determined. Mine life is determined as the probable time required to mine all pits present in ultimate pit
limit (UPL) design, in a proper sequence in order to ensure maximum profit.

For profit to be maximized, a cut-off grade is determined based on factors like, market price of processed ore, mining
and processing cost, overhead charges like royalty, compensation, etc. Cut-off grade must be fixed during planning
stage as it will be the driving factor in determining block economic value (BEVs), based on the BEVs ultimate pit
is determined making use of various graph closure algorithms available like minimum cut algorithm, and
subsequently production schedule is developed by analyzing various pushback designs in order to optimize the
sequence by hit and trial method keeping in mind annual targets to be achieved, final mining sequence is one which
give maximum economic return subjected to all operational constraints (Sevim & Lei,1998).

Cut-off
Grade

Mining and Ultimate pit

processing cost limit

Production Production
Mine life scheduling rate

Figure 1:3 Inter-relationship of multiple parameters involved in open pit optimization (Sevim & Lei 1998).

5
 1.6. Significance of the Project
The manual method of designing an open pit mine involves considerable time and judgment on the part of the
engineer. The procedure was tedious, though, and also difficult to use on large ore deposits. As a result of the
lengthiness of the procedure, the number of alternatives that could be examined was limited and incase of any change
in the design parameters the entire process could be repeated for accuracy. Hence, open pit mine design became one
of the most important topics for researchers.

There has been tremendous advancement in the use of information technology in mining industry for the last five
decades and this has enabled faster, better and more creative work of mine design. Almost all modern methods for
designing and modeling are based on the integration of IT with mining activities. Modern computer programs
including Lerchs- Grossmann 3D algorithm (Lerchs & Grossmann, 1965), Floating Cone Method and dynamic
programming have helped mine planners in developing mine plans which are accurate and reliable.

The main advantages of using this software’s are that they are simple to formulate and use, requires lesser
computational time and are user friendly, i.e. they can be customized as per users need and can incorporate real time
complexities like mining constraints, working slope angle, time value of money, etc. (Dowd & Onur, 1992). With
the advancements in optimization algorithms even low grade deposits can be mined successfully which earlier was
not possible. Generally, modern methods of mine design have a far greater advantages over the manual, and in the
future they will be more and more applied in order to bridge the gap between supply of raw materials and demand
of finished product.

1.7. Scope of Work

Mining is often considered to be a high risk business in terms of both safety and economics. There is always the
possibility that an excavated slope, may not perform as predicted and could fail with significant and even catastrophic
results. But with the gradual development in technology, mining industry is seeking for automation of their
operations in order to achieve adequate level of design that will meet the required safety while maximizing output.

This project will aim at designing the open pit mine that ensure the exploitation of mineral deposit at the lowest
possible cost with a view of maximizing output. Use of technology have made mine design and planning accurate
and reliable and thus steady production. Even the low grade deposits can now be mined successfully, which earlier
was not possible, with the available optimization software such as Whittle.

6
 1.8. Goal and Objectives of the Study
1.8.1. Introduction
Mining is an activity in economics that consists of the discovery, valuation, development, exploitation, processing,
and marketing of useful minerals such as iron, coal, limestone, or precious metals. Mining industry locates these
minerals and seek to remove them in the most economical and efficient way possible for use by various industries
such as construction, production and Energy. With the evolvement of new computer software’s incorporating
geostatistics based modeling of pit and development of optimization algorithms, mining industries are seeking the
analysis done by this software in planning their mine to ensure that the resource being mined is to be extracted in a
safe, efficient, and profitable manner in order for them to compete with others worldwide.

1.8.2. Project Goal

The goal of the project is to design an optimal open pit to exploit the deposit in the most economical and efficient
way possible.

1.8.3. Project Objectives

The objective of the project is to model the deposit using Surpac and provide the pit optimization Using Whittle
software in order to achieve maximum ore recovery at the lowest possible cost and thus derive maximum profit.

1.9. Materials and Methods

1.9.1. Materials
In this project work, the pit optimization and design were carried out using Surpac and Whittle software. Surpac
software was used for the design of Kabini open pit mine while Whittle used for the optimization process. The
project work was based on data gathered from the exploration drilling programme executed by the East African
Portland Cement company (EAPCC) as at 2010.

The methods that were used for data collection at Kabini Hill quarry include:

Photographs that was taken to illustrate the real situation on the ground.
Reference to the mine operations records filed by the company
Information recorded on the ground during external attachment in the company.
Information on the current mining operating costs.
Exploration and survey data files of the proposed site from the company.

