Discussion - An open-pit production scheduler : algorithm and implementation - by M. E. Gershon Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERING, Vol. 39, No. 8 August 1987, pp. 793-796

Hall, C. J.
Organization: Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Pages: 2
Publication Date: Jan 1, 1988
I would like to congratulate Professor Gershon on an idea that is obviously valuable and is certainly new to me. It has, however, to be further developed, in that one can get fallacious results by limiting oneself to positional weights. In the example problem, the positional weight of one block was 8.6 (the 8.0 value in the paper was incorrect) for 36 units in the cone, for a mean block value of 0.239. The positional weight of the second block was 4.4 for 15 units, for a mean block value of 0.293. Surely one would expect the second block to be rated higher. Additionally, the time value of money adjustment cannot be determined by depth, because the time that a block is mined is determined by the mining sequence, not depth. Figure 1 shows a slightly altered version of Professor Gershon's pit. The overall value of the pit is the same, as are the total values under each of his blocks. The values in the right-hand cone have been reversed top to bottom, and the values in the rest of the pit adjusted to keep the central cone total unchanged. All values have been multiplied by 10. Figure 2 shows the sequence of mining, at three blocks per year, for Professor Gershon's pit, and Fig. 3, the sequence for a pit under the other block. Table 1 shows the value and discounted value (15%) of Professor Gershon's pit, and Table 2 shows similar values for the second pit. It is apparent that the second pit schedule is more valuable than the first.
Full Article Download:
(116 kb)