Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Mine operating costs and the potential impacts of energy and grinding
James A. Curry, Mansel J.L. Ismay, Graeme J. Jameson
Centre for Multiphase Processes, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 May 2013
Accepted 22 October 2013
Available online 27 November 2013
Keywords:
Mine operating cost
Mining
Milling
Flotation
Cost breakdown

a b s t r a c t
An understanding of the breakdown of mine costs is an important tool for researchers and developers
who seek to place novel cost-reducing unit operations in the wider general cost context. This paper provides a breakdown of operating costs in 63 mines by dividing them into three main categories: mining,
milling, and general and administrative (G & A) costs. The study looks at patterns in mining type, mill
processing type, mineral type, and the differences between costs expressed in feasibility studies vs. operating mines. The paper explores the reasons for the relationships observed and then presents a total average mine cost breakdown. It was found that the mean relative mining and milling costs did not differ
signicantly, and that on average they had equal shares of the total enterprise operating costs. Effects
of mine and mineral type were observed, with underground milling costs being signicantly less than
open pit milling costs and gold mines occupying a signicantly larger share of mine operating costs than
copper-containing mines. The overall relative operating costs were found to be in the ratios between
(43:43:14) and (45:45:10) (Mine:Mill:G & A). A treatment of potential unit operations and innovative
technologies is provided at the conclusion of the paper, including coarse particle recovery by otation
and novel grinding technologies.
2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Overall distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Mine type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Processing type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.
Ore type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.
Effect of report type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.
Effect of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.
Other effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential cost savings measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A.
List of mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B.
Studied mine reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction
Technological innovation has played an historically important
role in improving the commercial viability of mining operations
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4921 6181; fax: +61 2 4960 1445.
E-mail address: Graeme.Jameson@newcastle.edu.au (G.J. Jameson).
0892-6875/$ - see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.10.020

70
71
71
71
72
72
73
74
74
74
74
75
75
76
77
78
80

through reductions in operating costs. Operating costs of a mining

enterprise are distributed across three broad areas Mining, Milling (or processing), and General and Administration (G & A). The
former two constitute the chief technical operating costs of a given
mining project, in which the operating costs are characterised by
equipment operation and maintenance, electricity and fuel use,
chemicals and technical personnel. General and Administration

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

71

Nomenclature
P80

80% passing size (lm)

costs are concerned with management of personnel, legal and

accounting costs, and logistics in addition to other miscellaneous
non-technical expenses.
It is important for researchers and technology developers to
identify the average relative distribution of these costs in a mine
in order to place their own developments in the wider context of
the total enterprise. There is very little work in the literature that
examines the distribution of costs across a series of mining operations. It may be expected that common trends in the distribution of
costs may be unlikely due to the unique nature of each operation,
when factors are considered such as the mineral type, head grades,
ore competency, local regulations and a range of additional technical and non-technical factors that determine ongoing costs. In a
review of mine costs and sizes for base metals such as copper
and zinc, Crowson (2003) found that the costs of production per
tonne of metal produced decreased with mine size, and was highly
dependent on ore grade and the technology available for processing. Moreover, Crowson identied these impacts on mine cost as
themselves being sensitive to variable rates of metal recovery,
managerial competence, and national economic conditions. Crowson (2012), in a study of copper mining operations, also observed
that the effect of head grade on project costs is further exacerbated
by the typical decrease over the lifetime of a mine.
Costa Lima and Suslick (2006) noted that a number of factors
that inuence the balance of costs on a mine project, such as taxation legislation and commodity prices, tend to vary over the duration of these lengthy projects. These variations contribute to the
project volatility, which tends to be higher than the commodity
price volatility. Crowson (2012) also noted the susceptibility of
long-term projects to changes in the composition of the mined
rock, and commodity price uctuations. Given these signicant
inuences, it could be expected that the distribution of costs
among the three major headings for a given project, may vary
throughout its lifetime, as throughputs change in response to
internal and external factors. Alternatively, if Mining and Milling
costs are equally affected by changes in internal and external circumstances, alterations in the cost distribution may be
insignicant.
The case for commonalities in the distribution of operating
costs might rst appear premature due to the combination of
factors that can inuence the viability and cost structure of a typical mining project. Despite this, some of the most signicant operating costs are common to most metal mining operations. Energy
costs typically comprise one of the largest ongoing costs of mining
operations, of which 70% is devoted to the comminution of the ore
(Norgate and Jahanshahi, 2010). Furthermore, the most signicant
energy cost occurs in the grinding circuit of the Milling section,
where up to 97% of the energy cost is incurred (Ballantyne et al.,
2012). Indeed, the area of comminution, and particularly grinding,
are agged as areas where signicant savings can be made in mineral processing circuits (Evans et al., 2009). If energy costs contribute such a signicant proportion to the ongoing expenses of a
mining operation, then it is likely that the distribution of costs is
more sensitive to these costs and less so to other external and
internal factors already discussed.
Energy costs related to comminution are closely related to head
grade, grind size and mineral type, both of which have in recent
times shown common trends across mining projects globally. In

his study of copper mining trends, Crowson (2012) showed that

the typical head grade of copper deposits in the previous 50 years
varied on average between 0.2% and 1%, while Norgate and Jahanshahi (2010) noted that the general trend for metal ores has been
towards lower grades, predicting a uniform average copper grade
of 0.7% by 2030 and a reduction in nal grind size (P80) from
75 lm to 5 lm during the same period. Given the broad range of
data employed by Crowson (2012) and the substantial increase
in operating costs associated with energy use in grinding over
the next two decades, it is clear that energy costs in mineral processing and mining in general will have a strong inuence on the
distribution of operating expenses across mine sites.
It is important for developers of innovative technologies in the
mining industry to be able to place potential savings in individual
processes or operations within the wider context of the total enterprise. The objective of this study is to investigate the relative distribution of costs in mining operations apportioned to Mining,
Milling, and G & A, using data from the literature. Where possible,
the factors potentially inuencing the overall distribution have
been taken into account, including the effects of ore types, processing type, mine type (e.g. underground vs. open pit), and report type
(e.g. feasibility study vs. study of operating mines).
2. Methodology
2.1. Sample
Data have been collected from 63 publicly available technical
reports relating to mine operations throughout the globe. The
majority of the reports have been written under the National
Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects for
public disclosure of mineral property information in Canada. A
limited number of the reports have been taken from public marketing releases from companies. Two reports (La Parilla, Mexico
and the Osborne Copper/Gold project, Australia) have divided
their open pit and underground operations into separate cost distributions, and were for the purposes of this report treated as
separate cases.
Enterprise operating costs have been divided into Mining, Milling, and G & A in this paper. Royalties, cost of transport and
smelting, and other site specic costs are not included in the scope
of this paper. Denitions of the inclusion criteria for each category
are shown in Table 1. A summary table of each report and key data
can be found in Appendix A.
2.2. Data analysis
The raw operating costs for each category (Mining, Milling, G &
A) were summed and converted to percentages of the total. The
resulting percentages were dened as relative costs. The relative
costs were analysed on the basis of their distribution; mean and
median values, range, and the 95% condence interval of the mean.
Matched-pair t-tests were performed on within-subjects data sets
(i.e. overall Mining vs. Milling costs). Overall costs were evaluated
on a life-of-mine (LOM) average basis as reported.
Relative mine costs were then divided into groups according to
a number of criteria. Data were grouped according to mine type
(open pit vs. underground), processing type (otation vs. no ota-

