Reef Adjacent To Structures at TauTona Mine, AngloGold

Ashanti South African Operations

DE DAVIES
Section Manager
TauTona Mine, AngloGold Ashanti South African Operations

SYNOPSIS
The paper describes the extraction of reef adjacent to geological structures in the
Carbon Leader Reef Section at TauTona Mine. Traditionally long wall mining
has left feasible and economical blocks of ground adjacent to structures when
negotiating major geological features. This meant that mining through an upthrow fault, rolling to the reef elevation on the displaced side of the fault left reef
in the long wall. High grade areas were abandoned and gold was sterilized.
In these tight economic times and with the need to continuously improve safety
standards the need arose to develop a technique to extract these blocks
economically and safely. It was believed that the structures in these abandoned
areas were de-stressed and could now be mined in small volumes at a high
grade.
The term RATS is an acronym derived from reef adjacent to structures and
aptly describes the process of identifying and extracting these blocks. The
viability of this method was addressed in terms of the mine design, underground
investigations and financial risks.
The paper concludes with an analysis of the successes achieved to date.

INTRODUCTION
TauTona Mine is one of the AngloGold Ashanti Southern Africa operations. It is
close to the town of Carletonville in the province of Gauteng and about 70km
south-west of Johannesburg. TauTona is 46 years old and employs 4 000
people. Mining operations are conducted at depths ranging from 1,800m to
3,500m at which the worlds deepest stoping sections are found.

TauTona
Savuka

Mponeng

Ergo

Western Ultra
Deep Levels

Tau Lekoa
Kopanang

Moab Khotsong
Great Noligwa

Figure 1: The geographical map of TauTona Mine

TauTonas values are:

People are our business Our business is people.

Safety is our first value: We place people first and correspondingly put
the highest priority on safe and healthy practices and systems of work.
We are responsible for seeking out new and innovative ways to ensure
that our workplaces are free of occupational injury and illness. We live
each day for each other and use our collective commitment, talents,
resources and systems to deliver on our most important commitment to
care.

We treat each other with dignity and respect: We believe that

individuals who are treated with respect and who are entrusted to take
responsibility respond by giving their best. We seek to preserve peoples
dignity, their sense of self-worth in all our interactions, respecting them for
who they are and valuing the unique contribution that they can make to
our business success. We are honest with ourselves and others, and we
deal ethically with all of our business and social partners.

We value diversity: We aim to be a global leader with the right people

for the right jobs. We promote inclusion and team work, deriving benefit
from the rich diversity of the cultures, ideas, experiences and skills that
each employee brings to the business.

We are accountable for our actions and undertake to deliver on our

commitments: We are focused on delivering results and we do what we
say we will do. We accept responsibility and hold ourselves accountable
for our work, our behaviour, our ethics and our actions. We aim to deliver
high performance outcomes and undertake to deliver on our commitments
to our colleagues, business and social partners, and our investors.

The communities and societies in which we operate will be better off

for TauTona Mine having been there: We uphold and promote
fundamental human rights where we do business. We contribute to
building productive, respectful and mutually beneficial partnerships in the
community in which we operate. We aim to leave host communities with a
sustainable future.

We respect the environment:

We are committed to continually
improving our processes in order to prevent pollution, minimise waste,
increase our carbon efficiency and make efficient use of natural resources.
We will develop innovative solutions to mitigate environmental and climate
risks. (Mark Cutifani, Chief Executive Officer AngloGold Ashanti)

Our objective is to mine gold safely at the correct profit margin. We are a team
that produces gold by believing that the workplace can be injury free. We are
achieving our targets through people, we want to maximise TauTonas
contribution to AGA shareholders by exploring and managing life of mine
extension opportunities and striving for continual improvement. As depicted in the
following graph, safety statistics for the RATS operations from 2005 to 2008
proofs that mining reef adjacent to structures at depth was done safely.
Injury Statistics for RATS 2005 - 2008
5
4
Dressing Cases
Loss Time Injuries
Serious Injuries
Fatalities

3
2
1
0
2005

2006

26 June 2007 Laceration Finger

07 Aug 2007 Contusion Thumb

2007

2008

Tools and equipment Serious injury

Tools and equipment Serious injury

Figure 2: Injury Statistics for RATS 2005 2008

At TauTona Mine gold production declined from 2005 to 2008 by 27% to 9 332kg,
owing to a greater-than-scheduled decrease in volumes of ore mined. This was
a result of increased seismic activity in the vicinity of the CLR shaft pillar which is
being mined. Both face length and face advance were negatively affected by
seismicity during 2008. (AngloGold Ashantis Report to Society, 2008, South
Africa: Johannesburg.)
At TauTona Mine we believe in continuous improvement and therefore it is of
utmost importance to review all our current processes, to find ways to make it
even more effective and value creating.
The concern we have is that TauTona mine traditionally used the longwall mining
method. Our gold production has decreased and a need to create additional face
length arose in order to create flexibility. Because of increased seismicity, we had
to change our mining strategy. To remain sustainable we decided to develop a
method of extracting gold from the reef adjacent to structures without interfering
with the current operations, thus enhancing our gold profile.
4

REEF ADJACENT TO STRUCTURES (RATS):

The long wall mined through an up-throw fault, rolling to the reef elevation on the
displaced side of the fault and leaving reef in the hanging wall. Depicted in the following
figures are the original abandoned blocks left by longwall mining and a sketch indicating
reef displaced between 5 and 10 leaving reef adjacent to structures.

