Rodrigo Augusto Nunes et al.

Mining
Mineração
A decision-making method
to assess the benefits of a
semi-mobile in-pit crushing
and conveying alternative
during the early stages of a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0370-44672018720109 mining project
Rodrigo Augusto Nunes1,3 Abstract
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6613-1551
Homero Delboni Junior2,4 A significant cost in the operating budget of most mining operations arises from pur-
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-7426 chasing and maintaining haulage trucks. Recently, in-pit crushing and conveying
Giorgio de Tomi2,5 (IPCC) has been subject to research because of its potential to reduce haulage costs.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7836-1389 The objective of this study is to identify early on in a project, by means of a decision-
Cecília Beatriz Infante2,6 making method, whether or not the semi-mobile IPCC (SMIPCC) is an appropriate
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9999-1198 alternative to the conventional truck haulage method on the loading and hauling ap-
Bladen Allan1,7 proaches. This method is based on cost analysis and the evaluation of environmental
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-6290 impacts, being successfully tested at an existing open-pit mine, where the results indi-
cated that the IPCC was the most cost-effective option for the operation. Although the
1
Yamana Gold Inc - Technical Services, IPCC’s initial CAPEX was 60% higher than the conventional approach, the IPCC’s
Toronto – Ontario – Canada OPEX was 43% lower, resulting in a 28% reduction of the life-of-mine net present
cost (NPC).
2
Universidade de São Paulo – USP,
Departamento de Engenharia de Minas e Petróleo, keywords: semi-mobile IPCC; cost saving; decision-making method; initial design
São Paulo – São Paulo – Brasil. study; CO reduction.

E-mails: 3rodrigo_anunes@hotmail.com,
4
hdelboni@usp.br, 5gdetomi@usp.br,
6
cicainfante@hotmail.com, 7bladenallan@gmail.com

1. Introduction

One of the challenges while pit mining projects is to determine transportation and which location for
evaluating the early stages of open which of the alternatives for material the primary crusher should be consid-
REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019 285
A decision-making method to assess the benefits of a semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying alternative during the early stages of a mining project

ered for further detailed studies and There have been studies carried implementation of such an alternative
scenario selection. A parallel study out in the past proposing the use of due to the high risk involved. Another
between the alternative of the conven- SMIPCC systems as an alternative issue is that it is not as simple as choos-
tional truck haulage with the primary to conventional trucking and regular ing a particular haulage system; one
crusher located outside of the pit and IPCC systems, where the crusher is also needs to know how to adapt it to
the in-pit crushing and conveying alter- fully mobile and only a conveyor is the mine plan to ensure a reduction in
native can be a long, expensive process. used for haulage. A SMIPCC can ex- the overall mining costs. Therefore,
Mining companies with portfolios that ploit the advantages of both systems, the uniqueness of a project poses a
contain many open pit projects usually conventional trucking and fully mobile contractual constraint, as no pre-made
face issues in evaluating the benefits IPCC, but it is important to ensure that off-the-shelf options are available (Dean
of an IPCC implementation due to the the in-pit crusher is at an appropriate et al. 2015).
massive workload and time necessary distance from the work front and that Furthermore, from an environ-
for completion. Properly evaluating its location will be suitable for at least mental licensing process standpoint, the
these alternatives is important since the one year of operation before it needs method used for decision-making can be
haulage costs in open pit mines can be to be moved (Rahmanpour et al. a relevant tool to be used before going
60% or more of the mine’s operating 2014). SMIPCC systems are considered through the preliminary environmental
cost (Ribeiro 2013). IPCC systems are flexible and adaptable because of the licensing process, so that the SMIPCC al-
now receiving more attention due to the continuous use of trucks and being ternative can be considered to demonstrate
rising cost of the truck haulage cycles, able to install a crusher in a suitable a reduction on the environmental impacts.
which can be attributed to the cost of location (Nehring et al. 2018). In the To get a better understanding of
diesel and spare parts, leading to the majority of studies that compare IPCC the IPCC alternative, a new method
IPCC being the favourable option. In with truck based haulage systems using is proposed that aims to estimate the
contrast, the IPCC is considered a low- conveyors, results in large operational technical, economic, and environmen-
cost alternative in terms of operating savings due to a more efficient energy tal benefits of the semi-mobile IPCC
costs due to its continuous operation and capital allocation. alternative from an early project stage.
regime, reduced labour, and lower Although the IPCC concept is The proposed approach has been tested
energy consumption, but it requires a not new, as it was introduced in the using data from the initial design stud-
high capital cost, and has reduced flex- 1950’s in Germany (Ritter et al. 2014), ies FEL-1 (PMI 2013) of an open-pit
ibility (Londoño et al. 2014). companies are still concerned with the copper-gold mine located in Brazil.

