applied

sciences
Article
A Comparison of the Fuel Consumption and Truck Models in
Different Production Scenarios
Alejandra Vera-Burau * , Daniel Álvarez-Ramírez, Lluís Sanmiquel and Marc Bascompta

Department of Mining Engineering-Industrial and ICT, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya,

08242 Manresa, Spain; daniel.alvarez.ramirez@estudiantat.upc.edu (D.Á.-R.); lluis.sanmiquel@upc.edu (L.S.);
marc.bascompta@upc.edu (M.B.)
* Correspondence: maria.alejandra.vera@upc.edu

Abstract: Mine planning and mine design are crucial stages of a project in the mining industry. This
study aimed to determine the impact of different constraints on the design and planning of a mine.
Some of the deposit characteristics and parameters that influence the economic feasibility of a project
were studied. Using economic criteria such as NPV, scenarios were established based on the best
conditions to obtain higher profitability. Production was identified as the most relevant variable.
Subsequently, the mining design was evaluated through technical parameters such as slope gradients
and ramp widths, and it was identified that they have lower sensitivity in the final design and higher
sensitivity in terms of economic feasibility, performance, and environmental implications. Using
operational production, the performance of the loading and haulage equipment fleets was evaluated
for each of the techno-economic scenarios. Additionally, the environmental cost was compared using
equipment fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. This study presents a practical methodology for
analyzing relevant variables in mining projects, their interactions, and identifying potential scenarios.

Keywords: fuel consumption; trucks; hauling; open-pit mining; mine plan; mine design

1. Introduction
Citation: Vera-Burau, A.; Mining is the beneficial process of extracting any raw material from the earth. Cur-
Álvarez-Ramírez, D.; Sanmiquel, L.; rently, the most widely used mining method is open-pit mining, sharing many common
Bascompta, M. A Comparison of the processes and stages across the different resources extracted [1,2]. The expansion of an
Fuel Consumption and Truck Models open pit is known as the ultimate pit, which indicates the final size and shape of the pit,
in Different Production Scenarios.
and the maximum Net Present Value (NPV) or net benefit over the lifetime of a project [3,4].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769. https://
The ultimate pit and its beneficiation depend on several variables, such as production rate,
doi.org/10.3390/app13095769
reserve geometry, spatial variability of grade, mine life, size and capacity of the loading and
Academic Editor: Yosoon Choi haulage fleet, milling and processing plant, site, and working conditions [3]. In addition,
some of these factors also influence the incidence and severity of accidents, directly or
Received: 22 March 2023
indirectly [5]. Tsopa et al. [6] describe how speed and technical conditions of the loading
Revised: 29 April 2023
and haulage fleet, or the ramp conditions, are key to increasing the safety of a mine or
Accepted: 5 May 2023
Published: 7 May 2023
reducing the probability of accidents during the haulage stage.
To extract materials correctly and generate the maximum NPV, it is necessary to
determine the plan of operation in the long-term, medium-term, and short-term [7], and
the pit design. Mine planning and mine design have a strong connection, and the selection
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. of parameters at the design stage is used to determine the block model, which is the main
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. input for mine planning [8]. Generally, researchers concentrate on the design parameters
This article is an open access article and conditions of haul roads, and their related equipment fleets [9]. Design parameters
distributed under the terms and such as ramp width, ramp slope, and equipment size directly influence NPV, so they should
conditions of the Creative Commons be considered at an earlier stage [10].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095769 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 2 of 19

In the mining industry, an increase in equipment size could increase productivity

and, therefore, profits. Although it is logical to think that “bigger is better”, this is not
always the case. Increasing equipment size has affected various aspects of mining such
as ore dilution, maintenance, milling, and even safety, because having a bigger project
increases the risks, so the associated processes and sub-processes in terms of safety should
be as rigorous as possible. Since equipment selection in an open-pit mine influences all
stages of mining [10], the indiscriminate selection of larger equipment may not always be
advantageous, especially in haulage equipment, where approximately 46% of mining costs
are concentrated at this stage [11–13]. Although the increase in equipment size has allowed
the mining industry to reduce the operational cost per ton mined [12], environmental costs
have been a separate issue.
It is known that 28% of global energy consumption is due to fuel consumption in
transportation networks, and its mitigation has had economic and environmental con-
sequences. In mining operations, most of the equipment is powered by diesel engines,
which account for 85% of this demand; for example, in surface mining operations the use
of haul trucks is extensive [14,15]. Gross vehicle weight, truck velocity, total resistance,
and environmental–operational conditions have been recognized as the key parameters
affecting fuel consumption, prompting major mining corporations to carry out several
research projects on the energy efficiency of haul trucks [10,16,17]. Another important way
to reduce the environmental risks caused by fuel consumption has been to focus on the
study of equipment reliability, since an adequate maintenance plan has the potential to
reduce the energy consumption of the mining fleet [18], or on the use of additives that
modify the engine of the equipment, seeking to reduce emissions of nitrogen compounds
and fine solid dust particles resulting from the operation of heavy diesel engines [19].
Another important issue is carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions into the atmosphere. This
issue has been relevant in recent years and there are several works where approximate
calculations have been made [20]. In mining, the use of fossil fuels in loading and hauling
represents half of the Green House Gas (GHG), and the contribution is greater in mining
with mechanical extraction than in drill and blast techniques [21], so efforts in the optimiza-
tion and reduction in the environmental footprint are concentrated in this part, in proposals
that consider the ramp slopes or terrain conditions, model, size, aging, and the load of the
trucks [13,22].
The purpose of this paper is to identify how annual production interacts with the
design and planning of an open pit mine using a block model for mining planning as
the input. The annual production will be evaluated in different economic and design
scenarios through techno-economic parameters, and at the same time models of fleet
equipment will be compared in terms of operational costs, operational production, fuel
consumption, and CO2 emissions to define potential scenarios, as well as underestimated
or overestimated scenarios, and to be able to quantify how sensitive to parameter variation
a mining project is. This study is considered a first step towards integrating Environment,
Social, and Governance (ESG) in mining plans and mining design. Consequently, this line
of research will focus on including these aspects together with economic and technical
parameters to obtain the most favorable scenarios in terms of project feasibility from a
holistic perspective [23–25].

Case Study
The study is based on a real uranium deposit, consisting of two tabular, lenticular,
elongated, irregular, and parallel geological bodies. The average density of the entire site is
2.5 t/m3 , while both geological bodies have a density of 2.6 t/m3 . The uranium price is an
average of the last five decades, since the global uranium price has had a general deficit in
recent years, with some important peaks due to punctual world events [26].
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 3 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Economic parameters of the year 2014 are considered, without including the refining
costs. It is estimated that for a cut-off grade of 100 ppm of uranium, there are approximately
considers a life of mine (LOM) of 12.4 years, a daily production of 3380 tons, and an annual
15 million tons of ore with an average grade of 500 ppm of uranium. This study considers a
production of 1.2 million tons. After material extraction, loading by shovels and transpor-
life of mine (LOM) of 12.4 years, a daily production of 3380 tons, and an annual production
tation by trucks are considered. Trucks go from a midpoint at the bottom of the pit to the
of 1.2 million tons. After material extraction, loading by shovels and transportation by
surface, without
trucks are considering
considered. Truckstransport
go from atomidpoint
stockpileatorthe
dump.
bottom of the pit to the surface,
without considering transport to stockpile or dump.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials
The mainand Methods
stages of the traditional long-term mine planning process are gathered in
FigureThe
1a. main stages of the
This approach wastraditional
used as along-term
commonmine planning for
methodology process are gathered
a mining project in
[27],
Figure 1a. This approach was used as a common methodology for a mining project
in order to then use a correlation methodology (Figure 1b) between the mining design, the [27], in
order tolayout
physical then use a correlation
and dimensions methodology (Figure
of a mine, and the 1b) between
mining thethe
plan, mining design,
generic the of
process
physical layout and dimensions of a mine, and the mining plan, the generic process
both designing and scheduling [28]. With the tools offered by Vulcan-Maptek in the devel- of both
designing and scheduling [28]. With the tools offered by Vulcan-Maptek in the development
opment of mining projects, the comparison of economic and design scenarios is possible
of mining projects, the comparison of economic and design scenarios is possible using a
using a single resource block model and techno-economic parameters [27,29].
single resource block model and techno-economic parameters [27,29].

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure1.1.(a)
(a)Traditional
Traditional methodology forlong-term
methodology for long-term open-pit
open-pit mine
mine planning.
planning. (b) Correlation
(b) Correlation meth-
method-
odology forscenarios
ology for scenariosmatrix.
matrix.The
Thephase
phase sequence
sequence is is defined
defined as as scenarios
scenarios andand ramp
ramp variations
variations in the
in the
operative design.
operative design.

