SAIMM Technical Presentation
15 July 2010
Index
• Vision and Positioning
• APMOT Production Module at a glance
–
–
–
–
Standard level and block
Geology
Scheduling
Levelling – Team Sharing
• Costing Module
– Approach
– Rules
• Case Studies
MRM
What is APMOT?
• Anglo Platinum Mining Optimisation Tool
– APMOT was developed for Anglo Platinum and is a nongraphical rules based production scheduling solution that allows a full
production schedule to be done very quickly.
– In this way many different mine design and production
assumptions can be tested and the impact compared.
• The APMOT solution also includes a financial
module that calculates activity based costs and
labour as well as valuations for the given
schedule.
MRM
APMOT Vision
A solution that allows rapid generation of a reliable production schedule
and associated economics so that multiple options/scenarios can be
considered and thereby determine the ‘optimal’ deterministic schedule.
This required a solution that had:
• Enough flexibility and speed to study multiple options
• Evaluation of grade at an acceptable level of confidence
• Linking Labour and other costs to the production schedule to allow true activity
based costing
• Incorporating costs and capital to allow NPV optimisation
• Incorporating Global Assumptions to allow trade-off’s
• Allow iteration and dynamic changes without required re-work
• Allow checking against constraints to ensure the production profile is realistic,
these should include:
– Ventilation
– Men and material logistics
– Scraping, tramming and hoisting constraints
MRM
APMOT Positioning
Short term
Long term
Business Plan
Program
MES Options
Top Down Goals
Tons and Ounces
Business Plan
Budget
Iteration
APMOT PM
Trade Offs and Options
Cadsmine
Project Stage
Gates
Desktop – L3
MRM
Scoping – L2C
Pre-Feasibility L2B
Feasibility – L2A
Execution – L1E
Operations – L1
APMOT Positioning
Short term
Long term
APMOT PM
Operations Scheduling
Business Plan
Program
Cadsmine
MES Options
MRM
Top Down Goals
EssBase
Tons and Ounces
Budget
Group Value
Optimisation
Iteration
Business Plan
APMOT Positioning
Short term
Long term
APMOTBudget
PM Driven by and
Iteration
Asset Optimisation
linked
to Cadsmine profile
Optimisation proven in
APMot before incorporation
in plan
Cadsmine
MES Options
Top Down Goals
Iteration
APMOT
Labour
and Costs
Business
Plan
Program
Tons and Ounces
APMOT - Projects
Labour and Costs
APMOT PM
Trade Offs and Options
Project costs feeds
Opexand
modelling
into short
long
already
done
for
term plans
projects
Cadsmine
Projects
MRM
Business Plan
Budget
APMOT Positioning
Short term
Long term
APMOT PM
Operations Scheduling
APMOT PM
Asset Optimisation
Group Value
Optimisation
APMOT
Labour and Costs
Cadsmine
MES Options
Top Down Goals
EssBase
Tons and Ounces
Business Plan
Budget
APMOT - Projects
Labour and Costs
APMOT PM
Trade Offs and Options
Cadsmine
Project Stage
Gates
Desktop – L3
MRM
Scoping – L2C
Pre-Feasibility L2B
Feasibility – L2A
Execution – L1E
Operations – L1
Summary APMOT Positioning
Current Ops
Geological
Representation
Mine Design
& Layout
New Projects
Activity
Scheduling
Production Plan
Costing, Labour
Comps &
Valuation
Variance
Tracking
Short Term
Budget
5Yr & Life of
Mine Plan
(BUDGET CREATION)
A
C
Asset Level
Performance
Management
T
U
(BUDGET MANAGEMENT)
A
Multiple plans
from multiple
operations
L
S
Group Valuation
& Long Term
Strategy
MRM
Industry
Dynamics
Simulation
Portfolio Level
Performance
Management
MRM
APMOT – A Half Level as a series of Blocks of
Ground
A standard half level and block
Half-level 1 EAST
Drive to Reef
•Standard Half Level - An area containing all the mining activities from the apex either east/west
or north/ south on a level
•Standard block - TheGeological
smallest
self-contained production unit encompassing development,
losses
ledging, equipping, stoping and sweepings, vamping and reclamation.