7
 1.9.2. Methodology
The process of pit optimization and design entailed three essential steps as follows:

Block modelling of the ore body, using Surpac software

Exportation of the block model to Whittle software for pit optimization
Exportation of the optimal pit from Whittle back to Surpac software for detailed pit design.

PROCESS OVERVIEW

In Surpac In Whittle
Validate geological Import model and validate
parameters Reblock & extend framework
Add cost & slope info Add slopes
Generate reports for validation Optimise
Export block model Define operational scenario
Analyse pits using
graphs,schedules & spider
diagrams
Select pits
In Surpac Export res or msq or pit shells
Import res or msq or dxf
Design pits

8
 CHAPTER- 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

9
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
A lot of research has been carried out to understand and present the theoretical overview of open pit planning and
design and also to appreciate the past research and design work carried out by other researchers and designers in the
field of mining. In the context, extensive research was carried out based on the technological advancement and the
economic implication of open pit planning and design alongside the advancement. Adequate research has been
carried out by researchers which has led to the development and improvement of the mining industry, decreasing
unit cost of mining and increasing production output and ultimately revenue from the mines.

Open pit mining accounts for approximately 60% of the production from surface mines (Hartman, 1987). The
planning and design of any open pit mine is basically an exercise in economics, constrained by certain geologic and
mining engineering aspects that calls for an extensive research in order to avails results which are accurate and
reliable. An extensive literature review was carried out to find various approaches which researchers have used in
the past in the field of open pit design and its optimization. In this project work, technological advancement in the
designing and optimization of open pit has been widely reviewed.

Lerchs and Grossmann (1965) were the first to put forward a method to solve the open pit mine problem. They
presented an algorithm to determine the optimum design for an open-pit mine. The aim was to design the contour of
a pit that maximizes the difference between total mine value of the extracted ore and the total cost of extraction of
ore and waste materials. They also gave the mine graph model of the problem and showed that an optimal solution
of the ultimate pit problem is the same as finding the maximum closure of their model.

Since then, many researchers have tried to formulate various optimization models and developed algorithms to solve
the problem. Others have also made efforts to solve the problem by applying existing optimization techniques.
However, in spite of all the work done, researchers are still looking for better models and algorithms in this field of
study.

In 1982, Picard and Queyranne gave a binary quadratic programming formulation of the minimum cut problem and
mention that it is of considerable importance in the determination of the optimal contour of an open-pit mine.

Whittle 1990, has done extensive work using meta-heuristic approach and have developed an
algorithm which is most widely used throughout for open pit optimization.

Zhao and Kim (1992) present a graph theory oriented algorithm for optimum pit design. Their algorithm produces
an optimal solution and maximizes the total undiscounted net profit for a given 3-D block mine model. In terms of
the reduction in computation time and computer memory requirements, they view their algorithm to be of better
performance as compared to the well-known Lerchs and Grossmann Algorithm.
10
Hochbaum and Chen (2000) viewed the open-pit mining problem as a problem to determine the contours of a mine,
based on economic data and engineering feasibility requirements in order to yield maximum possible net income.
They mentioned that this problem needs to be solved for very large data sets. They noted that in practice, it is
necessary to test multiple scenarios taking into account a variety of realizations of geological predictions and
forecasts of ore value.

Picard and Smith (2004) describe the open-pit design problem as a problem of choosing an ultimate contour whose
total profit, that is, the sum of the profits of all the blocks in the contour, is maximal among all possible contours.

Zhang (2006) approaches the problem of large number of blocks in a mine by combining a genetic algorithm and
topological sorting to find the extraction schedule of a mine. For a given ore body, the approach simultaneously
determines an ultimate pit of a mine and an optimal block extraction schedule that maximizes the net present value
by specifying whether a block should be extracted and if yes, when to dig it out and where to send it (i.e., the waste
dump or the processing plant), subject to a number of constraints including maximum wall slope, mining and
processing capacities.

Also, Bley et al. (2010) consider the integer linear programming formulation presented by Caccetta and Hill (2003)
that maximizes net present value subject to precedence and multiple upper bound resource constraints; cutoff grade
is fixed. Again, developed variable reduction techniques and cuts based on the precedence-constrained knapsack
structure of the problem and demonstrate how their developments significantly reduce solution time for problems
containing hundreds of blocks and 5–10 time periods.

2.2. The major steps in development of an open pit mine

Determining the three-dimensional distribution of mineralization and grade (Barnes, 1980; Barnes, 1989);
Establishing the economic limits for the pit (Soderberg and Rausch, 1968; Koskiniemi, 1979; Robb, 1979);
Selecting suitable sites for waste embankments and soil stockpiles (McCarter, 1985; McCarter 1990); (4)
clearing vegetation from the land intended as sites for pit and waste embankments;
siting of processing, maintenance, office, and transport facilities close to the pit but outside potential pit
limit expansion (Myntti, 1979);
Selecting equipment; laying out haulage roads;
Initiating “pioneering” cuts. These initial cuts may be in the form of “box cuts” (Hartman, 1987) or access
roads on steep hillsides that are enlarged to form mine benches.

11
 CHAPTER- 3
DATA COLLECTION AND
ANALYSIS

12
 3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
3.1. Type of Collected Data
Exploration; drill hole log sheets for drill holes within gridlines 11, 12 and 13. The drill hole spacing is 100m
between gridlines and 50m hole to hole.

Geotechnical; limestone density, top soil characteristics and overburden properties.

Production data; collected and used to constrain the ore to produce an optimal pit.

Others; includes the climatic conditions that affect slope determination and designs and economic constraints.

3.2. Data Analysis and Validation

Data collected was classified as collar, assay, geology and survey data, arranged in excel tables. The data was then
subjected to a close analysis to assess the reliability of the exploration data. This was done in order to reveal any
errors or miss-presentation of the given data that might affect the database to be created and the efficient reporting
of resource tonnage, grade and classification.
The data was analyzed for inconsistencies such as duplication of collar data, erroneous entry of drill hole depth and
assay values. No errors were detected thus providing a satisfactory basis for the use of this database in its original
form for reserve estimation
3.3. Block Modelling of the Ore Body Using Surpac Software
The exploration data obtained from Kabini Hill Quarry was used as the primary input for block modelling of the
deposit. The drill hole data was organized as a Surpac readable access file using Microsoft Excel to facilitate the
modelling process, then classified under the titles collar, survey, assay and geology text files formats required by
Surpac software. The arrangement of the fields and records was presented in Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 as shown.

Table 3:1 Part of the Collar Text File (Collar.txt)

Hole_id Easting Northing Altitude Max_depth Hole_path

GL10DH1 9762599 309413 1303 83.4 LINEAR
GL10DH2 9762585 309434 1303 116.66 LINEAR
GL10DH3 9762574 309457 1302 48.67 LINEAR
GL11DH1 9762581 309503 1304 60.9 LINEAR
GL11DH2 9762546 309531 1303 81.4 LINEAR

13
Table 3:2 Part of the Survey Text File (Survey.txt)

Hole_id Max depth Dip Azimuth

GL10DH1 83.4 -90 0
GL10DH2 116.66 -90 0
GL10DH3 48.67 -90 0
GL11DH1 60.9 -90 0
GL11DH2 81.4 -90 0

Table 3:3 Part of the Assay Text File (Assay.txt)

Hole_id Sample_id Depth from Depth to CaCO3 MgCO3 Recovery

GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 0 17.32 0 0 0
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 17.32 19.16 0 0 47
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 19.16 31.32 0 0 47
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 31.32 34.36 0 0 47
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 34.36 42.16 0 0 88

Table 3:4 Part of the Geology Text File (Geology.txt)

Hole_id Sample_id Depth_from Depth_to Rock_type

GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 0 17.32 GNEISS
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 17.32 19.16 GNEISS
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 19.16 31.32 GNEISS
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 31.32 34.36 LIMESTONE WITH
PEGMATITE
GL10DH1 GL10DH1S1 34.36 42.16 LIMESTONE WITH
PEGMATITE

3.4. Creation of Database in Surpac

The first step was creating a geological database and loading the CSV files into it. This is a data validation process
whereby any data input that was not matching with the definitions made in the database was automatically rejected.
After loading the database, drill hole layout and sections of the deposit were extracted from the database for plotting
and display using the display module of Surpac. The main purpose of drill hole layout is to help Mining engineers

14
and geologists to familiarize with the plan and drill hole pattern and make conclusions as to which plane to take the
sections through.

