Optimum Blasting ?

Is it minimum cost per broken rock or maximum value per broken rock
Sarma S Kanchibotla Senior Technical Consultant DynoConsult, Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited

ABSTRACT
In most mining operations the ore undergoes several processes such as drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, crushing, grinding and liberation to become the final salable product. Drilling and blasting is an important step in this process chain and its results such as fragmentation, muckpile shape and looseness, dilu tion, damage and rock softening effect the efficiency of downstream processes. The value created per ton of broken ore is the difference between the price it commands when sold as the final product and the costs to produce it. Traditionally, the total process in the mining industry is classified into two groups as mining and milling. These are managed as separate cost centres inspite of the interdependency. Each process has a budget and production target and emphasis is usually on maximising production (tons) and minimising cost rather than the overall profitability of the whole business unit. The efficiency of each process is considered to be satisfactory as long as they are within budget and meet the production targets. The mine and mill managers usually try to optimise each process independently rather than the entire process. This paper discusses the potential pitfalls of decreasing the drilling and blasting cost per ton of broken rock without considering its impact on downstream process. It introduces a holistic approach to blast optimisation by identifying and measuring the leverage that blast results have on different downstream processes and then optimising the blast design to achieve the results that maximise the overall profitability rather than just minimizing the drilling and blasting costs. This paper demonstrates the benefits of such a holistic approach to blasting based on computer model simulations and field studies from metal and opencut coal mining.

INTRODUCTION
The core process in any mining operation involves the comminution and separation of the in-situ ore from the waste rock and its conversion it into a final valuable product such as washed coal or metal. In some cases an intermediate product such as concentrate may be sold as the final product instead of the metal. Blasting is usually the first step in that process and its results influence the efficiency of subsequent comminution and separation processes to varying degrees. However, the mineral industry has traditionally classified the process into two groups, mining

and milling. Each group is further divided into several sub-processes such as drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, crushing, grinding and liberation. Each sub-process is managed as a separate cost center. They have a cost and production budget and the management emphasis is on achieving and/or maximising the production (tons) budget with minimum cost. Communication between different groups is often limited to make sure that each sub-process meets the production requirement of the immediate downstream process. The efficiency of each subprocess is considered to be satisfactory as long as they are within budget and meet the production targets. Usually in such a system there is little incentive to understand the impact of one sub-process over other downstream processes and to improve the profitability of whole business unit. In this traditional approach blasting is viewed as a sub-process in mining and its main objective is to fracture the in-situ rock mass and prepare it for efficient digging and hauling. Hence, blasting results are often evaluated and optimised based on the needs of it subsequent mining operations such as loading, hauling while maintaining pit slope stability and safety standards. B last results are considered good when it ensures good digging and loading operations while maintaining the safety and environmental standards. That is why we often use graphs such as shown in Figure 1 to estimate the optimum blasting effort (McKenzie 1965, Dinis da Gama 1990 and Eloranta 1995).

Total mining cost

Optimum $/t Hauling cost Blasting cost Digging cost

Blasting effort $/t

Figure 1. Optimum blasting with traditional approach It can be seen from Figure 1, as the blasting effort increases the digging and hauling costs decrease so the optimum blasting effort is where the total costs (blasting + digging + hauling) are a minimum. Such an approach is probably true for operations where the sole objective is to transfer in-situ material from one place to other. In operations where blast results affect throughput, recovery and price of the final product such an approach may not lead to optimum.

WHAT IS OPTIMUM BLASTING ?

The core objective of any business is to maximise the rate of return on its investment, or in simple terms maximise profitablity. In the mineral industry the profit earned per ton of broken ore is the difference between the price it commands when sold as final product and the costs to produce it. The total profit can be estimated as: Profit Where, Revenue Unit value Operating cost Unit operating cost Fixed cost = = = = = Unit value x Throughput (Grade x Recovery x Unit price) / (1 + Dilution) Unit operating cost x Throughput Unit cost of (Drilling + Blasting + Loading + hauling + Crushing + Grinding + Liberation) Cost of capital and overheads = Revenue Operating cost Fixed cost (1)

Depending on the nature of the operation, blast results can have a varying degree of influence on both the revenues and costs of an operation. In this paper the author introduces an approach wherein the influence of blast results on: processing costs (crushing, grinding and liberation) throughput and price (revenues and operating costs) profit

is taken into account to determine the optimum blasting effort (Figure 2).