72

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Table 1
Costs included in each category.
Category

Costs

Mining
Milling

Drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, equipment maintenance and repair, mine overheads, mine specic labour requirements
Power, grinding media and mill linings, consumables, reagents, equipment maintenance and repair, maintenance materials, milling
specic labour, milling overheads
Management costs, stafng for human resources, environment, health and safety, training, communications, community relations, camp
and catering, mobile equipment, insurance

General and Administration

(G & A)

tion), ore type (all copper, and gold but no copper) and report type
(feasibility vs. preliminary vs. operating). Of course, within each
group, the allocation to Mine, Mill and G & A costs could be inuenced by one or more factors within other groups, and there is
insufcient data to test all interaction effects. With the data available, multivariate between-subjects ANOVAs were performed on
the data containing more than two groups using Type III sumsof-squares to account for variable sub-sample sizes. For categories
in which there were only two groups for comparison, for example,
processing type or ore type, independent-samples t-tests were
undertaken. Sub-samples of a minimum of nine data points, i.e.
mine sites, were compared, with groupings containing fewer data
points excluded from the analysis. Using this minimum sample
size criterion, analyses by mine location were excluded. Factorial
analyses were also excluded on the basis that combined groupings
produced sub-sample sizes that were too small to yield reliable
inferences concerning interaction effects.
Reports were dened as containing open pit or underground as
stated. Mines that contained a single set of operating costs for both
underground and open pit mines were dened as both (i.e. containing both underground and open pit). Reports in which underground and open pit operations were given two separate sets of
operating costs were treated as separate installations. Operations
containing otation at some point in the processing were classied
as otation, whereas operations containing no otation were classied as no otation. The aforementioned information was obtained from process owsheets, or otherwise explicitly stated in
the body of the report.
Ore type was dened by the target elements for saleable production. Reports were divided into preliminary, feasibility and
operating depending upon the status of the project. Pre-feasibility
and preliminary economic reports were classied as preliminary.
Reports that explicitly stated they were feasibility studies were
classied as feasibility. Reports were classied as operating if
they were based on currently operating mines, as stated in the
report.
The annual change in operating costs over the LOM was analysed on a case-by case-basis for those mine reports that included
them. Selected data sets were correlated to determine if the change
in relative costs varied signicantly from zero for the LOM.

Fig. 1. Boxplots indicating distribution of Mining, Milling and G & A. Solid and
dotted lines represent the median and mean respectively.

Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of relative mine cost data.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overall distribution
A summary of the overall distribution of costs across the sample
can be seen in Table 2. Mean Mining and Milling costs were similar

Table 2
Summary of descriptive statistics for overall relative mine cost distribution (N = 65).

Mine
Mill
G&A

Mean (%)

Median (%)

Range (%)

95% Condence interval

43.2
43.5
13.3

43.1
43.7
11.0

57.9
60.3
39.3

3.4
3.8
2.2

Fig. 3. Frequency histogram of relative mill cost data.

73

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Fig. 4. Frequency histogram of relative G & A cost data.

Table 3
Summary of descriptive statistics for overall relative mine cost distribution with
outliers removed (N = 61).

Mine
Mill
General and
Administration (G & A)

Mean
(%)

Median
(%)

Range
(%)

95% Condence
interval

43.3
45.0
11.7

43.6
45.2
10.9

57.9
55.4
26.4

3.7
3.7
1.7

(43.2 3.4% and 43.5 3.8% respectively), whereas G & A costs

were lower (13.3 2.2%). Furthermore, the median Mining and
Milling costs differed only 0.1% and 0.2% respectively from the
means, suggesting minimal outlier inuence. The G & A median,
however, differed 2.3% from the mean and possessed a smaller
range compared to the Mining and Milling costs, suggesting the
inuence of outliers.
A convenient way of representing the statistical distribution of
a data set is in terms of a box plot, similar to that shown in Fig. 1.
The bar near the centre of the box represents the median value,
while the upper and lower extremes of the box represent the upper
and lower quartiles. The tee-bars represent the upper and lower
bounds. Dotted lines have been included to show the position of
the mean. A boxplot comparison of the three categories is shown
in Fig. 1, where it can be seen that the boxes for both the Mining
and Milling costs occupy very similar spaces, and the G & A costs
appeared to be inuenced by the presence of outliers. The Mining
and Milling costs contained considerable overlap, with a matchedpair t-test conrming that they were not signicantly different
(p = 0.94). A comparison of the distributions of each category is
provided in Figs. 24. The Mine and Mill cost distributions were

Table 4
Summary of data by mining type (N = 61).
n

Mean (%)

Median (%)

95% Condence Interval

Mine
Both
Open pit
Underground

11
41
9

47.9
40.3
51.5

47.7
42.3
55.6

5.9
4.6
11.4

Mill
Both
Open pit
Underground

11
41
9

39.3
48.9
34.1

39.0
49.5
35.1

6.6
4.6
8.3

General and Administration

Both
11
12.8
Open pit
41
10.8
Underground
9
14.4

11.7
9.5
14.6

4.9
1.9
5.5

similar, centred at 4050% (relative cost) with similar spreads.