Figure 3:1 drill holes location

Figure 3:2 drill hole location (3D space)

Collar details

Legend

88<Grade>100

85<Grade>88

80<Grade>85

65<Grade>80

0<Grade>65
Maximum depth

Figure 3:3 Drill hole display according to limestone percentages and their location in 3D space.
15
 3.5. Basics statistics
This was done using surpac to determine the statistical properties of the data to be used for geostatistical evaluation
and modelling of the ore body. The best means of statistically grouping data is graphical examination using
histograms and box plots (Howarth 1984, Garrett 1989). Histograms were generated to be used in detection of multi-
modalism and outliers in the data. Statistical measures (e.g. mean, mode, variance, standard deviation and skewness)
were computed to show the characteristics of the distribution of the data which indicate the spread and symmetry of
the distribution. Statistics of values of composited data in the mineralized zone are shown in Table 3.1. A histogram
showing the distribution is shown in Fig 3.3.

Table 3:5 Statistics of CaCO3 Composites

Number of samples 424

Minimum value 40
Maximum value 98.52
Mean 86.306267
Median 90.9112
Variance 200.424415
Standard Deviation 14.157133
Coefficient of variation 0.164034

Figure 3:4 Histogram of composited raw data showing the presence of bi-modal distribution of the data.

16
The histogram plot is seen to show a double population (bi-modal distribution) and a co-efficient of variation of
0.164034. The high number of “zeros” seen from the statistical analysis of the data clearly indicates that a lot of data
was miss-presented, that is assumed, as zeroes during data entry. Initially the problem is solved by revisiting and re-
examining the samples and determining the actual values for the data. However, the case was not possible as the
data supplied and being used was taken from the field approximately 20yrs ago and another contact with the samples
may not be available. Following the advice from the company, the data was used the way it was received. A top-cut
of 40% was applied to boast in advanced estimation of block values and the new histogram formed is shown below
in figure 3.4.

Figure 3:5 Histogram of composited raw data applying a top-cut of 40%

3.6. The Ore Outline (3D Model)

From the drill hole layout sections were extracted and ore delineation done by on-screen digitization of points in the
clockwise directions to form closed segments. From the wireframe. Sections were created and checked for;

String direction; was changed so that all the string direction was clockwise.
Fold-backs (also called spikes); all spikes were removed.
Excessive number of points.
duplicate points
The closed segments were then joined together, by triangulation methods, to form a wireframe model which was
validated to form a solid model that represented the ore outline. The figures below show the segments and the
ore/solid model generated from the digitized segments. The solid model thus obtained is shown in figure 2 below.

17
Figure 3:6 Digitised Ore Zone Sections

Figure 3:7 Solid Model of the Orebody

18
 3.7. Block Model Creation
Steps taken to create the block model are:
Creating an empty block model;
Add constraints; and
Fill the created model with attribute values.

3.7.1. Modeling of empty block

The following information was used to create an empty block model:
block model identification name,
Block model origin,
Block model extent, and
Block size. A user block size of 50 m × 25 m × 3.5 m was used.

3.7.2. Adding constraints

Constraints were added primarily to control the selection of blocks from which interpolation were made or from
which information was obtained. The constraints used include topography, where the blocks falling inside the
topography were considered as ore and waste while those falling outside the topography were considered as air-
blocks, ore/solid model and grade (blocks with grade less than 85%, cutoff grade, were considered as waste while
those equals to or above 85% were considered as ore).

Figure 3:8 block model with constraints

19
 Legend
85% Grade> 100%

80%<Grade>85%
40%<Grade>80%
20%<Grade>40%
0<Grade>20%

Figure 3:9 Constraint block model showing extent of deposit

3.7.3. Assigning attribute values

Attributes used were the properties given/assigned to the blocks that were employed during the optimization process
in Whittle software. Some values were assigned directly and others like the grade by interpolation. The assigned
attributes are listed in the table below.
Table 3:6 Assigned Attributes

ATTRIBUTE NAME VALUE

Grade Got by interpolation
Specific gravity(sg) of the rock 1.76
Mining cost adjustment factor(MCAF) 1
Processing cost adjustment factor(PCAF) 1
Rock code WAST, AIR & ORE
Weathering Air, waste & ore

20
Table 3:7 A comprehensive table showing the attributes assigned to the block model.

Attribute_name Type Decimals Background

Caco3_id Float - 0.000
Caco3_nn Float 5 0.000
Caco3_ok Float 5 0.000
Prob06 Float 5 -9999.000
Rock Calculated - iif(weathering=”air”,” AIR”, iif(weathering=”ore”,”
ORE”,”WAST”))
Weathering Character -
Sg Real 2 1.76