Figure 3: Geological complexity of TauTona Figure 4: Abandoned blocks adjacent to

Mine
structures

Reef left in hanging

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Reef band

Fa

ult

RATS

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Reef band

Figure 5: Sketch indicating reef displaced between 5 and 10 metres leaving reef adjacent
to structures

METHODOLOGY

Support design:
The support design was based on the Fall of Ground Management Process
(FOGM) with specific reference to mine wide design guidelines FOGM 1 and
the Local area design guidelines FOGM 2. FOGM 1 is aimed at the prevention
of rock burst and FOGM 2 is aimed at the prevention of rock bursts and fall of
ground.
FOGM 1: Mine wide design guidelines used

Both modelling and seismic trends must indicate that the planned RATS
mining are sufficiently removed from current working places not to have
any interaction.
No mining into the stressed abutments at the top or bottom of a long wall
including pillars.
All access ways must be positioned under mined out ground where no
stress changes will occur due to the new mining activity.

FOGM 2: Local area design guidelines used

In order not to mine into existing excavations all stoping and development
must be clearly indicated and avoided.
To leave crush pillars against major faults.
To consider preconditioning of prominent dykes.

Design considerations
We assumed that shallow mining conditions would prevail as the area had been
de-stressed with the original mining. Due to the regeneration of stress in the
back areas, the stress would now be zero. Careful modelling shed some light on
the expected stress conditions. The initial elastic modelling indicated stresses of
approximately 7 MPa. It was thus assumed that the back area stress would be
between 0 MPa and 10 MPa.
Stope closure is a combination of elastic convergence and in-elastic bed
separation especially in the hanging wall. This bed separation is at maximum
close to the stope face and decreases in magnitude further away (into the
hanging wall). It was unknown how much of this bed separation would be visible
and what affect it would have on the planned mining.

Ideally, the support installed must prevent the first bed from falling, thereby
supporting the additional layers in the hanging wall. The first layer is however
unknown, but drilling support into the hanging wall will improve the integrity of the
initial support system design. If drilling is impossible, the support design may
have to be adjusted as soon as the stoping has commenced and new information
becomes available.
Low closure rates were expected, thus stiff active support had to be designed.
Because the expected closure rates could not be determined, yielding support
was considered. Low seismic rates were probable, but close to abutments the
seismic risks increased.
The possibility of back break conditions on large spans could not be disregarded.
As proven by the platinum mines breaker lines of packs were often used to
prevent back break from forming up to the face area. With packs on the gullies
and limited panel spans, these breaker lines would not be required.

Support design
The standard approach is to use the accident statistics for the applicable
geotechnical settings at the mine for the past 5 years to determine the fallout
thickness to be supported. From this the support resistance and energy
absorption criteria can be calculated. The support standard is then designed to
meet these criteria.
In this case the accident statistics is not applicable as the geotechnical setting is
totally different. There are no accident statistics available for this geotechnical
setting on TauTona.
With so many unknowns and a new geotechnical setting, a different approach
to support design was required. Without accident statistics the next option was
to try and pre-determine a likely fallout thickness. The most likely fallout
thickness is up to the first well defined bedding plane consisting of quartzite.
The bottom contact between the Greenbar and the quartzite has practically no
cohesion and can be assumed to determine a likely thickness (2m above the reef
contact). This relates to a support resistance criterion of 53 kN. The next
bedding plane is the top contact of the Greenbar, a further 2m above the bottom
contact, relating to a support resistance criterion of 106 kN.
The current support standard of elongates (Profile props) spaced 1m by 1,6m
gives a support resistance capability of 125 kN and can therefore support at least
up to the top contact of the Greenbar.

On a larger scale, including the packs in the equation and assuming 20 metre
long panels, the same support standard gives a support resistance capability of
200 kN and can support up to 7,5 metres of dead weight (wedge).
Fallout thickness: Maximum of
3.5 metres?
Reef left behind

2m
2m

Fault

Greenbar

Quartzite Beam

Mined out Area

1 = Quartzite beam (53kN)

2 = Greenbar zone (106kN)
3 = Total deadweight (200kN)
Figure 6: FOGM 2 Support strategy

If the separation is in excess of 7,5 metres, additional packs or in-stope pillars

will be considered.

Mined out on reef

Mined out off reef

Mined out on reef

<5m
In-stope pillars against
the major fault
5m
2m
2m

Figure 7: FOGM 2 Support strategy

After considering all the above and careful modelling the following support design
was established:

180mm to 200mm diameter Profile props.

Pre-stressed packs (75cm by 150cm) on the gully shoulders.
No backfill.
In-stope roof bolting would be required.
Continuous closure monitoring.