The G & A data was positively skewed, conrming the boxplot
and the data revealed in Table 2.
A second analysis was performed on adjusted data with four
outliers removed, the results of which can be seen in Table 3. As
can be seen, the mean Milling cost as a proportion of total mine
cost increased, with a lesser increase in the mining cost. The most
noticeable difference was the decrease in the proportion of total
cost apportioned to G & A, which was reduced to 11.7%, which
brought it closer to the median value of 10.9%. A matched pairs
t-test on the adjusted data conrmed that the Mining and Milling
proportions of total costs were not signicantly different (p = 0.65).
All subsequent analyses in this paper were performed with the adjusted data.
Some general conclusions can be drawn from the data on the
overall distribution of costs. On average, the proportion of total
mine costs occupied by Mining and Milling sections appear to be
approximately equal. The removal of outliers had no signicant effect on the differences between the means, the difference was not
statistically signicant. The plots in Fig. 1 indicate the existence of
extreme values at the lower and upper ends of the Mining and
Milling distributions (respectively) as being likely to have
contributed to the small difference in mean for the two categories.
A second broad conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that,
on average, G & A costs are much lower than Mining and Milling
costs. The distribution of the G & A costs was positively skewed,
with signicant clustering around the mean.

3.2. Mine type

The operating costs of the adjusted data were divided into three
categories by mine type, which can be seen in Table 4. Most notably, the cost apportioned to the mine operations was notably higher for underground (51.1 11.4%) than for open pit (40.3 4.6%),
with mines employing both techniques in between (47.9 5.9%).
The median values shown in Table 4 suggest the inuence of outliers at the lower end, particularly for the underground mining
operations.
The mean relative Milling cost for open pit mines (48.9 4.6%)
was larger than both the underground operations (34.1 8.3%)
and those incorporating both underground and open pit
(39.3 6.6%). Median values shown in Table 4 suggest that the
Milling values were less sensitive to outliers than the mean Mining
cost values. The spread of costs for G & A were similar to those for
Mining, with the underground being the largest (14.4 5.5%), the
open pit the lowest (10.8 1.9%) and mines employing both mining techniques in between (12.8 4.9%).
A multivariate ANOVA revealed a signicant mean difference
for the Milling costs, which existed between the open pit and
underground Milling costs only (Tukeys HSD, p = 0.01). No other
signicance mean differences were found for the effect of mine
type.
Table 5
Summary of data by processing type (N = 61).
n

Mean (%)

Median (%)

95% Condence interval

Mine
Flotation
No otation

37
24

41.6
46.0

42.3
51.5

4.3
6.8

Mill
Flotation
No otation

37
24

46.3
43.0

47.5
40.0

4.5
6.8

General and Administration

Flotation
37
12.1
No otation
24
11.0

10.6
11.3

2.4
2.3

74

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Since the signicant differences observed by mine type did not

control for additional factors (such as processing type, etc.), no
denitive conclusion can be drawn as to the nature of the effect.
It may be reasonably speculated, however, that the signicant effect observed for Milling may be a combination of cost factors,
including the higher cost of underground mines compared to open
pit, and the nature of the ore body. Underground mines tend to incur greater mining costs than open pit, owing to the comparative
technical complexity of the underground mine and hazard mitigation. In addition, underground mines tend to target higher grade
deposits, whereas open pit mines are prevalent with nely disseminated large ore bodies. In the case of underground mines, a larger
proportion of operating costs may therefore by occupied by the
mine and general and administrative categories. Open pit operations, by contrast, focus on lower grade ores that generate a significant amount of waste, placing additional burdens on the mill. It
can therefore be conjectured that the greater amount of waste
material to be separated from valuable materials in open pit operations contributes to the signicant difference observed in Milling
costs between open pit and underground mining operations,
although this would require further examination to be conclusively
determined.

Table 7
Summary of data by report type (N = 61).

3.3. Processing type

3.5. Effect of report type

The relative operating costs of mines were divided into those

that incorporated otation as a separation technique and those
that did not. A summary of the data is provided in Table 5. Mines
employing otation tended to have lower relative Mining costs
(41.6 4.3%) and higher relative Milling costs (46.3 4.5%) than
those that did not (46.0 6.8% and 43.0 6.8%). G & A costs were
higher on average for mines utilising otation (12.1 2.4%) than
those that did not (11.0 2.3%). Independent samples t-tests revealed no signicant differences between in the mean relative
mine, Mill or G & A costs of otation and non-otation mines
(p  0.05 for all cases).

The adjusted data were compared on the basis of report type to

examine any systematic bias that may be present. Reports were divided into feasibility, preliminary assessment and reports of operating mines. A summary of the data can be seen in Table 7.
Relative Mining costs were larger amongst the preliminary
(45.9 7.4%) and operating (43.2 6.1%) mine reports compared
with the feasibility reports (41.2 6.6%). Conversely, feasibility reports tended to have the highest estimates of relative Milling cost
(47.4 6.1%) compared to preliminary (45.2 7.6%) and operating
(43.1 6.5%) mine reports. It is noteworthy that the mean relative
Mine and Mill costs for the preliminary and operating mine reports
were of a similar magnitude to the overall and adjusted data presented in Tables 2 and 3. The relative G & A costs of the operating
mines were the highest (13.7 2.5%), followed by feasibility report
estimates (11.4 3.7%) and preliminary reports (8.9 2.4%). A multivariate ANOVA revealed no signicant differences between report
types in each category (p > 0.05).

3.4. Ore type

The ores presented in the technical reports were of a highly variable nature, to the extent that it did not permit a useful comparison between the absolute ore types. Despite this shortcoming,
the large majority of reports reviewed were of mines that contained gold, copper or both. Subsequently, the sample was divided
into those (a) containing gold without copper, and (b) all those
containing copper. A summary of the data is presented in Table 6.
As indicated, mines were excluded from elemental analyses if they
did not contain either gold or copper.
The relative Mining costs were much larger for gold containing
mines (48.1 4.4%) than for the copper mines (37.8 5.8%), a difference that was signicant according to an independent samples
t-test (p = 0.005). Conversely, the G & A costs of the copper contain-

Mean (%)

Median (%)

95% Condence interval

Mine
Preliminary
Feasibility
Operating

17
19
25

45.9
41.2
43.2

43.6
43.0
45.3

7.4
6.6
6.1

Mill
Preliminary
Feasibility
Operating

17
19
25

45.2
47.4
43.1

44.8
47.5
39.8

7.6
6.1
6.5

General and Administration

Preliminary
17
8.9
Feasibility
19
11.4
Operating
25
13.7

7.8
9.5
13.7

2.4
3.7
2.5

ing mines (15.8 4.3%) were found to be signicantly larger than

for the gold containing mines (10.9 2.6%; p = 0.038). Although
the relative Milling costs for the copper containing mines
(46.4 7.1%) were higher than for the gold containing mines
(41.0 5.0%), the difference was not signicant (p = 0.19).

