International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

A comparison of strategic mine planning approaches for in-pit crushing

and conveying, and truck/shovel systems
M. Nehring ⇑, P.F. Knights, M.S. Kizil, E. Hay
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a global environment where energy and labor are becoming increasingly expensive, continuous mining
Received 28 November 2016 systems such as In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) systems have been advanced as offering a real
Received in revised form 19 June 2017 alternative to conventional truck haulage systems. The implementation of IPCC systems in hard rock
Accepted 25 December 2017
operations in open pit mines however requires different and more comprehensive planning approaches
Available online 3 February 2018
in order to adequately reflect the practical aspects associated with these. This paper investigates the
impact that these approaches may have on the implementation of IPCC systems on a basic metalliferous
Keywords:
deposit amenable to open pit exploitation. A strategic life of mine plan to provide numerous economic
In pit crusher conveyor systems
Strategic mine planning
indicators for each approach is analyzed and compared to traditional truck haulage systems. The mine
Resource recovery planning and evaluation process highlights the increased overall resource recovery that may accompany
Surface metalliferous mining the use of IPCC systems. This investigation also provides insights into the issues associated with IPCC and
Mine optimization the scale and type of operation and orebody that is likely to provide a feasible alternative to truck
Truck and shovel haulage.
Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction of providing the large scale productivity improvements that are

The prolonged downturn in international commodity prices has
forced major changes in the resources sector. Cost reductions for
the purpose of improving productivity have become a central focus
for most resource producers in order to remain competitive. In
looking beyond current cost cutting initiatives, the next phase in
the push to improve productivity will come from new innovations
that transform the way traditional processes are carried out. Sur-
face mining operations have historically been able to rely on
increasing economies of scale using traditional discontinuous truck
and shovel techniques. However, the scope to continue introducing
larger and higher capacity trucks and equipment into mining oper-
ations in order to improve productivity is limited. Truck haulage is
a highly energy, labor and water intensive operation. It is also asso-
ciated with significant occupational health and safety risks, as well
as impacting the environment through the production of dust and
noise.
Mining operations are thus increasingly looking to more effi-
cient, less energy and labor intensive, and safer methods to carry
out the daily operations of a mine. Adopting continuous mining
systems into the mining industry has been heralded as a means
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.nehring@uq.edu.au (M. Nehring).
so desperately needed. Continuous In-Pit Crushing and Conveying
(IPCC) systems are gaining increasing attention in the recognition
that these have the ability to offer numerous advantages over tra-
ditional truck haulage systems.
As the remaining ‘easy’ to reach near surface mineral deposits
are exhausted and the approvals and financing process for new
operations become increasingly difficult, mines of the future will
become deeper, more remote, and more hostile. This will result
in an increasing trend toward larger, higher capacity, bulk move-
ment operations that will have to include material well outside
previous breakeven economic cut-off grade boundaries. As such,
overall resource recovery will need to significantly improve. Some
countries, such as Russia, have legislative incentives that oblige
companies to demonstrate maximum resource utilization. Future
mining operations will have to deal with less favorable ground
conditions with a drive toward consuming less energy while gen-
erating fewer greenhouse gas emissions. While these conditions
present huge challenges in themselves, all this will be against a
backdrop of more intensive public scrutiny over environmental
awareness and community relations.
The aim of this paper is to highlight the fundamental mine plan-
ning aspects for the implementation of two main types of IPCC sys-
tems and how these differ from traditional truck and shovel
operations. In doing so, a conceptual two dimensional metallifer-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.12.026
2095-2686/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
206 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214
ous case study will illustrate the economic differences resulting
from the unique strategic mine planning and sequencing require-
ments of each system in comparison to truck and shovel. This
paper highlights the resource recovery associated with each
scenario.
2. IPCC opportunity
Future resource extraction will inevitably be deeper and at
lower grades compared to standard practice today. In order for this
to occur under present circumstances, truck fleet numbers will
need to significantly increase due to the longer haulage distances
and consequently higher cycle times associated with deeper pits.
With this increase in truck numbers, there is an associated increase
in the workforce required to operate, and an increase in fuel con-
sumption. These factors contribute to higher Operating Expendi-
ture (OPEX) for mines utilizing truck haulage. These negative
effects are further exaggerated by increased noise, dust and CO2
emission levels generated by additional trucks, leading to a larger
environmental footprint. IPCC systems offer several opportunities
to substantially reduce the impacts of expanded truck fleets.
According to McCarthy and Turnbull, in order for IPCC systems
to be an appropriate alternative haulage system, some key design
parameters must be considered [1,2]. These parameters range from
fundamental requirements, to practicalities, and preferences,
including:
(1) Material movement of over 4 Mtpa is desirable in order to
justify the initial CAPEX, though upwards of 10 Mtpa is
better.
(2) A mine life greater than 10 years in order for the lower OPEX
to pay back the higher initial CAPEX.
(3) Electricity costs ($/kWh) less than 25% of diesel cost ($/L).
Depending on the type of IPCC system used, labor requirements
can be as low as 80 people, including operators and maintenance
personnel [3]. Exact numbers will vary depending on the selected
system, and the number and length of installed conveyors. It is
estimated that one truck requires staffing of approximately seven
people to operate. In a two 12-h-shift-day roster, this consists of
4.4 operators (0.4 to account for covering vacations and absences),
and 2.7 maintenance workers [4]. From a labor and safety perspec-
tive, if an IPCC system is able to replace enough trucks to reduce
the total number of workers, they become a more attractive option.