180mm to 200mm diameter Profile Pre-stressed packs (75cm by 150cm)

props. (No Backfill)
on the gully shoulders
Figure 8: Photos of 116 83 Stope indicating installed support units

2m max
Dip
1.5m max
3.0m max

7m max

4.5m max

Blasting barricade and sweepings line;

4.5m max from the face

1.6m
1.0m

1.8m
1.6m

Legend:
Pre-stressed pack (75cm x 150 cm)
Pre-stressed Profileprop (180mm)
Splitset (1.5m)
Camloc prop

Figure 9: Support standard for RATS mining (face length less than 20m)

2m max
Dip
1.5m max
6m max

3.0m max

7m max

4.5m max

Blasting barricade and sweepings line;

4.5m max from the face

1.6m
1.0m

1.8m
1.6m

Legend:
Pre-stressed pack (75cm x 150 cm)
Pre-stressed Profile prop (180mm)
Splitset (1.5m)
Camloc prop

Figure 10: Support standard for RATS mining (face length in excess of 20m)

10

Financial Risks:
Blocks were identified and prioritized according to the set criteria for inclusion in
the Business Unit Plan. The reef adjacent to structures was identified by the
Mineral Resources Department and each one was allocated with a specific block
number. These blocks were prioritized according to their volume and grade, their
current infrastructure utilisation and their proximity to current working places. A
multi disciplinary risk assessment followed after a financial evaluation was done.

Feasible
Blocks

X
XX

X
Not Feasible

Figure 11: Identified RATS blocks

11

Recovered kilograms were determined by using the Basic Mining Equation

(BME) Model. The initial blocks identified indicated 29479m2 in total. After we
added a 50% discount it resulted in 1413.5 kg broken gold from the stopes. The
average values of these blocks were 3481cmg/t. It is important to note that the
initial assessments were done only from plans and a discount factor was added
when underground investigations and geological information became available.
This BME model indicated a yield of 25.1g/t.

Greenfield
BME
x
=
x
=
x
x RD =
+
+
=
+/=
+/=
+/=
x
x
=

Plan

FACE LENGTH
FACE ADVANCE
TOTAL m2
ON REEF PERCENTAGE
REEF m2
ON REEF cmg/t
kg GOLD EX STOPES
VAMPING kg
REEF DEVELOPMENT kg
TOTAL kg BROKEN
U/G INVENTORY
GOLD HOISTED
SURFACE INVENTORY (SHAFT)
GOLD DELIVERED TO PLANT
PLANT INVENTORY
GOLD CALLED FOR
MINE CALL FACTOR
RECOVERY FACTO
GOLD RECOVERED

WIDTHS, TONNES, YIELD

STOPING WIDTH
MILLING WIDTH
TOTAL TONS HOISTED (REEF & WASTE)
TONS MILLED
YIELD (GRADE RECOVERED)
Figure 12: Total available gold (not discounted)

12

m
m
m
%
m
cmg/t
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
%
%
Kg

1 300
4.50
29 497
50.80%
14 984
3 481
1 413.517
0
0
1 413.517
0
1 413.517
0
1 413.517
0
1 413.517
74.00%
97.57%
1 020.585

cm
cm
t
t
g/t

R3 481
100.0
40 607
40 607
25.1

The next step was to determine whether these blocks would be financially viable
to mine. Due to the mining risk this model allowed us to use variable parameter
values to determine feasibility. Firstly the total incline square meters were used.
A 50% discount was added to establish the available square meters to be mined.
This allowed us to group blocks together according to accessibility and locality.
Tonnages and contents of these blocks were calculated.
Stoping and
development costs were determined by using rand/m and rand/m cost. This
variable model allowed us to use different units: gold price, rand/m, or rand/m to
determine profits or losses in the different blocks or group of blocks.
The initial financial evaluation indicated that these blocks would be feasible to
mine and could be extracted at a profit, thus enhancing the current gold profile.
PILLAR NO

SECTION 7 - FINRISK

0.0271

FINAL

TAU TONA MINE- SECTION 311

DATE

% M
MINED

% M
FLTING

LPI TOTAL STOPING COSTS INCLUDING STORES (BUDGET 2005)

UNIT COSTS USED IN INVESTIGATION
Item
Unit Costs
R/ton
STOPING
NEW DEVELOPMENT
R/ton
FLAT END RE-EQUIPPING
R/m

DEVELOPMENT SHEET

LINE

LEVEL

PANELS

STOPE SHEET

MCF
%

Plant REC.
%

GOLD PRICE
R / Kg.

85.03

97.57

80,000

UNIQUE PILLAR No.

FINAL

BLOCK No.

ALL

STOPING TO BE DONE
CW

INCLINED M
BLOCK No.

BLOCK

26
28
36
70

100%
13027
4290
40875
11855

60%
7816
2574
24525
7113

0%
7816
2574
24525
7113

TOTAL

70047

42028

23.0
42028
SW Full Width

SW

(MRIS)
% GROUNDGROUND
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE - FLT DISCOUNT
cm.
100
100
100
100

cm.
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0

VALUE
(MRIS)
cm.g/t
3333
3829
4205
4421

REEF DIP

22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5

GRADE
g/m
90.32
103.77
113.96
119.81

4056

22.5

109.93

100.0
100.0

H
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.0
1.2
2.4

W
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.8
2.4
3.0

SG
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78

TONS
851
0
2802
6755
961
0
11369
0
#DIV/0!

CONTENTS
Kilograms Au
706
267
2795
852

113896
113896

R/m *Dev
7500

Plant REC.
%

Total REC.
%

R / Kg.

