See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325396586

A simple and accurate method for ore reserve estimation in SLC mines

Conference Paper · August 2017

CITATION READS

1 1,471

1 author:

Alex Campbell
Beck Engineering
15 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Full scale experiments to improve ore recovery in sublevel cave mines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Campbell on 29 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

13th AusIMM Underground Operators' Conference
Paper Number: 04

A Simple and Accurate Method for Ore Reserve

Estimation and Mineral Resource Depletion in
Caving Mines

Campbell, A.D.1
1. Alexander Campbell MAusIMM (CP)

Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Glencore, Cloncurry, Qld, 4824, Email:

[email protected]

1
ABSTRACT
Conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves requires a multidisciplinary approach and application
of a number of Modifying Factors. The Modifying Factors for mining, particularly dilution and recovery
in a caving mine are complex and can be difficult to determine. Cave flow modelling software is widely
used for mine planning, scheduling and forecasting metal production. However, the conversion of
Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves remains a difficult and subjective process. This is due to the
difficulty in estimating the Ore Reserve that remains as cave stocks at a particular point in the mine
schedule, the recovered tonnage and grade of the diluting material at various stages in the mine life
and the Mineral Resource classification of both the recovered and diluting material that forms the Ore
Reserve.
This paper outlines a simple yet robust approach to convert Mineral Resources into Ore Reserves
developed at the Ernest Henry sublevel cave (EHM). The same method could be used in block and
panel caves and applied at any stage of the mine life. The process replaces broad-brush assumptions
for the mining Modifying Factors, such as dilution and recovery, as these are determined numerically
as part of the model computation. This paper explains the Ore Reserve estimation method with a
worked example to enable the reader to adopt the process at any caving mine. Mineral Resource
classification within the block model are embedded in the cave flow model and the flow model results
used to attribute tonnes, grade and the mixed proportions of the Mineral Resource classification for
material extracted from each drawpoint. This information is then used to convert planned mine
production into the appropriate Ore Reserve classification. Since the flow model simulation follows the
mine schedule, it can be used to predict depletion and cave stocks at any stage of the mine life, and
can generate a residual block model at the end of the mine life. The accuracy of the flow model is
checked by validating the forecast ore grade and metal tonnes with reconciliation data from the
concentrator which is also used to calibrate the flow model.

INTRODUCTION
JORC (2012) defines a Mineral Resource as a “concentration or occurrence of solid material of
economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction”. Ore Reserves are the economically exploitable
portions of the Mineral Resource based on a set of assumptions (Baldwin et al, 2014). These
assumptions include mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal,
environmental, social and governmental factors (JORC, 2012).
This paper outlines an improved method for conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves in caving
mines by quantifying and tracking material extraction, ore recovery, ore loss and dilution. The
methodology was developed at EHM to improve the accurate and transparency of Ore Reserve
estimation. This includes the effect of cave mixing, dilution entry and the ability to calculate cave stocks
at any point in the mine life. This eliminates the need for broad-brush Modifying Factors for mining that
estimated ore recovery and dilution as a factor of the Mineral Resource, such as 90% metal recovery
and 20% dilution of the in situ or “in mine” tonnes and grade.
The key criterion for declaring an Ore Reserve is that it is supported by a mine plan that is technically
achievable and economically viable as outlined by JORC (2012) and Whithman (2014). Ore recovery
in caving mines occurs over large draw columns resulting in material mixing. As a result, ore recovery
is a combination of material originating from different locations in the draw column that becomes mixed
with dilution (both mineralised and non-mineralised material) from outside the targeted ore zone. This
results in unique challenges for grade forecasting and Ore Reserve estimation compared to stoping
operations where diluting material is relatively easier to define, control and track during the extraction
process.
Sophisticated flow modelling software has been used at EHM since 2012 to simulate mine production
and predict ore grades and recovery. The same modelling technique is used to optimise the cave draw
strategy and maximise net present value (NPV) (Campbell and Power, 2016). The model was further
developed to be used for Ore Reserve estimation by including the Resource Classification in the block
model input. The purpose for developing such a method is to ensure Ore Reserve estimation is as
accurate and unambiguous as possible, enabling the user to track ore extraction and cave stocks
throughout the mine life. Furthermore, using the flow simulation software ensures that the method is
repeatable and auditable for every schedule and draw strategy simulation that is completed during the