3.6. Effect of time

Analyses of reports providing yearly operating costs was undertaken to examine the variation in the cost distribution over the life
of the mine. Since the majority of reports did not provide annual

Table 6
Summary of data by ore type, divided into copper and gold ores (N = 54).
n

Mean (%)

Median (%)

95% Condence interval

Mine
Gold
Copper

30
24

48.1
37.8

49.5
38.5

4.4
5.8

Mill
Gold
Copper

30
24

41.0
46.4

40.0
47.5

5.0
7.1

9.5
13.0

2.6
4.3

General and Administration

Gold
30
10.9
Copper
24
15.8

Fig. 5. Donlin Creek time series of operating costs.

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Fig. 6. Hosco time series of operating costs.

Fig. 7. Miraores time series of operating costs.

75

Fig. 9. Cerro Maricunga time series of operating costs.

Greater relative Mine costs during the early and middle stages
of the mine life may be explained in light of stockpiling. Mines typically produce more ore during these stages than the mill is able to
process, in order to maintain a constant stockpile for the mill in the
event of disruptions in the mine operations. The end of mine pattern, where relative Milling costs increase and relative Mining
costs decrease, may be explained in light of the phase-out of mining operations. During this period, mining activities are gradually
decreased, as the mill continues to process the stockpiles built up
over the life of the mine. Strip ratios may improve for open pit
mines, as there is less waste material to move, reducing the relative cost of the mine side. If the data are split between this
phase-out period and the preceding normal operations, it can be
seen that during normal operations the relative Mining and Milling
costs follow a slope that does not differ signicantly from zero
(p > 0.05). The same is observed with the relative G & A costs,
which remain constant throughout the life of the mine.
3.7. Other effects
The relative contributions of Mining, Milling and G & A to enterprise costs produce distributions, the variances of which may be
attributed to the specic circumstances of each mine. Analyses of
mine location and head grade, that are proposed to exert an effect
on the distribution of mine costs, were omitted from the present
study due to insufcient data subsets. The lack of these analyses
makes it difcult to generalise the ndings across different locations and head grades, and it is suggested that these be the focus
of future research aiming to identify common trends in the distribution of mine costs.
4. Potential cost savings measures

Fig. 8. Amulsar time series of operating costs.

breakdowns, the analysis was performed on a case-by-case basis

for the reports that did provide annual breakdowns. Only those reports that provided a minimum of ten years of annual breakdowns
were included. The resulting cases are provided in Figs. 59, in
terms of scatter plots, in which the y-axis is the proportion of total
cost and the x-axis is the time in years.
Three notable patterns can be seen in the date shown in Figs. 59.
The rst is that relative Mine costs are generally greater than Milling
costs during the early and middle stages of the mine. The second pattern observed is that as the end of the mine life nears, relative Mine
costs decrease and relative Milling costs increase. The third pattern
is that the relative G & A costs do not appear to change appreciably
for the duration of the mine life.

This study has found that in general the relative Mining and
Milling costs of a given operation do not signicantly differ, and
generally fall within the range of 43:43:14 to 45:45:10 (Mine:Mill:G & A). In addition, G & A costs were found to be consistently
lower than both Milling and Mining costs. Due to the signicant
proportion of Mine and Mill costs, cost saving measures should be
focussed on these areas. Milling in particular represents an area
of potential savings due to increased attention in recent times focussed on the reduction in comminution costs in mineral processing (Daniel and Lewis-Gray, 2011). In a summary of comminution
needs for reduced energy use, Daniel and Lewis-Gray indicated that
pre-concentration, greater emphasis on crushing, improved grinding technologies and mineral separations at coarser grind sizes
are required to achieve signicant savings in overall comminution
costs. This section will examine potential savings to Mine and Mill
costs, with a special reference to coarse particle recovery. Other pa-

76

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

pers in the literature analyse the impact of other areas where potential improvements can be made, both economically and environmentally (La Nauze and Temos, 2002; Norgate et al., 2007; Evans
et al., 2009; Norgate and Haque, 2010; Norgate and Jahanshahi,
2010; Norgate and Jahanshahi, 2011; Gunson et al., 2012).
Mine automation and tele-operation are two areas that may
bring about a step-change in the reduction of mining operating
costs (Fisher and Schnittger, 2012). The chief benets of automation
include potential savings in energy and consumables (such as
explosives), labour savings, greater efciency and improved maintenance with reduced downtime. The development of semi-autonomous drills, for example, has improved the ability to engineer rock
fragmentation whilst minimising the generation of waste material
and the need to redrill. In addition, a number of sites, including El
Teniente and Kurina have begun to implement driverless trucks,
which are claimed to reduce route efciency and driver downtime.
Pre-concentration is a technique that has been employed in the
past to recover liberated minerals at coarser grind sizes. The most
notable techniques include gravity separation and ash otation,
which are currently in use at a number of mills (e.g. Butcher
et al., 2011). The former is limited to minerals that are signicantly
denser than the gangue material, such as gold, whereas the latter
relies on well liberated fast-oating material. A number of other
ore sorting techniques have recently been proposed to be implemented in underground mines, including X-ray transmission, optical material recognition and the use of induction sensors (Murphy
et al., 2012). It has been estimated that effective ore sorting
techniques may improve mine efciency by 20% (CSIRO, 2012).
The extent of savings obtained from these technologies in preconcentration remains an active area of research that may improve
the cost structure of both mine and mill.
Innovation in particle reduction technologies has been an
area of active research for some time, with new grinding technologies such as the IsaMill and high pressure grinding rolls
(HPGRs). HPGRs in particular show promise in improving the
efciency of grinding at the head of the circuit, where the
greatest savings may be made. Daniel et al. (2010), for example,
showed that the replacement of a SAG mill with a HPGR in a
conventional SAG-Ball circuit may reduce grinding energy consumption by 1520%. Taking into account additional savings,
such as media and liner wear, the authors found that a grinding
cost saving of 2535% was potentially achievable with the use
of HPGRs in such conventional circuits. Other studies have
found the applicability of HPGRs dependent on ore characteristics (e.g. Amelunxen and Meadows, 2011). HPGR technology remains a fertile area for achieving signicantly reduced
comminution costs.
Savings to milling operations will ultimately be limited by the
particle size at which effective separations may occur. The recovery
of base metal sulphide minerals relies extensively on the use of otation as the key separation technique, which, until recently, has
been typically limited by P80 values of the range 100200 lm.
The advantage of separating particles at such a large size is that
the costs of grinding energy and associated elements such as mill
linings and grinding media, are closely related to the nal grind
size. Thus if it is possible to grind the ore to a coarse size, in the
range for example of 4001000 lm, separate the particles containing valuable minerals, and then regrind only these particles to a nal size suitable for conventional otation machines, there would
be very signicant cost savings. From the results obtained in the
current survey, where the cost ratio of (Mining:Milling:G & A) is
(43:43:14), Table 2, a 20% saving in the cost of running the mill will
result in a 9% saving in the running costs of the whole enterprise.

