Advertisement

Managing Geologic Uncertainty in Pit Shell Optimization Using a Heuristic Algorithm and Stochastic Dominance

  • T. AcornEmail author
  • J. B. Boisvert
  • O. Leuangthong
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Optimizing final pit limits for stochastic models provides access to geologic and economic uncertainty in the pit optimization stages of a mining project. This paper presents an approach for optimizing final pit limits for a highly variable and geologically complex gold deposit. A heuristic pit optimizer is used to manage the effect of geological uncertainty in the resources within a pit shell with multiple uncertainty rated solutions. The uncertainty rated pit shells follow the mean-variance criterion to approximate the efficient frontier for final pit limits. Stochastic dominance rules are then used in a risk management framework to further eliminate sub-optimal solutions along the efficient frontier. This results in a smaller set of final pit shells that could be further analyzed for production scheduling. Additionally, the original solutions are analyzed for changes in the mining limits and two regions are targeted as potential regions for further exploration.

Keywords

Pit optimization Geologic uncertainty Risk management Heuristic optimizer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank SRK Consulting and Golden Star Resource Ltd. for providing data and support for this study. We would also like to thank Ryan Martin for the input he provided on the stochastic models used in this study.

Funding Information

This project was funded through the ENGAGE grant from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel Sabour Sa, Dimitrakopoulos RG, Kumral M (2008) Mine design selection under uncertainty. Mining Technology : IMM Transactions section A 117(2):53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1179/174328608X343065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acorn T, Deutsch CV (2018) Optimizing pit shells in the presence of geologic uncertainty with a heuristic algorithm. Society of Mining, Mettalurgical, and Exploration Annual TransactionsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlson TR, Erickson JD, O’Brain DT, Pana MT (1966) Computer techniques in mine planning. Min Eng 18(5):53–56Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deutsch CV, Gegg SH (2001) How many realizations do we need? Tech. rep. University of Alberta, Edmonton ABGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deutsch M, Gonzales E, Williams M (2015) Using simulation to quantify uncertainty in ultimate-pit limits and inform infrastructure placement. Min Eng 67(December):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elahi E, Kakaie R, Yusefi A (2012) A new algorithm for optimum open pit design: floating cone method III. J Min Env 2(2):118–125.  https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2012.63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallardo E, Deutsch C (2017) Active geological risk management case study: vertical placement of well pairs in SAGD. Centre for Computational Geostatistics Annual Report 19Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gallardo E, Deutsch C (2017) A decision-making model for active geological risk mangement (AGRM) in petroleum reservoir operations. Centre for Computational Geostatistics Annual Report 19Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg A, Tarjan R (1988) A new approach to the maximum-flow problem. J ACM 35:921–940MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodfellow RC, Dimitrakopoulos R (2015) Global optimization of open pit mining complexes with uncertainty. Appl Soft Comput 40:292–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hochbaum D (2008) The pseudoflow algorithm: a new algorithm for the maximum-flow problem. Oper Res 58(4):982–1009MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hustrulid WA, Kuchta M (2013) Open pit mine, 3rd edn. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnstone D, Lindley D (2013) Mean-variance and expected utility: the Borch paradox. Stat Sci 28 (2):223–237MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Journel AG (2007) Roadblocks to the evaluation of ore reserves - the simulation overpass and putting more geology into numerical models of deposits. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 14:29–32Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koushavand B, Askari-Nasab H, Deutsch CV (2014) A linear programming model for long-term mine planning in the presence of grade uncertainty and a stockpile. Int J Min Sci Technol 24:451–459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lerchs H, Grossmann IF (1965) Optimum design of open pit mines. Canadian Institute of Mining Transactions 68:17–24Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levy H (2016) Stochastic dominance: investment decision making under uncertainty, vol. 1, 3rd Edn Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21708-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levy H, Sarnat M (2015) Portfolio selection and investors utility: a graphical analysis. Appl Econ 2:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcotte D, Caron J (2013) Ultimate open pit stochastic optimization. Comput Geosci 51:238–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection*. The Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin R, Machuca-Mory D, Leuangthong O, Boisvert JB (2018) Non-stationary geostatistical modeling: a case study comparing LVA estimation frameworks Natural Resources Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-018-9384-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahmanpour M, Osanloo M (2016) Resilient decision making in open pit short-term production planning in presence of geologic uncertainty. Int J Eng 29(7):1022–1028.  https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.ije.2016.29.07a.18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rossi ME, Deutsch CV (2013) Mineral resource estimation, chap. 10, 12. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva DSF, Boisvert JB (2013) Mineral resource classification (NI 43 - 101): an overview and a new evaluation technique. Centre for Computational Geostatistics Annual Report 15Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SRK Consulting (2014) (United Kingdom) Inc.: Prepared for Golden Star Resources Ltd, NI 43-101 technical report on a feasibility study of the Wassa open pit mine and undergroud project in Ghana, Africa, dated December 31, 2014Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walls MR (2005) Corporate risk-taking and performance: a 20 year look at the petroleum industry. J Pet Sci Eng 48(3-4):127–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2005.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walls MR (2005) Measuring and utilizing corporate risk tolerance to improve investment decision making. Eng Econ 50(4):361–376.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00137910500348434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations