Petea B1 Hill Reconciliation

2011-2013

Ore Reconciliation
MGOQC
Sep 2014

Objective

To address the root cause of the

systematic bias of the underestimation of
ore tonnage in the East Block
To reconcile by hill basis even though the
actual mine production grades are prorated by hill (blending at Screening
Station).
Note : Petea B1 still active until now

Contents:

Technical Reconciliation Procedure

Tonnage and Grades Reconciliation
Summary

Technical Reconciliation
Procedure

Concept technical

Reconciliation : compare actual mine production

(tonnages and grades) to block model completely (all
mined out) whether using pit or not
If not completely mined out, than partial reconciliation
can be done by compare actual mine production to
mined block model and unmined block model at area
that already mined out and release area (due to disposal
or revegetation concern)
Previous reconciliation method using surface method
(topography week by week) with out adding unmined
block model to calculation before compare to mine
production (before 2014)

Volume Reconciliation

Using same area at top & bottom ore survey measurement (with limited
measurement) at Sorowako we have about 33% loss at bottom profile that
not calculated at previous tonnage reconciliation method.

Sketch of Top & Bottom Ore (TOR & BOR)

Original Topography

Over Burden
TOR BM
ROMOB

OBROM

TOR Actual

Our Survey
ROM (Ore Thickness Actual)
BOR BM
BZROM
BOR Actual

ROMBZ

Blue Zone

From volume reconciliation: + 33% Ore Loss from bottom profile (unmined reserves)

Data

Block model (1423pb1156s & 1129pb1156s)

Topography Survey
Actual Mine Production (2011-2013)
Bottom Excavation (grid mesh 2011-2013)
Mine Out (sample coordinates & boundary)
Disposal boundary
Revegetation boundary

Bottom Excavation 2011-2013

Due to limited mined out survey measurement

area (only 33%), than the best way is to digitize
every week topography (when active mining) to
get bottom mine excavation, because most area
become disposal after mine out. After get
digitized bottom excavation, than replace points
with mined out sampling at some area
Weakness : at release area (no mine out
sampling) have opportunity to get bias data
(lower elevation) due to quarry activity.

Bottom Excavation : some area that have mined out sampling replace
original point to adjust real elevation of mined out

Bottom excavation after join mined out sampling survey

Original Bottom excavation

Quarry activity

Original Petea B1 Early 2011

Mined Out (light blue), Disposal and Revegetation Area (dark blue)

Bottom excavation

Tonnage and Grades

Reconciliation

Raw Data of Comparison New Block Model 1423pb1156s and Old Block Model
1319ptb1156s (Left part without using pit and right side using pit)

+1% Ore Volume different between block models

Note: Data still in volume

Reserves comparison between using pit (p_pb1_1319) and without

pit for old block model 1319ptb1156s

Unmined Reserves about 3 MWMT (36% from total mined + unmined)

Reserves different is small : pit optimized well

Reconciliation : Surface Method (Existing Procedure) versus

Partial Mining Method using new block model 1319ptb1156s

ROM reconciliation change about -41% absolute (-56% relative) from previous method and
chemistry is better.
Note: production report from cost prod section from 2011-2013 (all production) and block model calculation using
original topography and bottom excavation (not using week by week topography).

Reserves comparison between using pit (p_pb1_1319) and without

pit for new block model 1423pb1156s

Unmined Reserves about 3 MWMT (38% from total mined + unmined)

Reserves different is small : pit optimized well

Reconciliation : Surface Method (Existing Procedure) versus

Partial Mining Method using new block model 1423pb1156s

ROM reconciliation change about -44% absolute (-61% relative) from previous method and
chemistry is better (except for Co).
Note: production report from cost prod section from 2011-2013 (all production) and block model calculation using
original topography and bottom excavation (not using week by week topography).

% Error at ROM Reconciliation (Using Pit)

For Petea B1, major error at ROM reconciliation

cause by :
Technical procedure that must be using total
block model about 41% (absolute) or 56%
(relative)

Whereas for Ni grade new block model is better.

2005-2013 5 Big Hills Sorowako & Petea B1 Reconciliation

Summary

Summary

Previous reconciliation method is showing apple to apple reconciliation

(how much we mined versus block model that we mined) but not showing
completely reconciliation there are unmined reserves due to shifting up
at bottom ore (actual already mined out) and release area (disposal/
revegetation) since 2014 these unmined reserves added to reconciliation
method.
For Petea B1 using new block model 1423pb1156s with inpit: unmined
reserves about 3 MWmt and ROM reconciliation value change from 117% at
previous reconciliation (surface) method to 73% at partial method, whereas
for OB & Grades value is not significant. This value will still change until all
area completely mined out.
An Adjustment for existing method reconciliation database could be done
by adding unmined reserves from 2005-2013 (all hills) but need time to
compile data especially bottom excavation points.
For exact calculation of reconciliation, complete reconciliation method is
very recommended. Watulabu S, Petea A and Petea BO are next priority to
be calculated.