Step changes in coarse particle separation technology have recently been published. Both suggest that the upper limit of otation may be extended up to 1 mm. Jameson (2010) showed
results for the otation of galena in a uidized bed otation column, demonstrating that it was possible to obtain high recoveries
at particle sizes of up to 1 mm approximately. The feed to this column, known as the NovaCell, is in the range 4001000 lm top size.
Coarse particles settle in the base of the vessel, where they are uidised by an upow of aerated liquid. The ow in the vessel is slow,
which favours the formation of stable bubble-particle aggregates.
The NovaCell has a conventional froth layer, which assists in the
drainage of entrained particles back into the cell. More recently,
Awatey et al. (2013) have described experiments with the HydroFloat, an air-assisted teeter-bed separator. High recoveries have
been achieved with the separation of sphalerite particles up to
1 mm in diameter. In both studies, the valuable mineral was fully
liberated. The true test of these new coarse particle technologies
will be in the otation of composites. Currently there exists no conclusive evidence that these technologies can achieve the same
recoveries with poorly liberated sulphide minerals up to 1 mm,
although recent research suggests that the effect of composites
on recovery in gentle environments may be less than previously
thought. There is good evidence to suggest that the poor performance of conventional otation machines with coarse particles
owes less to poor liberation and more to the effects of machine
hydrodynamics (Jameson, 2012). Thus, the effect of mineral
liberation on the effectiveness of new coarse particle otation
technologies is a key area requiring attention.
It is likely that a combination of the aforementioned technologies across the mine and mill will be required to achieve signicant
savings for a given operation. Of the technologies discussed, each
will be amenable to specic conditions of a given mine, and may
not necessarily extend to all potential operations. However, it has
been shown in this study that the average proportion of mine
and mill operating costs for a given operation do not differ significantly, so it can be expected that on average, savings to either the
mill or mine are likely to translate well to the overall economics of
a given mining operation.
5. Conclusion and recommendations
Analysis of published data has shown that overall relative
mine and mill costs on average are not signicantly different
for hard rock mining operations in general, and constitute the
bulk of the overall mine cost. G & A costs were found to occupy
a much smaller proportion of the total mine cost compared with
the mine and mill. In general, the overall breakdown of costs was
estimated to be within the range of (43:43:14) and (45:45:10)
(Mine:Mill:G & A). Signicant differences in relative Milling costs
were found to exist between underground and open pit mines,
and in Mining and G & A costs, between gold-only mines and
all mines containing copper. No signicant differences were found
between relative costs on the basis of processing type or report
type. Despite diverging Mine and Mill costs at the beginning
and end of the mine life, these relative costs were found to be
constant throughout a large fraction of the life of the operation.
G & A costs remained constant throughout the life of the mine.
This study has provided a basic overview of the distribution of
operating costs across 63 mines. Although signicant differences
were found to exist between mine type and ore type sub-samples,
further research is required to clarify these effects. Furthermore,
detailed simulations examining the potential savings in operating
costs are recommended to better clarify the benets of the technologies discussed in this paper.

77

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Appendix A. List of mines

Project

Country

Mine
(%)

Mill
(%)

G&A
(%)

Mine type

Process
type

Ore type

Report type

Agbaou

Ivory Coast

67.4

20.7

11.9

Open pit

Au

Feasibility

Amulsar

Armenia

64.1

31.1

4.8

Open pit

AuAg

Feasibility

Aurizona

Brazil

48.7

40.3

11.0

Open pit

Au

Operating

Authier
Bushranger
Cadia Valley

Canada
Australia
Australia

55.2
13.2
60.4

32.9
75.9
27.9

11.9
10.9
11.7

Open pit
Open pit
Both

Li
AuAgCu
Au

Preliminary
Preliminary
Operating

Caariaco Norte
Cerro Casale
Cerro Maricunga

Peru
Chile
Chile

43.6
35.3
54.3

49.5
39.0
37.9

6.9
25.7
7.8

Open pit
Both
Open pit

AuAgCu
AuCu
Au

Preliminary
Feasibility
Preliminary

CMD
Copler

Chile
Turkey

36.8
21.7

56.9
69.3

6.3
9.0

Open pit
Open pit

AuAgCu
AuAgCuS

Operating
Operating

Cordero
Cortez

Mexico
Chile

27.9
54.2

64.1
37.8

8.0
7.9

Open pit
Open pit

AuAgPbZn
Au

Preliminary
Operating

Deer Horn
Del Toro
Didipio
Donlin Creek
Duncan Lake

Canada
Mexico
Phillipines
USA
Canada

53.0
55.6
47.7
45.4
59.6

37.6
40.1
37.3
49.3
28.4

9.3
4.2
15.0
5.2
12.0

Open pit
Underground
Both
Open pit
Open pit

AuAgTe
AuAgPbZn
AuCu
Au
Fe

Preliminary
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Preliminary

Eagles Nest

Canada

38.9

37.4

23.7

Underground

No
otation
No
otation
No
otation
Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation

Feasibility

El Morro
Fosterville
Goldstrike

Chile
Australia
USA

36.1
56.1
55.1

46.6
34.4
39.8

17.3
9.6
5.1

Open pit
Both
Both

AuCuNiPt
Pd
AuCu
Au
Au

Feasibility
Operating
Operating

Gosowong

Indonesia

49.7

19.2

31.1

Underground

AuAg

Operating

Hasbrouck

USA

31.6

60.1

8.3

Open pit

AuAg

Feasibility

Hosco
Hycroft

Canada
USA

47.9
31.0

49.7
64.2

2.4
4.8

Open pit
Open pit

Au
AuAg

Feasibility
Operating

Kamoa
Kansanshi
Kemco
Kwanika
La Encantada
La Parilla
(Combined)
La Parilla (Oxide
OP)
Lac a Paul
Lagunas Norte

