Application of Conveyors For UG Haulage
Application of Conveyors For UG Haulage
Application of Conveyors For UG Haulage
A G L Pratt1
ABSTRACT
The selection of the ore haulage system is one of the most crucial decisions made in the development of an underground mining project. The haulage system is, once selected, one of the components of a mine that defines its ability to respond to changes in mining inventory and the market conditions for its products. Over the last decade, in Australia at least, this selection process has largely centred on the debate over the merits of shaft and decline truck haulage. Little attention, if any, was given to the application of inclined conveyor haulage as a real alternative to the shaft and truck haulage. This is despite well established precedents for its application in the underground coal industry and some limited applications in underground metalliferous mines. This paper seeks to explore the case for the application of inclined conveyors as a legitimate ore haulage system for underground mines. The case for conveyor haulage is illustrated by an overview of the application of conveyors at some existing operations, and discussion of what conveyors have to offer as a mine haulage system and the issues that are associated with them. Material drawn from the feasibility studies for Newcrests Ridgeway mine and Telfer Deeps Project is presented as case studies that considered selection of inclined conveyor haulage. The purpose of these case studies is to highlight the value of impartially approaching tasks of this type with a robust plan. This plan should be able to respond to issues identified as the task progresses towards the objective of finding the right solution for an ore haulage system.
supervision. There have also been some increases in hoisting speeds as a result of application of fluid mechanics to modelling of the dynamic behaviour of conveyances travelling in the shaft and their response to changes in variables such as air velocity in the shaft. A commitment to shaft haulage represents a significant initial capital cost for a mining project and tends to demand a commensurately larger resource base to justify its selection. In many cases the commitment to a shaft is in addition to an access decline that if not from surface, is from the top of the deposit to the bottom of the shaft. A shaft may also be less flexible in terms of capacity. However, shaft haulage does offer:
low unit operating costs; and provision of a secure route for the delivery of other mine
services; power, communications, primary ventilation, raw water and egress. Against the background of this robust debate little attention, if any, was given to the application of inclined conveyor haulage as a real alternative to either shaft or truck haulage. This is despite well established precedents for its application in the underground coal industry and some limited applications in underground metalliferous mines. On the surface this seems a little surprising given that selection of the haulage system is one of the most crucial decisions made in the development of an underground mining project. The haulage system is, once selected, one of the components of a mine that defines its ability to respond to changes in mining inventory and the market conditions for its products. For this reason it demands a rigorous impartial selection process. This paper seeks to explore the case for the application of inclined conveyors as a legitimate ore haulage system for underground mines. To illustrate what conveyors have to offer as a mine haulage system the status of the conveyor technology is briefly reviewed and its application at some existing operations discussed. Material drawn from Newcrests Feasibility Studies for the Ridgeway and Telfer mines is presented as case studies of considered selection of inclined conveyor haulage.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last decade, in Australia at least, discussion on the selection of haulage systems for underground mines has largely centred on the debate over the merits of shaft and decline haulage. A key driver in this debate over that period is the impressive developments in truck haulage technology that has produced faster, larger capacity trucks for underground mines. The perennial question for projects being one of; how far trucks can keep on doing the job before you need to switch over to shaft haulage? The development of truck haulage technology is now widely agreed to have pushed the operating range for trucks to an operating depth of 1000 m at production rates in the vicinity of 1.5 million tonnes per annum. (Medhurst, 2001; McCarthy, 2001) This compares with operating ranges of 400 and 600 m in the 1970s and 1990s respectively. The enabling technology for improvements in truck performance has been in the areas of engines, braking and control systems. Some believe (Carrick, Guilfoyle and Robertson, 2002) that with further development of the road train style of truck, and the automation of truck fleets, that the operating range has further scope for improvement. Truck haulage is generally considered to offer a project a low initial capital outlay with inherent flexibility provided by the fleet size deployed and the potential for further improvements in technology. In comparison to truck haulage relatively little has changed in the area of shaft haulage; there has been no material change in the mechanical components. The improvement in winder technology, mostly by transfer from other electric drive and control applications, has focused on improved drive systems and automation of ore haulage systems. Most winding systems are now commissioned to operate fully automated with only remote
1. MAusIMM, Divisional Mining Engineer, Project Development, Newcrest Mining Limited, Level 2, Hyatt Business Centre, 30 Terrace Road, East Perth WA 6004. E-mail: pratta@newcrest.com.au
CONVEYOR HAULAGE
Use of conveyors is a common feature of most mining operations. Often their role is limited to a transfer function between bins, chutes and stockpiles, and for the most part this type of installation is well within the capability range of conveyor technology and has a long history. However, conveyor haulage from underground to surface, in metalliferous mines at least, is a more recent application that has appeared in the last ten years (Table 1). In Australia the first of these installations was at the Cadjebut mine. More recently in Australia inclined conveyor haulage systems were installed at:
Revenge mine, Kapok mine, MacArthur River mine, and Ridgeway mine.