2
mine life. A worked example is provided to enable the same methodology to be adopted by other caving
mines.
Dunstan (2014) describes best practice as documenting the link between Mineral Resource and Ore
Reserve and the Modifying Factors used when preparing the Ore Reserve estimate. The flow model
method for Ore Reserve estimation not only records ore extraction, but is validated and calibrated
against mine production and concentrator reconciliation records. The model output can be used to
quantify mining Modifying Factors for parameters such as ore recovery, ore loss and dilution.

CAVE MINING OVERVIEW

In caving mines, the process of ore extraction and cave propagation causes ore to move in a process
known as ‘gravity flow’. Extracted material may flow hundreds of metres before reporting to a drawpoint.
During this process, ore of different grades and spatial origin is mixed together with dilution. The amount
of ore mixing, ore recovery and dilution is dependent on a number of factors, including the mine layout
and draw strategy. For every unique draw strategy, there is a unique estimation of recovered ore tonnes,
grade and of course, the Ore Reserve. Also, the amount of dilution and ore mixing varies throughout
the mine life for each of these unique mining scenarios. For this reason, the application of uniform
factors for dilution and recovery as a function of the in situ or “in mine” resource can lead to erroneous
results (House and Secis, 1997).
The method for Ore Reserve estimation described in this paper was originally developed for a SLC
mine, however the same process could be adopted for block and panel caves. The most important
feature of the methodology developed is the ability to track the Mineral Resource classification and
block model properties of each block during the cave flow and extraction process. This includes
quantification of dilution entry and cave stocks that will be recovered in the future. McCarthy (2014)
demonstrates how dilution and recovery are key drivers for mine profitability and require specific
attention, particularly in caving mines. For this paper, dilution is defined as any material drawn from an
SLC draw point which has originated outside a blasted SLC ring (Power, 2004) and may or may not
comprise of mineralised material. At any point in time, a residual block model can be generated showing
the location of unrecovered Mineral Resource (and dilution) within the cave zone, including the grade,
classification and other properties. By simulating ongoing production from the flow model, the residual
Ore Reserve can be estimated

NEED FOR AN IMPROVED ORE RESERVE ESTIMATION METHOD

House and Secis (1997) outline a method for Ore Reserve estimation at the Northparkes block cave.
The method used in situ tones and grade which were converted into Ore Reserves by accounting for
ore mixing and dilution during draw. This was done using PCBC® software to simulate the flow of the
block model imported from mine planning software. Dilution and ore recovery (and loss) was calculated
by the difference in tonnes and grade between the in situ material and the modelled ore extraction. The
system used at Northparkes was no doubt advanced for its time, however the flow model forecasts
relied on tonnes and grade information and did not include the Mineral Resource category within the
block model. This would have prevented the user from being able to determine the tonnes and grade
of the extracted Proved and Probable Ore Reserves. No details are provided for the method of
reconciliation and model calibration had not been completed prior to publication of the paper (House
and Secis, 1997).
At the Ridgeway SLC, Ore Reserve estimation was conducted by calculating in situ tonnes and grade
for each sublevel (Smart and O’Sullivan, 2007). A dilution entry curve developed from extensive cave
marker trials (Power, 2004) was then applied to estimate the proportion of blasted ore recovered and
entry of external material from levels above as dilution. Smart and O’Sullivan (2007) describe that initial
ore recovery was calculated as a function of the in situ material using the ore recovery curve. Cave
stocks, depletion and grade of dilution material was then calculated by difference to the total tonnes
and metal extracted from the ring (Smart and O’Sullivan, 2007).
Smart and O’Sullivan (2007) describe a number of potential limitations with this method:
• The assumption of a continuous, semi-homogenous dilution blanket of ore and waste overlying
active SLC extraction may not be completely correct.