3.8. Methods of Grade Estimations Used

To give the assigned attributes value, estimations of block grade was done using;
Ordinary kriging (ok)
Nearest neighbor (nn)
Inverse distance (id)
Each method was considered against the other and the best (ordinary kriging) was used for assigning estimated block
value to the block model to be used for optimization in whittle software.
The variogram and interpolation parameters used for estimation by Ordinary Kriging are shown in Tables below:

21
Table 3:8 CaCO3 variogram parameters

Variogram Model

Model Type : Spherical

Nugget : 26.331755

Structure Sill Range

1 54.715260 60.000m

ANISOTROPY FACTORS
Major Axis Azimuth = 240o Dip = 60o
Semi-major Axis Azimuth = 240o Dip = 60o
Minor Axis Azimuth = 0o Dip = 63o

Semi/major ratio 1.00

Minor ratio 1.00

Angle of rotation
First Axis 246.00
Second axis 67.73
Third Axis 60.00

Table 3:9 interpolation parameters

Max search distance of major axis 31.000

Max vertical search distance 999
Maximum number of informing samples 15
Minimum number of informing samples 3

22
 Figure 3:10 Variogram 1
Limestone (CaCO3) estimated by the OK, ID and NN methods were reported by applying constraints to the block
model such that only kriged/estimated blocks within the constrain file ‘bm_model1_mdl’ were taken into
consideration during grade-tonnage calculations. Modeled variogram parameters for these, variogram report files,
statistic report files for the block and anisotropic report files are included in the Appendix A section of this report.

Of the block grades estimated by the three methods, only one attribute per grade item is exported to Whittle. For this
project only the attribute “prob06” for grade, which contained block value estimated by OK was used for the block
model constrained and validated for whittle. The validation and export reports of the block model for whittle are
attached to this report on appendix B section. The summarized attributes that were exported to whittle are given in
the table below.

23
Table 3:10 Table containing the attributes that were to be exported to whittle for optimization.

Attribute_name Type Decimals Background

Prob06 Float 5 -9999.000
Rock Calculated - iif(weathering=” air”,” AIR”, iif(weathering=”ore”,”
ORE”,”WAST”))
Weathering Character -
Sg Real 2 1.76
MCAF Real 2 1
PCAF Real 2 1

The weathering attribute was used as the basis for the rock code required by Whittle. Mining cost adjustment factor
(MCAF) and processing cost adjustment factors (PCAF) were added as attributes to represent factors for cost
adjustments in all blocks for all processing and mining costs referred from a reference block.
Mode and parameter whittle export files were generated to be used as import to whittle software for optimization.

3.9. Pit Optimization

Based on the ordinary kriging on the constraint model, 8950 blocks are0 found to be present within the deposit in
constraint block model thus obtained, the data is then exported and analyzed using Whittle software to calculate the
block economic value of the individual blocks. Once the block economic values have been found, the minimum cut
algorithm is used to calculate the blocks present in feasible ultimate pit giving maximum production.
Pit optimization is carried out, using Whittle software. The resource block model and the economic and technical
parameters are used to produce a set of nested pits. Fig. 4 depicts a summarized flow chart for the pit optimization
process.

24
 • Exportation of the parameter file and the content of the block model to whittle using
Importation of the "block model to whittle" interface in the surpac software for pit optimization.
block model
into Whittle

• Setting upthe parameter file containing essential economic and technical parameters
as well as the appropriate range of revenue factors needed for optimisation using
FXED in Whittle software.
Preparation of • The factors considered include milling and mining recovery factors, cost figures,
parameter file overall pit slopes, mining dilution factors and categories of ore to be processed.

• Microsoft excel is used to prepare a graph from the output data to enhance easy
interpretation.
• The optimal pit is selected based on worst case and best case scenarios.
• The best case scenario involves mining out the first pit (the smallest pit)b and then
mining out each subsequent pit shell from the top down, before starting the next pit
Generation of shell.
structure arcs
• The worst case scenario consists of mining each bench completely before starting
on the next bench.

• Net Present Value (NPV) is used as the criterion for the selection of the optimal pit
Generation of
pit outlines

• Based on the selected optimal nested pit, the effect of varying the limestone price
while keeping all other economic parameters constant is examined to check the
effect of the changes in limestone price on the NPV.
• Based on the selected optimal nested pit, the effect of varying the mining cost while
Analysis of pit keeping all other economic parameters constant including the limestone price is also
outlines examined to check the effect of the changes in mining cost on the NPV.