DR of Congo
Zambia
Thailand
Canada
Mexico
Mexico

68.5
37.7
64.9
43.1
41.9
36.3

21.0
56.6
29.4
51.3
17.9
45.2

10.5
5.7
5.7
5.6
40.2
18.5

Underground
Open pit
Underground
Both
Underground
Underground

Cu
Cu
AgPbZn
AuAgCuMo
AgPbZn
AuAgPbZn

Preliminary
Feasibility
Preliminary
Preliminary
Operating
Operating

Mexico

26.6

68.9

4.5

Open pit

AuAgPbZn

Operating

Canada
Peru

29.1
54.2

65.8
32.1

5.1
13.7

Open pit
Open pit

P
AuAg

Preliminary
Operating

Lihir
Los Filos

Papua New Guinea

Mexico

40.5
58.7

30.8
23.1

28.7
18.2

Open pit
Both

Au
AuAg

Operating
Operating

Los Santos
Lumwana
Marcona
Miraores

Spain
Zambia
Peru
Colombia

10.6
42.5
23.8
40.8

71.1
3.9
10.5
54.3

18.3
41.6
6.7
4.9

Open pit
Open pit
Open pit
Both

W
Cu
Cu
Au

Operating
Operating
Feasibility
Preliminary

Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
No
otation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation

(continued on next page)

78

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

(continued)

Project

Country

Mine
(%)

Mill
(%)

G&A
(%)

Mine type

Process
type

Ore type

Report type

Mount Hope
Osborne (OP)
Osborne (UG)
Oyu Tolgoi
Passendro

43.0
50.2
64.2
36.4
44.3

47.5
35.6
21.2
48.2
43.7

9.5
14.2
14.6
15.4
12.0

Open pit
Open pit
Underground
Both
Open pit

Feasibility
Operating
Operating
Feasibility
Feasibility

31.5
12.2

50.3
76.1

18.2
11.7

Open pit
Open pit

AgSnZn
AuAgCu

Operating
Feasibility

Rainy River

Canada

48.3

45.4

6.3

Both

AuAg

Feasibility

Sabodala

Senegal

40.2

48.2

11.6

Open pit

Au

Operating

San Jorge
San Martin
Santa Rita
Shymanivske
Springpole

Argentina
Mexico
Brazil
Ukraine
Canada

32.1
30.2
45.3
47.3
35.7

29.9
52.3
35.6
50.1
52.8

38.0
17.5
19.1
2.6
11.5

Open pit
Underground
Open pit
Open pit
Open pit

AuCu
AgPbZn
Ni
Fe
AuAg

Feasibility
Operating
Operating
Feasibility
Preliminary

Taca Taca
Tasiast

Argentina
Mauritania

49.2
29.3

44.8
50.6

6.0
20.1

Open pit
Open pit

AuCuMo
Au

Preliminary
Operating

Telfer
Tenke Fungurume

Australia
DR of Congo

45.6
20.2

32.1
51.7

22.3
28.1

Both
Open pit

AuCu
CuCo

Operating
Feasibility

Toroparu
Trinidad/Taunus

Guyana
Mexico

42.3
58.6

51.0
36.0

6.7
5.4

Open pit
Open pit

AuCu
Au

Preliminary
Preliminary

Veladero

Argentina

63.2

21.4

15.4

Open pit

AuAg

Operating

WaGolpu
Wasamac

Papua New Guinea

Canada

41.1
63.6

35.1
25.4

23.8
11.0

Underground
Underground

AuAgCu
Au

Preliminary
Operating

Zaldivar

Chile

26.6

62.8

10.6

Open pit

Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
No
otation
No
otation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
No
otation
Flotation
No
otation
Flotation

Mo
AuCu
AuCu
AuAgCu
Au

Pirquitas
Pueblo Viejo

USA
Australia
Australia
Mongolia
Central African
Republic
Argentina
Dominican Republic

Cu

Operating

Appendix B. Studied mine reports

Addison, R., & Lopez, L. (Pincock Allen & Holt). (2009). Technical
Report for the La Encantada Silver Mine, Coahuila State, Mexico, NI
43-101.
Addison, R., & Lopez, L. (Pincock, Allen & Holt). (2011). Technical
Report for the La Parilla Silver Mine, Durango State, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Arseneau, G., Dance, A., Duncan, J., Elliott, C., Liskowich, M.,
Murphy, B., Mackie, D., Rykaart, M., & Pilotto, D. (SRK Consulting). (2013). Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole
Gold Project, Ontario, Canada.
Axmin. (2012). Near-term Gold Production in the Central African
Republic Additional exploration assets in Senegal and Mozambique.
Bascombe, L., Mach, L., Altman, K., Shoemaker, S., & Benbow, R.
(2012). Technical Report on the Copler Mineral Resource Update,
NI-43-101.
Belanger, M. (2012). Los Filos Gold Operation, Guerrero State,
Mexico, NI 43-101 Technical Report.
Bergen, R.D., Gareau, M.B., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Cortez Joint Venture
Operations, Lander and Eureka Counties, State of Nevada, U.S.A.

Berry, M., & Moorhead, C. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada)

Ltd.). (2011). Technical Report on the Lihir Property in Papua
New Guinea.
Bilodeau, M., Buchanan, M., Buro, Y., Cauchon, C., Gagnon, D.,
Gaudreault, R., Houde, D., Ibrango, S., & Rivard, S. (2013). Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Duncan Lake Iron Property,
Quebec, Canada, NI-43-101.
Board, W., Kennedy, R., & Yeomans, T. (2011). Technical Report
on the Pirquitas Mine, Jujuy Province, Argentina, NI 43-101.
Borst, R., Moore, C., & Villeneuve, A. (Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Pueblo Viejo Project, Sanchez
Ramirez Province, Dominican Republic.
Burgess, H., Gowans, R., Jacobs, C., Murahwi, C., & Damjanovic, B.
(Mining Industry Consultants Ltd). (2012). Feasibility Study Eagles
Nest Project James Bay Lowlands Ontario, Canada, NI-43-101.
Chesher, M., Moorhead, C., & Cantrell, R. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Telfer Property in Western Australia Australia.
Dorricott, M., Nice, R., & Moorhead, C. (AMC Mining Consultants
(Canada) Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Gosowong Property
in North Maluku Province Indonesia.