3
 • In situ ore estimates and dilution model have different block size geometry. This also differed
from the SLC ring geometry causing potential grade estimation issues.
• Grade estimation is done using the in situ grade of the block model and a dilution estimation
model. The accuracy of this model would directly impact grade forecast accuracy.
• Measured ring recovery was found to vary significantly from ring to ring in full scale recovery
trials, however there is an assumption of regularity and predictability that governs the ore
recovery model (Smart and O’Sullivan, 2007).
Diering (2014) provides an overview of considerations for Ore Reserve estimation using a flow
simulation model (PCBC software). This method does not detail the determination of Mineral Resource
classification within the block model or how to derive the mixed resource classification within the
material extracted from each blast ring (or drawpoint in a block cave) to then estimate the Ore Reserve.
However, the approach to tracking and converting Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves in the system
described in this paper could be integrated into the method described by Diering (2014).
Ore Reserve estimation techniques for caving mines, as outlined above, have significant advantages
compared to the broad-brush single application of a multiplier to the Mineral Resource. However, none
of the methods met all of the requirements, particularly the accurate tracking of material blocks with
Mineral Resource classification data. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to develop a new
methodology for use at EHM that for simple and accurate Ore Reserve estimation in caving mines.
A number of requirements were listed when developing the Ore Reserve estimation methodology at
EHM. These included:
• A single system for tonnes and grade reporting, scheduling and planning, cut-off grade
optimisation and Ore Reserve estimation.
• Every block in the block model is tracked on a daily production basis which is follows the mine
schedule. This enables an unambiguous and complete understanding of all model parameters
and forecast ore extraction at any stage of the model, preventing it from becoming a “black
box”.
• Enable dilution recovered as part of the caving process to be tracked and quantified, including
information such as tonnage, grade and Mineral Resource classification.
• Being able to calculate cave stocks, including tonnes, grade of each commodity and the Mineral
Resource classification of each block in the flow model to enable Ore Reserve estimation.

FLOW MODEL OVERVIEW

Flow modelling at EHM uses PGCA (Power Geotechnical Cellular Automata) software. PGCA is a
particle to particle based flow modelling technique, which can account for material properties, cave back
constraints and other properties which influence the flow of broken rock (Power, 2015). A detailed
explanation of flow modelling and draw strategy optimisation is provided by Campbell and Power
(2016). An example of a LOM simulation for the EHM is shown in Figure 1.
The flow model for a SLC has four main components including:
• Mine production schedule (using a fixed tonnage or shutoff grade setting) and blast ring
coordinates.
• Mine development geometry. This is used to pre-deplete the block model and prevent
development material from being double counted in the flow simulation.
• Ring shape geometry file to define the volume fired by each individual blasted ring.
• Block model, including material density, material type, grades for all required elements and
Mineral Resource classifications.
The importance of cave propagation on ore recovery and Ore Reserve estimation must be emphasised.
Cave propagation must be considered when modelling cave flow and can be done by modifying flow
properties based on experience or mine reconciliation. A preferred approach would be to constrain flow

4
models using the cave back position. This can be done using mine monitoring data or predicted using
numerical modelling such as a coupled stress-gravity flow model (Beck et al, 2011).
The method for Ore Reserve estimation detailed in this paper can also be used for open pit to
underground transition mining. Open pit mine geometry is included in the flow model as shown in Figure
1. A number of considerations for transition from open pit to underground mining in the context of Ore
Reserve estimation are outlined by Ross (2014) and should be considered during the estimation and
reporting process.