• The optimal pit outline generated by Whittle is exported into Surpac for the detailed
Exportation of pit design
pit outline into
Surpac for
detailed pit
design

Figure 3:11A summarized flow chart for the pit optimization process
25
Table 3:11 Cost Figures and Parameters to be used for Optimization

Current mining cost per tone Ksh 350

Selling price of limestone per tone Ksh 1200
Capital cost Ksh 400000000
Mining dilution 20%
Revenue factor range 1
Crushing/processing cost Included in the mining cost >0

3.10. Pit Design with Surpac

The optimal pit outline generated by Whittle is exported into Surpac for the detailed pit design. However, for this
project the whittle software window developed an unexpected problem so that it could not produce the block model
details as required for optimization and hence the pit optimization process summarized in figure… could not be
carried out. Thus, the optimal pit outlines could not be generated using whittle software with the given constraints
for optimal pit design in surpac.
Given such a scenario, designing of the open pit can be done in surpac software by first generating the proposed
final pit outline. This is obtained by considering the lowest minable point within the ore solid. To get the lowest
minable point, the ore solid is first oriented in the Z-X direction then using the sectioning part, a section is selected
from which the lowest point will be obtained. The lowest point is then digitized to form a string of the final pit
design. However, the generation of a proposed final pit outline in surpac software is based on the extraction of all
the limestone ore without the consideration of the economic implications and to a larger extend the resultant effect
on the stripping ratio.
For the continuation of this project, the design of the final pit outline was carried out in surpac software following
the stated procedures. Using the pit design menu in Surpac software, designing of the pit was carried out which
involved adding berms, benches and haul roads to the pit outline generated. Table 3.1.3 contains the parameters used
in the design of the final pit.

26
Table 3:12 parameters used to undertake the final pit design.

Parameter Description (brief) Value used

Bench Slope Angle (Degrees)
Bench Height
Ramp and Haul Road Width
Ramp Gradient
Was chosen based on the stability and mechanical 75°
ability of the rock both waste and limestone.
As a thumb rule, a bench height is equal to the 10m
economic bucket height of an excavator (like
shovel or loader) plus 3 m.
Was decided based on the operating parameters of 20m
the trucks and other hauling equipment used in the
mine
determine by the bench height and bench slope 10%

Berm Width Based on the type of haulage equipment to be used 5m

Final Slope Angle Was dictated largely by the geo-technical stability 45°
of the rocks in the mine, bench height and bench
slope
Bench Width Was decided based on the space required for the 15m
operation of the equipment on it.

The optimal pit was designed as follows:

(i) Design process;
The method used was to expand the pit by bench height from the pit bottom to the surface topography. Design slope
angles were used as controls for the process to ensure that the pit edge was inclined at the specified design slope
angles. Safety berms were inserted at the edge of every bench. A ramp was also inserted following the given
parameters and started at the bottom of the pit up to the surface. The ramp also includes a switchback to facilitate
better design of the pit.
(ii) Pit-topography intersection;
A Digital Terrain Model (DTM) surface of the designed pit was produced which intersected the topography DTM.
The results of the two DTMs intersection were extracted to form pit-topography sting file and a DTM.
(iii) Addition of Haul Road
A ramp to be used for haulage of ore and waste was created on the high elevations as shown in figure 3.1.3 below.

27
 A switchback road

Final pit bottom

Figure 3:12 Pit Design with Switchback Road based on the position of the ore body

28
 Figure 3:13 Pit Design with Switchback Road based on the position of the ore body with ore outline/solid

Figure 3:14 pit designed with surpac based on the position of the ore body including the surface topography.

29
CHAPTER- 4
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION

30
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
From the final pit designed in Surpac the volumes of ore and waste as well as the respective tonnages were calculated.
The volume of the final pit = 19,611,610 m3
The volume of the ore = 2,653,764 m3
The volume of waste = volume of pit – volume of ore
= 19,611,610 – 2,653,764
= 16,957,846 m3
Tonnes of ore to be mined = 2,653,764 × 1.76
= 4,670,624.64 t
Tonnes of waste to be moved = 16,957,846 × 1.2
= 20,349,415.2 t
Stripping ratio = tonnes of waste to be moved to expose one tonne of ore.
= 20,349,415.2 ÷ 4670624.64
= 4.357
Therefore, 4.357 t of waste will be moved to expose 1t of limestone that is 1:4.357 is the overall stripping ratio.