2.1.Block
2.1. BlockModel
Model
Theblock
The block model
modelisisa general three-dimensional
a general three-dimensional representation of the deposit
representation of the in small- in
deposit
sized blocks. Each block contains relevant information such as grade, density,
small-sized blocks. Each block contains relevant information such as grade, density, and and geology,
combined with other data such as commodity prices, mining and processing costs, and tech-
geology, combined with other data such as commodity prices, mining and processing
nical parameters related to mine design [8,27,30]. This study started with the exploration
costs, and technical parameters related to mine design [8,27,30]. This study started with
of the block model generated from a database of the project’s boreholes. It consisted of a
the exploration of the block model generated from a database of the projectʹs boreholes. It
1260 m wide, 1330 m long, and 305 m high block model; this large block was subdivided by
consisted
35 × 35 × of5a m
1260 m wide,
blocks 1330 m 5long,
and smaller × 5 and
× 2.5305mm high block
blocks. Figuremodel;
2 shows this large
that theblock
gradeswas
subdivided
ranged from by0 35 × 35 × ppm
to 15,000 5 m blocks and smaller
of uranium. 5 × 5 ×of
Lower grades 2.5blue
m blocks. Figure
coloration 2 shows
prevailed fromthat
the grades ranged from 0 to 15,000 ppm of uranium. Lower grades of blue
north to south, and higher grades of reddish coloration prevailed in the central zone and coloration pre-
vailed
northfrom
of thenorth to south,
northeast body.and At higher grades
depth, the of reddish started
mineralization coloration prevailed
at 270 in the
m in a very lowcen-
tral zone andand
percentage north of the up
increased northeast body.
to the 280 At depth,
m level, wherethe mineralization
there was important started at 270 m in
mineralization.
a Subsequently,
very low percentage
the grades anddecreased
increasedinup to the
both bodies280atmthe
level,
290where there
m level, andwas then,important
at the
300 m level, theSubsequently,
mineralization. northeastern body the had a grade
grades increase,
decreased in and
boththe southwest
bodies at thegeological body
290 m level, and
disappeared. The northeast body disappeared at the 310 m level. With
then, at the 300 m level, the northeastern body had a grade increase, and the southwestthis information, it
was determined
geological that it was necessary
body disappeared. to remove
The northeast body 70 disappeared
m of waste (380–310 m) to
at the 310 m reach
level.the
With
mineralization and that the ore body had a thickness of 30 m.
this information, it was determined that it was necessary to remove 70 m of waste (380–
310 m) to reach the mineralization and that the ore body had a thickness of 30 m.
 Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2023,
2023,13,
13,5769
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of
of 19
19

Figure 2. Case study block model and depth sections.

Figure 2. Case study block model and depth sections.
2.2. Economic Block Model
The blockBlock
2.2. Economic economic
Model model was evaluated with the economic parameters shown in
Table 1. As mentioned, a mean uranium selling price was considered from the price data
The block economic model was evaluated with the economic parameters shown in
of the last 5 decades [26]. Mining costs, processing costs, and the cut-off grade were 2014
Table 1. As mentioned, a mean uranium selling price was considered from the price data
values. Regarding metallurgical recovery, a common parameter was considered a product
of the last 5 decades [26]. Mining costs, processing costs, and the cut-off grade were 2014
of defined studies.
values. Regarding metallurgical recovery, a common parameter was considered a product
of defined
Table studies.
1. Mining and milling costs, prices, and cut-off grade used.

Table 1. Mining and milling

Economic costs, prices, and cut-off grade used.
Parameters Value
Product price (USD/pounds)
Economic Parameters 95
Value
Mining costs (USD/t) 9
Product price
Milling (USD/pounds)
costs (USD/t) 95
12
MiningRecovery(USD/t)
costs 0.859
Cut-off
Milling (ppm)
costs (USD/t) 118
12
Recovery 0.85
The key to Cut-off (ppm)
profitable mining is to consider that revenues are 118greater than costs, so
the combination of these parameters should result in a positive cash flow. These were
Thebykey
defined to profitable
decisions such asmining
whichisblocks
to consider
shouldthat
berevenues are greater
mined, when than costs,
they should so the
be mined,
combination
and of these
whether they parameters
should should as
be considered result in awaste,
ore or positive cashdepended
which flow. These were defined
exclusively on
by decisions such as which blocks should be mined, when they should be
economic parameters [4,31]. It was necessary to estimate the benefit for a Base Case (BC) mined, and
whether
of a giventhey should be
production considered
value and thenasfor
oreitsorvariations.
waste, which depended
It was proposed exclusively
to analyzeonwhat
eco-
nomic happen
would parametersif it[4,31]. It was necessary
was decided to decreaseto estimate the benefit
or increase for aproduction
the annual Base Case (BC) of a
in four
scenarios (Table 2).value and then for its variations. It was proposed to analyze what would
given production
happen if it was decided to decrease or increase the annual production in four scenarios
(Table 2).

Table 2. Annual, daily, and hourly production scenarios.

Annual Daily Hourly Comment

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 5 of 19

Table 2. Annual, daily, and hourly production scenarios.

Annual Daily Hourly

Comment
Production (t/yr) Production (t/day) Production (t/h)
Scenario 1 600,000 1644 103 Production decrease
Scenario 2 1,200,000 3288 205 Base Case
Scenario 3 3,000,000 8219 514 Production increase
Scenario 4 6,000,000 16,438 1027 Production increase
The background colour represents each economic scenario.

2.3. Nested Pits Definition

Optimizing long-term production scheduling is one of the most important aspects of a
mining plan. The objective of long-term production scheduling is to determine the timing
and sequence of mining [32]. Additionally, it is necessary to determine the movement
of materials, ore, and waste, to maximize profit within existing economic, technical, and
environmental constraints [33,34]. The economical block model was used as the input for
the optimization process, considering the production for each scenario. The ultimate pit
defines what is economically mineable in a deposit, and it was obtained from the Lerchs
and Grossmann algorithm [35], which is used in the Maptek’s Pit Optimiser module. Table 3
presents the economic parameters used in the optimization process; in addition to the costs
already described, the discount rate is also included, which is one of the parameters of
greatest interest when analyzing the feasibility of a project. For this study, a value of 8%
was used, which is common in feasibility-level projects [36].
For more information about this algorithm, authors such as Osanloo [7] have made a re-
view of models and algorithms in large-scale optimization. Additionally, Ben-Awuah et al. [33]
analyzed some strategic mining optimization options in open pit mining and underground
mining, maximizing NPV and comparing results in terms of tons mined and Stripping Ratio
(SR). The algorithm evaluates the economic value of each sub-block and parent block, consid-
ering the costs required for its extraction and processing, the revenue from its subsequent sale,
and the release costs of the associated waste [31]. If this value is positive, it is considered a
suitable ore for extraction and processing, and otherwise it will be waste [10].
Within the ultimate pit, the deposit is divided into nested pits ranging from the
smallest pit, with the highest value per ton of ore, to the largest pit, with the lowest value
per ton of ore [7]. Nested pits have very close boundaries, with minimal tonnage differences
from one boundary to another. However, if the orebody grade increases sharply with depth,
or the orebody is discontinuous, pushbacks are designed because a significant tonnage
difference occurs between the nested pits.

Table 3. Optimization parameters.

Maximum Annual Production Capacity (t/yr) 600,000 1,200,000 3,000,000 6,000,000

Product price (USD/pounds) 95
Selling Costs (USD/pounds) 0
Mining Costs (USD/t) 9
Milling Costs (USD/t) 12
Final Slope Angle (º) 50
Decrements in block value (%) 2
Discount rate (%) 8
The background colour represents each economic scenario.

2.4. Phase Sequence

The temporary production scheduling stage depends on the pushbacks, which are a
key component for the final design of the mine and the profit obtained. Pushbacks are used
as a guide to define the phases, where the extraction process begins, and where it stops.
The criteria used for the selection of the phases and the ultimate pit is the determination of
the highest NPV values in the best and worst cases [37,38]. First, a normalization of the
Appl.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13,
Sci. 2023, 13,5769
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of 19
19

best and
of the worst
best and cases
worstconcerning the highest
cases concerning NPV in
the highest NPVeachincase
eachwascaseperformed and then
was performed and
compared to an to
then compared average of both.
an average In Adiansyah
of both. In Adiansyahet al. [39],
et al.normalization of theof
[39], normalization data
thetodata
an
ideal value was used to compare and select the most feasible scenario.
to an ideal value was used to compare and select the most feasible scenario. The percent- The percentage
differences of NPV
age differences for these
of NPV maximum
for these maximum values were
values analyzed,
were analyzed,andandthethe
smallest possible
smallest possi-
fluctuation
ble fluctuation concerning the average was chosen. Scenario 4 (Figure 3a) showsthat
concerning the average was chosen. Scenario 4 (Figure 3a) shows that the
the
lowest
lowest fluctuation
fluctuation occurred
occurred between
between pits
pits 1010 to
to 23,
23, approximately.
approximately. Then,
Then, Jélvez
Jélvez et
et al.
al. [34]
[34]
proposed
proposed aa methodology
methodology for for the
the design
design of of pushbacks,
pushbacks, and and applied
applied some
some criteria
criteria such
such as as
minimization
minimization of the SR, minimizing the tons of waste, and maximizing the tons of into
of the SR, minimizing the tons of waste, and maximizing the tons of ore, ore,
pushbacks. Figure
into pushbacks. 3b shows
Figure that the
3b shows thatSR
theincreased fromfrom
SR increased Pit-21. Then,Then,
Pit-21. Figure 3c shows
Figure that
3c shows
the waste was reduced in totality in Pit-23. Finally, considering that the highest
that the waste was reduced in totality in Pit-23. Finally, considering that the highest NPV NPV with
the lowest fluctuation was between Pit-20 and Pit-25, an intermediate Pit-23 was chosen as
with the lowest fluctuation was between Pit-20 and Pit-25, an intermediate Pit-23 was cho-
the ultimate pit. The same criteria were used for the other scenarios.
sen as the ultimate pit. The same criteria were used for the other scenarios.