ORE RESERVE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

Mineral Resources are classified as either Measured, Indicated or Inferred based on geological
knowledge and confidence. Based on these confidence levels, only a Measured Resource can be
converted to a Proved Reserve and Indicated Resource can be converted to a Probable Reserve as
outlined in the JORC code (see Figure 2). Where the Modifying factors are not known with sufficient
confidence a Measured Mineral Resource may only be converted to a Probable Reserve.
Section 29 of JORC (2012) states that diluting material should be included as part of the Ore Reserve
estimate. This can be done by including the tonnes and grade of material outside of the blasted SLC
geometry if it must be recovered when extracting the targeted Measured and Indicated material. This
material at EHM has a minimum of Indicated confidence in its in situ presence, however the Indicated
and Measured components are grouped together as ‘external’ material in the example provided for
simplicity.
The diluting material included as part of the Ore Reserve, must be clearly disclosed by stating that the
Ore Reserve estimate is inclusive of recovered diluting material that is extracted as part of the cave
mining process. The Measured portion of the diluting material is classified as part of the Probable ore
reserve at EHM (as per the diagonal arrow in Figure 2) as it is outside of the targeted mining geometry
with lower confidence in the Modifying Factors. The sensitivity of the diluted Ore Reserve to the
inclusion of the dilution should also be tested and reported. The tonnes and grade of the diluting material
should also be provided in the Ore Reserve and Table 1 for transparency.
The handling of Inferred material recovered as dilution in the Ore Reserve was a point of conjecture
during the development of this methodology. This is due to conflicting interpretation of Section 29 and
Figure 2. On one hand, Figure 2 demonstrates that Inferred material cannot be converted to an Ore
Reserve. However, Section 29 states that diluting material (irrespective of classification) be included in
the Ore Reserve. Multiple peer reviews were conducted to clarify this issue and there not all reviewers
were of the same opinion. The conclusion drawn from the reviews was that the Inferred portion of the
cave dilution should be included as part of the Ore Reserve as this material is recovered as part of the
economic extraction of the orebody. However, the mine footprint should not be designed to target the
recovery this material. The tonnes and grade of the diluting material for each Mineral Resource
classification be specified explicitly to enable the reader to understand the proportion of contained metal
is from the Inferred Mineral Resource. What each reviewer did agree, is that transparency in the Ore
Reserve reporting was of upmost importance. Although there is no Inferred material recovered as
dilution at EHM, this is an important point for other caving mines to consider.
Cave mines may recover diluting material that is outside the grade boundary used in the Mineral
Resource statement. If so, part or the Ore Reserve could be outside of the Mineral Resource depending
on the grade boundary used in the Mineral Resource definition. The Ore Reserve outside the Mineral
Resource may be classified or unclassified. For the purposes of transparency, one should specify the
proportion of diluting material outside the Mineral Resource and the classification of this material.
The EHM block model has a parent block size of 20m x10m x 25m and sub-blocks at ore boundaries
are 5m x 5m x 6.25m. The flow model discretises the block model into approximately 240 million
individual cubes with a side length of 1.25m prior to the flow simulation. Each of these blocks retains
the grade, density and Mineral Resource classification of its parent block in the block model. The
location of each block is tracked during the recovery simulation of the 25,000 SLC rings in the mine
plan. The blocks recovered from each blasted ring are reported for tonnes, grade of each commodity
and the proportion (of tonnes and metal) from each Mineral Resource classification.
The flow modelling process does not account for mine development. As development material is not
subject to material flow or mixing, the portion of the Ore Reserves originating from mine development