85.03

97.57

82.96

80,000

4620

7500
7500
7500
*Standard VR
16.13

COST
225000
0
787500
3375000
900000
0

R/ton

M2

COST (R/M2

264

42028

2094

5,287,500

465

RECOVERED GOLD, KG.

TOTAL REVENUE (RANDS)

REVENUE

88,007,051

R/rec.gm.

281
500

COSTS

937

STOPING COSTS
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
TREATMENT COSTS

DIAMOND DRILLING COST

TOTAL MINING COST

AVG Tons / M

R/rec.gm.

PROFIT / LOSS

STOPING,
DEVELOPMENT,
TOTAL ENGINEERING
FLAT RE-EQUIPPING,
DIAMOND DRILLING

DIRECT COST
UNIT COST
TOT.STOPE TREAT.
0
0
0
TOT.DEV. TREAT.
0
0
TOTAL TREATMENT
0
0

TONS

UNIT COST (R/t & R/m)Treatment

(R/ton)
(R/ton)
(Rand)

113896
6755

(R/ton)
(Metres)
AS PER

AVAILABILITY AND MINING RATE

WHEN CAN STOPING START ?
PLANNED FACE ADVANCE
PLANNED WORKING PANELS
PLANNED WORKING F/ LENGTH
PLANNED MINING RATE
PLANNED AREA TO MINE
ESTIM.TIME TO COMPLETION

NOW

IN 6
MTHS

IN 12
MTHS

IN 18
MTHS

Date :
m./mth.:
No.:
m.:
m / mth.:
m.:
Mths.:

Figure 13: Financial Model

13

+ PORTION OF OTHER COSTS **

Full Width
0

R/rec.gm.
Profit/Revenue %

TOT.DEV. COST

IN 24
MTHS

3rd
YEAR

3,832.965
306,637,216

FINANCIALS
Item

COST

TREATMENT AND OTHER COSTS

ITEM

GOLD PRICE

MCF
%

STOPING COSTS

DEVELOPMENT COSTS
METRES
WORKING PLACE
30
HLGE
RAW / CON.X/C
105
CROSSCUT
450
RAISE + SLUSHER
120
BOXHOLE
TRAVELLINGWAY
705
TOTAL
PLANNED DEV.RATE; m / mth
ESTIMATED TIME TO COMPLETION: mths

FACTORS

STOPE STATS
TONS
ORE
21182
6976
66463
19276

4th
YEAR

IN RANDS

306,637,216
80.00
88,007,051
5,287,500
0
0
93,294,551
24
213,342,665
55.7
69.57

IMPLEMENTATION
PILLAR INVESTIGATION PROCESS:
In the implementation process certain steps are critical to ensure all possible
constraints are addressed prior to allocation of resources. A flow sheet as
described in appendix 1 was used to ensure involvement of all the role players.

Geologist and Evaluator to identify all areas with Reef adjacent to

Structures.
CADs Operator and Surveyor to update the plans and add additional
information.
SHE Officer to compile the necessary ventilation layout for initial
investigation.
Mine Overseer to do initial underground investigation in conjunction with
the rock engineering, ventilation and engineering assessments.
Hold a workshop with all the necessary role players to do a baseline risk
assessment.
If blocks are inaccessible from current infrastructure an initial development
layout is done in terms of the mine design.
Complete pillar investigation form and ensure sign offs from all
departments.

See Appendix 1 for process flow sheet, section 1 to 10, were detailed and signed
off plans was used for inclusion into the mining schedule.

Figure 14: 1 and 200 Mine Plan

14

Reef adjacent to structures blocks were identified by using the volume, grade
and kilograms allocated to the blocks. This was determined by using Krige
values.

4 839m @ 3 804cmgt
498.895kg

1 454m @ 2 964cmgt
116.791kg

610m @ 2822cmgt
40.882kg

2 354m @ 4 167cmgt
265.753kg

10 583m @ 3 648cmgt
913.691kg

Green Bar erosion

Channel ?
10 000m @ 3 648cmgt
913.691kg

Figure 15: Identified blocks by utilizing volume, value and grade

15

PROCESS:
From the pillar investigation process all relevant information was used to
determine and prioritize blocks according to their volume and grade, their current
infrastructure utilisation and their proximity to current working places. A multi
disciplinary risk assessment was conducted and the blocks were scheduled in
terms of availability, equipping and resource requirements.
For the initial blocks identified no development was required to access the
blocks. Resources were allocated in terms of equipment (winches, locos,
loaders, switches, rails, box fronts, miscellaneous stores) and labour. The 111
employees allocated to the project included stoping, equipping, horizontal
transport, haulage maintenance and supervision labour. The implementation of
this mining method commenced with four crews doing the equipping, ventilation,
support and establishment of the blocks. Each crew consisted of a Stope Team
Leader, Miners Assistant, four Rock Drill Operators - Stope and four Stope Multi
Task Crew members.
A crew movement and section build-up schedule was drawn up and
implemented. Stoping of the reef adjacent to structures commenced in June
2005.
Due to the fact that the throw of the faults determined the face length short
panels were designed with a face length between 10 and 20 metres. Most of
these structures generally strike North East. The reef at TauTona Mine dips from
North to South at 22 degrees and strikes from East to West. Current box holes
were used as the initial attacking point. A diagonal wide gully was mined in a
western direction through the old stope until reef was intersected and continued
up to the fault position. After this establishment a north gully was positioned in
the centre of the block and in the direction of the fault. This establishment
created the face length and opened the block for extraction according to the
support design specifications. All blocks were extracted without night shift, thus
doing both cleaning and blasting on day shift.