(b)

(a) (c)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. (a) Percentage
Percentagedifference
differenceofofNPV;
NPV;(b)
(b)stripping
strippingratio;
ratio;
(c)(c) tons
tons ofof waste
waste toto remove
remove in in Scenario
Scenario 4.
4.
2.5. Operative Design
2.5. Operative
The mostDesign
relevant geometrical parameters in a ramp were considered for the open pit
design (Table 4).
The most relevantSpecifically, ramp width
geometrical is relevant
parameters in a as it not
ramp onlyconsidered
were has safety implications
for the open
in
pitterms
design of(Table
vehicle 4).maneuverability
Specifically, ramp and
widthmaintaining
is relevant road
as itcontinuity
not only has[40], but also
safety has
implica-
significant
tions in termsNPV ofeffects.
vehicleAmaneuverability
variation in theand ramp width wasroad
maintaining usedcontinuity
because the final
[40], butslope
also
angle decreased
has significant NPVas this width
effects. increased
A variation in (Figure
the ramp 4),width
which implied
was a greater
used because theremoval
final slopeof
waste [10,12]. The final slope angles obtained required 9 benches
angle decreased as this width increased (Figure 4), which implied a greater removal ofand 9 berms to reach
the
waste100[10,12].
m slope. In addition,
The final the ramp
slope angles obtainedpassed only9once
required overand
benches the9 slope.
berms to This ramp
reach the
considered two lanes, where the width of the roadway must be at least
100 m slope. In addition, the ramp passed only once over the slope. This ramp considered three times the
width of thewhere
two lanes, widestthe vehicle,
widthfollowing the safety
of the roadway specifications
must be at least in Spain
three [41].the
times Other
width open pit
of the
design
widestguidelines mention that
vehicle, following the aside
safetyfrom the minimum
specifications width,[41].
in Spain additional
Other width
open pitshould
designbe
considered to accommodate equipment larger than the primary road
guidelines mention that aside from the minimum width, additional width should be con- users or to improve
sight
sidereddistance, which should
to accommodate give sufficient
equipment larger space for primary
than the moving vehicles
road usersto avoid
or to collision
improve
with stalled or slow-moving vehicles [40].
sight distance, which should give sufficient space for moving vehicles to avoid collision
with stalled or slow-moving vehicles [40].

Table 4. Geometric ramp parameters.

Ramp Width (m) 15 25 35

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 7 of 19

Final Slope Angle (°) 50 47 44

Table 4. Geometric
Rampramp parameters.
Slope (%) 10
Grade
Ramp Resistance
Width (m) (%) 15 25 2 35
Final Slope Angle (◦(m)
Bench Height ) 50 47 10 44
RampBench
SlopeSlope
(%) (°) 10 70
GradeBerm
Resistance
Width(%)
(m) 2 4
Benchcolour
* The background Height (m)
represents each design scenario. 10
Bench Slope (◦ ) 70
Berm Width (m) 4
The background colour represents each design scenario.

Figure 4. Ramp width effect on final slope angle.

Figure 4. Ramp width effect on final slope angle.
2.6. Production Scheduling
2.6. Production Scheduling
In the mining plan, the optimization of the production schedule is a crucial step and
hasInanthe
important economic
mining plan, and environmental
the optimization impact. It has
of the production an economic
schedule impact
is a crucial because
step and
theantons
has of ore and
important wasteand
economic to be extracted areimpact.
environmental the target of an
It has theeconomic
production optimization,
impact because
and
the tonsanofenvironmental
ore and wasteimpact becauseare
to be extracted thethe
environmental costs shouldoptimization,
target of the production be internalized andin
an environmental impact because the environmental costs should be internalized in thisis
this production schedule [42]. One of the most important considerations in this step
the loadingschedule
production and hauling[42]. stage,
One of duethetomost
the hours that must
important be investedinand
considerations thisthe associated
step is the
costs, both
loading in initialstage,
and hauling investment
due toandthe operation.
hours that From theinvested
must be performance curves
and the of the selected
associated costs,
equipment,
both in initialavailable
investmentin alland
manufacturers’
operation. From catalogs, the speeds, transport,
the performance curves ofand thecycle times
selected
were estimated and, therefore, the productivity of the truck fleet was
equipment, available in all manufacturersʹ catalogs, the speeds, transport, and cycle times found for each
scenario. Then, with this information, fuel consumption and, therefore,
were estimated and, therefore, the productivity of the truck fleet was found for2 each sce- CO emissions
couldThen,
nario. be estimated
with this[14,22].
information, fuel consumption and, therefore, CO2 emissions could
be estimated [14,22].
2.6.1. Equipment Selection
EquipmentSelection
2.6.1. Equipment selection was focused on the transport stage, which required knowledge
of daily production, due to the equipment to be considered needing to satisfy the initial
Equipment selection was focused on the transport stage, which required knowledge
production requirement. A first estimate of equipment dimensions was based on the
of daily production, due to the equipment to be considered needing to satisfy the initial
O’Hara formulations [43], which estimated 6–30 tons of capacity for the loaders and 30–
production requirement. A first estimate of equipment dimensions was based on the
90 tons of capacity for the trucks. Loader and truck dimensions were proportional to the
O’Hara formulations [43], which estimated 6–30 tons of capacity for the loaders and 30–
tons per day for each of the cases and increased as the tonnage increased. A few catalogs of
90 tons of capacity for the trucks. Loader and truck dimensions were proportional to the
Caterpillar [44–46] were chosen for the selection of the equipment; these catalogs present
tons per day for each of the cases and increased as the tonnage increased. A few catalogs
the characteristics in terms of capacity and dimensions. Three trucks and three loaders were
of Caterpillar [44–46] were chosen for the selection of the equipment; these catalogs pre-
selected, seeking to double the size and capacity of the previous one, to satisfy ramp width
sent
andthe characteristics
production in terms
conditions of capacity
proposed fromand dimensions.
a realistic Threeastrucks
viewpoint, andinthree
detailed Tableload-
5.
ers were selected, seeking to double the size and capacity of the previous one, to satisfy
ramp width and production conditions proposed from a realistic viewpoint, as detailed
in Table 5.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 8 of 19

Table 5. Mining truck and wheel specifications.

Gross
Ramp Width Wheel Loader Width Empty Truck Payload
Truck Model Vehicle Payload (m3 )
(m) Model Truck (m) Weight (kg) (tons)
Weight (kg)
15 770G 992 4.78 33,224 71,214 17.20 38
25 777G 994 6.10 70,753 163,360 42.00 93
35 789D 998 7.65 141,214 324,319 108.00 183
The background colour represents each design scenario.

2.6.2. Haulage Profile

Cycles Times
Following equipment selection, performance was estimated using rimpull curves
and retardation curves. These curves are used when the trucks are moving uphill and
downhill, respectively, and are especially important to estimate the speed of the truck on
a specific route considering parameters such as the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) and the
Total Resistance (TR), which are given by:

GVW = Empty truck weight + Payload (1)

TR = Grade Resistence (GR) + Rolling Resistence (RR) (2)

where GR is the haul road slope; RR is the force resisting the movement and depends on the
tire characteristics and the haul road surface. These parameters allow for determining the
traction force (RF), which is the force available between the tire and the ground to propel
the machine, according to Soofastaei et al. [15], and is given by:

RF = GVW × TR (3)

When a truck is moving at a constant speed, the rimpull force and velocity can be calcu-
lated according to the rimpull–speed–gradeability curve extracted from the manufacturer’s
catalog. This is because the engine power is given by the following equation:

Engine Power = Thrust Force × Speed (4)

A more detailed description of how the information was extracted from the rimpull
curves can be found in each manufacturer’s catalog. Figure 5a shows the information in
terms of rimpull and speeds for each selected truck, where logically the larger trucks have
greater load capacity, thrust, and higher maximum speeds. One limitation is that all trucks
will reach a maximum speed of 50 km/h [41].

Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption is strongly impacted by factors such as tire usage, age, vehicle
maintenance, idling times, engine operating parameters, and transmission shift patterns.
In addition, external factors related to weather such as temperature, humidity, wind effects,
traffic, and driver behavior are also important [14,22]. Fuel consumption in trucks can be
calculated using the following equation [15]:

SFC
FC = × (LF × P) (5)
FD
where SFC is the specific fuel consumption of the engine at maximum power (0.213-0.268
kg/(kg/kW×h)), and FD is the fuel density (0.85 kg/L for diesel). Additionally, the
following simplified equation can be used [47]:

FC = 0.3 × ( LF × P) (6)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 9 of 19

where LF is the engine load factor and is defined as the ratio of the average payload to the
maximum
where LF is load
the in an operating
engine load factorcycle.
and At continuous
is defined operation
as the using
ratio of the the recommended
average payload to the
truck weight,
maximum theinload
load factor is 30-40%.
an operating cycle. AtP continuous
is the truckoperation
power (kW). Tothe
using achieve the best
recommended
performance
truck weight, ofthe
the load
truckfactor
operation, P is determined
is 30-40%. by: power (kW). To achieve the best
P is the truck
performance of the truck operation, P is1determined by:
𝑃 𝑅𝐹 𝑉 (7)
3.6
1
P= × ( RF × Vmax ) (7)
where RF is the product of the rimpull 3.6(R) and the gravity acceleration (g). Vmax is the
maximum velocity obtained. Figure 5b shows the fuel consumption in two situations:
where RF is the product of the rimpull (R) and the gravity acceleration (g). Vmax is the
when the truck moves uphill, where fuel consumption is higher because the engine over-
maximum velocity obtained. Figure 5b shows the fuel consumption in two situations: when
comes the gravity force, and when the truck moves downhill, where fuel consumption is
the truck moves uphill, where fuel consumption is higher because the engine overcomes
minimal since the gravity force acts in the same direction. In addition, this graph shows
the gravity force, and when the truck moves downhill, where fuel consumption is minimal
that fuel
since theconsumption
gravity force in acts
larger
intrucks is exponentially
the same higher
direction. In compared
addition, to smaller
this graph trucks.
shows that
Infuel consumption in larger trucks is exponentially higher compared to smaller trucks.as
general, fuel consumption varies as the truck accelerates and then becomes constant In
itgeneral,
increases speed.
fuel consumption varies as the truck accelerates and then becomes constant as it
increases speed.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure5.5.(a)
(a)Maximum
Maximumspeeds;
speeds;(b)
(b)fuel
fuelconsumption
consumptionofofthe
theselected
selectedtrucks.
trucks.

This
Thisinformation
informationwas wasthe theinput
inputfor forthetheTruck
TruckLibrary
Libraryofofthe theHaulage
HaulageProfile
Profiletool
toolbyby
Maptek-Vulcan.
Maptek-Vulcan.The Thecycle
cycleestimation
estimationand andfuelfuelconsumption
consumptionfor foreach
eachramprampwere
wereperformed
performed
using
usingthetheRoute
RouteCycle
Cycle Estimation
Estimationtool. tool. Logically,
Logically,the thecompletely
completelyloaded loadedtruck
truckwould
wouldgo go
uphillfrom
uphill fromthethebottom
bottomofofthe thepitpittotothethesurface;
surface;once onceitithas
hasleftleftthe
thematerial
materialon onthethesurface,
surface,
withoutconsidering
without consideringtransport
transportto tothe
thestockpile,
stockpile,the theempty
emptytrucktruckreturns
returnsto tothe
thebottom.
bottom.TheThe
reasonwhy
reason why transport
transport to a stockpile
stockpileisisnot notconsidered
consideredisisthat thatthethestudy
study intends
intendsto to
analyze
analyzethe
difference
the differencein truck
in truckconsumption,
consumption, makingmaking it unnecessary
it unnecessary to consider
to consider an additional
an additional distance
dis-
in theinestimate.
tance The routes
the estimate. of each
The routes rampramp
of each contain distance
contain and and
distance slope information,
slope information,and and
they
were created from the pit design in each scenario. These lines were
they were created from the pit design in each scenario. These lines were registered in the registered in the software
with the Build
software Route
with the Network
Build Routetool, wheretool,
Network the rolling
where resistance
the rollingvalue was also
resistance defined.
value With
was also
this tool,With
defined. you this
can tool,
specify
youthecan truck usedthe
specify and the used
truck type ofandmaterial
the type transported
of materialfor each route
transported
(oreeach
for or waste). The or
route (ore tool performs
waste). The atoolgeneral estimation
performs of speed
a general and fuel
estimation ofconsumption
speed and fuel for
each potential slope (2–16 ◦ ) and considers each truck’s parameters according to the Truck
consumption for each potential slope (2–16°) and considers each truckʹs parameters ac-
Library,to
cording since
the itTruck
is possible
Library,to assign
since iteach truck totoa route.
is possible assign Iteachthentruck
takestothe route line
a route. and
It then
estimates the time required for the trip and fuel consumption,
takes the route line and estimates the time required for the trip and fuel consumption, depending on the slope and
line distance and on whether the truck is loaded or empty.
depending on the slope and line distance and on whether the truck is loaded or empty.
Performance
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 10 of 19

Performance
The operating process was adapted using the Time Usage Model [48], commonly
applied in the mining industry. This tool allows the identification of efficiency losses
through key time usage metrics, or indicators such as the Available Time (AT) and the
Utilized Time (UT). The AT represents 80% of the calendar time and comprises the mine
scheduled hours, subtracting the downtimes, which include scheduled hours such as
holidays or maintenance and unplanned hours caused, for example, by weather conditions.
In addition, UT is the scheduled hours of the machine, whose losses are due to shift changes,
lunches, and meetings. These hours are the productive hours, the effective time when the
machines are in operation, and they represent 75% of the AT. Since this is a relatively small
mining operation, two shifts of 8 h per day are considered, displaying the resultant hours
in Table 6.

Table 6. Mining Schedule.

Schedule Parameters Value

Shift (u) 2
Shift (hours) 8
Working days (days) 365
Calendar time (hours) 5840
Available Time (%) 80
Utilized Time (%) 75

The effective capacity of the shovel was estimated, which considered the filling factor,
swelling, and density of the material. In addition, instantaneous, operating, and annual
performances were obtained. Then, the fleet required to cover the production demand was
evaluated. The following formulations were used for this process:

Nominal Capacity ∗ Fill Factor × Density

E f f ective Capacity = (8)
(1 + Swelling)

E f f ective Capacity
Instantaneous Per f ormance = (9)
Cycle

Operational Per f ormance = Instantaneous Per f ormance × Utilised time (10)

Annual Per f ormance = Operating Per f ormance × Available time (11)

Annual Per f ormance

Units = (12)
Annual Production

2.6.3. CO2 Emissions

In the mining process, the loading and hauling stages are the main GHG contribu-
tors [21,49]. Trucks use a significant amount of diesel fuel, and this consumption depends
on many factors already mentioned [22]. In terms of truck performance, fleets are often het-
erogeneous regarding fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Optimizing haul operations
is key to reducing the environmental footprint in the mining industry [13]. To compare the
possible scenarios, the emission factor 2.7 kg CO2 /L fuel was used [21].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Net Present Value
Figure 6a shows the best-case NPVs in the proposed production scenarios. In the
lowest production scenario, a negative maximum NPV was observed. This indicated that
the proposed production value did not include enough ore to cover operational costs. Then,
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 11 of 19

flow was generated as production increased. In addition, lower operating costs generated
in the higher
higher NPVs [16].production scenarios,
Specifically, NPVwould
the NPV was significantly higher because
increase significantly morecosts
if mining cashwere
flow
was generated
lowered, comparedas production
to lower increased.
processingIncosts.
addition,
This islower operating
because miningcosts generated
costs affect a higher
larger
NPVs [16].
amount Specifically,
of ore and waste theblocks,
NPV would increase
contrary significantly
to milling if mining
costs which costs
only were
affect thelowered,
blocks
compared to lower processing costs. This is because mining costs affect a larger
considered ore [50]. A similar result is presented in Figure 6b, where the angle of the final amount
of ore
pit andwas
slope waste blocks, contrary
evaluated. The NPVtodecreased
milling costs which
as the finalonly affect
slope thedecreased,
angle blocks considered
and the
ramp width increased. The final slope angle had great sensitivity on the the
ore [50]. A similar result is presented in Figure 6b, where the angle of NPV, final pit slope
because the
was inclined
less evaluated. theThe NPV
final decreased
slopes as the
were, the final the
greater slope angle
rock decreased,
extraction andpit
on the thewalls,
rampwhich
width
increased.
was Theinfinal
reflected slope angle
a decrease had great sensitivity on the NPV, because the less inclined
in profit.
the final slopes were, the greater the rock extraction on the pit walls, which was reflected in
a decrease in profit.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. (a)
(a) NPV
NPV based
based on
on annual
annual production
production variation;
variation; (b)
(b) NPV based on
NPV based on the
the variation
variation of
of the
the final
final slope angle in Scenario
slope angle in Scenario 4. 4.