Not surprisingly it is the development of technology that has enabled the application of conveyor haulage to be extended so that it is now a serious alternative for haulage from underground to the surface. These improvements in technology (Michaels, 2004) have come in the areas of:
273
A G L PRATT
TABLE 1
General specification of some Australian inclined haulage conveyors.
System details Cadjebut Commissioned Length (metres) Inclination Lift (m) Belt strength Belt width (mm) Belt speed (m/s) Rate capacity (t/hr) Drive size (KW) Starter and control 1988 2500 1 in 12 to 6 (8.3 - 16.6%) 200 max Not available 850 2.5 300 2 300 DOL Revenge 1994 1500 1 in 10 to 6 (10 - 16.6%) 185 Not available 1200 1.6 450 1 500 Not available Mine MacArthur River 1995 2680 1 in 5.4 (18.5%) 305 SR3550 900 1.7 470 2 300 Not available Kapok 1996 2400 1 in 6 (16.6%) 400 Not available 630 2.76 200 2 250 DOL with fluid coupling Ridgeway 2002 4000 1 in 5.3 (18.9%) 750 ST2240 ST5500 1050 2.8/3.1 960 2 450 3 630 LRS
Conveyor haulage has some attributes that give inherent flexibility in its application and these are outlined below:
improved transfer of material from bins to conveyor and conveyor to conveyor. This eliminates belt damage and reduces belt wear. mine and the use of belt rip protection ensures that belts are protected from catastrophic damage. operation to better match conveying with mining outputs.
Belt rip protection Mainline conveyors are the lifeline of a Drives Variable speed drives provide flexibility of Maintenance programs Introduction of preventative
maintenance practices and recognition of the role of good housekeeping has contributed to increased life of all conveying components. plus with proper selection of cover rubber and gauge of rubber. Incorporating breaker fabrics also reduces damage to belt carcass.
in the one decline. This decline may initially serve as a platform from which to establish production based on truck haulage and to assess the economic potential of deeper mineralisation. The conveyor would be added later provided sufficient additional reserves were proved. Alternatively a separate conveyor haulage decline may be established from a decline initially utilised for truck haulage, provided that some consideration is given to this opportunity in the design of the initial access decline. A separate conveyor haulage decline can also provide a mining operation with a robust emergency egress trafficable by light vehicles and light trucks. the site to engage or manage a different range of skills and equipment than it requires for other underground development work. Similarly the skills base needed to support the maintenance systems and protocols required for a conveyor are likely to represent an extension of those already available at the mine. Perhaps more importantly in the current climate where there is a shortage of skilled personnel available to the mining industry, these maintenance skills can be sourced from other materials handling industries. This situation contrasts sharply with the situation for shafts; which require specialised skills to develop and maintain that are not in wide general usage in other industries. traverse from the orebody to the treatment plant and thereby eliminate potential for difficult surface topography to impact on the project. In this respect they are similar to truck haulage declines.
Improving belt life Belt life has been extended to ten years
Notwithstanding these improvements, the role of engineering risk assessments has also played a part in enabling the application of inclined conveyor haulage from underground. It is by this process that issues and perceived risks associated with inclined conveyor haulage from underground have been identified and management strategies developed for them. Notable amongst these issues and risks are:
than 90 per cent. The components and control systems are robust and well suited to automation, and remote supervision and control.
propagating conveyor belt material. The impact of fire is further reduced by the appropriate design of the primary ventilation system. proper consideration during design (eg location, protection, separation). of belt systems.