2. Materials and methods

The method was designed as a life-of-mine to below as the truck size) is an input
model that uses the data available from • Economic: operating costs, parameter instead of a calculated one
the early stages of the evaluation of discount rate, and exchange rate and is then used to select the loading
mining projects, usually from the scop- (if applicable) equipment. This method is the reverse of
ing studies, as its input parameters. The The input models considered for the conventional fleet selection method.
model analyzes both the conventional the evaluation of the conventional The payload relates to known off-road
trucking and the SMIPCC scenarios. trucking and the SMIPCC scenarios re- truck models that cover most mine op-
In order to properly estimate the truck main unchanged, with the exception of: eration cases.
requirements, production capacities, and • Operating: Haulage distance (3) Since both alternatives use the
costs, the following should be calculat- (flat, uphill, and downhill) considering same number of excavators, the excava-
ed: truck payload, engine powering and the location of the semi-mobile in-pit tor CAPEX and OPEX were not included
propulsion, cycle time estimations, and crusher, the conveyor average speed, in the economic analysis and calculations
production rates (Hustrulid et al. 2013). length, and elevation because their costs will be equal.
The input data can be classified • Economic: capital and operat- The model continues the analysis
into the following groups: ing costs, considering the capital and as follows:
• Material: the material itself, in operating costs resulting from the imple- (1) Truck and auxiliary equipment
situ density, and swell factor mentation of the conveyor, reduction of fleet dimensioning
• Truck Size: to be chosen from a the haulage fleet, and relocation of the (2) Conveyor dimensioning
payload of either 100, 150, 200, or 250 semi-mobile in-pit crusher (3) Economic Analysis
short tonnes It is important to highlight the (4) Environmental Impact Analysis
• Operating: average haulage three assumptions used in this model: The method proposed in the article
distance (flat, uphill, and downhill), (1) The mine’s throughput and, aims to be a tool to help in deciding on
rolling resistance, grade, speed limit, consequently, the life of mine for the the best type of transport alternative to
typical fixed times for spotting, dump- conventional and SMIPCC scenarios be used. It includes important topics such
ing, and waiting, primary crushing P80 remain the same, given that only the as the transportation scenario for the
and design safety factor, working hours, haulage fleet and the conveyor’s input open pit mine, a comparison between the
hourly efficiency, conveyor’s average must be changed from one scenario to conventional model and the SMIPCC,
speed, length, and elevation the other. and the economic feasibility and sustain-
• Production: throughput, and (2) The truck payload (referred ability of each scenario.
286 REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019
 Rodrigo Augusto Nunes et al.

The truck fleet size is determined of bulldozers and motor graders required SMIPCC sizing, whereas the entire route
by evaluating the model that is based (Figure 1). It is worth mentioning that, is considered for the conventional model.
on the mine’s production capacity and because the transportation model consid- In Figure 1, the AHD node indicated
operating parameters, specifically, the ered in this study is a SMIPCC, it is still by [1] is subject to change based on the
average haulage distance (AHD). These necessary to use trucks to move the ma- material transport alternative selected.
two factors are very important as they terial from the mining face to the in-pit The output nodes, indicated by [2], can
hold a great weight in the decision to use crusher, where it will then be crushed and be determined by using a rule of thumb
the IPCC system (Nehring et al. 2018). loaded onto the conveyors (McCarthy based on the required truck units of one
By selecting the truck size (model) from 2011; Mohammadi et al. 2011). There- bulldozer for every 20 trucks and one
one of the four options, the number of fore, only the AHD from the mining face motor grader for every 15 trucks, with a
trucks is calculated, as well as the number to the in-pit crusher is considered in the minimum of one unit in both cases.

Figure 1
Fleet sizing flowchart.

The conveyor’s characteristics, characteristics and operating param- 2, refer to Osmetti et al., (2012), and
such as the width, the power of the eters, such as the P80 for the primary Bertinshaw et al., (2012), for three
required motor, and the data to cal- crusher, and the mine production data of the input parameter nodes, [3],
culate the SMIPCC installation costs, (Osmetti et al. 2012; Bertinshaw et in order to determine the conveyor
are selected based on the material al. 2012) (Figure 2). Also in Figure dimensioning.