3.2.
3.2. Ultimate
Ultimate Pit
Pit
The ultimate
The ultimatepit pitwas
wasdefined
definedforfor each
each annual
annual production
production scenario.
scenario. TableTable 7 shows
7 shows the
the clear
clear difference
difference between
between mined
mined tonstons
of of ore.
ore. TheThe constraintofoflow
constraint lowannual
annualproduction,
production,
which does
which does not
not cover
cover operating
operating costs,
costs, resulted
resulted in unprofitable
unprofitable mining.
mining. Additionally,
Additionally, the the
SR could
SR could be
be obtained;
obtained; this
this value
value varied
varied from
from 3:1
3:1 to
to 4:1,
4:1, which
which assumes
assumes economic
economic viability
viability
in higher
in higherproduction
productioncasescasesbecause
becauseNPVs NPVs increase
increase exponentially.
exponentially. It isItevident
is evidentthatthat
as an-as
annual production increased, the ultimate pit deepened and the
nual production increased, the ultimate pit deepened and the LOM decreased, thus de- LOM decreased, thus
decreasing
creasing operating
operating expenses
expenses and
and increasing
increasing theNPV
the NPVbybyhaving
havingaahigher
highercashcashflow
flow each
each
year, although
year, althoughthe theSRSRwaswasmaintained.
maintained. OnOn thethe other
other hand,
hand, Table Table 8 presents
8 presents the same
the same var-
variables for the ramp width variation or final slope angle in Scenario 4. In
iables for the ramp width variation or final slope angle in Scenario 4. In general terms, this general terms,
this angle
angle had ahad a direct
direct impactimpact
on SRon SR as
since since as it decreased
it decreased waste waste extraction
extraction increased,
increased, and
and there-
therefore the NPV decreased. Specifically, the expansion of the last pit
fore the NPV decreased. Specifically, the expansion of the last pit was limited by the wid-was limited by the
widening of the ramp, so that the mined ore and waste tons decreased.
ening of the ramp, so that the mined ore and waste tons decreased. However, this varia- However, this
variation
tion of Scenario
of Scenario 4 was4better
was better thanlower
than the the lower production
production scenarios.
scenarios.

Table 7.
Table Pit Optimizer
7. Pit Optimizer Results—Scenarios.
Results—Scenarios.

Annual Ulti- Ore—Best Waste—Best SR NPV

Annual Pro-
Production (t/yr)
Ultimate Pit Ore—
(Mt)
Waste— (Mt) SR (Waste/Ore) NPV
(MUSD)
LOM LOM
(yrs)
mate
Scenario 1 duction
600,000(t/yr) Best (Mt)3.12 Best (Mt) 11.39
(Waste/Ore) 3.65 (MUSD) (yrs)
Pit4 (16.08) 24.18
Scenario 2 1,200,000 8 3.91 16.36 4.18 24.30 16.89
Scenario
Scenario 31 600,000
3,000,000 414 3.12 8.58 11.39 31.13 3.65 3.63 (16.08)
105.15 24.18
13.24
Scenario
Scenario 42 1,200,000
6,000,000 823 3.91 10.49 16.36 40.55 4.18 3.86 24.30
158.17 16.89
8.51
Scenario 3 3,000,000 The background
14 colour8.58 31.13
represents each design scenario.3.63 105.15 13.24
Scenario 4 6,000,000 23 10.49 40.55 3.86 158.17 8.51
 * The background colour represents each design scenario.

Table 8. Pit Optimizer Results—Slope Angle Variation.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 12 of 19
SR
Ramp Final Slope Ultimate Ore— Waste— NPV (M LOM
(Waste/
Width (m) Angle Pit Best (Mt) Best (Mt) USD) (yrs)
Table 8. Pit Optimizer Results—Slope Angle Variation. Ore)
15 50 23 10.50 40.55 3.86 158.17 8.51
SR
Scenario 4 25
Ramp Final47
Slope 20
Ultimate 8.88
Ore—Best 33.42
Waste—Best 3.76 142.68
NPV (M 7.05
(Waste/ LOM (yrs)
Width
35 (m) Angle
44 Pit
15 (Mt)
8.74 (Mt)
35.06 4.01 USD)
113.71 7.30
Ore)
15 50 23 10.50 40.55 3.86 158.17 8.51
Scenario 4 25 47
* The background 20 represents
colour 8.88
each design 33.42
scenario. 3.76 142.68 7.05
35 44 15 8.74 35.06 4.01 113.71 7.30
The background colour represents each design scenario.
3.3. Pit Design
3.3.The production scenarios’ variation showed that nested pit geometry does not
Pit Design
change significantly. In other words, for any economic scenario, the final pit geometry was
The production scenarios’ variation showed that nested pit geometry does not change
maintained,
significantly.in general
In other terms,
words, and theeconomic
for any most important
scenario, aspect thatpit
the final varied was was
geometry the mining
main-
speed
tained, in general terms, and the most important aspect that varied was the mining speedof
and, therefore, the LOM. The reason for this was that the grades and geometry
theand,
deposit were fixed
therefore, and do
the LOM. Thenot change.
reason for Therefore,
this was that thethe
optimization
grades andalgorithm,
geometry of as the
well
as deposit
the pit design, tried to match the initial bench feet with the richest mineralization
were fixed and do not change. Therefore, the optimization algorithm, as well as the and
continue intotried
pit design, the best-mineralized
to match the initialzones.
benchOnly Scenario
feet with 4 reached
the richest the richest
mineralization and
and deepest
continue
mineralized zones and the zones.
into the best-mineralized secondOnlygeological
Scenario body, so choosing
4 reached the and
the richest rightdeepest
production
mineral-sce-
ized zones and the second geological body, so choosing the right production
nario is key to the correct and complete extraction of the resources. Then, the analysis was scenario is key
to the correct
transferred to aand complete
rather extraction
geometrical of the
sense, resources. pit
considering Then, the analysis
dimensions orwas transferred
scales. Figure 7
to a rather
illustrates, ingeometrical
a plan view sense,
and considering
profiles, thepitfinal
dimensions or scales.
pits according toFigure
the Pit7 Optimizer
illustrates, in a
tool.
plan view and profiles, the final pits according to the Pit Optimizer tool.
Sections show that the final pits expanded horizontally, reaching the same depth either Sections show that
by the final pits
varying the expanded horizontally,
annual production reaching
or by varying thethe
same
rampdepth either
width. Thebyfinal
varying the annual
pit dimensions,
production or by varying the ramp width. The final pit dimensions, according to their scale,
according to their scale, were named Small (Pit-4), Medium (Pit-8), Large (Pit-13), and
were named Small (Pit-4), Medium (Pit-8), Large (Pit-13), and Largest Pit (Pit-23).
Largest Pit (Pit-23).

(a) (b)
Figure 7. (a)
Figure Plan
7. (a) view;
Plan (b)(b)ultimate
view; ultimatepit
pitsections
sectionsof
ofscenarios.
scenarios.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 13 of 19

The scenario matrix (Figure 8) was obtained by combining the geometries of the an-
nual production scenarios with the ramp width variation, which considered the pit di-
The scenario matrix (Figure 8) was obtained by combining the geometries of the annual
mensions according to annual production on the horizontal axis, from a “small pit” to a
production scenarios with the ramp width variation, which considered the pit dimensions
“largest pit”, and the mining design from a 15 to a 35 m ramp. The pit designs changed
according to annual production on the horizontal axis, from a “small pit” to a “largest pit”,
minimally as the
and the mining ramps
design became
from a 15 towider.
a 35 mThis
ramp.wasThebecause it ischanged
pit designs difficultminimally
to give continuity
as the
toramps
a wider
became wider. This was because it is difficult to give continuity to a ramp
ramp, due to it being necessary to smooth the curves for the widerto fit cor-
ramp,
rectly.
due toIn
it addition, it was observed
being necessary to smooththat
the the finalfor
curves lengths didto
the ramp notfitvary whenInthe
correctly. ramp width
addition, it
varied.
was observed that the final lengths did not vary when the ramp width varied.

Figure 8. Scenario matrix: pit dimensions and ramp width variations.

Figure 8. Scenario matrix: pit dimensions and ramp width variations.
3.4. Hauling
3.4. Hauling
The total cycle estimation (loading time + transport time) of the scenario matrix
(Figure
The 9) wascycle
total obtained using (loading
estimation the speedtimeinformation
+ transport according
time) of to
thethe rimpull’s
scenario truck,
matrix (Fig-
considering
ure the truck’s
9) was obtained maximum
using the speedload, ramp slope,according
information and minutes required
to the in each
rimpull’s loading
truck, consid-
stage.the
ering Fortruckʹs
the small, medium,
maximum andramp
load, largeslope,
pits, there were no significant
and minutes required inchanges since the
each loading stage.
equipment maintained a similar range of maximum speeds and the final distances
For the small, medium, and large pits, there were no significant changes since the equip- did not
vary maintained
ment much. However, thererange
a similar was anof increase
maximum in the cycleand
speeds time
theinfinal
the largest
distancespit (30–36%),
did not vary
and this is quite logical because when contemplating another geological body, haulage
much. However, there was an increase in the cycle time in the largest pit (30–36%), and
distances and transport times would increase. The fact is that these distances would be
this is quite logical because when contemplating another geological body, haulage dis-
affected if it was decided to vary the slope of the ramp. If the ramp slope was increased,
tances and transport times would increase. The fact is that these distances would be af-
the distances would be shortened, but trucks will not necessarily get there faster, since the
fected
speed ifwould
it wasdecrease
decided[22].
to vary the slope
Another of the
important ramp.
fact If the
that has notramp
been slope was increased,
considered is the time the
distances would be shortened, but trucks will not necessarily get there
required by trucks to arrive at a stockpile or dump site, where the destination site could faster, since
be the
speed would
further away. Therefore, the cycle could be considerably higher, especially in large pits. the
decrease [22]. Another important fact that has not been considered is
time required by trucks to arrive at a stockpile or dump site, where the destination site
could be further away. Therefore, the cycle could be considerably higher, especially in
large pits.
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 14 of 19

Figure 9. Scenario Matrix: Cycle.