5
can be estimated using the in situ tonnes and grade from the design and as-built solids to query the
block model.
The process used to determine the Ore Reserve classification of extracted cave material is as follows:
1) Each block in the model contains information regarding the XYZ coordinates, material density
and element grades (see columns A-D in Table 4). Note that only copper grade has been
included in the example, however multiple elements can be included and the Ore Reserve
estimation method remains the same for each element. The material density has been omitted
from this example, but is required to calculate the extracted tonnage from each blast ring. A
material type is also required for the flow model software and can be used to vary the mobility
and flow velocity of different rock types. This parameter has not been included in this example
for simplicity.
2) The block model contains a numeric code for each Mineral Resource classification. These are
Measured (1), Indicated (2), Inferred (3) and External (0). Note that External material is
classified material outside the blasted SLC volume. Each classification is then given a binary
code in a separate column in the block model file which is imported into the flow model. The
binary code (0 or 1) indicates if the block has a specific classification and enables the user to
determine the proportion of extracted material from each Mineral Resource classification for
each SLC ring (or drawpoint in a block cave) (see columns E-I in Table 4).
3) The grade for each classification is added separately as a new column in the block model (see
columns J-M in Table 4). This allows for the grade of material for each individual Mineral
Resource classification to be determined and prevents the average ring grade being used for
all classifications. Using the average ring grade for all classifications does not affect the total
tonnes and grade of the Ore Reserve estimate, but can cause a smearing effect between
Mineral Resource classifications and therefore affect the separate resultant grades of the
Proved and Probable portions of the Ore Reserve.
4) Run the flow model simulation.
5) For each SLC ring, the extracted tonnage and average grade is reported for each individual
blast ring (see columns N-Q in Table 5).
6) The binary code for each resource classification is reported from the flow model as a
percentage as shown in columns R-U in Table 5. An important check is that these rows add to
one (i.e. 100%) for each blast ring. This percentage, when multiplied by the extracted tonnes,
is the extracted tonnage for each Mineral Resource classification as shown in columns V-Y in
Table 5.
7) The grade for each recovery class needs to be calculated separately to avoid smearing between
Resource classifications. This is done by dividing the reported metal recovery (by Mineral
Resource classification in columns AA-AD in Table 6) by the tonnage by resource classification
in rows V-Y in Table 5 for each ring. The grade for each Mineral Resource classification is
calculated in columns AE-AH in Table 6.
8) As a check, the sum of the ore tonnes and metal tonnes by Mineral Resource classification is
cross referenced with the model for the report of total extracted tonnes and average grade.
These should be equal.
9) Tonnes and grade information for development ore is separated by Mineral Resource
classification based on geometry solids constructed in mine planning software.
10) Ore tonnes and grade are then calculated for each mining block by summing the extracted
material based on the location of the blast ring and mine development solid.
Ore Reserves are estimated by summing tonnes and grade information for each Mineral Resource
classification for development and production. Depletion is done by updating the flow model input file
by replacing the planned extraction tonnage with the tonnage actually extracted for each SLC
ring/drawpoint. The model is re-run and the results used for updated estimation of the Ore Reserves.
Completed mine development and SLC rings are excluded from future Ore Reserve estimation.
Multiple commodities in the block model can be simulated in the flow model. This also includes metal
equivalent, net smelter return (NSR) and any deleterious elements such as fluorine or arsenic.

6
Estimation of deleterious elements may assist in the estimation of metallurgical factors that could
influence the estimation of the Ore Reserves.

MODEL VALIDATION AND CALIBRATION

The accuracy of Ore Reserve estimation is dependent on the mining depletion process in the flow model
being completed accurately. For this reason, calibration and validation of the flow model is required.
In a similar manner to calculating depletion, the actual mined tonnes for each SLC ring is updated in
the flow model input file so that the flow model simulates actual production history. The flow model is
re-run and the modelled grade and metal production is compared to actuals reported by the
concentrator. This is done on a 6 monthly basis as part of the model validation and calibration process.
Should the predicted and actual metal production vary significantly over a 6 month period (i.e. a
weighted average greater than i.e. +/-10% by metal tonnage), then model re-calibration is required to
update flow properties and model constraints to reduce error to within acceptable levels (i.e. +/-5% by
metal tonnage over a six month period). The goal of calibration is to minimise the root mean square
error as much as possible. Flow model calibration can be conducted by varying a number of model
parameters including draw width, mobility and flow rate of different rock types, cave propagation and
delayed cave initiation. This calibration should be done with consideration of physical measurements
and observations of cave behaviour, including marker trials, underground inspections and cave
propagation records. The EHM flow model is generally able to predict ore grade and metal production
within +/-10% month on month and within 2% on an annual basis (Campbell and Power, 2016).

DISCUSSION
Dunstan (2014) outlines that the “Ore Reserve statement should be unambiguous and sufficiently
detailed so that the reader can understand the significance of key inputs and the impact on the final
estimate”. The purpose of the Ore Reserve estimation method outlined in this paper is to provide a
detailed and easy to follow system that enables the user to track and quantify behaviour unique to
caving mines such as ore mixing during the caving process, dilution entry and extraction over multiple
mining levels.
Dunstan (2014) also warns against “the use of computers and advanced software which can lead to
‘black box’ thinking and simply trusting the model output”. Acknowledging this, the estimation method
and worked example provided in this paper demonstrates the ability to track and quantify the tonnage
and grade of cave material from each Mineral Resource classification and then estimate Ore Reserves.
The validation and calibration process also ensures that model forecasts are accurate, and if not,
enables the user to adjust model parameters accordingly. Another benefit of the system provided is the
ability to provide an accurate estimate of the depleted Mineral Resource at any stage of the mine life.