Half-level 2 EAST
Shaft
MRM
1
2
Raise Line
Back length
Foot Wall Drive
Block Width
3
4
5
APMOT - Standard Block for Scattered Breast
Standard Block
All Block
Dimensions are on
strike and dip
Block Length on Dip
Raise Line
Foot Wall Drive
Cubbies
Travelling Way
Dip
Step over
Block Width on Strike
MRM
Dilution Calculation – Placement of
Excavations
MRM
Scheduling
MRM
Scheduling Window
MRM
Natural Schedule
36 000
2021
MRM
Team Sharing
Choose
what to
level
Choose which
excavations to include
and assign priorities
Choose which levels, half
levels or blocks to
include and assign
priorities
MRM
Team Sharing – “Levelling”
With team sharing it is possible to introduce constraints and
priorities for:
– Any mining activity – Limit the number of drop-raise crews
• Easy to demonstrate that one crew is enough on average, but two crews are too
little to meet the proposed stoping schedule – multiple drop raises may be
required simultaneously.
– Include different excavations, only flat development, all development,
on reef only, haulages only.
– Assign priorities, haulage never stops, or on-reef always takes
precedence.
– The above configuration can be applied to any portion off-, or the
whole mine.
– Areas of the mine can be prioritised
• Shaft over-stoping higher priority
• Big strike levels higher priority for tail management
• Each half level can be levelled individually, or a global levelling can be done.
MRM
Levelled Schedule
17 500
2021
MRM
Activity Based Costing
Shaft Head
OPEX
Total
Cost Categories
Engineering
Services
Direct
Mining
Cost Activities
UES
MTS
Stoping
Sundries
Stores
Utilities
Cost Resource
Explosives
Drill Steel
Mechanical
Spares
GL Data
GL Entries
GL Entries
GL Entries
Cost Elements
MRM
Labour
Contractors
Data
Modelling Detail
Desktop
± 30%
Concept
± 25%
High-level Data
High-level Data
Benchmarks
Previous appropriate
and applicable study
results
Modelling
High-level modelling
Extrapolation
Tonnage and m2
profiles only
Assumed Fixed
Variable Splits
No Labour Modelling
MRM
Pre-Feasibility
± 15%
Feasibility
± 10%
Historical SAP GL
Data
Historical SAP GL
Data
First Principal and
Zero-Based Costing
First Principal and
Zero-Based Costing if
Team efficiencies,
Salary and L&A data
Team efficiencies,
Salary and L&A data
Team Costs and
Team Efficiencies
Designations and
team composition
Designations and
team composition
Variable and flat
labour modelling of
teams
Labour modelling per
designation
Detailed Analysis of
Cost Drivers
Assumed Fixed
Variable Splits
Assumed Fixed
Variable Splits
Actual Fixed Variable
Cost Splits
Tonnage and m2
profiles only
Detailed APMOT
schedule
Detailed CADSMine
schedule
Escalated Historical
Costs
Define Activities, Sub-Activities and Resources
Define Activities
MRM
Labour Modelling - Labour Rules
Rule Type
Fixed Labour
Labour driven by production
Labour driven by infrastructure
Labour driven by Labour
Labour driven by Operation span
Labour driven by step functions
Example:
Production Manager
Stoper
Belt Attendants
Supervision
Surveyors
Boiler makers
• Rules can be embedded “if” and conditional statements
• These types of rules are derived and validated per designation, per activity, per entity
• Labour in essence is derived from first principles.
• For Concept and Desktop studies, Labour teams are modelled as either fixed teams for LoM or 100%
variable with production. The approach can be summarised as follows:
Derive team
from
designation list
Compile cost
per team
Decide on
Fixed or
variable
Process followed per
activity, per entity
Apply drivers to
team cost and
counts
MRM
Define Labour Structure
Customized Job Grade
Definitions
MRM
Define Labour Rules
Define Rule that
drives number of
teams
MRM
Standard Reporting
MRM
Example Pivot Report
MRM
Case Study 1– Mothballed shaft Re-Evaluated
• Questions/Concerns regarding 2007 planning
– Production levels were too low to justify the overhead costs.
– There was uncertainty regarding the ramp up period and desired
level of production.
– Since there were several levels with limited remaining production, it
was not clear for how long any particular production level could be
maintained.
– There were opinion differences regarding suitable crew efficiencies.
– Previous scheduling resulted in a large unprofitable tail.
• The Mining Engineer was tasked to:
– Determine a suitable production level.
– Schedule an appropriate ramp-up period.