3.5. Production
Figure 9. Scenario Matrix: Cycle.
Figure 9. Scenario Matrix: Cycle.
From the effective capacities of the shovels and each associated truck, combined with
3.5. Production
the cycle time, it was possible to calculate the truck performance for each economic sce-
3.5. Production
nario.From the effective
Despite having acapacities
similar totalof the shovels
cycle time,and theeachbestassociated
indicator truck,
was the combined withper-
operational
the cycle time,
From the
formance it was possible
effective capacities
or operational to calculate the
of the shovels
output (Figure truck
10a). Small performance
andtrucks for
each associated each economic
have lowertruck, scenario.
combined
productivity with
than
Despite
the cycle having
time, a similar
it was total cycle
possible to time, the best
calculate indicator
the truck was the operational
performance for performance
each economic sce-
large trucks, and as the pit dimensions increased, the productivity of the same truck de-
or operational
nario. Despite output (Figure 10a). Small trucks have lower productivity than large trucks,
creased due tohaving a similar
the increase in thetotal cycle time,
transport cycle; the best indicator
therefore, for thewassame the operational
truck in a larger per-
and as the pit dimensions increased, the productivity of the same truck decreased due to
formance or operational
pit, productivity decreased output (Figure 10a).
significantly. A loss Small trucks haveinlower
of productivity largeproductivity
trucks is more than
the increase in the transport cycle; therefore, for the same truck in a larger pit, productivity
large trucks,
frequent
decreased thanand as thetrucks,
in small
significantly. pit
A lossdimensions
so
of the increased,
availability
productivity in or the productivity
utilization
large trucks isof of the same
this frequent
more equipment than truck
in bede-
must
increased,
creased due which
to the is difficult
increase since
in the equipment
transport maintenance
cycle; therefore, is
small trucks, so the availability or utilization of this equipment must be increased, which is more
for complex
the same [12].
truck The
in truck
a larger
units
pit, are presented
productivity
difficult in Figure
decreased
since equipment 10b, where
significantly.
maintenance it can
is moreAcomplexbe seen
loss of [12]. that productivity
productivity loss
in large
The truck units in large trucks
trucks is more
are presented
is
inmore
Figurefrequent
frequent than
10b, in thanit in
small
where small
trucks,
can trucks,
so
be seen the so it is necessary
thatavailability
productivity orloss to increase
utilization
in large ofthe
this
trucks isavailability
equipment
more frequent ormust
utili- be
increased, which is difficult since equipment maintenance is more complex [12]. The[12].
zation
than inof this
small equipment,
trucks, so it which
is is
necessary difficult
to since
increase their
the maintenance
availability or is more
utilization complex
of this truck
In
unitsthe
aresmall
equipment, and medium
which
presented is
indifficult
Figure pits, thewhere
since
10b, smallmaintenance
their ittruck
can bewould seenisbemore
thatideal and the[12].
complex
productivity medium in and
In the
loss smalllarge
large trucks
istrucks
and
more are oversized.
medium
frequent pits, the in
than In small
smallthetruck
largest would
trucks, pit,
sobeusing ideal
it is large
and trucks,
necessary theto mediumthe number
increase andthelarge of trucks
units needed
availability areor utili-
oversized.by
decreases In 80%
the largest pit, using
concerning small large trucks,
trucks, the NPV
while number of unitsby
decreases needed
30%. decreases by
zation of this equipment, which is difficult since their maintenance is more complex [12].
80% concerning small trucks, while NPV decreases by 30%.
In the small and medium pits, the small truck would be ideal and the medium and large
trucks are oversized. In the largest pit, using large trucks, the number of units needed
decreases by 80% concerning small trucks, while NPV decreases by 30%.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. (a)
Figure 10. (a) Scenario
Scenariomatrix—operational
matrix—operational production.
production. (b)(b) Truck
Truck units.
units.

3.6. Fuel
3.6. Fuel Consumption
Consumption
(a) Figure
Figure 11a
11ashows
showsthe data
the obtained
data fromfrom
obtained the fuel (b) per cycle
the consumption
fuel consumption perofcycle
the scenario
of the sce-
matrix. Despite the same distances and almost similar times, the fuel consumption was
nario 10.
Figure matrix. Despitematrix—operational
(a) Scenario the same distancesproduction.
and almost(b)similar
Truck times,
units. the fuel consumption
higher in the larger trucks, assuming an increase of up to 300% compared to the medium
was higher in the larger trucks, assuming an increase of up to 300% compared to the me-
truck scenario and in contrast to the decrease of up to 40% in smaller trucks. Combining
dium
3.6. truck
Fueldata scenario and in contrast to the decrease of up to 40% in smaller trucks. Com-
Consumption
these with the cycle time, Figure 11b shows the fuel consumption per hour of the
bining these
Figure 11a data with the
shows the cycle time, Figure
data obtained 11bthe
from shows
fuel the fuel consumption
consumption per cycleperofhour
theofsce-
nario matrix. Despite the same distances and almost similar times, the fuel consumption
was higher in the larger trucks, assuming an increase of up to 300% compared to the me-
dium truck scenario and in contrast to the decrease of up to 40% in smaller trucks. Com-
bining these data with the cycle time, Figure 11b shows the fuel consumption per hour of
 the scenario matrix. These data were compared with the average consumption of Cater-
pillar’s Catalog, (2015), obtaining values in line with their normal average consumption.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 15 of 19

the scenario
scenario matrix.
matrix. These
These datadata
werewere compared
compared with with the average
the average consumption
consumption of Cater-
of Caterpillar’s
pillar’s
Catalog,Catalog, (2015), obtaining
(2015), obtaining values invalues in line
line with with
their their normal
normal averageaverage consumption.
consumption.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. (a) Fuel consumption per cycle; (b) fuel consumption per hour of the scenario matrix.

(a)Considering the great importance of these parameters

(b) in decisions such as the pur-
chase of11.
Figure
Figure equipment
11. (a)
(a) Fuel in a mining
Fuel consumption
consumption per project,
per cycle;
cycle; (b) thisconsumption
(b) fuel
fuel type of analysis
consumption per
per hour
hourshould
of
of the be carried
the scenario
scenario out prelim-
matrix.
matrix.
inarily, considering equipment availability, prices, road characteristics, regulations ac-
cordingConsidering
to the currentthegreat
the great
laws importance
importance
of the site, ofof
andthese
these parameters
parameters
the environmental in decisions
in decisions suchsuch
impact. as
The asuncertainty
the the pur- lies
purchase
inchase
of of equipment
equipment
whether in a mining
it isinnecessary
a mining project,project,
to purchase thisof
this type
more type of analysis
analysis
units of should should
equipment be meet
be carried
to carried out prelim-targets
out production
preliminarily,
inarily, considering
considering equipment equipment availability,
availability, prices, road prices, road characteristics,
characteristics, regulations
regulations according ac-
to the
or whether the environmental cost of large equipment in terms of fuel consumption, with
cording to theofcurrent
current laws the site,laws
andofthethe site, and the environmental
environmental impact. The
impact. The uncertainty liesuncertainty
in whether lies it is
the associated emissions, must also play a role in the decision-making from a holistic per-
in whethertoit purchase
necessary is necessarymoreto purchase more unitstoofmeet
units of equipment equipment
productionto meet production
targets or whethertargetsthe
spective.
or whetherSubsequently,
environmental the environmental Figure
cost of large 12 of
cost
equipment shows
large the ratio
equipment
in terms between
of fuel termsfuel
inconsumption, consumption
of fuel consumption,
with (liters/hour)
with
the associated
and
theoperational
emissions,
associatedmust productivity
also playmust
emissions, a role(t/h).
in the
also This a ratio
role inallows
decision-making
play for
from a deeper
a holisticunderstanding
the decision-making perspective.
from a holistic of energy
Subse-
per-
consumption.
quently, Figure
spective. Fuel consumption
12 showsFigure
Subsequently, the ratio per
12 between ton
shows the doubled
fuel in
consumption
ratio larger
between fuel trucks
(liters/hour)
consumption and as
operationalsize in-
the pit
and(liters/hour)
creased.
and In other
productivity
operational words,
(t/h). the environmental
This ratio
productivity allows
(t/h). forratio
This a deepercostunderstanding
allows per
forton mined
a deeper doubles
of energy when
understanding larger trucks
consumption.
of energy
Fuel consumption
consumption.
are used. Fuel per ton doubled
consumption perinton
larger trucksinand
doubled as the
larger pit size
trucks andincreased.
as the pit In other
size in-
words, the
creased. environmental
In other words, thecost per ton mined
environmental doubles
cost per tonwhen
minedlarger trucks
doubles arelarger
when used. trucks
are used.