CONCLUSIONS
Ore Reserve estimation in caving mines is particularly challenging due to mixing of ore and dilution in
variable proportions during the gravity flow process. The methodology outlined in this paper uses flow
modelling software to simulate mine production and material movement during the caving process. This
method enables the Mineral Resource properties of material extracted to be determined and used for
Ore reserve estimation that is transparent and easy to validate with mine production and concentrator
records. It is particularly important for caving mines to report how dilution was handled in the Ore
Reserve estimation process and if the diluting material also forms part of the Mineral Resource. For
transparency, the expected percentage (tonnes and grade) of the diluting material and its composition
(i.e. Measured, Indicated, Inferred or Unclassified) should be provided.
The methodology outlined in this paper enables the user to track the different Resource classifications
through the caving process and provides the ability to classify the Ore Reserve within the cave as
Proved and Probable according the underlying Resource classification. This system for Mineral
Resource to Ore Reserve conversion has been used at the EHM SLC for a number of years. The same
methodology can be used in block caving mines. The worked example provided will also enable the
reader to apply the method in other caving mines.

7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Glencore for allowing this paper to be published. Gavin Power has
provided much assistance in the cave flow modelling process for many years and without this
assistance, the methodology developed in this paper would not have been possible. Much appreciation
is given to Anthony Allman, Alice Clark, Geoff Dunstan and Peter Stoker who kindly peer reviewed
various parts of this paper and provided valuable commentary.

REFERENCES
Baldwin, J T, Lew, J H, Whitman, M F, 2014. Overview, in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimation – The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice, second edition, pp 3-12 (The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy Melbourne).

Beck, D A, Sharrock, G, Capes, G, 2011. A coupled DFE-Newtonian Cellular Automata scheme for
simulation of cave initiation, propagation and induced seismicity, American Rock Mechanics
Association, 45th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, June 26-29th.

Campbell, A D and Power, G R, 2016. Increasing net present value by a third at an operating sublevel
cave mine using draw strategy optimisation, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and
Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 167–174 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Diering, T, 2014. Reserve estimation for block cave mines using PCBC, in Mineral Resource and Ore
Reserve estimation – The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice, second edition, pp 547-556 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Melbourne).

Dunstan, G, 2014. Overview – Ore reserve Estimation, in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation
– The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice, second edition, pp503-506 (The Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy Melbourne).

House, M, Secis, R, 1997. Draw Parameters and Reserve Estimation using PC-BC at the E26 Block
Cave Mine, Northparkes NSW, Mining Geology Conference, Launceston, 10- 14 November 1997, p81-
92.

JORC, 2012. Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore
Reserves (The JORC Code) [online]. Available from: <http://www.jorc.org> (The Joint Ore Reserves
Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists
and Minerals Council of Australia).

McCarthy, P L, 2014. Mining dilution and losses in underground mining, in Mineral Resource and Ore
Reserve estimation – The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice, second edition, pp503-506 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Melbourne).

Power, G R, 2004. Modelling granular flow in caving mines: large scale physical modelling and full scale
experiments, PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Power, G, 2015. Power Geotechnical website [online]. Available from:

<http://www.powergeotechnical.com>.

Ross, I T, 2014. Transition from open pit to underground mining, in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimation – The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice, second edition, pp503-506 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Melbourne).

Smart G, O’Sullivan, T, 2007, Local Scale Estimation of Sublevel Cave Stocks — Is it Possible? A Case
Study in Reconciliation of Metal Production — Ridgeway Mine, New South Wales, 6th International
Mining Geology Conference, Darwin, NT, 21 - 23 August 2006, p323-331.

8
Whitham, M F, 2014. Overview – Non-Resource Inputs to Estimation of Ore Reserves – The Modifying
Factors, in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation – The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice,
second edition, pp373-383 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Melbourne).

9
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1. PGCA simulation of the EHM draw strategy. Cross section facing West (left) and North (right).