– Evaluate the impact of using several different crew efficiencies – was
there enough face length for additional crews?
– Optimise the tail.
MRM
Case Study 1– Mothballed shaft Re-Evaluated
Development
completed
Details of Scheduling
durations for selected
activity
Details of delays in
selected activity - Raise
MRM
Case Study 1– Mothballed shaft Re-Evaluated
Peak of 36 000m²
Levels with little
mining remaining
Separate Decline
Long life levels
Higher grade
MRM
Case Study 1– Mothballed shaft Re-Evaluated
18 000 m² can be
maintained
Second decline as
replacement
Once the model has been built it is easy to iteratively:
•Change crew efficiencies to a consensus level and check
the impact on production level and costs
•Improve the grade model for more accurate ounces
Higher grade up front
– close of levels
•Change the sequence of mining or add additional
construction, equipping or capital activities.
Long life levels as
base
MRM
Case Study 2 – Improving a business case in a
capital constrained environment
• Two decline shafts ramping up to 3 million tons annually
from 9 levels each.
• It was requested to:
– Reduce or postpone capital.
– Reduce costs.
– Reduce perceived risks due to the development and stoping rates.
• This translated into the following options which would be
modelled in APMOT:
– Reducing the number of levels from 9 to 7, thereby reducing capital
and working cost development.
– Consider the effect of reduced development rates on each option
– Consider the effect of reduced stoping rates on each option.
MRM
Case Study 2 – Improving a business case in a
capital constrained environment
• The following were built in APMOT
– 6 options were scheduled depicting all the permutations of
• high/conservative development rates
• high/conservative stoping rates and
• 7/9 levels
2# and 1# separate - Tons to Concentrator stockpiles
1# - Option 1 - 7 levels Conservative Dev & 360 m2 / team steady state
2# - Option 1 - 7 levels Conservative Dev & 360 m2 / team steady state
1# - Option 1 - 7 levels Dev matched to IP & 422 m2 / team steady state
2# - Option 1 - 7 levels Dev matched to IP & 422 m2 / team steady state
1# - Base Case -9 Levels Dev matched to IP & 422 m2/team steady state
2# - Base Case -9 Levels Dev matched to IP & 422 m2/team steady state
1# - Base Case -9 Levels Conservative Dev & 360 m2/team steady state
2# - Base Case -9 Levels Conservative Dev & 360 m2/team steady state
1# - Option 1 - 7 levels Dev matched to IP & 360 m2 / team steady state
2# - Option 1 - 7 levels Dev matched to IP & 360 m2 / team steady state
1# - Base Case -9 Levels Dev matched to IP & 360 m2/team steady state
2# - Base Case -9 Levels Dev matched to IP & 360 m2/team steady state
MRM
2010
45,784
56,580
45,784
56,580
45,784
56,580
45,784
56,580
45,784
56,580
45,784
56,580
2011
54,409
85,867
56,553
86,281
56,553
86,281
54,409
85,867
56,553
86,281
56,553
86,281
2012
78,515
32,221
84,324
36,113
84,324
36,113
78,515
32,221
84,324
36,113
84,324
36,113
2013
227,937
192,023
300,033
248,400
312,042
253,059
219,414
179,412
255,428
215,163
245,539
198,964
2014
345,032
361,823
396,180
378,740
456,191
403,159
338,128
310,124
351,756
358,945
346,710
307,218
2015
2016
452,227
793,647
460,926
796,329
415,030
645,395
476,544
800,690
729,593 1,075,770
676,281 1,004,964
560,558
841,413
515,019
793,461
457,745
789,057
454,110
822,788
567,446
853,383
507,035
779,263
2017
1,092,409
994,215
808,475
969,468
1,392,773
1,351,056
1,106,360
1,123,555
1,090,929
1,114,130
1,112,016
1,069,460
2018
1,387,747
1,085,413
1,343,412
1,034,501
1,546,590
1,558,314
1,352,226
1,292,902
1,355,466
1,334,998
1,360,574
1,245,888
2019
1,509,831
1,370,173
1,555,900
1,272,995
1,549,921
1,603,168
1,462,678
1,477,350
1,473,196
1,521,670
1,514,583
1,395,165
2020
1,554,618
1,527,897
1,582,107
1,459,282
1,477,998
1,591,851
1,499,117
1,606,170
1,496,178
1,545,882
1,552,602
1,498,622
2021
1,481,034
1,485,513
1,445,173
1,530,394
1,493,278
1,498,428
1,537,870
1,553,778
1,451,927
1,525,431
1,599,923
1,553,505
2022
1,429,629
1,455,603
1,456,824
1,472,842
1,547,230
1,503,356
1,491,420
1,531,514
1,379,627
1,480,837
1,564,803
1,556,349
Case Study 2 – Improving a business case in a
capital constrained environment
Option Studies with backlength and Dev and stoping efficiencies
Ramp Up section of 2# & 1# combined
3,500,000
3,000,000
Tons (TCS)
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
2010
MRM
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Option 1 - 7 levels Conservative Dev & 360 m2 / team steady state
Option 1 - 7 levels Dev matched to IP & 422 m2 / team steady state
Base Case -9 Levels Dev matched to IP & 422 m2/team steady state
Base Case -9 Levels Conservative Dev & 360 m2/team steady state
Option 1 - 7 levels Dev matched to IP & 360 m2 / team steady state
Base Case -9 Levels Dev matched to IP & 360 m2/team steady state
2023
Case Study 2 Conclusions
• The 7 level option ramps up 1-2 years slower than the 9
level option.