IPCC systems are typically run on electrical power, which
reduces a mine’s dependency on diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is a major
contributor to the cost of truck haulage. If the volume of fuel con-
sumption can thus be reduced, operating expenses of a mine will
also be reduced. An example of this in practice is an iron ore mine
in Brazil with two installed Fully Mobile IPCC systems with a com-
bined capacity of 7800 t/h, resulting in an estimated reduction in
diesel consumption of 60 Million litres per annum (MLpa) [5].
With savings opportunities arising from reduced labor require-
ments and reduced diesel consumption, IPCC OPEX can be signifi-
cantly reduced when compared to truck haulage OPEX [6]. In
addition, conveyor haulage is inherently more weight effective
than trucks, requiring less energy per unit weight of material
transported. Another important aspect is that, conveyors use more
(81%) of the consumed energy for transportation of the payload in
comparison to trucks (39%) [7]. It is estimated that OPEX of con-
veyor haulage can be as low as one-third of a comparable truck
haulage system [4].
Though the OPEX of IPCC systems can be reduced significantly
below that of a truck haulage method, the Capital Expenditure
(CAPEX) required in order to use an IPCC system is often higher.
Fig. 1 shows that although the IPCC system has a larger initial
CAPEX, due to the reduced OPEX, after six years the mine breaks
even, and the NPV of the IPCC case becomes significantly higher
than the trucking case.
An additional benefit of lower diesel consumption is a reduction
in CO2 emissions. The 60 MLpa reduction in diesel consumption
previously mentioned equates to a reduction of approximately
130,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of CO2 emissions [5]. This is
approximately equivalent to the removal of 36,000 average pas-
senger vehicles off the road each year [9]. In addition to the reduc-
tion of emissions, the reduced reliance on diesel fuel also means
that less fuel trucks will be on the roads, reducing logistical
demand on local road networks.
IPCC operations can also reduce the amount of dust that is
released as an airborne contaminant. As there is less traffic on haul
roads, due to the reduced truck fleet, less dust will be generated by
the operations and less need for spraying haul roads, which will
result in a saving of water consumption. Some water will still be
required in conveyer systems for suppressing dust at transfer loca-
tions. Conveyors not only reduce the number of trucks required,
but have also been stated as reducing overall auxiliary equipment
requirements by 25–30% [10].
IPCC systems can also reduce noise pollution as a result of con-
veyors operating at a lower decibel level than haul trucks. Typi-
cally, haul trucks emit at a volume of 90 dB at a distance of 10 m,
whereas conveyors emit at a volume of 70 dB at a distance of 5
m. For comparison, a conversation between two people 2 m apart
requires a volume of approximately 60 dB [11]. This noise reduc-
tion can make them a useful system in areas where mines are
located close to townships, or in areas where neighbouring proper-
ties are noise sensitive.
The combination of each of these financial, environmental and
social advantages provides a clear justification for the more exten-
sive use of IPCC systems now.
Though there are many manufacturers of the equipment associ-
ated with IPCC systems, there are no off the shelf solutions as each
site will require a system that is uniquely tailored for its specific
requirements. As such there is a range of available options regard-
ing IPCC systems. Broadly speaking, there are three types of IPCC
systems, with each setup having its own set of advantages and dis-
advantages for specific operating conditions and deposit type. The
three broad categories are: Fixed, Semi-mobile, and Fully-mobile
systems.
Fixed In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (FIPCC) systems are char-
acterized by the crushing unit being situated in one location for
an extended period of time. This location is usually located at some
point near the crest of the pit, near the haul road exit point. Con-
ventional truck haulage is used within the pit to move material
from the working face to the crushing unit. Once the material
has been crushed, it is fed onto a conveying network which trans-
ports it to either a spreader (waste) or stacker (mineralized mate-
Fig. 1. Cumulative NPV comparing IPCC and truck haulage [8].
 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214
rial). Fixed systems have their best application in deep, pre-
existing pits, with low vertical advance rates, where a single
crusher location can service the operation for an extended period
of time, usually greater than five years.
Semi-Mobile In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (SMIPCC) systems
are similar to fixed systems in that the crushing unit remains in
one location for a period of time with conventional truck haulage
feeding it. The differences occur in the length of time in which
the crusher remains in each location, and the locations that the
crusher is situated. As the mine deepens, the crusher is relocated
deeper into the pit which typically occurs every two to five
benches (depending on the vertical advance rate) to maintain a
short haul for the truck portion of the system, and maximize the
use of conveying that can be reasonably used. SMIPCC systems
are the most flexible, and most readily adaptable to existing oper-
ations due to their continued use of trucks and the ability to install
the crusher at suitable locations.