The designed pit contains 4,670,624.64t of ore at an average grade of 90.27286%. The differences in the tonnages
of ore and waste and the average grade of ore in the designed pit and optimal pit are due to the fact that during the
pit design, the pit bottom is widened to give adequate room for equipment maneuverability, a ramp is introduced to
facilitate haulage of ore and waste and berms were added for safety purposes, all of which lead to the addition of
some waste, some ore loss and dilution.

Table 4:1 Results from Final Pit Design using Surpac

Volume (m3) Tonnage (t) Caco3 (%)

Ore 4,670,624.64 90.27286%
Waste 20,349,415.2 0
Total 25,020,039.84

Stripping Ratio: 1 : 4.357

Expected Revenue: Ksh. 5,604,749,568

31
 CHAPTER- 5
CONCLUSIONS

32
 5. CONCLUSIONS
The main basis for process control in the open pit mines design today are majorly computer software and programs
for defining and optimizing the open pit mine contour, landfill and production planning. Currently there are many
professional software and programs, which include economic evaluation of open pit mine, the geology of the ore
body, transport communications and other technological processes.
Surpac, as a computer program, is used for the design solutions of surface and underground exploitation, with the
presentation of exploration works. To work in the program, a database is created and updated during the unfolding
of the process of exploitation. From the database, input data are used to generate computational models in 2D or 3D.
Surpac contains tools for data management, geostatistics, modeling, analyzing computer model, defining the
quantity and quality of deposits, planning of the ore body exploitation by using different types of computer models,
production control and automation of certain processes of exploitation

Whittle program represent a standard for optimization of open-pit mines, or harmonizing of financial viability and
optimal exploitation strategy for the open-pit. This program is best used to determine and plan for the life cycle of
the mine. It helps present the best way to exploit a deposit without making undue or unexpected losses up to the end
of the mine life.

In this project surpac and whittle software were used. From the study, we ascertained the applications of the software
and how best they can be used for economic viability of mines. Over and above the stated benefits of using the
combination of the two software, the following conclusions were drawn:
(i) Given any exploration data, Surpac and Whittle software can be used to design an optimal open pit;
(ii) The final pit designed using the Surpac software contains 4,670,624.64 tonnes of ore at an average grade
of 90.27286% and a total volume of material (waste and ore) of 19,611,610 m3. However, the designed
pit is not optimal as other factors in the design, especially economic factors, were not successfully
included in the design to dictate the shape of the ultimate pit. This was due to the failure of whittle
software to perform optimization. The designed pit therefore contains more of waste and more loss of
limestone due to dilution than it would be were the pit to be optimized successfully in whittle prior to
designing of the final pit in surpac.
(iii) The overall stripping ratio for the pit was calculated as 1: 4.357.

33
 FIRST SEMESTER WORK PLAN

MONTH January February March April

May

WEEKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Proposal writing

Introduction

Literature
review

Materials and
Methods

Progress
presentation,

Preparation for
presentation.

Final proposal
defending

34
 SECOND SEMESTER WORK PLAN

MONTH June July August September

WEEKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Design using
surpac

Data
collection and

Analysis
(Kabini)

Pit
Optimization,
Discussion
and
Conclusion

Report
Writing

Progress

presentation

Final
presentation

35
 REFERENCES
Armstrong, D. (1990), Definition of Mining Parameters, Surface Mining (2nd Edition), SME-Online Digital Library.

Dowd P. A, Onur A. H,1992, Optimizing Open Pit Design and Sequencing, Proc. 23rd
International APCOM Symposium,1992, pp- 411-422.

Lerchs, H. and Grossmann, I. F. (1965), Optimum Design of Open-Pit Mines, Transactions, Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. LXVIII, pp. 17–24.

Sevim H, Lei D.D., 1998, Problem of production planning in open pit mines. INFOR J. vol. 36, 1–12.

Barnes, M.P., 1980, Computer-Assisted Mineral Appraisal and Feasibility, SME-AIME, New York, pp. 1–167.

Barnes, M.W., 1989, “The Limitations of Popular Techniques for Preproduction Reserve Estimation,” MS thesis,
University of Utah, pp.1–86

Bley, A., Boland, N., Fricke, C., and Froyland, G. (2010), A Strengthened Formulation and Cutting Planes for the
Open Pit Mine Production Scheduling Problem, Computers and Operations Research, Vol.37, pp. 1641–1647.