Figure 2
Conveyor sizing flowchart.

The economic analysis of the mine net present value of the cost (NPC) in each one will be different. Product
for the two alternatives is performed (Figure 3). standards for nodes [4] are used for
considering these inputs. All the costs Using the discount rate when the input parameters. These standards
are included in this analysis and are evaluating mining projects serves the were based on the truck cost, freight
separated into capital expenditure same purpose as it does when evaluat- cost, and the import tax associated
(CAPEX) and operating expenditure ing projects in other fields: it considers to it. In addition to the discount rate
(OPEX) throughout the life of the the time value of money and the project and the LOM, the total OPEX for the
mine (LOM). The costs are brought risk (Ataee-Pour et al. 2009). Since conveyor [5] also considers relocating
to the present value based on the dis- each project involves a different set the in-pit crusher and the cost of the
count rate(s) selected, resulting in the of risks, the discount rates analyzed conveyor’s electricity consumption.
REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019 287
A decision-making method to assess the benefits of a semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying alternative during the early stages of a mining project

Figure 3
Economic analysis flowchart.

The model also proposes a com- ment and the type of engine is assessed and being analyzed are the following: carbon
parison of each scenario’s environmental the tonnage of gasses emitted during the monoxide (CO), non-methane hydrocar-
analysis on gas emissions. Based on the LOM is calculated based on the EPA`s Tier bons (NMHC), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
previously sized fleet, the amount of equip- 4 Standard (US EPA 2004). The gasses and particulate matter (PM) (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Environmental analysis flowchart.

3. Results

Data from a Brazilian copper- project are incorporated. (IPC), and then for the next 1.1km, the
gold mine was used for this analysis. The life of mine was set as 20 years material is transported by the conveyor
This study was implemented for a with an annual production of 16 million to the transfer chute. In the conventional
FEL-1 based on the Project Manage- tons using 150-short ton trucks (Table scenario, the trucks travel the entire
ment Body of Knowledge (PMI 2013). 1). The AHD for the two alternatives 1.6km along the ramp that closely fol-
This decision-making process can be was 1.6km. In the case of the SMIPCC lows the conveyor’s profile, to a crusher
applied to any open pit mining project, scenario, the trucks travel 0.5km from that would be located near the indicated
as long as the specifications for each the mining face to the in-pit crusher transfer chute in Figure 5.

Truck size [short tons] 150

LOM [years] 20
Estimated Throughput [Mt] 16
Table 1
Material Copper ores, crushed
Production parameters.
288 REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019
 Rodrigo Augusto Nunes et al.

Figure 5
Location of the SMIPCC
alternative (Source: Google Earth).

The inputs considered for the de- Excel and VBA Macro and are summa- calculated fleet sizes for both alternatives
cision-making model were created using rized in the table below (Table 2). The are listed in Table 3.

INPUTS

TRUCKS EXCAVATORS
short tons 150 Bucket Size m3 14
Selected Truck
model 785D Payload t 38
Max. Speed km/h 40 Fill Factor % 85
RESISTANCES OPERATING PARAMETERS
Rolling Resistance % 3 Working days / year days 365
Grade Resistance % 8 Shifts shifts/day 3
Total Resistance (Flat) % 3 Hours per shift hrs/shift 8
Total Resistance (Uphill) % 11 Availability % 84
Total Resistance (Downhill) % 11 Utilization % 80
ORE PARAMETERS Efficiency % 83
Density t/m3 2.7 Hours per year hrs/yrs 5887
Swell Factor % 40 ECONOMIC PARAMETERS
Moisture content % 5 Annual Discount Rate % 5
PRIMARY CRUSHING PARAMETERS Exchange Rate R$/US$ 3.25
CF-CIF+Import
Required Nominal Capacity t/h 2718 Tax+ % 30
Custom Clearance
Design Safety Factor fixed 1.4 OPEX
Required Project Capacity t/h 3805 Electricity Cost US$/MWh 73.6
Estimated P80 - approx. 80% fines mm 250 Diesel Cost US$/l 0.7
CONVEYOR Lubrication Cost US$/l 0.1
Table 2
Average velocity m/s 3.5 Tire Cost US$/h 68
Model Input
Parameters for the study case. Motor Efficiency % 95 Labour Cost US$/h 63.5

Required Fleet Sizing

Equipment Conventional SMIPCC
Trucks 8 3
Excavators 2 2
Graders 1 1
Table 3 Bulldozers 1 1
Required fleet
Conveyor 0 1
Sizes for each alternative.

The cost values for the mine were the initial data from the mine (Table SMIPCC installation is approximately
obtained by complementing the above 4). A noticeable difference in the ini- 60% higher than the conventional sce-
data from the previous two tables with tial CAPEX (before year 3) is that the nario. This is due to the high installation
REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019 289
A decision-making method to assess the benefits of a semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying alternative during the early stages of a mining project

cost of the crusher and conveyor belt. than that of the SMIPCC, due to the including the discount rate, it is about
However, the sustaining CAPEX need for fleet replacement. Further- 43% greater than that of the SMIPCC
(after year 3) for the conventional alter- more, when considering the OPEX, because of high maintenance costs,
native is more than two times greater for the conventional case without tires, fuel, and labour.

Thousands Conventional SMIPCC

Initial CAPEX - Before Year 3 [US$] $28,893 $46,966
Sustaining CAPEX – After Year 3 [US$] $43,244 $18,534
OPEX [US$] $190,313 $107,959
Table 4
NPC @ 5% discounted rate [US$] $174,619 $126,230 Economic results.

The net present cost (NPC) is an im- were 0.0%, 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0%. more expensive than using the semi-mobile
portant factor for a project. In this study, five The values obtained from using a discount IPCC. When considering the total cost per
different discount rates were taken into ac- rate of 5% are presented above (Table 4). ton (CAPEX & OPEX), the SMIPCC has a
count, which expanded the possible number Table 4 shows that the NPC for the conven- value of almost 34% lower than that of the
of scenarios. The considered discount rates tional alternative is about 50 million dollars conventional alternative (Table 5).

Conventional SMIPCC
CAPEX&OPEX [US$/t] $0.82 $0.54
CAPEX [US$/t] $0.23 $0.20
Table 5
OPEX [US$/t] $0.59 $0.34
Cost per ton.

The results of the environmental additional emissions are due to the high num- when using the SMIPCC, only three trucks
analysis were also very insightful. During the ber of trucks required for the conventional are needed. Therefore, the results also cor-
LOM, when opting for only using trucks, the trucking compared to the SMIPCC. For the roborate that the IPCC alternatives are also
carbon monoxide emissions are more than examined mine, eight trucks are needed for a means of reducing carbon emissions (Mc-
double that of the SMIPCC alternative. The the strictly trucking alternative, whereas Carthy 2011; Cooper and Turnbull 2009).

Conventional SMIPCC
CO - Carbon Monoxide [t] 3,586 1,516
NMHC – Non-methane Hydrocarbons [t] 195 82
NOx - Nitrogen Oxides [t] 3,344 1,274
Table 6
PM - Particulate Matter [t] 39 16 Environmental analysis.

4. Discussion

The expected result of the decision- a lower sustaining CAPEX and OPEX, as exposed the pros and cons of each one and
making method presented was to conclude well as a lower cost per tonne as compared allowed the company to improve data inter-
on which alternative should be selected to the conventional alternative. There were pretation so they could make an informed
while considering the proposed param- also environmental benefits from using the decision on whether or not to continue to
eters, the OPEX, the CAPEX, the NPC, SMIPCC system: the amount of carbon the next project phase. In the case of the
and the environmental analysis. Achieving monoxide, non-methane hydrocarbons, studied mine, the SMIPCC was the more
this result was successful. The evaluation nitrogen oxides, and other particulate mat- viable method considering the net present
method allowed for a broader view of ter was reduced. The economic, operational, value and the lower costs and gas emissions.
the importance of such variables in the and production data of the initial study Even though the production is not extremely
decision-making process. In the discussed were compared for both transportation high, nor is the AHD very long, there was
case, the SMIPCC alternative resulted in systems (conventional and SMIPCC), which still a noticeable difference in costs.

5. Conclusion

The method presented is meant to be it enables mining companies to shift their proximately halved, and the OPEX is 34%
used for a conceptual study level (FEL-1). focus to the alternatives that continue to lower. However, due to the high initial cost
By using the proposed decision-making show potential for further in depth stud- of installing the SMIPCC, which in this
method, it is possible to identify the proj- ies. In general, IPCC installation is an at- case is seen to be 60% higher, installation
ects that have the potential for SMIPCC tractive option due to its lower sustaining is only feasible when there is a long mine
implementation without necessarily CAPEX and OPEX. After evaluating the life. In addition, if the mine has a small
spending a large amount of time, which decision-making model for the specific AHD and/or low production, the IPCC
can be expensive and wasteful. Therefore, case treated, the sustaining CAPEX is ap- is not very appealing because the initial
290 REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019
 Rodrigo Augusto Nunes et al.