16

RATS PLANNING: CREW MOVEMENT AND SECTION BUILD- UP

Work Place Page Block cmgt M2
@
UCL LCL
60% 120m2
101
13
72 4293 1931
8
8
102
14
73 4703 1106
9
83
2 26B
3049 2588
11
11
85
1 26A
4136 2984
12
13
87
3 26C
2594 2244
10
9
87
4
28 3829 1287
11
85
1287
11
107,5
15
74 4870 1591
13
109
16
75 4899 1746
15
17
76 2240
739
6
93/94
12 36H
4444 2279
10
9
97
5 36A
3310 4145
35

94
96/97

7 36C
6 36B

4055
3982

1724
2678

93/94

11 36G

4742

1918

97

Gang March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan ' 06 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan ' 07 Feb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24
A
25
50 75 100 120 120 120
120 120 120
B
50 50 75 100 120 120
120 120 120 120
C
D

50

50

50

0
25
0

50 100
50 75

120 120 120

100 120 120
0
0
120 120 120

50 100 120
0
50 100 120
0
25

120 120 120

50 100

120 120 120

0

14 H
11
11 I
8
8

120 120 120 120 120 120

120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
50
50
120 120 120 120
100 100 120 120 120 120
120 120 120 120 120
100 100 120 120 120
50 75
120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
50 100 100 120
100 100 100 120 120 120 120

25

50

120 120

120

120 120
100 100

120 120
120 120

120 120
120 120
40 50

120 120
120
100 120

70 100 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

120 120

50
70 120 120 120 120 120 120

70 100
120
40

0
50
0

36

GRANDTOTAL
30247
TOTAL GANGS
TOTAL GOLD KG' s @ 4056 cmgt

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

150 275 475 690

4
6
7
7
14,9 37,7 46,85 69

800 840 840

840 865 890 890 830 850 870 940 870 915 860 920
1010 840
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
80,6283,9 83,9 83,9
86,6 89,4 90,4 84,8 87,5 93,5 102 95,3 103 94 101 113,07 108

2 Year Au kg total = 1655.27

2 Year m2 total = 16460

Figure 16: Mining Schedule

17

BENEFITS OF MINING METHOD

The production profile improved from 1646m produced in 2005 to 6579m in
2008. The gold profile in the RATS also increased from 112 kg broken in 2005
to 592 kgs broken in 2008. Since implementation of the project 23 864m has
been mined and yielded 1938kg broken gold.
The reef adjacent to structures became an integral part of our resources and
optimized our plan. The limited window of opportunity to mine these blocks was
addressed against the set criteria and included into our plan. This process
enabled us to optimize the full potential to extract gold from RATS without
interfering with the current operations, thus enhancing our gold profile.
We had no previous knowledge of mining reef adjacent to structures at depth
therefore a unique support strategy was designed and implemented successfully.
Each block have its own design in terms of mining layout and support strategy to
allow the successful extraction of these blocks.
9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Act Total m2

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 YTD

1646

4698

8950

6579

1991

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Act Broken Gold

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 YTD

112

348

713

592

173

Figure 17: Production Performance actual m and Kilograms

18

CONSTRAINTS
It was foreseeable that ventilation and cooling would be the biggest constraint.
This was addressed through the implementation of proper ventilation layouts
utilizing the current infrastructure.
Seismicity on structures was not excluded, but by implementing the unique
support design it was proven that this risk was minimized and controlled.
Inaccessibility of the blocks prior to mining provided us with limited geological
information on the reef horizon. The structures in the blocks were modeled from
old geological mapping, thus creating a degree of uncertainty in terms of
confidence levels in some blocks. Structural changes within the blocks when
mining commenced could influence the successful extraction of the blocks.
Interference with current mining, when mining reef adjacent to structures, posed
a major risk in certain areas which could influence the volume of the current
longwall operation. Re-mining in these areas could increase the seismicity,
resulting in the loss of the access ways to the existing long walls. In addition
layouts for ventilation were critical to ensure that ventilation conditions were
conducive for mining both the areas.
A proper assessment of all existing excavations in the proposed mining area was
necessary to prevent unnecessary holing into established infrastructure.

CONCLUSION
Due to the complexity of the mining environment it is inevitable that one must be
able to adapt to change in order to ensure the viability of the system. This paper
does not seek to obscure your mind, but rather to stimulate the thinking process.
It is imperative to not only remember the basic principles of mining but to
challenge the obvious.
At TauTona Mine it was proven that mining reef adjacent to structures at depth
needed a dynamic and workable plan. The unique extraction sequence per block
was a major contributor to the success of this mining method. The reality is that
successes and failures in blocks are inevitable. The multi disciplinary risk
assessment and involvement of all services departments is imperative to ensure
the success of mining reef adjacent to structures.
The content of this paper results from approximately four years of experience in
mining reef adjacent to structures at depth. It was written with the objective of
assisting fellow mining engineers in the planning and implementation of such a
mining method.
19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the management of TauTona Mine for permission to
publish this paper and all the persons who assisted in the preparation.
In addition thanks to Great Noligwa Mine for their Pillar Investigation Process
Flow Sheet and Lourens Scheepers, Rock Engineering Manager, TauTona Mine
who assisted with the support design.