Figure 2. General relationship between exploration results, mineral resources and ore reserves (JORC,
2012)

TABLE CAPTIONS
Table 1. Example block model set-up for flow modelling

Table 2. Example flow model results for recovered tonnage (Unformatted figures are flow model
outputs, figures in italics are post flow model calculations)

Table 3. Example flow model results for recovered tonnes and grade by resource classification
(Unformatted figures are flow model outputs, figures in italics are post flow model calculations)

10
FIGURES

Figure 1. PGCA simulation of the EHM draw strategy. Cross section facing West (left) and North
(right).

Figure 2. General relationship between exploration results, mineral resources and ore reserves
(JORC, 2012)

11
TABLES
Table 4. Example block model set-up for flow modelling

A B C D E F H I J K L M
Cu
Resource Classification (Binary code) Cu Grade (%) by Classification
X Y Z Grade
(%) External Inferred Indicated Measured External Inferred Indicated Measured
69183 38673 1396 0.27 1 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0
69183 38673 1402 1.04 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.04 0
69183 38678 1402 0.27 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.27 0
69173 38663 1408 1.44 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.44
69183 38693 1408 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.5 0
69288 38513 1452 1.16 0 1 0 0 0 1.16 0 0
69313 38518 1327 1.04 0 1 0 0 0 1.04 0 0
69343 38728 1908 0.01 1 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0

12
Table 5. Example flow model results for recovered tonnage (Unformatted figures are flow model outputs, figures in italics are post flow model calculations)

N O P Q R S T U V W X Y
Ring ID Production Cu Grade External Inferred Indicated Measured External Inferred Indicated Measured
Tonnes Metal (%) Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes
Tonnes (%) (%) (%) (%)

1 1525#XC16#R46 5154.0 68.44 1.33 16% 0% 25% 59% 809.7 0.0 1305.0 3039.2
2 1525#XC24#R55 5227.5 68.52 1.31 14% 0% 79% 7% 707.0 0.0 4147.4 373.0
3 1550#XC25#R82 3551.1 30.63 0.86 23% 0% 2% 75% 801.9 0.0 77.9 2671.2
4 1500#XC5#R39 5056.1 55.23 1.09 20% 0% 21% 59% 1030.1 0.0 1067.5 2958.4
5 1525#SLOT32#R21 1169.5 2.96 0.25 91% 0% 9% 0% 1065.2 0.0 104.3 0.0
6 1525#XC26#R56 4342.2 58.73 1.35 12% 0% 82% 6% 528.4 0.0 3556.9 256.9
7 1500#XC7#R40 5176.6 75.21 1.45 13% 0.4% 9% 78% 647.5 18.5 483.7 4027.0
8 1500#XC3#R44 5077.5 50.98 1.00 15% 0% 71% 14% 758.1 0.0 3584.6 734.9

Table 6. Example flow model results for recovered tonnes and grade by resource classification (Unformatted figures are flow model outputs, figures in italics
are post flow model calculations)

Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH
Ring ID External Inferred Indicated Measured External Inferred Indicated Measured
Metal Metal Metal Metal material material material material
Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Grade (%) Grade (%) Grade (%) Grade (%)

1 1525#XC16#R46 3.45 0.00 14.50 50.49 0.43% 0.00% 1.11% 1.66%

2 1525#XC24#R55 4.39 0.00 59.09 5.04 0.62% 0.00% 1.42% 1.35%
3 1550#XC25#R82 0.63 0.00 0.79 29.20 0.08% 0.00% 1.01% 1.09%
4 1500#XC5#R39 5.35 0.00 7.87 42.01 0.52% 0.00% 0.74% 1.42%
5 1525#SLOT32#R21 2.25 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.21% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00%
6 1525#XC26#R56 3.39 0.00 52.49 2.86 0.64% 0.00% 1.48% 1.11%
7 1500#XC7#R40 3.15 0.19 4.36 67.50 0.49% 1.01% 0.90% 1.68%
8 1500#XC3#R44 3.25 0.00 35.73 12.00 0.43% 0.00% 1.00% 1.63%

13
 14

View publication stats