Fully-Mobile In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (FMIPCC) systems
remove the requirement for truck haulage during steady state
operation. It is suggested by Dean et al. that truck haulage may still
be required during each sinking phase of a mine, though haul dis-
tance may be minimized by using the trucks to dump into the
fully-mobile crusher near the sinking activity [4]. These systems
are characterized by the loading unit dumping directly into the
hopper of a fully-mobile crushing unit that follows it. Once
crushed, the material is passed onto a network of conveyors to
be hauled to its final destination. Due to the significant difference
in mine design and layout of FMIPCC systems, they are best suited
to greenfield operations. For many decades the flexibility of truck
and shovel mining systems allowed the mining system to be suited
to the pit, however, as FMIPCC is significantly less flexible, the
mine design must cater to the requirements of the system. As such,
one research area requiring significant further attention is that of
ultimate pit limit (UPL) optimization taking into account the geo-
metric requirements associated with the installation of FMIPCC
systems. Hay et al. extensively discuss these requirements and also
propose a new first step to solving this problem [12]. As pointed
out by various authors, existing open pit optimization algorithms
including the Floating Cone Algorithm [13] together with the
improved versions by Koenigsberg [14], Hochbaum [15] and Elahi
Zenyi [16], and the Lerchs-Grossman Algorithm [17] generate UPLs
that align to the shape of the orebody (which is fine for traditional
truck and shovel mining) but are completely inappropriate for
FMIPCC. This aspect is also highlighted as part of the case study
contained in this paper. In looking at the next step down the min-
ing value chain, the open pit production scheduling problem
remains one of the largest and most complex industrial scheduling
problems in existence today and has been the research topic of
numerous authors including Boland et al. [18], Chicoisne et al.
[19], Lambert and Newman [20] and Samavati et al. [21]. The open
pit scheduling problem that caters for FMIPCC is another area
requiring significantly more attention if FMIPCC is to be become
a mainstream option.
3. Case study
A two dimensional case study of a copper bearing orebody
amenable to open pit exploitation is used for the purpose of com-
paring Truck, SMIPCC and FMIPCC haulage systems against various
financial metrics as well as overall resource recovery. As FIPCC
haulage is essentially truck haulage in the pit, there would be min-
imal difference to the sequencing, and has thus been left out of the
case study. While data for this particular case study is conceptual
in nature, it is, however, based on real operational scenarios with
tonnages, grades, resource limitations and sequencing interactions
207
reflective of the various haulage methods, thus making it useful for
investigation purposes. Since the case study is two dimensional,
some aspects that are three dimensional in nature are not possible
to incorporate. However, all main sequencing issues (which is the
focus in this case study) of each haulage scenarios are able to be
adequately reflected. The setting of this mine is a typical remote
mining region within Australia. As such, all figures are quoted in
Australian Dollars (AUD).
The orebody is contained within a two dimensional vertical
cross-section, 25 blocks wide and 8 blocks deep, of equal size con-
taining 5 Mt of material each (250 m
250 m
30 m mining
blocks). As shown in Fig. 2, a total of 140 blocks contain copper
mineralization ranging in grade from 0.08% Cu to 0.64% Cu for a
total resource of 700 Mt at an average grade of 0.33% Cu for 2.34
Mt Cu. Copper mineralization (indicated by shaded blocks) starts
in the second level with the first level consisting of waste that
would need to be removed before accessing the mineralized mate-
rial below. While mineralization extends to the eighth level, the
orebody can be considered as being horizontally extensive with
the highest grade material located on its eastern side (right-hand
side). Grades tend to gradually diminish when moving in a west-
erly direction (from right to left) through the orebody.
Planning will take place using open pit mining at a pit wall
slope angle of 45°. Typical open pit mining constraints are there-
fore applicable with the main constraint being that each block
can be mined only once the three blocks above have been removed.
No other geotechnical issues are assumed to be present to thus
allow a fully open sequencing scheme to be used across all haulage
systems.
A metallurgical recovery of 90%, process plant capacity of 15
Mtpa (3 blocks per year), processing cost of $10.00/t of ore, copper
price of $5000 t and a discount rate of 5% are applicable. After
treating all blocks within the dataset that are below breakeven
processing cut-off grade ($10.00/t/($5000/t
0.9) = 0.22% Cu) as
waste, this reduces the resource to a total of 119 blocks containing
copper mineralization ranging in grade from 0.25% Cu to 0.74% Cu
for a total resource of 595 Mt grading 0.37% Cu for 2.175 Mt Cu.
The initial CAPEX of constructing the process plant is $350 M
which is incurred in the year prior to the commencement of pro-
cessing. Once ore processing has commenced the processing rate
must be maintained at 15 Mtpa (with the exception of the first
and final year). Ore blocks must be mined and processed in the
same year. No stockpiling is to take place.
While it is commonly acknowledged that IPCC systems gener-
ally require a higher upfront capital expenditure, total CAPEX
requirements across mine life often work out to be similar for tra-
ditional truck haulage for a given scale of operation. For the pur-
pose of comparing all three scenarios on a similar basis, total
CAPEX, processing capacity and mining capacity will be the same
across each case. Mining capacity across the three systems will
be limited to 20 Mtpa (4 blocks per year). A total CAPEX of $200
M is required to implement each of the three haulage systems;
however, the timing of this expenditure varies. For the SMIPCC
and the FMIPCC systems the full $200 M CAPEX will be incurred
in the year that mining activities commence. For Truck haulage
system, $90 M will be incurred in the year that mining commences.
This will be followed by a further $45 M and $65 M in the third and
seventh year of mining respectively, as additional trucking capacity
is brought online to cater for longer haul distances. This reflects the
high up-front CAPEX associated with IPCC systems and the more
staggered capital requirements for truck haulage system, which
generally require additional trucking capacity as the operation
deepens and cycle times increase. The OPEX of each system for this
case study is shown in Table 1. These costs are assumed to remain
constant over the life of the operation and include all items
required in carrying out mining activities across each of the three
208 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214

Fig. 2. 2D block model of copper bearing orebody.