• Regardless of the production rates, it was possible to man to
full production.
• The higher development rates yielded slightly higher total
annual production.
• The lower stoping rates had less of a tail.
This allowed an informed decision to be made regarding the
postponing or reducing of capital and the impact of these
decisions on the business case of the project.
MRM
Case Study 3 – Decline position
• A decision had to be made regarding the position of
a decline for the next phase of a project. Additional
considerations were:
–
–
–
–
–
MRM
Mining through a major fault
Total strike length and length of conveyors
Production in the tail
Capital required
Surface infrastructure required
Case Study 3 – Decline position
• 9 Different models were scheduled and costed in APMOT
• The results showed that:
–
–
–
–
MRM
Capital estimates did not vary significantly across the options.
Cost were impacted by the duration that a steady state could be maintained
There were not any great variances in working cost rates.
Option 1,3,5,8,9 were chosen to be optimised further at a higher total volume.
Case Study 3
• Improving the production rates and volume of
mining resulted in:
– Significantly better tail management with the total mine
maintaining the higher volume of production.
– Life of mine was shortened by 5-6 years.
– Significantly increased NPV.
– This allowed the option with the best NPV to be put
forward with confidence.
– Upside and downside scenarios could be quantified
through actual scheduling and the impact evaluated in the
cost model.
– All work was completed within a three month period.
MRM
Trade-Off Between Time and Level of Detail.
- Level of Detail of Input Variables +
- Time Axis +
Low Level of Detail –
- Hand Drawn Mine Design
or existing design
- Large single Geozones
- Average Grade
- Standard Block Sizes
- High Level Activities i.e.
Stoping, on-reef dev and
off reef dev
- Can replicate
scheduling to all blocks
- No Significant Data
gathering required
Feasibility
Time – 2 to 3 weeks
per unique option
including data
Pre-feas
Time – 1 to 2 weeks
per unique option
including data
Concept Study
Time – 3 days to 2
Week per unique
option including data
Desk Top Study
Time – 1 day to 1
Week per unique
option including data
MRM
Current
Operations
39
High Level of Detail–
- Detailed Mine Design
- Individual Geozones
- Grade per horizon per geozone
- Individual block sizing
- Detailed Activities i.e. stoping, ledging,
equiping, FWD, breakway etc
- All activities scheduled
- Replication of schedule to blocks in
same Geozone and design
- Significant data gathering required
Conclusions
In conclusion APMOT has achieved the following for Anglo
Platinum:
• Ability to produce a production schedule for a particular mine
design within days to weeks depending on level of detail.
• Therefore the generation of multiple production options and
production schedules to determine ‘optimal’ that meets strategic
objectives required.
• Quick adjustment of schedule to test different ‘what-if’ scenarios
(change team efficiencies, back lengths etc).
• Linking of economics to the production schedule (activity costs,
labour complements, revenue, profit and value).
Anglo Platinum are now able to rigorously test different production
strategies and optimise the mine design and schedule within the
constraints defined.
MRM
Thank you and Questions
Thank you to the SAIMM for this opportunity to do this
presentation and expose to other mining houses the work
that we are doing to improve our mining business.
Questions?
MRM