REFERENCES
AngloGold Ashanti. (2008). Report to Society. South Africa: Johannesburg.
Jager, A.J.; Ryder, J.A. (1999). A Handbook on Rock Engineering Practice for
Tabular Hard Rock Mines.
Le Roux, W.L. (1979). Mine Ventilation Notes for Beginners.
Lurie, J. (1984). South African Geology for Mining, Metallurgical, Hydrological
and Civil Engineering.
Ritson, T.P. (1997). Surveying for Mine Surveyors.
Storrar, C.D. (1987). South African Mine Valuation.

20

APPENDIX 1: PROCESS FLOW SHEETS SECTION 1 TO 10

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

FLOW SHEET FOR PILLAR INVESTIGATION FILE

Sign:
Sign:

Date:
Date:

MRM CAD Operator.

Section 2 completed.

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

MRM Senior Evaluator

Section 3 completed.

Section Surveyor.
Section 4 completed.

WORKING PLACE

MRM Pillar geologist.

Section 1 completed.

MO Old areas.
Section 5 completed.

MRM Pillar Geologist - FINRISK.

Section 7 completed.

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

Sign:

Date:

N o s.

Rock Engineering Department.

Section 8 completed.

BLOCK

MRM Planning officer.

Section 6 completed.

SHE Department.
Section 9 completed.

Engineering Department
Section 10 completed.

Geology Manager
Section 11 completed.

Section Manager
Section 11 completed.

MRM Manager.
Section 11 completed.

Flow sheet for Pillar Investigation

21

P I L L A R N o.

Summary

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 1 PILLAR GEOLOGIST

WORKING PLACE

i) Review available information:

1:200 stope sheets
1:200 development sheets
Assay tracings
ii) Complete updates:
Strike lines
Faulting
Facies type

BLOCK

RIH/RIF
iii) Determine:
RGSW

iv) Transfer onto geological investigation sheet:

N o s.

Hazardous conditions

v) Transfer to CAD:

Date:

Section 1: Pillar Geologist

22

P I L L A R N o.

Signature :-

TAUTONA

Appendix

GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

MINE
Geologist:

Date:

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.

Working place:
Plan scale 1: 1000

Refer to Stope sheet:

RGSW cm.
STOPING STYLE

U/C

and Development sheet:

F/W

Historic sampling in the adjacent panels indicate

cmg/t.

It is proposed by Geology to

Facies type:
ORIS:
Geological comments:
INCLINED M2 :
INSERT A COPY (1: 100)

CW (cm) :
SW (cm):
GRADE (CMG/T) :

INSERT A PLAN COPY (1: 1000) ON NEXT PAGE

Rock Engineering comments:

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely.

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely.

Geological Investigation

23

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 2 - CAD OPERATOR/DRAFTSPERSON

i) Update geological information on CAD/Microstation

ii) Create print of area under investigation

iii) Check updates with pillar geologist

iv) Attach copy of print to geological investigation sheet

WORKING PLACE

CHECKLIST

v) Attach copy of print to old area investigation sheet

BLOCK
N o s.

Date:

Section 2: CAD Operator

24

P I L L A R N o.

Signature :-

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 3 - SENIOR EVALUATOR

WORKING PLACE

CHECKLIST
i) Review available information:

ii) Capture relevant peripheral sampling:

BLOCK

iii) Evaluate block No's:

ORIS:
2

Inclined M

N o s.

CW (CM)
SW (CM)
GRADE (Cmg/t)
kriged

ORIS

Signature :-

Date:

Section 3: Senior Evaluator

25

P I L L A R N o.

conventional

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 4 - SECTION SURVEYOR

MCF :PRF :-

(%)
(%)

LOW:
LOW:

All additional pegs required in place :Plans up to date :Layouts out and signed by all depts. :Old gold / Lockup :-

MOD:
MOD:

HIGH:
HIGH:

(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
tons @

g/t
=

0 kg Au

WORKING PLACE

CHECKLIST

Estimated tons and contents of mud in x/cut:

BLOCK

Remarks:

N o s.

SIGNATURES:
Date:

Section Surveyor:

Date:

Section 4: Section Surveyor

26

P I L L A R N o.

Chief Gold Loss Officer:

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 5 - M/O UNDERGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

X/Cut

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

Timber
bay

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

T/Way

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

Cost estimate of opening up old areas to acess pillar:

ii) Temperatures:

a)Wet bulb:-

b)Dry bulb:-

N o s.

iii) Development layouts or pegs required: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

___________________________________

BLOCK

B/Holes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____________________________________

WORKING PLACE

CHECKLIST
i) State of working places:
Haulage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____________________________________

__ __________________
iv) Stoping layouts or pegs reqiuired:
___________________________________
_________________________
v) Equipping required:
__________________________________
R

Cost estimate of equipping pillar:

vii) Special requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

____________________________________
____________________________________

Signature :-

Date:

Section 5: Mine Overseer U/G Investigation

27

P I L L A R N o.

vi) 2nd Escapeway:

In place
YES
NO
Condition
GOOD
FAIR
BAD
Layout required
YES
NO
___________________________
Comments
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TAUTONA

OLD AREA PILLAR INVESTIGATION

MINE
M/Overseer:

Date:

JUL 01

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.