Table 1 cost (waste stripping) as possible. As such, a typical pushback

OPEX of each haulage system. sequence will see the surface footprint of the pit expand in all
System OPEX ($/t) directions as progressive extraction of each pushback takes place
Truck $3.00/t level 1 + $0.45/t (15% increase) for each
and the pit progressively deepens to access the next subsequent
lower level parcel of ore. Depending on the dip and horizontal extensiveness
Semi-Mobile IPCC $2.50/t level 1 + $0.25/t (10% increase) for each of the orebody, progressive pushback extraction may result in
lower level the pit expanding in only one direction as the sequence follows
Fully-Mobile IPCC $2.00/t level 1 + $0.10/t (5% increase) for each lower
the orebody down-dip. In such cases, where geotechnical circum-
level
stances permit, major haul roads maybe placed into the fixed pit
wall in a switchback arrangement to keep haul roads from imped-
ing on main production areas. In cases where the pit expands in all
systems (including but not limited to labor, maintenance, energy,
directions a more constrained extraction sequence on the bench is
parts, consumables, etc.). The operating costs used in this case
required in order to re-route haul roads to maintain access and
study are based on the author’s understanding that Semi-Mobile
cause least disruption.
IPCC and Fully-Mobile IPCC are about 15–20% and 30–35% lower
Fig. 3 illustrates the sequence that would be adopted if a tradi-
than that of Truck and Shovel.
tional truck haulage system is to be used. As shown, mining would
It is assumed that each system will be used to haul both ore and
start on the eastern side (right-hand side) of the orebody and
waste. As such, there will be no change in the equipment when
sequentially move toward the west (left-hand side) in following
mining and hauling ore or waste. While shovels will be used for
the highest value and easiest to reach ore. The footprint of the
digging and loading into trucks or the crusher for all three cases,
pit in this case would expand in only a single direction allowing
the way in which the material is mined requires a unique extrac-
major haul roads to switchback in the eastern pit wall.
tion sequence. Recent work by Dzakpata et al. suggests that the
As shown, a total of 23 phases (pushbacks) are required to
productivity of shovels operating in conjunction with FMIPCC sys-
achieve full extraction of the orebody using a traditional truck
tems can be significantly enhanced [22], however for the purposes
haulage system. In commencing with the first pushback, each sub-
of this study no shovel productivity difference is assumed between
sequent pushback deepens the pit until the full depth of the ore-
the three methods under investigation.
body is reached on the eighth level. While pit depth is
maintained from the 13th pushback onwards, the orebody’s hori-
3.1. Truck haulage system sequence zontal extensiveness requires a further 10 pushbacks of equal size
to achieve full extraction to the final (twenty-third) pushback.
Truck haulage is the most common method for bring material
out of an open pit mine and to the process plant, stockpile or waste 3.2. SMIPCC sequence
dump. As the mine life matures, the pit becomes deeper and waste
dumps become bigger, resulting in increased truck haul cycles SMIPCC systems rely on a crusher being located at some point
which requires additional trucks to maintain production rates. within the pit. Instead of hauling material all the way out of the
Depending on distance and elevation, truck haulage is typically pit, trucks dump into the crusher and are thereby able to signifi-
considered to be costlier in comparison to IPCC systems. However, cantly reduce their travel distance and thus overall cycle time.
it is often favored due to being the most flexible of the three haul- The crusher is typically modular in design and able to be relocated
age methods in terms of maneuverability, scalability (ability to add
or subtract mining capacity) as well as being more resilient to com-
plete system failure as individual trucks are replaceable. Further-
more, truck haulage does not require extensive conveyor
networks within the pit. The flexibility associated with truck
maneuverability is able to be carried through the sequencing and
scheduling process whereby the highest grade ore is highly amen-
able to be accessed and mined as soon as traditional open pit min-
ing will allow. In developing a pushback sequence for an open pit
mining operation, the aim is to allow the operation to gain access
to the next available highest value parcel of material for as little Fig. 3. Truck haulage system sequence for exploiting orebody.
 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214
closer to the main production area every 2–5 years. From the
crusher, material is then hauled via a conveyor belt out of the pit
to the process plant, stockpile or waste dump. Since high capacity
troughed conveyors are generally operated at angles up to 18° in
order to prevent material roll-back [23], sequencing and schedul-
ing within the pit therefore need to take into consideration the
need for a fixed conveyor slot or a conveyor line that can be stag-
gered up the side of a fixed pit wall. The requirement for a fixed pit
conveyor wall or slot means that pit expansion cannot take place
where these are installed. As such, a typical pushback sequence
for a SMIPCC system will see the surface footprint of the pit expand
in only one direction.
The main advantage of SMIPCC systems is that they still main-
tain some of the flexibility and maneuverability of truck haulage
with reduced cycle times while benefiting from the reduced costs
associated with conveyor haulage. The system however is slightly
more restrictive due to the conveyor requirement and unlike truck
haulage it is not as amenable to gaining access to the next available
highest value parcel of material for as little cost (waste stripping)
as possible. OPEX for a SMIPCC system is typically between truck
and FMIPCC haulage.
Fig. 4 illustrates the sequence that would be adopted if a
SMIPCC system is to be used for the orebody under consideration.