$/ton

Drill & blast cost Load & haul cost Processing cost Operation cost Total cost

$/ton

Throughput Fixed cost

Blasting effort $/t

Figure 2. Influence of blasting effort on costs

Profitability of an operation can be improved either by increasing the revenues or by decreasing the costs or both. Cost has two components: 1. Operating costs or variable cost 2. Fixed cost. Operating or variables costs such as explosives, drill bits, fuel, flotation chemicals etc are a function of throughput. However, cost of capital equipment and some forms of labor are fixed irrespective of throughput. For example, the finance cost to procure the capital equipment like shovels and sag mills will remain the same whether the production is below rated capacity or above rated capacity. The work done by the author and other researchers have shown that downstream process efficiency (especially crushing and grinding) is influenced by the blasting effort (Kanchibotla et. al. 1998, Kojovic et. al. 1998, Floyd 1998, Simkus and Dance 1998, Scott et. al. 1999, Nielsen 1999 and Grundstrom et. al. 2001). Usually crushing and grinding costs decrease with increase in blasting effort. Similarly for a given capital investment (or equipment) the throughput increases with increased blasting effort up to a point, beyond which additional capital is required for a further increase in throughput. Therefore, unit fixed cost decreases with increasing blasting effort to a certain extent and then flattens out (Figure 2). The unit total cost is the sum of unit operation (or variable) cost and unit fixed cost. As depicted in Figure 2, the blasting effort necessary to achieve minimum unit operating cost may not necessarily re sult in minimum unit total cost. Even the blasting effort that results in lowest unit total cost may not be optimum because, the revenue component of profitability equation (1) is not considered. The influence of blasting effort on the revenue side of the profitability equation for different scenarios in the mineral industry is shown by a set of hypothetical graphs in Figure 3. Figure 3a represents a scenario where the price / final product value is not influenced by the blasting effort (eg: precious and base metals) therefore, revenue can be increased only by increasing the throughput. The optimum blasting effort in such a scenario falls in the zone where the throughput reaches the maximum with minimum total costs. It may not necessarily be the one that achieves only minimum total costs. Figure 3b represents a scenario where the price / value of the final salable product is affected by the blasting effort. For example in iron ore industry the lump iron ore commands a premium over fines and generally higher blasting effort increases fines (Kojovic et. al. 1998). Similarly in coal blasting and in aggregate mining the final product value is a function of size distribution, which is influenced by the blasting effort.

$/ton
+ve 0 -ve

$/ton
Optimum +ve Optimum 0 -ve

Blasting effort

Blasting effort

a)

b)
Throughput Price / value

$/ton
+ve 0 -ve

Optimum

Revenue Total cost Profit / loss

Blasting effort

c)
Figure 3. Influence of blasting effort on profitability In this scenario the total revenue is a function of the final product price / value and the throughput. That is why the shape of the revenue graph in this scenario (Figure 3b) is different to the revenue graph shown in Figure 3a. In this scenario maximum revenues are usually achieved in a zone where the final product value / price is relatively high and throughput starts ramping up. The optimum blasting effort in this scenario falls in the zone where the difference between the revenues and costs is maximum and positive. Figure 3c represents the scenario where the price of the final product is constant but the recovery or the throughput of the final product increases with increased blasting effort up to a certain extent and then drops with further increase in blasting effort. For example in heap leaching operations the recovery of the final product increases with improved fragmentation (or blasting effort) up to a certain point, and then any further improvement in fragmentation (excessive fines) can lead to lower recoveries. Similarly in open pit coal mines the higher blasting effort used in cast blasting decreases the amount of material handled by the draglines and heavy earth moving equipment but reduces the final coal recovery. In such scenarios there is a zone of blasting effort where the recoveries (or revenues) can be maximised with minimum costs. However the optimum blasting effort should be the zone where the difference between the revenues and costs are maximum and positive. In the past five to six years, several field studies and mathematical simulations were conducted by the author and other researchers to investigate the impact of blasting effort on the overall profitability of mining operations (Kanchibotla et. al. 1998, Kojovic et. al. 1998, Kanchibotla et. al. 1999 and Grundstrom et. al. 2001). The following section uses a couple of these studies as examples to demonstrate the potential benefits of leveraging the blasting effort to increase the overall profita bility rather than just minimising the drilling and blasting cost per ton of broken rock.