Working place:
Plan scale 1: 1000

3. Is the ventilation adequate?

What is required?
4.Tracks: are they required?
How many lengths?:

Sleepers?:

5. Where do the pipes end?

Peg +\- :
6. How many air/ water pipes needed?
Sizes
7. Boxfronts: condition?
Can they be used?
Do they contain ore?
8. Are grizzlies available?

Condition:

9. New B/HOLE required?

10. New T/WAY required?
11. No. of equipping shifts needed:
12. Cost of opening up (new dev excluded):

R
Mining comments:

This pillar

IS / IS NOT

ESH comments:

mineable.

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely.

Old Area Pillar Investigation

28

PILLAR No.

WORKING PLACE

BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 6 - MINE DESIGN

Cost treated (excl.dev.costs)

Development costs
Flat equipping costs, R/m
HLGE required :
RAW/Conn.X/C required :
X/Cut development required :
Raise/slusher required :

R
R
R
(metres)
(metres)
(metres)
(metres)

BH / Orepass required :

(metres)

WORKING PLACE

Mine Design
Provisional mining layout on CAD taking the current
Geological structure on CAD, the underground
investigation (App.) and Rock Engineering (App.) into account.

M SLUSHER + M RSE

ASSESSMENT :

This pillar

IS / IS NOT

Signature :

N o s.

Copy of 1:1000 design to be attached.

BLOCK

T/Way required :
(metres)
Timberbay required :
(metres)
Flat re-equipping required :
(metres)
Total Pillar Access dev.costs : MODE
R
Total Capital development costsMODE
:
R
Total Stoping costs :
R
MODE
Total Mining costs,(excl.D/drilling)
:
MODE
R
Start date for mining
Area that can be mined per year (M2) 2400
CAD Design File No.

mineable.
Date:

P I L L A R N o.

Section 6: Mine Design

29

TAUTONA
MINE

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED FOR PILLAR

M/Overseer:

Date:

Working place:
Plan scale 1: 1000

Hlge.
X/Cut
T/Way
Slusher
B/Hole

STICK PLAN ONTO THIS PAGE

TOTAL
Mine design/planning comments:

Mining comments:

Rock Engineering comments:

ESH department comments:

Development Plan

30

BLOCK No.

Appendix F1

PILLAR No.

SECTION 7 - FINRISK

0.0271

TAU TONA MINE- SECTION 311

DATE

% M
MINED

% M
FLTING

LPI TOTAL STOPING COSTS INCLUDING STORES (BUDGET 2005)

UNIT COSTS USED IN INVESTIGATION
Item
Unit Costs
R/ton
STOPING
NEW DEVELOPMENT
R/ton
FLAT END RE-EQUIPPING
R/m

DEVELOPMENT SHEET

LINE

LEVEL

MCF
%

Plant REC.
%

85.03

97.57

UNIQUE PILLAR No.

PANELS

STOPE SHEET

BLOCK No.

STOPING TO BE DONE
INCLINED M

SW

CW

BLOCK No.

BLOCK

26
28
36
70

100%
13027
4290
40875
11855

60%
7816
2574
24525
7113

0%
7816
2574
24525
7113

TOTAL

70047

42028

23.0
42028
SW Full Width

(MRIS)
% GROUNDGROUND
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE - FLT DISCOUNT
cm.
100
100
100
100

cm.
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0

VALUE
(MRIS)
cm.g/t
3333
3829
4205
4421

REEF DIP

22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5

GRADE
g/m
90.32
103.77
113.96
119.81

4056

22.5

109.93

100.0
100.0

H
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.0
1.2
2.4

W
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.8
2.4
3.0

SG
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78

TONS
851
0
2802
6755
961
0
11369
0
#DIV/0!

FACTORS

STOPE STATS
TONS
ORE
21182
6976
66463
19276

CONTENTS
Kilograms Au
706
267
2795
852

113896
113896

MCF
%

Plant REC.
%

85.03

97.57

R/m *Dev
7500
7500
7500
7500
*Standard VR
16.13

COST
225000
0
787500
3375000
900000
0

R/ton

M2

COST (R/M2

264

42028

2094

5,287,500

465

FINANCIALS
Item

COST

REVENUE

88,007,051

500

COSTS

937

STOPING COSTS
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
TREATMENT COSTS

DIAMOND DRILLING COST

TOTAL MINING COST

AVG Tons / M

R/rec.gm.