Mining would again start on the eastern side of the orebody and
sequentially move toward the west in initially following the high-
est value and easiest to reach ore. However, in maintaining a lim-
ited truck haulage distance to an in-pit crusher, the initial pit depth
is limited. The first 13 pushbacks (Group 1 series of pushbacks) to
level 4 are extracted and hauled to a crusher which is likely to be
external to the pit at this stage. The first crusher relocation would
then take place to some point toward the deeper part of the void
left by the extraction of the Group 1 series of pushbacks to enable
the removal of pushbacks 14–18 (Group 2 series of pushbacks) in
order to complete extraction of moderate-high grade ore to full
depth. Due to the horizontally extensive nature of the orebody,
pushbacks 19–22 (Group 3 series of pushbacks) expand out the
surface footprint of the pit to extract moderate grade ore, which
again corresponds to another crusher relocation (to the closest
possible point to this series of pushbacks to accommodate mainly
downhill truck haulage). The next crusher relocation revolves
around the removal of pushbacks 23–26 at depth (Group 4 series
of pushbacks). The crusher in this case would again be positioned
so as to minimize a mainly downhill haulage distance. This follows
another expansion of the surface footprint of the pit and subse-
quent crusher relocation by the removal of low grade pushbacks
27–32 (Group 5 series of pushbacks). The final crusher relocation
in the sequence completes the extraction of the remaining low
grade pushbacks (33–38) at depth (Group 6 series of pushbacks).
3.3. FMIPCC sequence
FMIPCC systems remove the need for truck haulage completely
as the digging unit dumps directly into a mobile crusher that fol-
lows the working face, making this a continuous system. This sys-
Fig. 4. SMIPCC sequence for exploiting orebody (crusher relocations corresponding
to each main group of pushbacks are represented by the large bold numbers).
209
tem requires extensive conveyor networks. Once a conveyor has
been established and configured on a bench it is most productive
to keep until the full length of the pit has been removed before pro-
gressing deeper. The bench conveyor, which may source ore or
waste material from up to three working benches/faces, will feed
a main trunk conveyor. The trunk conveyor is ideally one continu-
ous conveyor line that takes material out of the pit to the process
plant, stockpile or waste dump. As such, a fixed conveyor slot or a
conveyor line up the side of a fixed pit wall is required. Due to
extensive conveyor networks the sequencing for FMIPCC is very
rigid with expansion limited to a single direction with little or no
flexibility and limited ability to access deeper high grade material
sooner. FMIPCC systems tend to have the lowest OPEX when com-
pared to truck haulage and SMIPCC systems.
Fig. 5 illustrates the sequence that would be adopted if a
FMIPCC system is to be used for the orebody under consideration.
Mining would start on the eastern side of the orebody and sequen-
tially move toward the west initially following the highest value
and easiest to reach ore. Due to the efficiencies that are derived
from long horizontal production sequences, the initial depth is
again limited. A series of 23 pushbacks to level three across the
entire length of the orebody are extracted (Group 1 series of push-
backs) from three working benches feeding into a bench conveyor.
This encompasses the extraction of high grade ore through to the
lowest grade ore present within the orebody and exposes the
entire surface footprint of the final pit. Once this has been com-
pleted no further waste removal is required for the case study
under consideration. A new bench conveyor is than established
to extract material from the lower three benches (levels 4–6)
across the length of the orebody (Group 2 series of pushbacks com-
prising of pushbacks 24–40). Material within the final two levels
(7–8) are then sequentially extracted (Group 3 series of pushbacks
comprising of pushbacks 41–51) using the FMIPCC system.
4. Results
It is evident that even though the same orebody using the same
total CAPEX and mining and processing capacities, significant
sequencing implications yield vastly different mine plans which
is reflected in the financial metrics of each haulage scenario.
4.1. Truck haulage
From the pushback sequence presented in Fig. 3 for the truck
haulage scenario it is now possible to determine the breakeven
pit limit by analyzing the value of each pushback for an uncon-
strained mining and milling capacity. In order to do this an eco-
nomic block model based on the block grades shown in Fig. 2
together with the cost data and market parameters presented ear-
lier, an economic block model was generated as shown in Fig. 6.
Block values ($M) are computed by subtracting the mining and
processing cost from the revenue obtained from selling the metal
contained within each block (eg. block #R008: 5.0Mt
0.369%Cu
Fig. 5. FMIPCC sequence for exploiting orebody (Major vertical belt moves
corresponding to each main group of pushbacks are represented by the large bold
numbers).
210 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214
Fig. 6. Economic block model for truck haulage scenario ($M) (Note: blocks below breakeven cut-off treated as waste).

0.90%
$5,000/tCu - 5.0Mt
$6.15/t - 5.0Mt
$10.0/t = $2.3
M).
The value of each block is then used to compute the value of
each pushback (eg. pushback 1: $15.0 M - $15.0 M - $15.0 M +
$77.0 M = $32.0 M). As shown in Fig. 7, the highest cumulative
undiscounted pushback value of $1,058.3 M is generated at push-
back 13. If open pit mining continued to include pushback 14 this
would destroy total value since the cost of accessing pushback 14
exceeds the revenue that would be obtained from processing and
selling the copper contained within its ore. The undiscounted
breakeven pit limit will therefore occur at pushback 13 for the
truck haulage scenario. After taking into account the total CAPEX
requirement of $550 M, this produces a final undiscounted value
for the operation of $508.3 M.
Based on the capacity constraints outlined earlier (maximum
mining and processing of 20 Mtpa and 15 Mtpa respectively), a
yearly production and processing schedule which follows the
pre-determined pushback sequence for the truck haulage scenario,
as illustrated in Fig. 2, for all material contained within the break-
even pit limit (to pushback 13), can be generated. The objective in
this case is to maintain maximum mill feed in each year. This
results in the schedule as illustrated in Fig. 8. The number within
each block represents the year in which the block has been sched-
uled for mining. Since no stockpiling is available, ore blocks that
Fig. 7. Unscheduled pushback values for truck haulage scenario.