CAPEX may not be paid back during the diture. Savings are not solely restricted to when using the SMIPCC scenario. Later,
LOM. In this particular case, the haulage the costs; there are also noticeable envi- the miner moved to a feasibility study and
distance and mine life are sufficient to ronment benefits. For the discussed case, detailed design phases and the SMIPCC is
notice a 0.28$/t decrease in total expen- carbon monoxide emissions drop 58% now installed and in operation at the site.

References

ATAEE-POUR, M., IRANNAJAD, M., TAHERI, M. Risk-adjusted discount rate

(RADR) estimation for evaluating mining projects. The Finsia Journal of Applied
Finance. Jassa, n. 4, Winter, p. 36-42, 2009.
BERTINSHAW, R., ROBINSON, N., TURNBULL, D., WOODWARD, V. Surface
mining. In: NOAKES, M., LANZ, T. (Ed.). Cost estimation handbook. (2. ed.).
Victoria, Australia, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
p. 100-125, 2012.
COOPER, A., TURNBULL, D. In-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) – a tried and
tested alternative to trucks. Proceedings of the New Leaders’ 2009. Melbourne,
Australia: The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2009. p. 59-66.
DEAN, M., KIZIL, M. S., KNIGHTS, P., NEHRING, M. Selection and planning of
fully mobile ipcc systems for deep open-pit metalliferous applications. In: INTER-
NATIONAL FUTURE MINING CONFERENCE, 3. Proceedings... AusIMM,
p. 219-225, 2015.
HUSTRULID, W., KUCHTA, M., MARTIN, R. Open pit mine planning and
design. (3. ed.). CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2013. 1308p.
LONDOÑO, J. G., KNIGHTS, P. F., KIZIL, M. S. Modelling of in-pit crusher
conveyor alternatives. Mining Technology, v. 122, n. 4, p. 193-199, 2014.
MCCARTHY, R. In-pit crushing and conveying: fitting a square peg in a round open
pit. Proceedings CIM Montreal 2011. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2011.
MOHAMMADI, M., HASHEMI, S., MOOSAKAZEMI, F. Review of in-pit
crushing and conveying (IPCC) system and its case study in Copper Industry. In:
WORLD COPPER CONFERENCE, 1. Proceedings... 2011.
NEHRING, M., KNIGHTS, P. F., KIZIL, M. S., HAY, E. A Comparison of strategic
mine planning approaches for in-pit crushing and conveying, and Truck/Shovel
Systems. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, v. 28, n. 2,
p. 205-214, 2018.
OSMETTI, R. J., ARBUTHNOT, I., ELVISH R. D. Beneficiation – materials
handling. In: NOAKES, M., LANZ, T. (Ed.). Cost estimation handbook.
(2. ed.). Victoria, Australia, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
p. 299-305, 2012.
[PMI] Project Management Institute. PMBOK Guide and Standards PMI. A Guide to
the Project Management Body of Knowledge – PMBOK. (5. ed.). 2013.
RAHMANPOUR, M., OSANLOO, M., ADIBEE, N., SHIRAZI, M. A. An
approach to locate an in pit crusher in open pit mines. International Journal
of Engineering (IJE), v. 27, n. 9, p. 1475-1484, 2014.
RIBEIRO B. Estudo de viabilidade econômica para a implantação de correias
transportadoras de rom de minério de ferro. Estudo de Caso da Mina Fábrica
em Congonhas, Estado de Minas Gerais. Ouro Preto (MG): Federal University of
Ouro Preto, 2013. 81 p. (Master’s Thesis in Portuguese).
RITTER, R., HERZOG, A., DREBENSTEDT, C. Automated Dozer Concept Aims
to Cut IPCC Downtime. E&MJ, p. 52-55, 2014.
[US EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines – Tier 4
Emission Standards – Nonroad Diesel Engines. May, 2004.

Received: 21 July 2018 - Accepted: 7 November 2018.

All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY.

REM: Int. Eng. J., Ouro Preto, 72(2), 285-291, apr. jun. | 2019 291