EXAMPLES
Example 1: Gold mining In gold and copper mines the in-situ ore is subjected to blasting, crushing and grinding to reduce it to an appropriate size for subsequent beneficiation stages such as flotation and leaching. ROM fragmentation for increasing the mill throughput should contain as many fines (< 10mm) as possible with minimum top size. The data for this example is taken from a recent study conducted by the DynoConsult. ROM fragmentation was estimated for three blast designs (current practice, design 1 and 2 are alternate suggestions) using the blast fragmentation model developed by the author (Kanchibotla et. al. 1998 and Kanchibotla et. al. 2000). The blast design parameters used for the simulations are given in Table 1. Table 1. Blast design parameters Current 200 10 5.5 6.5 11.0 216 5.3 1.0 Titan 4070 1.20 5100 80 0.22 100 0.18 Design 1 229 10 4.5 5.5 10.5 272 5.0 0.5 Titan 4070 1.20 5100 80 0.4 100 0.29 Design 2 229 10 4.5 5.5 10.5 310 4.5 0.5 Titan 6080 1.25 6000 80 0.51 150 0.44

Hole diameter (mm) Bench height (m) Burden (m) Spacing (m) Hole depth (m) Explosive (kg) Stemming height (m) Sub drilling (m) Explosive Density (g/cc) VOD (m/s) RWS Powder factor (kg/t) Cost of explosives (relative) Drilling and blasting cost ($/t)

The ROM estimates from the three designs were used in the crusher and SAG mill models developed by the Julius Kruschnitt Mineral Research Center (JKMRC) to estimate the mill throughput (Table 2).

Table 2. Model estimates ROM estimate Top size m Oversize % (+600mm) Fines % (-10mm) Mill throughput tph % Increase Current 1.5 6 9 673 Design 1 1.0 1.0 15 764 14 Design 2 0.5 0 24 791 18

The simulations suggest that design 2 and design 3 increases the mill throughput by 14% and 18% respectively compared to the current design. One of the reasons for this increase is due to additional fines ( -10mm) in the ROM generated by the new designs. In design 3, a high shock energy explosive was used to further increase the fines. Fines are essentially free grind material to the mill. The reduction in oversize material in designs 2 and design 3 improves the crusher performance by reducing the crusher blockages and by drawing consistent power. It also allows the crusher to run with a smaller gap thus producing a finer mill feed. The results from Table 2 are used in a financial model to investigate the impact of blast design changes on profitability (Ta ble 3). Table 3. Financial simulations Current 0.18 0.85 0.2 1.23 2.5 670 3.73 3.73 7.46 10% 3.0 80% $37,216,597 $87,497,574 $ 50,280,977 Design 1 Design 2 0.29 0.44 0.83 0.83 0.2 0.6 1.32 1.87 2.19 1.86 764 791 14% 18% 3.52 3.73 3.27 3.16 6.79 6.89 13% 9.0% 3.0 3.0 80% 80.5% $38,604,587 $40,574,684 $97,099,077 $104,845,573 $ 58,494,491 $ 64,270,889 $ 8,213,514 $ 13,989,913

Drilling and blasting ($/t) Loading and hauling ($/t ) Grade control ($/t ) Mining ($/t ) Milling ($/t ) Throughput (tph) % increase Operating cost ($/t ) Fixed + capital cost ($/t ) Total cost ($/t ) Dilution Grade g/t Recovery Total costs / annum Revenue / annum Profit /annum Increase in profits

The financial simulations used indicative costs and the following assumptions: 1. Grinding circuit is the bottleneck in this operation. 2. Flotation and leaching facilities can handle the additional throughput from the grinding circuit. 3. No additional capital equipment is required to mine the extra ROM ore. 4. The finer ROM (especially the coarse end) in designs 1 and 2 is assumed to reduce the loading and hauling costs by a conservative estimate of 2%. 5. High energy in design 1 increases dilution by 3% from the current 10%. 6. Improved grade control practices were introduced in design 2 resulting in 200% increase in grade control costs but reduced dilution to 9%. 7. The high shock energy in blast design 2 produces intense micro -cracking in post blast fragments. This additional micro-fracturing, low dilution and consistent feed to the mill improves the recovery by 0.5% from the standard 80%. 8. The ratio of fixed plus overhead cost to variable operating costs is assumed as 50:50. 9. No additional capital investment or overheads are required for the additional throughput achie ved in designs 1 and 2. 10. The head grade is 3 g/ton and the price is $US250 per ounce. 11. Annual figures are estimated based on 85% availability of the mill. The simulations indicate that the changed blasting practices and grade control procedures in design 1 and deign 2 increased the drilling, blasting and mining costs. However these new procedures reduced the unit milling cost and increased revenues due to higher throughput and better recoveries. The result is increase in profits. These simulations demonstrate that minimisation of drilling and blasting cost without considering its impact on downstream processes is not optimal. To achieve the optimum solution, it is necessary to understand the impact of one sub-process over others. Costs for some sub-processes may need to be increased to reduce the overall costs and to increase revenues. The simulations also show that a simple cost minimisation approach may still not result in an optimal solution unless it considers the impact on revenues. For example, design 1 in the simulations has least unit operating cost but does not result in maximum profits. The processes used in design 2 may have increased costs but also achieve higher throughput and recoveries resulting in increased revenues and profits. The traditional optimisation approach does not offer any incentive for any sub-process to increase its cost in order to improve the overall profitability. A holistic approach is necessary, wherein each sub-process is optimised by carefully considering its impact on all downstream process and the overall profitability. Example 2: Openpit coal mine with cast blasting Cast blasts in openpit coal mines are usually designed with relatively high powder factors to cast or displace a significant portion of overburden over to low wall and