Fig. 8. Optimum yearly production schedule (mine plan) for truck haulage scenario.
are mined must be processed in the same year. As such, any ore
blocks (shaded grey) containing a number corresponding to the
year that it is mined is also processed in that year.
Using the discount rate of 5%, a discounted value for the mine
plan is computed as shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 also contains the dis-
counted capital costs for both process plant and mine infrastruc-
ture ($350 M + $90 M in year 0, $45 M in year 3 and $65 M in
year 7) required for the truck haulage scenario. The discounted
value for pushback 1 is calculated as follows:
$15M $15M $15M $77M
Pushback 1 : þ þ þ ¼ $28:3M ð1Þ
1:050 1:050 1:050 1:051
As shown, the discounted value for an open pit operation using
truck haulage based on the mine plan contained in Fig. 6 would
yield an NPV of $293.9 M. A further investigation to eliminate
late-stage pushbacks (reduce pit size) in order to re-prioritize
waste removal does not add an additional value in this case. As
such, it can thus be determined that a mine plan with a pit limit
to pushback 13 generates the highest cumulative discounted value.
As indicated by the mine plan contained in Fig. 8, mining for the
truck haulage scenario occurs across 18 years (including one year
of pre-stripping in year 0) moving a total of 320 Mt of material,
comprising 75 Mt of waste and 245 Mt of ore. The final ore block
will be processed in year 17 for a total processing life of 17 years.
Throughout the 17 year processing life, an average ore grade of
0.47% Cu produces a total of 1.043 Mt Cu (after accounting for a
metallurgical recovery of 90%).
4.2. SMIPCC haulage
A similar process to the truck haulage scenario is used to finding
and evaluating the value of the optimal mine plan for the SMIPCC
system haulage scenario. The first step again was to generate an
economic block model as shown in Fig. 10.
Fig. 9. Scheduled pushback values for truck haulage scenario.
 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214
Fig. 10. Economic block model for SMIPCC haulage scenario ($M).
The economic block model made it possible to determine the
breakeven pit limit for the pushback sequence presented in Fig. 4
by analyzing the value of each pushback for an unconstrained min-
ing and milling capacity. As shown in Fig. 11, the highest cumula-
tive pushback value of $1380.3 M is generated at pushback 26.
Since no further value can be added by enlarging the pit the undis-
counted breakeven pit limit will therefore occur at pushback 26 for
the SMIPCC haulage scenario. After taking into account the total
capital expenditure requirement of $550 M, this produces a final
undiscounted value for the operation of $830.3 M.
The same capacity constraints (maximum mining and process-
ing of 2075 Mt of waste Mtpa and 1575 Mt of waste Mtpa respec-
tively) apply to the SMIPCC haulage scenario for the purpose of
production scheduling. A yearly production schedule which fol-
lows the pre-determined pushback sequence for the SMIPCC sce-
nario illustrated in Fig. 4 for all material contained within the
breakeven pit limit (to pushback 26) is generated. The objective
once again is to maintain maximum mill feed in each year. This
results in the schedule illustrated in Fig. 12. The number within
each block once again represents the year in which the block has
been scheduled for mining/processing.
Using the discount rate of 5%, a discounted value for the mine
plan is computed as shown in Fig. 13, which also includes the cap-
Fig. 11. Unscheduled pushback values for SMIPCC haulage scenario.
Fig. 12. Optimum yearly production schedule (mine plan) for SMIPCC haulage
scenario.
211
ital costs for both process plant and mine infrastructure ($200 M +
$350 M in year 0) required for the SMIPCC haulage scenario.
As shown in Fig. 13, the discounted value for an open pit oper-
ation using SMIPCC haulage based on the mine plan contained in
Fig. 12 would yield an NPV of $453.1 M. Further investigations to
eliminate late-stage pushbacks (reduce pit size) in order to re-
prioritize waste removal also does not add an additional value in
this case. As such, it can thus be determined that a mine plan with
a pit limit to pushback 26 generates the highest cumulative dis-
counted value.
As indicated by the mine plan contained in Fig. 12, mining for
the SMIPCC haulage scenario occurs across 27 years (including
one year of pre-stripping in year 0) moving a total of 480Mt of
material, comprising 95Mt of waste and 385Mt of ore. The final
ore blocks are processed in year 26 for a total processing life of
26 years. Throughout the 26 year processing life, an average ore
grade of 0.42% Cu produces a total of 1.445Mt Cu (after accounting
for a metallurgical recovery of 90%).
4.3. FMIPCC haulage
An economic block model for the FMIPCC haulage scenario
based on block grades contained in Fig. 2 as well as market param-
eters and cost data presented earlier was again generated as shown
in Fig. 14.
Based on the pushback sequence presented in Fig. 5 and the
FMIPCC block values shown in Fig. 14, a pushback analysis for an
unconstrained mining and milling capacity can take place. As
shown in Fig. 15, the highest cumulative pushback value of
$2011.8 M is generated at pushback 51. This represents the final
pushback for this sequence and thus indicates that the entire
resource should be recovered. After taking into account the total
capital expenditure requirement of $550 M, this produces a final
undiscounted value for the operation of $1461.8 M.
Fig. 13. Scheduled pushback values for SMIPCC haulage scenario.
212 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214

Fig. 14. Economic block model for FMIPCC haulage scenario ($M).

Fig. 15. Unscheduled pushback values for FMIPCC haulage scenario.

Fig. 17. Scheduled pushback values for FMIPCC haulage scenario.