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Dupere, M., Gagne, J., Gagnon, G., & Baril, F. (SGS Canada Inc.).
(2013). Preliminary Economic Assessment of Authier Lithium Property, Quebec, Canada, NI-43-101.
Duplessis, C., Cassoff, J., Rivard, S., Bilodeau, M., Buchanan, M., &
Skiadas, N. (2013). Technical Report Phosphate Resource Estimation update 2013 of the Lac a Paul Property Deposit, NI
43-101.
Ebbels, A-M., Faireld, P., Lewis, R., & Munro, P. (SRK Consulting). (2012). Technical Report for Osborne Copper-Gold Project
located in northwest Queensland region of Australia, NI
43-101.
Elfen, S., Davis, B., & Scott, K. (Ausenco). (2013). Taca Taca copper/gold molybdenum project: Preliminary economic assessment.
Evans, L., Ehasoo, G., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Lagunas Norte Mine, La Libertad Region, Peru.
Evans, L., Ehasoo, G., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Veladero Mine, San Juan
Province, Argentina.
Evans, L., & Lambert, R.J. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012).
Technical Report on the Zaldivar Mine, Region II, Chile.
Fisher, A., Moran, A., Spiller, D.; Evans, D., Yang, D., Garcia, D.,
Rodrigues, F., Daviess, F., Marrou, J., Mountjoy, K., Clarke, P., &
Chapel, T. (SRK Consulting). (2013). Prefeasibility Study of the
Toroparu Gold Project, Upper Puruni River Area, Guyana, NI 43-101.
Flint, D.C., Kunkel, K., Gorman, M.G., Moore, D.B., & Wilson, S.E.
(Allied Nevada Gold Corp. & Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc.).
(2012). Technical Report Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Hasbrouck
Property, Tonopah, Nevada, USA.
Flint, D.C., Gorman, M.G., Harris, D., Moore, D.B., Peterson, A.T.,
& Wilson, S.E. (Allied Nevada Gold Corp. & Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc.). (2012). Technical Report Allied Nevada Gold Corp.
Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA.
Gauthier, J., Galarneau, Y., Lavigne, M., Adam, D., Lance, S., &
Hardie, C. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical
Report on the Wasamac Project, Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, Canada.
Grandillo, A., Live, P., Thomassin, Y., & Dupere, M. (BBA). (2012).
Feasibility study of the Hosco deposit Joanna Gold Project NI 43101.
Gray, J., & Robillard, H. (Moose Mountain Technical Services).
(2013). Technical Report for the Kwanika Property, Preliminary
Economic Assessment, NI 43-101.
Greig, D.D., Board, W., Oliver, R., Johnston, A., Schlitt, J., David,
D., Yang, D.Y., Kerr, T.F., Grbovic, B., & Sanford, A. (GRD Minproc). (2009). Marcona Copper Property Mina Justa Project Denitive Feasibility Study Technical Report NI 43-101.
Greig, D., de Brito Mello, R., Miranda, D., Vargas G., & Fuentas, J.
(GRD Minproc). (2009). San Jorge Copper Concentrator Project
Preliminary Assessment Technical Report.
Greig, D.D., & Manfrino, A. (GRD Minproc). (2003). The Kansanshi
Copper Project Northwestern Province Zambia.
Guzman, C., Magri, E., & Wells, J. (2013). Preliminary Economic
Assessment for the Cerro Maricunga Oxide Gold Project, III Region,
Chile, NI-43-101.
Hanson, K., Seibel, G., Allard, S., Wortman, G., & Kozak, A. (AMEC
Inc). (2009). Nova Gold Resources Inc. Donlin Creek Gold Project,
Alaska, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report.
Hardie, C., Runnels, D., Live, P., Daniel, S., Ritchie, D., Coulson, A.,
Cole, G., El-Rassi, D., & Tolfree, D. (BBA). (2013). Feasibility study
of the Rainy River gold project, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101.
Henderson, R.D. (Kinross Gold Corporation). (2008). Cerro Casale
Project Northern Chile NI 43-101 Technical Report.
Huss, C., Snider, J., Marek, J., Parshley, J., & Drielick, T. (2008).
Mount Hope Project Molybdenum Mine and Process Plant Feasibility Study, NI 43-101.

79

Inwood, N., Smith, R., & Guzman, C. (Coffey Mining Pty Ltd).
(2011). Santa Rita Project, Brazil Technical Report.
Keller, G., Patrick, G., Welhener, H., Kiel, R., Lemke, P., Eyre, J., &
Keane, J. (AMC Consultants Ltd). (2013). Amulsar Gold Project,
Armenia: Technical Report Mineral Resource Update and Reserve
Estimate Update, NI 43-101.
Lambert, R., Gow, N., Hampton, A., & Gochnour, L. (Roscoe Postle
Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the El Morro Project,
Region III, Chile, NI 43-101.
Lane, R., Giroux, G., & Meintjes, T. (2013). Preliminary Economic
Assessment for the Deer Horn Gold-Silver-Tellurium Property, NI
43-101.
Llorca, J., & Schunke, N. (Mining Plus Pty Ltd). (2012). Fosterville
Technical Report, Victoria, Australia, NI 43-101.
Lopez, L. (Pincock Allen & Holt). (2012). Technical Report for the
Del Toro Silver Mine, Zacatecas State, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Lopez, L. (Rune Pincock Minarco). (2013). Technical Report for
the San Martin Silver Mine, State of Jalisco, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Lowe, A., Leach, T., & Serra, B. (SRK Consulting Inc.). (2012). Preliminary economic assessment of Miraores property, Quinchia district, Colombia, NI 43-101.
Mah, P., Reyes, A., Lindeman, D., Mach, L., & Haggan, T. (2013).
Technical Report: Aurizona resource and reserve update Brazil,
NI 43-101.
Moore, C.M., Bergen, R.D., Valliant, W.W., Collins, S.E., & Altman,
K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on
the Goldstrike Mine, Eureka and Elko Counties, State of Nevada,
U.S.A.
Moore, C.M., Danio, J.R., & Altman, K.A. (Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.). (2012). Technical Report on the Lumwana Mine, North
Western Province, Republic of Zambia.
Moorhead, C., & Cantrell, R. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada)
Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Wa-Golpu Property in
Morobe Province Papua New Guinea.
Nilsson, J., Simpson, R.G., & McKenzie, W. (2011). Technical
Report Expansion Feasibility Study for the Tenke Fungurume Mine,
Katanga Province, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Parker, H., Seibel, G., David, D., Peters, B., Jakubec, J., & Lawson,
M. (SRK Consulting/ AMC Consultants Pty Ltd). (2013). Kamoa
Copper Project Technical Report on Updated Mineral Resource
Estimate, NI 43-101.
Parker, R., Brady, B., Hayden, A., & Watts, G. (A.C.A. Howe International Ltd). (2013). Technical Report and Preliminary Economic
Assessment of the Kemco Project, Thailand.
Peters, B., Jackson, S., Chance, A., Jakubec, J., & David, D. (AMC
Consultants Pty Ltd). (2012). Oyu Tolgoi Project IDOP Technical
Report.
Peters, B., Sylvester, S., Bridges, M., & Riles, A. (AMC Consultants
Pty Ltd). (2013). 2013 Oyu Tolgoi Project Technical Report Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Redden, R., & Moore, J. (2011). Technical Report for the Didipio
Project, Luzon, Phillipines, NI 43-101.
Sedore, M., & Masterman, G. (Kinross Gold Corporation). (2012).
Tasiast Mine Mauritania 43-101F1 Technical Report.
Senior, N., Bundo, P., & Swart, H. (2011). Passendro Gold Project
Bankable Feasibility Study Optimisation and Update Summary
Report.
Spiering, R., Gorjian, M., Ehsani, R., Burris, P., Puritch, E., Risto, R.,
& Kociumbas, M. (Worley Parsons). (2012). Feasibility Study of
the Shymanivske Iron Ore Deposit, NI 43-101.
Stephenson, P.R., Shannon, J.M., OConnor, B., Riles, A., & Ebrahimi, A. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd). (2010). Sabodala
Gold Project Senegal, West Africa Technical Report.
Stewart, R., & Fazzini, J. (Dundee Securities Ltd). (2012). Lachlan
Star Limited A Season for CMD.