PROFIT / LOSS

DIRECT COST
UNIT COST
TOT.STOPE TREAT.
0
0
0
TOT.DEV. TREAT.
0
0
TOTAL TREATMENT
0
0

TONS

UNIT COST (R/t & R/m)Treatment

(R/ton)
(R/ton)
(Rand)

113896
6755

(R/ton)
(Metres)
AS PER

AVAILABILITY AND MINING RATE

WHEN CAN STOPING START ?
PLANNED FACE ADVANCE
PLANNED WORKING PANELS
PLANNED WORKING F/ LENGTH
PLANNED MINING RATE
PLANNED AREA TO MINE
ESTIM.TIME TO COMPLETION

NOW

IN 6
MTHS

IN 12
MTHS

Date :
m./mth.:
No.:
m.:
m / mth.:
m.:
Mths.:

Section 7: Financial Risk

31

IN RANDS

306,637,216

R/rec.gm.

281

TREATMENT AND OTHER COSTS

ITEM

Total REC.

RECOVERED GOLD, KG.

TOTAL REVENUE (RANDS)

4620

STOPING COSTS

DEVELOPMENT COSTS
METRES
WORKING PLACE
30
HLGE
RAW / CON.X/C
105
CROSSCUT
450
RAISE + SLUSHER
120
BOXHOLE
TRAVELLINGWAY
705
TOTAL
PLANNED DEV.RATE; m / mth
ESTIMATED TIME TO COMPLETION: mths

STOPING,
DEVELOPMENT,
TOTAL ENGINEERING
FLAT RE-EQUIPPING,
DIAMOND DRILLING

GOLD PRICE

IN 18
MTHS

+ PORTION OF OTHER COSTS **

Full Width
0

R/rec.gm.
Profit/Revenue %

TOT.DEV. COST

IN 24
MTHS

3rd
YEAR

4th
YEAR

93,294,551
213,342,665

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 8 - ROCK ENGINEERING

i) Seismics:

a). Is the pillar seismically active ?

ii) Stability:

a). Is this a stabilising pillar ?

b). Pillar and Regional stability.

iii) Development support recommendations:

a). Primary :-

Rating

WORKING PLACE

b). What is its seismic history ?

X/cut
T/way
B/hole
Timber bay

BLOCK

Other
b). Secondary :-Haulage
X/cut

N o s.

T/way

iv) Stoping method:

v) Are proposed accesses overstoped?

vi) Development sequencing:

ASSESSMENT :

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely.

Signature :

Date :

Section 8: Rock Engineering

32

P I L L A R N o.

vii) Special instructions:

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 9 - SHE DEPARTMENT

i)Ventilation & Refrigeration

b). Requirements and Layout.

ii) Temperatures:

a). Wet bulb :-

b). Dry bulb :-

WORKING PLACE

a). Air availability in the area

iii) What is the Kata in the area ?

iv) Nearest Refuge Bay:

BLOCK

v) Escape routes:

N o s.

vi) Methane and water:

CH4 =

H2O (l/hr) =

Precautions :-

Special instructions ?

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely.

Signature :

Date

Section 9: SHE Department

33

P I L L A R N o.

ASSESSMENT :

WORKING PLACE

PILLAR No.
BLOCK No.
TAUTONA MINE

SECTION 10 - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

i) Telephone requirements:

WORKING PLACE

ii) Lighting requirements.

iii) Cable requirements:

iv) Water, air and refrigeration requirements:

BLOCK

v) Other electrical requirements:

N o s.

vi) Special instructions ?

P I L L A R N o.

Signature :

Date:

Section 10: Engineering Department

34

PILLAR VIABILITY INVESTIGATION

SUMMARY SHEET
TAUTONA MINE

Unique Pillar No.

Working place
Measured or Indicated Resource Block Nos.
Area to be mined :(M)

(ORIS)

#REF!
N/A

Reef stripping potential :HW thickness :-

(cm)

Full C/Width

(cm)

Footwall thickness :-

(cm)

RGSW :Tramming Width :-

(cm)
(cm)

Old gold / Lockup

tons

MCF for the pillar :-

(%)

Plant Recovery Factor :-

(%)

Estimated D/drilling costs,

Total Pillar Access costs :-

Total Capital costs :-

Total stoping costs :-,

Total working mining costs :-,

R/Kg.
R/Kg.
R
Kg.

TO BE CALC.

g/t.=

FINAL ASSESSMENT :
COMMENTS :-

Signature :

PILLAR GEOLOGIST

Pillar Viability Investigation

35

Date:

Kg. Au

COSTS

Stoping SINGLE or DOUBLE CUT:-

Gold price used :Curr.Breakeven gold price:Total revenue :Total Recovered Gold :LOM DCF - Operational
PROFIT or LOSS :-

(%)
(cm.g/t.)

STORES + CORPORATE

Grade, (mode over full C/Width) :-

(%)

TOTAL PRODUCTION +

Off Reef Mining percentage :-

From Finrisk

Reef Extraction ratio :-

(70% OF TOTAL)

Geology Manager comments:

ASSESSMENT :

This pillar

IS / IS NOT

mineable.

Signature :-

Date:

Chief Surveyor comments:

ASSESSMENT :

This pillar

IS / IS NOT

Signature :-

mineable.
Date:

Section Manager comments

ASSESSMENT :

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely and profitably.

Signature :-

Date:

Production Manager comments:

ASSESSMENT :

This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely and profitably.

Signature :-

Date:

MRM comments:

FINAL ASSESSMENT :
This pillar CAN / CANNOT be mined safely and profitably.
Signature :-

Date:

Pillar Viability Investigation (continued)

36

37