A yearly production schedule which follows the pre-determined
pushback sequence for the FMIPCC haulage scenario for all mate-
5. Discussion
rial contained within the breakeven pit limit using the mine and
process capacity constraints is generated. Maintaining maximum
It is evident that substantially more of the resource is able to be
mill feed in each year was again the main objective. This results
economically recovered using the IPCC haulage systems. A total of
in the schedule illustrated in Fig. 16. The number within each block
245 Mt of ore is mined and processed when using truck haulage
once again represents the year in which the block has been sched-
while the SMIPCC and FMIPCC systems mine and process 385 Mt
uled for mining/processing.
and 720 Mt of ore respectively. This is no doubt significantly influ-
Using the discount rate of 5%, a discounted value for the mine
enced by the grade distribution of the orebody used in this case
plan is computed as shown in Fig. 17, which also includes the cap-
study. The reason more ore is able to be economically exploited
ital costs for both process plant and mine infrastructure ($200 M in
is due to the lower OPEX of the IPCC systems (in particular the
year 0 and $350 M in year 1) required for the FMIPCC haulage
FMIPCC system).
scenario.
For the orebody being exploited, there exists 390 Mt of miner-
As shown in Fig. 17, the discounted value for an open pit oper-
alized material that is economical exploitable when using the
ation using FMIPCC haulage based on the mine plan contained in
FMIPCC system and its associated OPEX in comparison to the truck
Fig. 16 would yield an NPV of $467.2 M. As indicated by the mine
haulage system with its associated OPEX. This 390 Mt of mineral-
plan contained in Fig. 16, mining for the FMIPCC haulage scenario
ized material equates to 65.50% of the 595Mt of total mineralized
occurs across 43 years (including two years of pre-stripping in
material within the deposit. Large halos of mineralization that
years 0 and 1) moving a total of 720 Mt of material, comprising
decrease in grade from a central zone are common in large por-
125 Mt of waste and 595 Mt of ore. The final ore blocks are pro-
phyry type deposits, indicating that even a slight reduction in
cessed in year 42 for a total processing life of 41 years. Throughout
OPEX may render large sections of the deposit economically
the 41 year processing life, an average ore grade of 0.36% Cu pro-
exploitable that were not previously, thus significantly lifting the
duces a total of 1.957 Mt Cu (after accounting for a metallurgical
overall resource recovery.
recovery of 90%).
Some of the key metrics that are commonly used to compare
resource projects are summarized in Fig. 18 and Table 2. From this
it is evident that the time value of money aspect plays a significant
role in determining overall value, particularly the longer the mine
life. In this case, the truck haulage scenario yields an NPV of $293.9
M over an 18 year operating life whereas the FMIPCC haulage sce-
nario yields an NPV of $467.2 M over a 43 year operating life for
the same orebody using the same total CAPEX and mining and pro-
cessing capacities. While ore grades and sequencing constraints
also have a large impact, the NPV of the FMIPCC haulage scenario
Fig. 16. Optimum yearly production schedule (mine plan) for FMIPCC haulage is 58.90% greater than the NPV of the truck haulage scenario, while
scenario. the operating life is 138.90% greater. For this reason, the IRR
 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214 213

requirement of a fixed pit wall to accommodate a conveyor is just

one example of this. A secondary effect of replacing truck haulage
with conveyor haulage is the loss flexibility affecting maneuver-
ability, scalability and resilience to system failure. As a result of
this, sound operational performance can often hide the detrimental
effects of a bad mine plan in truck and shovel mining. However, a
bad mine plan when using IPCC systems will become apparent
very quickly with relatively little ability to being able to change
and modify the plan once its execution has been set in motion.
While low operating costs may be attractive for IPCC systems,
the unique sequencing restrictions associated with them must be
meticulously planned and designed for.
The flexibility associated with truck and shovel mining gener-
Fig. 18. Production and financial metrics for haulage scenarios.
ally allows a plan and schedule that will give the operation access
to the next available highest value parcel of material for as little
cost (waste stripping) as possible in a relatively straightforward
Table 2 manner. Depending on orebody shape and grade distribution, the
Production and financial metrics for haulage scenarios. unique restrictions associated with IPCC systems, are such that it
Metrics Truck SMIPCC FMIPCC is often not conducive to accessing the highest value material
Mining capacity 20 Mtpa 20 Mtpa 20 Mtpa
up-front. The highest productivities with FMIPCC are achieved
Processing capacity 15 Mtpa 15 Mtpa 15 Mtpa when mining across large horizontal horizons. As such, mining
CAPEX $550 M $550 M $550 M reduced high value material is often substituted for mining larger
Material moved 320 Mt 480 Mt 720 Mt volumes of waste, particularly in the earlier years of an operation.
Ore processed 245 Mt 385 Mt 595 Mt
This significantly affects cash flows and thus works against maxi-
LOM average grade 0.47% Cu 0.42% Cu 0.37% Cu
mization of NPV. As the mine life matures and the operation deep-
ens, the pit floor generally narrows which in turn reduces the high
productivities experienced by FMIPCC systems due to the
increased frequency of conveyor moves.
Not only is the horizontal extensiveness of the orebody an
important factor in the success of IPCC systems, so too is the grade
distribution. The reduced OPEX generally associated with IPCC sys-
tems, will often render larger volumes of material to be economical
to mine in comparison to the truck haulage system. What may
seem like a small reduction in OPEX can often significantly add
to the amount of material moved. For the case study investigated,
a 65.5% increase in exploitable mineralized material results in a
significantly longer mine life and greater resource recovery. This
is an important consideration to bear in mind as each orebody
and its respective grade distribution will differ.