into the final spoil location. The extra explosive energy used in a cast blast increases the risk of damaging the underlying coal seam (Figure 4). This damage may lead to a reduction in coal recovery and may negate the benefit derived from casting the waste.

Figure 4. Coal loss and damage due to overburden blasting A field study was conducted at the Mount Thorley Mine in the Hunter Valley region in Australia to reduce coal damage resulted from cast blasting as a part of Australian Coal Association Research Program (Kanchibotla et. al. 1999). Observed Practice Cast blasting with powder factors of 0.7 to 0.75 kg/m3 was routinely used in this th mine. The stand-off distance was 1 m and every 5 hole in the pattern was drilled to coal. The observed designs resulted in roof damage up to 1 to 1.5 m and in some cases also resulted in coal edge movement up to 5 to 10 m into the low wall. Trial blasts Three trial blasts were monitored during the field study. In these trials, the standoff distance was increased to 2m and the coal edge was buffered. The test blasts were filmed using a high speed video camera to observe the coal edge movement. The roof and the edge of the seam were surveyed to estimate the roof losses and coal edge movement. The survey results are compared with the results from the corresponding area of the previous strip (Figure 5 and 6).

1386500

1386500

Pre-blast coal edge

Pre-blast coal edge

Post-blast coal edge

RL
1386200 1386200 14 10 6 4 0 -4 -8 1385900 307250 1385900 307300

307300

307400

307400

Strip 16s

Strip 15s

Figure 5. Contours of coal roof in strips 16s (trial blasts) and 15s

16s Thickness

15s

Section 1386100

Section 1386400
Thickness 16s 15s

Section 1386490
16s Thickness 15s Toe Coal loss

Figure 6. Roof loss and toe in trial blasts strips 16s and 15s Figure 5 shows that the pre-blast coal edge in the test strip (16s) is almost in line with the post-blast coal edge whereas for strip 15s the coal edge has moved between 5m and 10m. The highspeed photography analysis and the visual observation of the low wall also confirmed these results (Kanchibotla and Scott 2000). The new practices introduced in strip16s did not effect the fragmentation (hence dragline digging) and the muckpile profile (hence casting percentage). In fact the reduced coal edge movement observed in strip16s should have resulted in lower rehandle of waste material because chasing coal edge movement increases the amount of waste handled by the draglines (Kanchibotla et. al. 1999). However, in this study the effect of coal edge movement on draglines waste handling was not considered. The comparison of exposed coal seam sections in Figure 6 shows that the design modifications in strip 16s has less loss compared to strip 15s but has more toe and needs additional clean up. If the toe is not cleaned it will result as dilution. The mines internal audit reported that strip 16s yielded 4.1% extra run of mine to in-situ coal recovery compared to strip 15s. The test blasts cover only 20% of the total strip length. Assuming that the same recovery was achieved over the entire strip, the extra tons of coal recovered in this strip would be approximately 78,000 tons.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Coal Loss Due to Overburden Blasting Costs The additional stand off in the test strip left about 5,100 m3 of extra stone (dilution) compared to the standard practice and needed additional clean up with a dozer. The additional cost for ripping and dozing the stone is assumed to be approximately $0.50/m3. Therefore the additional cost of ripping and dozing to remove the stone for the entire strip is estimated to be $12,750 (ie. 5100 x 0.5 x 5). The higher standoff (2m) in the modified designs reduces drilling and explosive consumption by approximately 3000 m and 150 tons respectively for the strip 16. At a drilling cost of $4/m and an explosive cost of $400/ton it would result in savings of $75,000. The volume of dirt required to buffer the entire coal edge in this strip would be about 240,000 m3. At Mount Thorley the pre -strip dirt can be dumped over the high wall directly buffering the coal edge, thus reducing the haulage distance for the truck and shovel pre strip operation. Therefore, it does not cost any extra dollars to buffer the coal edge but it does require careful planning and scheduling. However, in some mines the placement of the buffer may involve additional cost. If the mine has to spend $1.50 per m 3 to buffer the coal edge, the cost of buffering will be $360,000. The variance in cost for modified designs will be: Additional costs of cleanup and placement of buffer minus savings in drill and blast due to increased standoff distance. At Mount Thorley it is -$62,250 ($12,750 $75,000). For mines where buffering costs are extra it is $297,750 ($12,750 $75,000 + $360,000).