Figure 12. Scenario matrix—fuel consumption per ton.

Figure 12. Scenario matrix—fuel consumption per ton.
Figure 12. Scenario matrix—fuel consumption per ton.
3.7. Environmental Impact Related to the Operation Process
3.7. Environmental
3.7. Environmental
Impact
Figure 13a shows Related
CORelated
Impact
to the
2 emissions
Operation
to the per
Process
liter ofProcess
Operation fuel consumed. As expected, there was a
higher consumption
Figure of larger equipmentper
and,liter
therefore, higher emissions. In the samethere
way,
Figure13a13a shows
shows COCO2 2emissions
emissions per liter of fuel
of fuel consumed.
consumed. As expected,
As expected, there was a was a
CO2 emissions
higher were compared
consumption largerwith
of larger respect toand,
equipment annual tons produced
therefore, and,
higher as can be seen
emissions. in same
higher consumption of equipment and, therefore, higher emissions. In theIn the
same
Figure 10b, the ratio increased considerably in small trucks. In addition, having more units
way,
way,COCO2 2emissions werecompared
emissions were comparedwith with respect
respect to annual
to annual tonstons produced
produced and,
and, as canasbecan be
in small trucks would increase the supply consumption for the maintenance and emission
seen in Figure 10b, the ratio increased considerably in small trucks. In addition, having
seen in Figure 10b, the ratio increased considerably in small trucks. In addition, having
of particles on unpaved roads, by stockpiles and others [21].
moreunits
more unitsin
in small
small trucks
truckswould
wouldincrease
increase thethe
supply
supplyconsumption
consumptionfor the
formaintenance
the maintenance
and emission of particles on unpaved roads, by stockpiles and
and emission of particles on unpaved roads, by stockpiles and others [21].others [21].
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 16 of 19

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure13.
13.(a) A)CO
(a)A) CO2emissions
emissionsper
perliter;
liter;(b) annual CO
(b)annual CO2 emissions
emissions per
per Mt
Mt of
of the
the scenario
scenario matrix.
matrix.

Results
Resultsarearesummarized
summarizedthrough throughthe thescenario
scenariomatrix
matrixdetailed
detailedin inFigure
Figure14.14.This
Thisfigure
figure
shows
showsthatthatannual
annualproduction
productioninteracted
interactedwith withmine
minedesign
designandandmine
mineplanning,
planning,directly
directly
affecting
affectingNPV.
NPV.This
Thisannual
annualproduction
productiondetermined
determinedthe thefinal
finalvalue
valueofofthe
theproject
projectand
andLOM,
LOM,
and
andincreasing
increasing annual production
productionincreased
increasedNPV NPVandand decreased
decreased LOM LOM significantly.
significantly. De-
Despite
the variations
spite in the
the variations inparameters,
the parameters, following the same
following conditions,
the same the geometry
conditions, the geometryof theoffinal
the
pits pits
final was was
the same, andand
the same, what varied
what waswas
varied the the
raterate
of extraction of the
of extraction blocks
of the and,
blocks therefore,
and, there-
the NPV.
fore, As forAs
the NPV. thefor
technical parameters,
the technical the finalthe
parameters, pit final
slopepit
angle wasangle
slope evaluated, which had
was evaluated,
a directhad
which correlation
a direct with the width
correlation with of the
the width
ramp because, as thebecause,
of the ramp width ofasthe ramp
the increased,
width of the
the angle
ramp of the final
increased, slopeof
the angle decreased.
the final Theslopefinal slope angle
decreased. Thehadfinala slope
high sensitivity
angle hadon NPV,
a high
since it decreased
sensitivity on NPV,assince finalitslope steepness
decreased decreased
as final and increased
slope steepness wasteand
decreased rock removal
increased
from the
waste rockpit walls. from the pit walls.
removal
The variation
The variation in inramp
rampwidth widthwaswasevaluated
evaluatedwithwithequipment
equipmentselection.
selection.ItItshould
shouldbe be
takeninto
taken
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW intoaccount
accountthatthatthe
theLOMLOMshould
shouldcoincide
coincidewith
withthe
theuseful
usefullife
lifeof
ofthe
theequipment
equipment (not
17 of(not
19
specifiedin
specified inthis
thiswork),
work),so soififthe
theannual
annualproduction
productionisisincreased
increasedandandlarge
largetrucks
trucksareareused,
used,
LOMisisshortened,
LOM shortened,and andthetheinitial
initialinvestment
investmentcould couldbe beunnecessary.
unnecessary.
Despite having similar hauling distances, the speed and fuel consumption in the
loading and hauling stages differed more visibly. It was found that the difference was
because larger vehicles tend to be faster, and operational productivity is considerably
higher in larger equipment. However, fuel consumption doubles in the larger trucks, but
results showed that annual CO2 emissions were higher when using smaller trucks.

Figure 14. Scenario matrix tends.

Figure 14. Scenario matrix tends.

4. Conclusions
The combination of different scenarios and designs was used to evaluate options in
mining project decisions. These options made it possible not to overestimate or underes-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 17 of 19

Despite having similar hauling distances, the speed and fuel consumption in the
loading and hauling stages differed more visibly. It was found that the difference was
because larger vehicles tend to be faster, and operational productivity is considerably
higher in larger equipment. However, fuel consumption doubles in the larger trucks, but
results showed that annual CO2 emissions were higher when using smaller trucks.

4. Conclusions
The combination of different scenarios and designs was used to evaluate options in
mining project decisions. These options made it possible not to overestimate or under-
estimate the choice of important variables such as annual production or equipment size.
Additionally, these options need to consider ESG indicators such as the environmental
impact of CO2 emissions. This study indicates that achieving high operational production
with the minimum possible equipment is not necessarily the best option.
On the one hand, the use of large trucks implies a wider ramp, and this has a big
impact on the ultimate pit. In terms of SR, concerning the medium scenario, it increases by
7% for large trucks and only 3% for small trucks. This variation has a direct impact on the
economics of the project, as the NPV decreases by 20% for large trucks, but increases by
11% for small trucks, compared to the same medium scenario.
On the other hand, using small trucks generates a longer fleet size, and concerning
the medium scenario can result in a 150% increment in the number of units of equipment
needed, which will require an initial investment for the purchase of equipment and many
personnel in the long term. In contrast, with the use of large trucks, a 30% reduction of
units can be achieved, although it should be considered that more specialized labor is
needed and that regulations are more stringent. Many mining projects, because of limited
investment or high investment risk, choose to apply a sequential mining system in the
purchase of small trucks at the beginning of mining.
In terms of environmental costs, CO2 emissions per liter of fuel increased by 7–30%
in small trucks concerning the medium scenario, while in large trucks these emissions in-
creased by 200–300%. When the same comparison was made from an annual compendium
of emissions per mined ton, in small trucks there was an increase of up to 200% concerning
the medium scenario, while in large trucks it was only 56% for the largest pit.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.V.-B., L.S. and M.B; methodology, A.V.-B., D.Á.-R., L.S.,
and M.B.; software, A.V.-B., D.Á.-R., and L.S.; validation, L.S. and M.B; formal analysis, A.V.-B.,
D.Á.-R., L.S., and M.B.; investigation, A.V.-B., D.Á.-R., and L.S.; resources, L.S.; data curation, A.V.-B.
and L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V.-B., L.S., and M.B.; writing—review and editing,
A.V.-B., D.Á.-R., L.S., and M.B.; visualization, A.V.-B. and D.Á.-R.; supervision, L.S. and M.B. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are not available to the public due to company policies.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Newman, A.M.; Rubio, E.; Caro, R.; Weintraub, A.; Eurek, K. A Review of Operations Research in Mine Planning. Interfaces 2010,
40, 222–245. [CrossRef]
2. Nicolet, J.P. Methods of Exploitation of Different Types of Uranium Deposits; Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section; International
Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 2000.
3. Askari-Nasab, H.; Frimpong, S.; Szymanski, J. Modelling Open Pit Dynamics Using Discrete Simulation. Int. J. Min. Reclam.
Environ. 2007, 21, 35–49. [CrossRef]
4. Hustrulid, W.; Kuchta, M.; Martin, R. Open Pit Mine Planning and Design; CRC Press/Balkema: London, UK, 2013; Volume 1,
ISBN 978-1-4665-7512-7.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 18 of 19