References

Fig. 19. Discounted cumulative cash flow comparison for haulage scenarios.
provides a better understanding of the return across project life
being achieved for each dollar invested. On this basis the SMIPCC
scenario yields a superior IRR of 18.70% in comparison with the
truck haulage and FMIPCC haulage scenarios of 18.10% and
12.70% respectively.
The discounted cumulative cash flow graph across operation life
comparing the truck, SMIPCC and FMIPCC haulage systems is
shown in Fig. 19. The distinct zones where crusher relocation or
a deepening in the pit for the SMIPCC and FMIPCC systems is
observed is clearly reflected in the cash flow.
6. Conclusions
It is evident from the case study presented that the planning of
open pit operations utilizing IPCC systems cannot simply be based
upon truck and shovel designs. A completely different approach to
planning and design must be followed. This is principally due to
the unique shape and sequencing constraints associated with the
introduction of conveyors into the pit for haulage purposes. The
[1] McCarthy RJ. In-pit crushing and conveying: fitting a square peg in a round
open pit. In: Proceedings of CIM Montreal (Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum Montreal). Montreal: Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum; 2011.
[2] Turnbull D. IPCC - effects of total cost of ownership. In: Proceedings of in-pit
crushing and conveying conference. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: FLSmidth; 2011.
[3] McCarthy M, Cenisio B. Update on Studies for Implementation of IPCC at the
Moatize Coal Project. Cologne: IPCC; 2013.
[4] Dean M, Knights P, Kizil MS, Nehring M. Selection and planning of fully mobile
in-pit crusher and conveyor systems for deep open pit metalliferous
applications. In: Proceedings of third international future mining conference.
Sydney: AusIMM; 2015. p. 219–25.
[5] Raaz V, Mentges U. In pit crushing & conveying with fully mobile crushing
plants in regard to energy efficiency & co2 reduction. In: Proceedings of in-pit
crushing and conveying conference. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: FLSmidth; 2011. p.
21–3.
[6] Tutton D, Streck W. The application of mobile in-pit crushing and conveying in
large, hard rock open pit mines. In: Proceedings of mining congress. Niagara;
2009.
[7] ThyssenKrupp. In-Pit Crushing Continuous Haulage Systems (IPC-CHS). Essen,
Germany: ThyssenKrupp Fordertechnik; 2004.
[8] Szalanski S. Reducing IPCC Removal Costs – Is IPCC the Answer? Perth: IPCC;
2010.
[9] Commonwealth of Australia. Australian National Greenhouse Accounts - State
and Territory greenhouse gas inventories, Department of Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency [online]. Available from: http://www.climatechange.gov.au.
[10] International Mining. IPCC Innovation. Available from: http://www.
infomine.com/publications/docs/InternationalMining/IMJune2009f.pdf.
[11] Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET). Airborne contaminants,
noise and vibration. Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for
the Mining Industry Handbook. Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
214 M. Nehring et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 205–214
[12] Hay E, Knights P, Nehring M, Kizil MS. Criteria of ultimate pit limit
determination for fully mobile in-pit crushing and conveying. Int J Mining,
Reclamation Environ, Submitted 24/08/2017 – [in preparation].
[13] Carlson TR, Erickson JD, O’Brian DT, Pana MT. Computer techniques in mine
planning. Min Eng 1966;18(5):53–6.
[14] Koenigsberg E. The optimum contours of an open pit mine: an application of
dynamic programming. In: Proceedings of 17th international symposium -
application of computers and operation research in the mineral industry.
Koenigsberg, Ernest; 1982. p. 274–87.
[15] Hochbaum DS. The pseudoflow algorithm and the pseudoflow-based simplex
for the maximum flow problem. In: Proceedings of 6th international integer
programming and combinatorial optimization conference. Heidelberg:
Springer; 1998;1412:325–37. http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69346-7_25.
[16] Elahi Zenyi E, Kakaie R, Yousefi A. A new algorithm for optimum pit design:
floating cone method III. J Mining Environ 2011;2(2):118–25.
[17] Lerchs H, Grossman IF. Optimum design of open-pit mines. CIM Bull
1965;58:47–54.
[18] Boland N, Dumitrescu I, Froyland G, Gleixner AM. LP-based disaggregation
approaches to solving the open pit mining production scheduling problem
with block processing selectivity. Comput Oper Res 2009;36(4):1064–89.
[19] Chicoisne R, Espinosa D, Goycoolea M, Moreno E, Rubio E. A new algorithm for
the open-pit mine production scheduling problem. Oper Res 2012;60
(3):517–28.
[20] Lambert W, Newman A. Tailored lagrangian relaxation for the open pit block
sequencing problem. Ann Oper Res 2014;222(1):419–38.
[21] Samavati M, Essam D, Nehring M, Sarker R. A local branching heuristic for the
open pit mine production scheduling problem. Euro J Oper Res
2017;257:261–71.
[22] Dzakpata I, Knights P, Kizil MS, Nehring M, Aminossadati SM. Truck and shovel
versus in-pit conveyor systems: a Comparison of the valuable operating time.
In: Proceedings of the 16th coal operators’ conference. Wollongong: University
of Wollongong; 2016. p. 463–76.
[23] Alspaugh MA. Latest developments in belt conveyor technology, In:
Proceedings of MINExpo 2004. Las Vegas; 2004.