CONCLUSION Mine Engineers have a variety of pit design and scheduling tools at their disposal. It is important to respect the limitations of these tools. Figure 9. Comparison of nested pit shells to phase designs. Feasibility studies and budget plans should be based on designed Figure 10 and Figure 11 compare a Q&D plan with a full design pit phases.If production schedulesuseonly LG shells or even quick and used to determine whether a deposit should be expanded north. The dirty phase plans, they will invariably be over-optimistic. When mining Q&D design would be applicable if the area were mined concurrent companies rely on this type of mine planning, they are less likely to with the main pit, so access would not be a concern; but because the deliver on their stated goals. zone is less profitable, mining should be deferred. As a stand-alone The output from pit schedulers can be useful for budgeting and phase, it would require additional cost to develop haul roads onto the decision-making, but only if the schedules are based on realistic pit benches from several levels. The haul profiles for the stand-alone phase designs. phase wouldalso cost more due to the additional climbs required. These costs are not easily accounted for in the LG run.
Figure 10. “Quick and Dirty” phase plan.
Mining engineers and managers need to resist the temptation to base pit schedules on Q&D plans. Q&D plans usually underpredict waste stripping requirements. Their earlier phases tend to include too much ore and too little waste. Schedules based on Q&D plans are liable to be overly optimistic.