Attributes associated with conveyor haulage that may limit their application for mine haulage include:
Damage by mobile equipment This can be minimised by Guarding Protection of people from the moving components
to be given to the sterilisation of potential mineralisation along the proposed route, assessment of the geotechnical environment and relationship to lease boundaries. In comparison, trucking declines are fairly flexible in their layout and shafts typically need an exclusion zone of 100 m in diameter.
274
The study process applied at Ridgeway and Telfer was similar. Its application at Telfer benefited from information assembled for Ridgeway, including acceptance of the outcomes from conceptual work completed for Ridgeway. The first step in both studies was to consider all conceivable alternatives for haulage systems from underground over a range of likely production rates produced by parallel studies of the application of mining methods. Conceptual studies prepared for these alternatives were intended to allow the selection of a preferred alternative or alternatives. These would be the subject of further, more detailed work in subsequent studies to finalise a selection and specification of the preferred system. The conceptual studies for each haulage alternative included preparation of:
capital and operating cost estimates; an estimate of the electrical supply requirements; first pass construction and commissioning schedules; comment on risks and uncertainties associated with each haulage alternative and scope of additional work required to reduce these; and alternatives.
truck, shaft hoisting, both crushed and uncrushed, rail, conveyor, pneumatic ore lifting, and hydro-hoisting.
The evaluation process aimed to ensure that decisions were made based on a rational and rigorous analysis of what options might be applicable in different circumstances. This meant that once an option was rejected it would remain so, and it would not be returned for consideration in later stages. The evaluation process considered the following elements:
assessment of risk and opportunities sensitivity to changes costs capital and operating; and comment on additional work required to reduce uncertainties
and risks associated with preferred alternatives. Prior to the preparation of conceptual studies a preliminary evaluation was completed of the conceivable alternatives and their application at each site. This resulted in the elimination of:
Case studies
The objective for haulage studies at Ridgeway and Telfer was to select a flexible, efficient and cost effective method of ore haulage from underground. The battery limits for the haulage studies were from the orepass tip through to the delivery of ore to a run of mine (ROM) stockpile adjacent to the process plant.
Pneumatic ore lifting (POL) POL has not been proven for Rail haulage This approach is commonly applied in
mountainous areas where the mine is accessed by adits. This was not applicable at either Ridgeway or Telfer.
275
A G L PRATT
truck haulage to the treatment plant; underground crushing and shaft hoisting to surface and the
use of a surface conveyor system to transport ore to the treatment plant;
Ridgeway
The project evaluation phase for the Ridgeway mine included development of a decline that provided access for drilling and bulk sampling of the deposit. The decline was sized and located so that it would be the main access for any future mining operation, and could, if required, support truck haulage operation. As in the initial stages of the project, the strategy for ore haulage from the mine was left open pending selection of a mining method. Assessment of the treatment options for Ridgeway ore indicated that a standalone plant was more economically attractive than modifying the Cadia Hill treatment plant to accept Ridgeway ore. This was due to a significant loss of recovery when Ridgeway ore was processed in Cadia Hill treatment plant; the ore requiring a finer grind for optimum ore recoveries. Prior to evaluating the merits of haulage systems at Ridgeway the various alternatives for the location of the Ridgeway treatment plant were reviewed. The alternatives considered included:
two-way haulage in the existing decline; haulage one-way in the existing decline and the other way in
a new decline; and
250
Costs ($M)
C U
276
on ve yo nc r1 H ru sh oist .5M ed in tp g H a 1. oi 5 st M i tp Tr ng a 1. uc 5 ki M ng tp C on 1.5 a M ve U yo t pa nc r H ru sh ois 2M tp tin ed a g H 2 oi st Mt Tr ing pa 2 uc ki Mtp n C on g 2 a M v ey U t nc or pa H ru sh ois 4M tp tin ed a g H 4 oi st Mt Tr ing pa 4 uc ki Mtp ng a 4M tp a
options quickly eroded this advantage. Furthermore the practicality of truck haulage from 800 to 1000 m depth at 4 Mtpa is questionable. Based on the outcome of this conceptual study conveyor haulage was selected as the preferred alternative. Another factor recognised in this selection was that, despite limited precedents for the application of conveyor haulage to surface from underground, there was significant technical support for this decision. Conveyor technology is driven by a very large range of applications and this demand had resulted in significant advances in design and construction of belts and drive systems for conveyors. Subsequent studies of conveyor systems resulted in selection of two conveyors for the Feasibility Study (Figure 2). The Ridgeway ore handling system can be summarised as follows:
This permitted easy clean up of spillage from under the conveyors. The tail end loading points, take-ups and drive support structures are floor mounted. The portal location and decline layout for the conveyor considered:
potential for flooding from the Cadiangullong Creek; and interference from potential open pit mining areas.
The trunk conveyor is driven at its head end. The take up is by winch and located near the head end. Belt installation and changing are carried out at the tail end of the conveyor. Belt reels are transported to the tail end of the trunk conveyor via the Ridgeway access decline. The portal conveyor drive and belt change facilities are located on the surface between the portal and the stacker. This is the longer of the two conveyors and having these facilities on surface reduced the amount of conveyor belt and size of components to be transported underground. The Cadiangullong Creek runs between the conveyor portal and ROM stockpile location. The portal conveyor is mounted on an elevated structure above the one in 100 year flood level. The majority of the surface portion of the conveyor is ground mounted (Figure 3). The original design criterion for the conveyor system was 780 tph based on 70 per cent utilisation and three per cent moisture (4.6 Mtpa). Following a review of upgradeability, and completion of design, the final system capacity was 960 tph (Table 2). This was achieved with little increase in capital (Table 3). The fire fighting and protection systems included the selection of belts with a self-extinguishing cover and a moderate wear rate. At transfer points an automatic detection system was installed with automatic or remote actuation of the foam equipment. As the conveyor decline is a minor intake airway, a remote control ventilation door was placed near the tail end of the conveyor. In the event of a fire on the portal or trunk conveyor the door can be closed to stop the spread of smoke through the mine.
two sacrificial conveyors. These conveyors are fitted with metal detectors and magnets for removal of tramp metal. material to the surface. These belts are designated as the trunk and portal conveyors. With the exception of the last 350 m of the portal conveyor these belts are located underground.
slewed and luffed to form a kidney shaped stockpile. The stacker and ROM layout allowed waste from underground hauled on the same system to be placed to one side and rehandled to the waste dump by loaders and trucks.
Various configurations for the decline cross-section were considered based on different positions for the conveyor within the cross-section. The selected configuration allowed for access alongside the belt in a 6.0 m by 4.0 m decline. The bulk of the conveyor is hung from the back of the conveyor incline with a nominal clearance of 1.3 m to the underside of the conveyor.
277
A G L PRATT
FIG 3 - Section through the portal conveyor showing the location of Cadiangullong Creek.
TABLE 2
Ridgeway conveyor haulage system.
Conveyor data Belt name Length (m) Belt strength (kN) Inclination Width (mm) Belt speed (m/s) Drive size (KW) Starter and control Belt #1 Collection conveyor CV101 30 PN1000/5 Flat 2000 0.65 15 DOL Belt #2 Picking conveyor CV102 40 PN1000/5 Flat 2000 0.65 15 DOL Belt #3 Trunk conveyor CV103 1197 ST2240 1 in 5.3 (18.9%) 1050 2.8 2 450 LRS Belt #4 Portal conveyor CV104 2870 ST5500 1 in 5.3 (18.9%) 1050 3.1 3 630 LRS Belt #5 Stacker CV105 40 4PN250 -6 to +15 (10.5 to 27%) 1050 1.75 55 VVVF
TABLE 3
Ridgeway conveyor costs.
Capital costs Decline Conveyor Total Operating cost @ 5.6 Mtpa Units $M $M $M $/tonne Actual 15.7 16.4 32.1 0.76 Based on 03/04 and includes 0.38 $/tonne to repair major system failures Comments Decline includes the boxcut, portal and additional near surface ground support Includes the trunk, portal and stacking conveyors
To guard against the hazards associated with belt failure on one of the inclined conveyors, concrete protection bulkheads were constructed at the tail of each inclined conveyor to prevent the belt rolling back and damaging down slope facilities. Maintenance and online systems to prevent belt breakage included:
belt rip system detection (embedded loops); monthly belt scans (magnetic signature to detect broken
cords, corrosion and splice damage); and cover damage).
278
Telfer
The existing underground operation at Telfer is accessed via a decline from within the Main Dome open pit. The re-establishment of open pit mining and the selection of sublevel caving meant a large proportion of this decline needed to be replaced during the early part of the mine life. Upper sections are lost to the open pit and parts of the lower section are lost to the cave. Therefore haulage studies for Telfer needed to consider opportunities for alternatives that combined access and haulage functions. The re-development of the Telfer Mine includes the construction of a new treatment plant. Separate studies determined that the best location was to the west of the Main Dome open pit (Figure 4). Conceptual haulage studies completed for Telfer underground included: Shaft hoisting by: single skip and counter weight, conventional drum winding with skips in balance, and a friction winder with skips in balance.
Load sharing between the drives has been a minor issue. The
ultimate system for starting and load sharing is a Variable Voltage Variable Frequency (VVVF), however this option is expensive. Trimming resistors have been added to the motors at Ridgeway to improve load sharing. Poor load sharing leads to high rates of pulley lagging wear.
Telfer Shaft
New Pad O R M
me D o it n i Ma en P Op
279
A G L PRATT
project schedule, capital required for access and ventilation, and preliminary assessment of risk and opportunities.
This assessment of the mine haulage options indicated that:
haulage shaft and access decline had the lowest life of mine
costs;
guarantees the material size to be handled to the surface; reduces the size of equipment required to transport the
material to the surface;
minimises spillage; and allows the use of more conventional ore handling plant
and improves system reliability.
Hoisting
Several configurations were reviewed. These included a single skip, skip/counterweight and balanced skip winding. The single skip option requires very high torque, which increased the peak demand on the power supply. The skip/counterweight combination, while decreasing the torque, is not an optimal solution due to its inefficient cycle time. As a result, the study focused on balanced winding alternatives. Both double drum and friction winders were reviewed. Limitations on rope strengths constrain conventional double drum winders to a production rate of 4.5 Mtpa at the proposed depths of 1100 m. Friction winders (Koep) are capable of meeting the full range of tonnages at this depth and were selected for capital and operating cost estimates. For the winder duty a double drum hoisting system will be more costly.
capital costs were all within $10 M range of each other and
the spread of operating cost was small; and
capital and operating costs; construction schedules; a more extensive assessment of the risks and opportunities
associated with each option; and
Conveyor haulage
Newcrest was well prepared to consider the application of conveyor haulage at Telfer based on experience with the selection, and engineering, of an inclined haulage conveyor for Ridgeway. At the time of the conceptual studies for Telfer the conveyor decline at Ridgeway was being developed. The conceptual studies completed focused on determining the technical viability for the minimum number of conveyor flights to transfer the ore from underground. The use of a single conveyor flight was considered and rejected; this configuration was not technically feasible for the higher tonnage rates. The difference in the capital cost estimates between two and three flights of conveyors was minimal. The difference between two and three flights was in the order of $1 M for total estimates ranging from $45 to $55 M. This indicated that other factors such as the relationship between the geometry of the conveyor and the deposit may have a more important influence. As part of this study a range of decline cross-sections and conveyor installations were also reviewed (Figure 5). The purpose of this review was to investigate the merits of the various arrangements with respect to excavation profile and operability and maintainability under each of the scenarios considered.
shaft haulage with an access decline, conveyor haulage with a separate access decline, and conveyor haulage without a separate access decline.
However, refinement of concepts and estimates provided little additional insight into differences between options. The studies completed merely confirmed the technical feasibility of the concepts identified for conveyor and shaft haulage from underground at Telfer. The total capital cost estimates prepared for each concept indicated that they were not sufficiently different in their order of magnitude to allow a clear selection of a preferred strategy (Table 4).
TABLE 4
Telfer haulage alternatives, comparative project costs.
Haulage alternatives @ 4 Mtpa Hoisting Inclined conveyor Combined access and conveyor decline Capital cost estimates ($M) Fixed plant 84.1 79.9 82.8 Mining 92.7 103.0 95.0 Total 176.8 182.9 177.8 Operating cost estimate ($/t) 1.79 1.82 1.85
280
Not to scale
FIG 5 - Some of the conveyor arrangements and cross-sections considered at Telfer.
Coupled with these studies, benchmarking of similar conveying and hoisting systems world wide for operating costs and technology was also undertaken. Benchmarking costs proved impossible for conveying and inconclusive for hoisting. The general outcome for conveyor technology was that while there are many equivalent component installations for conveyors, Ridgeway was the closest equivalent total underground system and with a vertical lift 750 m. Hoisting on the other hand, has numerous examples of systems in Australia and around the world; both smaller and larger than system proposed for Telfer and all performing satisfactorily.