Caccetta, L. and Hill, S. P. (2003), An Application of Branch and Cut to Open Pit Mine Scheduling, Journal of
Global Optimization, Vol. 27, pp. 349–365.

Hartman H. L. (1987) “Introductory mining engineering” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 149-150.

Hartman, H.L., 1987, Introductory Mining Engineering, Wiley, New York, pp. 177–187.

Hochbaum, D. and Chen, A. (2000), Performance Analysis and Best Implementations of Old and New Algorithms
for the Open-Pit Mining Problem, Operations Research, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 894–914.

Koskiniemi, B.C., 1979, “Pit Limit Shell Generation—Hand Methods,” Open Pit Mine Planning and Design, J.T.
Crawford and W.A. Hustrulid, eds., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 189–194.

Lerchs, H. and Grossmann, I. F. (1965), Optimum Design of Open-Pit Mines, Transactions, Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. LXVIII, pp. 17–24.

McCarter, M.K., ed., 1985, Design of Non-Impounding Mine Waste Dumps, SME-AIME, New York, pp. 1–192.

McCarter, M.K., 1990, “Operating Considerations for Mine Waste Embankments,” Section 9.2, Surface Mining,
2nd ed., SME-AIME, Littleton, CO.

Myntti, D.C., 1979, “Maintenance and Ancillary Facilities,” Open Pit Mine Planning and Design, J.T. Crawford and
W.A. Hustrulid, eds., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 273–278.

36
Newman, A. M., Rubio, E., Caro, R., Weintraub, A., and Eurek, K. (2010), A Review of Operations Research in
Mine Planning, Interfaces, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 222–245.

Picard, J.-C. and Smith, B. T. (2004), Parametric Maximum Flows and the Calculation of Optimal Intermediate
Contours in Open Pit Mine Design, INFOR Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 143–153.

Picard, J-C. and Queyranne, M. (1982), Selected Applications of Minimum Cuts in Networks, Information Systems
and Operational Research (INFOR), Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 394–422.

Soderberg, A., and Rausch, D.O., 1968, “Pit Planning and Layout,” Surface Mining, 1st ed., AIME, New York, pp.
141–165.

Whittle, J. (1990), Open Pit Optimization, Surface Mining (2nd Edition), SME Online Digital Library.

Zhang, M. (2006), Combining Genetic Algorithms and Topological Sort to Optimize Open-Pit Mine Plans, Mine
Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES) – Cardu, M., Ciccu, R., Lovera, E. and Michelotti, E. (eds.), Proceedings
of 15th International Symposium, pp. 1234–1239.

Zhao, Y. and Kim, Y. C. (1992), A New Optimum Pit Limit Design Algorithm, Application of Computers and
Operations Research in the Mineral Industry, Vol.23, pp. 423–434.

37
APPENDIX A: VARIOGRAM, BLOCK STATISTICS AND KRIGING
REPORT SAMPLES

Variogram block report

38
 Block model report

Block model report continuation

39
 Block model report continuation

Ordinary Kriging report for the block

40
Ordinary Kriging report for the block continuation

41
 APPENDIX B: WHITTLE VALIDATION REPORT AND BLOCK MODEL
REPORT.
Surpac to Whittle Block Model Validation Report Aug 16, 2017

Execution Timestamp: 2017-08-16 14:28:26

Testing number of exported blocks in all directions...

Validation that number of blocks less than 1000 passed.

Testing each block for validation...

Grade values greater than 0 passed.

Mcaf values greater than 0 passed.

Pcaf values greater than 0 passed.

Rock code is of character or integer type passed.

Rock code names less than 5 characters passed.

Rock code names not null passed.

Rock code names not "rock" or "ROCK" passed.

Sg attribute is of real type passed.

Sg values not negative or null passed.

Air blocks all have a 0 sg value passed.

Zone attribute is of integer type passed.

Zone values are not negative passed.

Grade values are not negative passed

Volume adjustment attribute is of real type passed.

Volume adjustment between 0 and 1 passed.

Validation of block model passed.

42
Gemcom Software International Aug 16 2017

Block model report

Block Model: bm_model1.mdl

Constraints used
Unconstrained
Weathering Volume Tonnes Prob06 Sg
waste 10956914 12392 0 1.76
ore 1083086 1906231 0.862 1.76
air 840000 0 0 0
Grand Total 12880000 1918623 0.85643 1.76

43