Revenues The value of coal that would have been lost otherwise is assumed to be $20/ton. Based on this assumption, the additional revenue achieved in this strip due to reduced coal losses would be approximately $1,560,000 (78,000 x $20). However, this revenue depends on the quality of the coal and its price. Profits The additional profits from the modified practices will be: For Mount Thorley For mines with additional buffering costs $1,622,250 ($1,560,000 + $62,250) $1,262,250 ($1,560,000-$297,750)

The results from these trials clearly indicate that even in mines where coal edge buffering costs extra it is recommended due to increased revenues.

Buffering of coal edge reduces the total volume of void which in turn increases the rehandle as the % cast to final void is reduced. Rehandle volumes due to this loss of void has not been included in this calculation. However, even if the rehandle cost is $0.75/bcm and volume is at least equal to buffering volume, the cost is $180,000. It is still cheaper to buffer than to lose the coal.

CONCLUSIONS
The traditional approach to blast optimisation focuses on minimising the cost per ton of broken rock and ignores the impact of blast results on downstream processes such as crushing and grinding and the value of the final product. The examples described in this paper demonstrate that such an approach to blast optimisation may not result in maximization of profits which is the main aim of any business. To achieve the optimum solution, it is necessary to understand the impact of one sub-process over others. Costs for some sub-processes need to be increased to reduce the overall costs and to increase revenues. The study also demonstrated that purely minimising operating costs does not result in optimum solution unless the impact on unit fixed costs and revenues are considered. In the traditional approach there is no incentive for any sub-process to increase its unit cost in order to improve the overall profitability. That is why a holistic approach is required, where each sub-process is optimised by carefully considering its impact on all downstream processes and the overall profitability. This paper emphasises a holistic approach to optimising blasting effort wherein the focus is on maximising profitability rather than minimising the unit cost of blasting. The examples used in the paper clearly demonstrated the potential benefits of such an approach.

REFERENCES
Dinis da Gama, C. (1990), Reduction of cost and environmental impacts iin quarry rock blasting, Proc. 3rd Intl. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation and Blasting. Brisbane. Eloranta, J. (1995), Selection of powder factor in large diameter blastholes, EXPLO 95 Conference, AusIMM, Brisbane, September, PP 25-28. Floyd J. (1998), Improving low -grade ore recovery with the use of efficient blasting techniques, Proc. Mine to Mill Conf., Brisbane. Grundstrom C, Kanchibotla S S, Jankovich A and Thornton D (2001), Blast Fragmentation for Maximising the Sag Mill Throughput at Porgera Gold Mine, Proc. 28th ISEE Conf, Orlando.

Kanchibotla, S. S., 1999. Coal loss due to cast blasting Implications on mine economics, Proc. 25th Annual Conf. on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Nashville . Kanchibotla S.S., Morrell, S., Valery W., and OLoughlin P. (1998), Exploring the effect of blast design on sag mill throughput at KCGM, Proc. Mine to Mill Conf., Brisbane. Kanchibotla S.S., Valery W. and Morrell, S. (1998), Modelling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing and grinding, Proc. Explo-99 Conf. Kalgoorlie, Nov. Kanchibotla S.S., Cocker A., and Scott A. (1999), Understanding and controlling coal damage during cast blasting, ACARP C5005 project final report. Kanchibotla S.S. and Scott A. (2000), A study on the influence of buffering on coal edge losses from cast blasting, Int. J. Surface Mining and Reclamation. Kojovic T., Kanchibotla S.S., Poetschka N., and Chapman J., (1998), The effect of blast design on the lump -to-fine ratio at Marandoo iron ore operations, Proc. Mine to Mill Conf., Brisbane. MacKenzie, A.S. (1965), Cost of explosives do you evaluate it properly ?, Proc. American Mining Congress, Las Vegas, Nevada. Nielsen K. (1999), The economic consequences of drill hole deviation in crushed aggregate production, Proc. Explo-99 Conf. Kalgoorlie, Nov. Scott A., Kanchibotla S.S. and Morrell S. (1999), Blasting for Mine to Mill Optimisation, Proc. Explo-99 Conf. Kalgoorlie, Nov. Simkus R., and Dance A., (1998), Tracking hardness and size: Measuring and monitoring ROM ore properties at Highland valley copper, Proc. Mine to Mill Conf., Brisbane.