281
A G L PRATT
CONCLUSION
The idea that there is a correct haulage solution for each deposit implies that the true extent and potential of a deposit is sufficiently understood at the commencement of the development of the deposit. The reality is that for many mine owners it may be prohibitively expensive, or strategically simply just not an option, to prove up sufficient deeper resource to a level of confidence that will enable a fully informed decision on the selection of correct haulage strategy to be made at the start of a project. In this regard selection of the haulage system has some risk. The underlying uncertainty cannot be designed out of the project and it needs to be identified and contingency plans established to increase the capacity of the mine haulage system. Consideration of the use of conveyor haulage may provide some projects with a basis for a contingency plan. The process adopted by Newcrest to examine haulage strategies illustrated how selection of an optimum haulage system might be approached and how inclined conveyor haulage featured in haulage studies at Ridgeway and Telfer. At Ridgeway, selection of a conveyor, while it was not quite a no brainer, was not a very demanding task. This installation has been at the very heart of the operations ability to ramp up and develop its production rate beyond the capacities envisaged in the Feasibility Study. The haulage studies for Telfer clearly identified resilience in terms of the capability and economics of conveyor haulage systems to meet the demands of serving a deep mining operation. In this instance there was no material economic difference between shaft or conveyor haulage and it was the uncertainty over the Newcrests ability to sterilise enough country to accommodate a conveyor that was the telling difference. However, the process applied was able to deal with these issues in a balanced analytical way. Furthermore, the haulage study demonstrated that the preferred solution is still the optimum should the underground resource increase.
282
There is now range of underground mining projects that are currently considering, or are implementing, inclined conveyor haulage systems. This represents a significant change in the level of interest in the application of conveyors. Some of these operations will provide the underground mining industry with some much needed benchmarks to assess, and develop, the application of inclined conveyors for haulage from underground to surface (Figure 6). It appears certain that inclined conveyor haulage is set to become part of the mainstream in terms of underground haulage and offers a flexible alternative to truck and shaft haulage.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the management of Newcrest for permission to publish this paper and gratefully acknowledges the assistance of colleagues at Newcrest and Maunsell Australia in its preparation. Particular thanks go to Peter Ellen and Peter Choules of Maunsell Australia.
REFERENCES
Arancibia, E and Flores, G, 2004. Design for the underground mining at Chuquicamata orebody, scope engineering stage, in Proceedings MassMin 2004 (eds: A Karzulovic and M A Alfaro) (Editec Ltd: Santiago).
Carrick, P, Guilfoyle, K and Robertson, A, 2002. Road trains underground the alternative trucking system, in Proceedings Eighth Underground Operators Conference, pp 285-291 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne). Flores, G, 2004. Personal communication, August. Hersant, D, 2004. Mine design of The Argyle underground project, in Proceedings MassMin 2004 (eds: A Karzulovic and M A Alfaro) (Editec Ltd: Santiago). Kerr, P, 2002. Independent decline haulage at Kanonwna Belle gold mines, in Proceedings Eighth Underground Operators Conference, pp 285-291 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne). McCarthy, P, 2001. Decline flexibility reduces funding risk, Australias Mining Monthly, May:44. Medhurst, G, 2001. Time to examine options for more deeply, Australias Mining Monthly, April:72-76. Michaels, C, 2004. Personal communication, August. Newcrest Mining Limited, 1999. Ridgeway Mine feasibility study. Newcrest Mining Limited, 2002. Telfer Project feasibility study. Paelke, J W,1993. Gold mine operates 203 m vertical Flexoturn System, Bulk Soilds Handling, 13(2):297-300. Quinn, M, 2004. Conveyor to cut costs at Jaguar, Mining News, 12 August. Steven, R B, 2003. Replacing C-6 conveyor belt at Kennecott Utah Copper, Bingham Canyon Mine, in Proceedings Beltcon 12 Conference, July, Johannesburg, South Africa. Yez, P, 2004. New mine level project at El Teniente, in Proceedings MassMin 2004, pp 421-428 (eds: A Karzulovic and M A Alfaro) (Editec Ltd: Santiago).
283