80

J.A. Curry et al. / Minerals Engineering 56 (2014) 7080

Swanson, B., Johnson, M., Olin, E., Nowak, M., & Willow, M. (SRK
Consulting). (2012). Preliminary Economic Assessment of Trinidad/Taunus Project, Sinaloa, Mexico, NI 43-101.
Thomas, D., Melnyk, J., Lipiec, T., & Kozak, A. (Amec). (2011).
Caariaco Project Technical Report on Pre-Feasibility Progress
Report, NI 43-101.
Thomas, M., & Moorhead, C. (AMC Mining Consultants (Canada)
Ltd). (2011). Technical Report on the Cadia Valley Operations
Property in New South Wales Australia.
Wanless, M., Theart, H., Sturgeon, M., Senior, N., Grant-Stuart,
D., & Rowland, A. (SRK Consulting). (2012). Agbaou Gold Mine
Technical Report, NI 43-101.
Welhener, H. (Independent Mining Consultants Inc.). (2012).
Cordero Project June 2012 Mineral Resource Update, Chihuaha,
Mexico.
Wheeler, A. (2012). Technical Report on the Mineral Resources
and Reserves of the Los Santos Mine Project, Spain, NI 43-101.

References
Amelunxen, P., Meadows, D., 2011. Not another HPGR trade-off study! Minerals and
Metallurgical Processing 28 (1), 17.
Awatey, B., Thanasekaran, H., Kohmuench, J., Skinner, W., Zanin, M., 2013.
Optimization of operating parameters for coarse sphalerite otation in the
HydroFloat uidised-bed separator. Minerals Engineering 5051, 99105.
Ballantyne, G.R., Powell, M.S., Tiang, M. (2012). Proportion of energy attributable to
comminution. In: Proceedings of 11th Mill Operators Conference 2012, Hobart,
October 2012, pp. 2530.
Butcher, A., Cunningham, R., Edwards, K., Lye, A., Simmons, J., Stegman, C., Wyllie,
A., 2011. Northparkes Mines. AMMOP.
Costa Lima, G.A., Suslick, S.B., 2006. Estimating the volatility of mining projects
considering price and operating cost uncertainties. Resources Policy 31 (2), 86
94.

Crowson, P., 2003. Mine size and the structure of costs. Resources Policy 29 (12),
1536.
Crowson, P., 2012. Some observations on copper yields and ore grades. Resources
Policy 37 (1), 5972.
CSIRO, 2012. Ore sorting: sound technology making waves. <http://www.csiro.au/
Portals/Publications/Magazines/resourceful/Issue-2/2-sound-technology.aspx>.
(Wednesday, 28th August, 2013).
Daniel, M., Lewis-Gray, E., 2011. Comminution efciency attracts attention. The
AusIMM Bulletin, October, 2030.
Daniel, M., Lane, G., McLean, E. (2010). Efciency, economics, energy and emissions
emerging criteria for comminution circuit decision making. In: International
Mineral Processing Congress, 610 September, 35233531.
Evans, C.L., Coulter, B.L., Wightman, E., & Burrows, A.S. (2009). Improving energy
efciency across mineral processing and smelting operations a new approach.
In: Proceedings of SDIMI Conference, Gold Coast, July 2009, pp. 913.
Fisher, B., Schnittger, S. (2012). Autonomous and remote operation technologies in
the mining industries: Benets and costs. BAE, Report 12.1: Canberra.
Gunson, A.J., Klein, B., Veiga, M., Dunbar, S., 2012. Reducing mine water
requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production 21 (1), 7182.
Jameson, G.J., 2010. New directions in otation machine design. Minerals
Engineering 23 (1113), 835841.
Jameson, G.G., 2012. The effect of surface liberation and particle size on otation
rate constants. Minerals Engineering 3638, 132137.
La Nauze, R.D., & Temos, J., 2002. Technologies for Sustainable Operations. In: CMMI
Congress, Cairns, May 2002, pp. 2733.
Murphy, B., van Zyl, J., Domingo, G. (2012). Underground preconcentration by ore
sorting and coarse gravity separation. In: Narrow Vein Mining Conference, 26
27 March.
Norgate, T., Haque, N., 2010. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and
mineral processing operations. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (3), 266274.
Norgate, T., Jahanshahi, S., 2010. Improving the sustainability of primary metal
production the need for a life cycle approach. In: Proceedings of XXV
International Mineral Processing Conference (IMPC) 2010, Brisbane, September
2010, pp. 35753584.
Norgate, T., Jahanshahi, S., 2011. Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary
metal production: where should the focus be? Minerals Engineering 24 (14),
15631570.
Norgate, T.E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W.J., 2007. Assessing the environmental impact
of metal production processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (89), 838848.