5. Sanmiquel, L.; Bascompta, M.; Rossell, J.; Anticoi, H.; Guash, E. Analysis of Occupational Accidents in Underground and Surface
Mining in Spain Using Data-Mining Techniques. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Tsopa, V.; Cheberiachko, S.; Yavorska, O.; Deryugin, O.; Bas, I. Increasing the Safety of the Transport Process by Minimizing the
Professional Risk of a Dump Truck Driver. Min. Miner. Depos. 2022, 16, 101–108. [CrossRef]
7. Osanloo, M.; Gholamnejad, J.; Karimi, B. Long-Term Open Pit Mine Production Planning: A Review of Models and Algorithms.
Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2008, 22, 3–35. [CrossRef]
8. Jara, R.M.; Couble, A.; Emery, X.; Magri, E.J.; Ortiz, J.M. Block Size Selection and Its Impact on Open-Pit Design and Mine
Planning. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2006, 106, 205–212.
9. Meneses, D.; Sepúlveda, F.D. Modeling Productivity Reduction and Fuel Consumption in Open-Pit Mining Trucks by Considering
the Temporary Deterioration of Mining Roads through Discrete-Event Simulation. Mining 2023, 3, 96–105. [CrossRef]
10. Diddens, Z.M. Integration of Fleet Production and Cost Analysis in Mine Design and Planning. Master’s Thesis, Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2019.
11. Bozorgebrahimi, E. The Evaluation of Haulage Truck Size Effects on Open Pit Mining; The University of British Columbia: Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 2004.
12. Bozorgebrahimi, E.; Hall, R.A.; Blackwell, G.H. Sizing Equipment for Open Pit Mining—A Review of Critical Parameters. Min.
Technol. (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) 2003, 112, 171–179. [CrossRef]
13. Nakousi, C.; Pascual, R.; Anani, A.; Kristjanpoller, F.; Lillo, P. An Asset-Management Oriented Methodology for Mine Haul-Fleet
Usage Scheduling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2018, 180, 336–344. [CrossRef]
14. Golbasi, O.; Kina, E. Haul Truck Fuel Consumption Modeling under Random Operating Conditions: A Case Study. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 102, 103135. [CrossRef]
15. Soofastaei, A.; Aminossadati, S.M.; Arefi, M.M.; Kizil, M.S. Development of a Multi-Layer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network
Model to Determine Haul Trucks Energy Consumption. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2016, 26, 285–293. [CrossRef]
16. Ebrahimi, A. Ultimate Pit Size Selection, Where Is the Optimum Point? In Proceedings of the IMCET 2019—26th International
Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey, Antalya, Turkey, 16–19 April 2019; pp. 638–645.
17. Baek, J.; Choi, Y. A New Method for Haul Road Design in Open-Pit Mines to Support Efficient Truck Haulage Operations. Appl.
Sci. 2017, 7, 747. [CrossRef]
18. Peralta, S.; Sasmito, A.P.; Kumral, M. Reliability Effect on Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Mining
Hauling Fleet towards Sustainable Mining. J. Sustain. Min. 2016, 15, 85–94. [CrossRef]
19. Kofanov, O.; Vasylkevych, O.; Kofanova, O.; Zozul’ov, O.; Kholkovsky, Y.; Khrutba, V.; Borysov, O.; Bobryshov, O. Mitigation of
the Environmental Risks Resulting from Diesel Vehicle Operation at the Mining Industry Enterprises. Min. Miner. Depos. 2020, 14,
110–118. [CrossRef]
20. Bascetin, A.; Adiguzel, D.; Tuylu, S. The Investigation of CO2 Emissions for Different Rock Units in the Production of Aggregate.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 279. [CrossRef]
21. Bascompta, M.; Sanmiquel, L.; Gangolells, M.; Sidki, N. LCA Analysis and Comparison in Quarrying: Drill and Blast vs
Mechanical Extraction. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133042. [CrossRef]
22. Fortescue Metals Group Ltd.; Downer EDII Mining Pty Ltd. Analyses of Diesel Use for Mine Haul and Transport Operations;
Department of Resources Energy and Tourism: Canberra, Australia, 2008; pp. 1–18.
23. Muñoz, J.I.; Guzmán, R.R.; Botín, J.A. Development of a Methodology That Integrates Environmental and Social Attributes in the
Ore Resource Evaluation and Mine Planning. IJMME 2014, 5, 38–58. [CrossRef]
24. Soberón Bravo, E. Governance on Lithium Mining Shareholdings: Expanding Environment, Social and Governance (ESG)
Indicators to Economic Regulation and Raw Material Politics. Miner. Econ. 2022, 36, 333–3475. [CrossRef]
25. Lokuwaduge, C.S.D.S.; Heenetigala, K. Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure for a Sustainable
Development: An Australian Study: ESG Disclosure in Australian De Silva Lokuwaduge and Heenetigala. Bus. Strat. Env. 2017,
26, 438–450. [CrossRef]
26. Yellow Cake PLC Pure Exposure to the Uranium Commodity Investor Presentation November 2020. Available online: https:
//www.yellowcakeplc.com (accessed on 10 March 2023).
27. Morales, N.; Seguel, S.; Cáceres, A.; Jélvez, E.; Alarcón, M. Incorporation of Geometallurgical Attributes and Geological
Uncertainty into Long-Term Open-Pit Mine Planning. Minerals 2019, 9, 108. [CrossRef]
28. Tolwinski, B.; Newton, M.; Lapworth, A.; Morrison, J. NPV Scheduler: Open Pit Planning: From Geological Model to Optimized
Strategic Mine Plan; Datamine Group: Docklands, Australia, 2007.
29. Heidari, S.M. Quantification of Geological Uncertainty and Mine Planning Risk Using Metric Spaces. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2015.
30. Rossi, M.E.; Deutsch, C.V. Mineral Resource Estimation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-85-7811-079-6.
31. Dagdelen, K. Open Pit Optimisation—Strategies for Improving Economics of Mining Projects through Mine Planning. In
Proceedings of the IMCET2001—17* International 17th Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey, 17–21
September 2001; pp. 145–148.
32. Whittle, J. The Facts and Fallacies of Open Pit Optimization; Whittle Programming Pty Ltd.: North Balwyn, Australia, 1989.
33. Ben-Awuah, E.; Richter, O.; Elkington, T.; Pourrahimian, Y. Strategic Mining Options Optimization: Open Pit Mining, Under-
ground Mining or Both. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2016, 26, 1065–1071. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5769 19 of 19

34. Jélvez, E.; Morales, N.; Askari-Nasab, H. A New Model for Automated Pushback Selection. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020, 115, 104456.
[CrossRef]
35. Lerchs, H.; Grossmann, I. Optimum Design of Open-Pit Mines. Trans CIM 1965, 68, 17–24.
36. Taheri, M.; Irannajad, M.; Ataee-pour, M. Risk-Adjusted Discount Rate Estimation for Evaluating Mining Projects. J. Secur. Inst.
Aust. 2009, 4, 36–42.
37. Bastante, F.G.; Taboada, J.; Ordónez, C. Design and Planning for Slate Mining Using Optimisation Algorithms. Eng. Geol. 2004,
73, 93–103. [CrossRef]
38. Lane, K.F. The Economic Definition of Ore; COMET Strategy Pty Ltd.: Cleveland, Australia, 2015; ISBN 978-0-9941852-2-8.
39. Adiansyah, J.S.; Rosano, M.; Biswas, W.; Haque, N. Life Cycle Cost Estimation and Environmental Valuation of Coal Mine Tailings
Management. J. Sustain. Min. 2017, 16, 114–125. [CrossRef]
40. Tannant, D.D.; Regensburg, B. Guidelines for Mine Haul Road Design; University of British Columbia: Kelowna, Canada, 2001.
41. Ministry of Industry and Energy. Reglamento General de Normas Básicas de Seguridad Minera. In Boletin Oficial del Estado; Real
Decreto 863/1985; Ministerio de Industria y Energía: Madrid, Spain, 1990; Volume 103, pp. 17869–17877.
42. Xu, X.; Gu, X.; Wang, Q.; Gao, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X. Production Scheduling Optimization Considering Ecological Costs
for Open Pit Metal Mines. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 210–221. [CrossRef]
43. O’Hara, T.A.; Suboleski, S.C. Costs and Cost Estimation. SME Min. Eng. Handb. 1992, 1, 405–424.
44. Caterpillar. Surface Mining Primary Loading Tool: Selection Guide; Caterpillar: Irving, TX, USA, 2013.
45. Caterpillar. 770G Off-Highway Truck Engine; Caterpillar: Irving, TX, USA, 2014.
46. Caterpillar. Caterpillar Performance Handbook; Caterpillar: Irving, TX, USA, 2019; p. 2264.
47. Runge, I.C. Mining Economics and Strategy; Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.: Englewood, CO, USA, 2009.
48. Dzakpata, I.; Knights, P.; Kizil, M.S.; Nehring, M.; Aminossadati, S.M. Truck and shovel versus in-pit conveyor systems: A
comparison of the valuable operating time. In Proceedings of the 16th Coal Operators’ Conference, Wollongong, Australia, 10–12
February 2016; University of Wollongong: Wollongong, Australia, 2016; pp. 463–476.
49. Norgate, T.; Haque, N. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Mining and Mineral Processing Operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2010,
18, 266–274. [CrossRef]
50. Anas, A.V.; Amalia, R.; Qaidahiyani, N.F.; Djamaluddin; Herin, S.R.D. Sensitivity Analysis of Net Present Value Due to Optimal
Pit Limit in PT Ceria Nugraha Indotama, Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi Province. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Chennai, India, 16–17 September 2020; Volume 875, pp. 1–11.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.