1

MIME 484 FINAL PRESENTATIONLong-term investigation of

Dolomeuse deposit at Dolomie de Marche-Les-

Dames

Antoine FOURNIER260457015

Academic advisor: Hani MitriAcademic advisor on site:

Julien Vanneste

2

Table of contentsI. IntroductionII. Block model and cut-off gradeIII. LocalizationIV. ConstraintsV. Pit parametersVI. Final pits VII. PillarVIII. Settling pond issuesIX. In-Pit-Waste X. ReservesXI. Mining yieldXII. Pushbacks designXIII. Conclusion

3

Introduction Deposit of dolomite bought in 1992 Separated from the deposit Wartet by a

public road Main application of Dolomeuse is for the

steel Industry Deposit contains high amount of iron

(Not suitable for glass industry) Sagrex, a contractor on-site makes

aggregates

4

Block model and Cut-off gradeBlock model was created in the 90s by the geologists and updated since. Last update was this year after other core drilling.

Blocks are sized 2mX2mX1m (XYZ) and go from Z=20 to Z=200

Two attributes were assigned to this block model:- Specific gravity-Geological units (depending on concentration of the different elements)

5

Block Model and cut-off grade 7 geological units were defined:

6

Localization -10km East from Namur-70km South-East from the capital Brussels-Situated along the river La Meuse-Situated adjacent to railroads-A4 highway is within 10km

7

Localization -2 Deposits: Wartet and Dolomeuse

8

ConstraintsConstraints Description

1 Actual tailing pond

2 Future tailing pond

3Sagrex stone preparation plant

(contactor)

4Dolomeuse stone preparation plant

(Lhoist)

Road

--------

 The public road on the East part of

the mine permit boundary

Permit boundary Mine permit boundary in white

9

Final pit parameters

10

Final pit parametersLetters Description Value Justification

ADistance between mine

permit and top of overburden20m Estimated for blast and noise issues

B Angle of overburden 30° According to previous mining activities

CDistance between toe of overburden and crest of

quarry

Variable 0.5*I ( between 0 and

21.5m)

It was estimated by the geologists

D Mining Width 30mBased on the largest equipment turning

radius (CAT777 with turning radius of 28.4m)

E Catch bench width 5m According to previous mining activities

F Bench height 15m According to previous mining activities

G Bench angle 65° According to previous mining activities

H Overall slope angle 51° Based on E,F and G

I Thickness of overburdenVariable ( between 0 and

43m)

Difference between topography and contact between OVB and ore. If contact

is higher than topo, then I is 0

11

Final pits

Left side:• Final pit englobing

the installations • From Z=30 to

Z=topography• Ramps are 24m

wide at a gradient of 10%

Right side:• Final pit without

taking the installations

• From Z=30 to Z=topography

• Ramps are 24m wide at a gradient of 10%

• A pillar is left to protect the installations

12

Pillar for pit 2• A pillar is left to protect the installations from mining

activities• Top of pillar reaches 30m in width at Z=150m• Bench width was chosen as 10m on N-S sides and 20m on E-

W sides according to the current topography

• Pillar goes down to Z=30m (bottom level)• Volume blocked within the pillar: 2 475 208 m³

13

Settling pond issues

Elevation (m) Volume (m3)1 2 3 Total général (m3)

100 23704 248 4832 2878499 23316 320 4804 2844098 22780 512 4788 2808097 22332 632 4788 2775296 21984 736 4776 2749695 21652 812 4784 2724894 21380 852 4768 2700093 21008 972 4744 2672492 20608 1044 4716 2636891 20128 1120 4692 2594090 18728 1588 4708 2502489 18040 1676 4680 2439688 17588 1776 4696 2406087 17308 1832 4660 2380086 16920 1916 4640 2347685 16488 2004 4636 2312884 15520 2248 4636 2240483 14532 2456 4532 2152082 14112 2532 4296 2094081 13720 2580 4028 2032880 13452 2588 3756 1979679 13152 2588 3348 1908878 12872 2576 2988 1843677 12592 2552 2632 1777676 11644 2488 2288 1642075 9868 2288 1920 14076

Total général (m3) 455428 42936 110136 608500

• Lack of space in future settling ponds to continue mining

• Proposed ways to increase capacity-In green: Reduced ramps to have a width of 10m-In red: Blast N-W side to gain more space

Additional volume: 153 172m³

14

In-Pit-Waste (IPW)

IPW is defined as part of the reserves but will not be conducted to the primary crusher.

The table shows the IPW, which was estimated per level by the quarry manager, but what is below the current topography was estimated through some interpolations. IPW is equal to 1-Recovery

From (m) To (m) IPW (%)165 + 100150 165 100135 150 100120 135 60105 120 2590 105 1575 90 1060 75 1045 60 1030 45 10

15

ReservesPIT 1:

Note: Only 5_d2, 6_d1,7_bc will be sent to the primary crusher

Crusher feed UnitLevel 0_sob 1_hob 12_stock 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total 165 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0135 0 0 0 0 0 0120 792 818 472 1 101 889 169 145 2 090 298105 4 470 219 1 072 456 1 945 215 900 437 6 278 3 929 07490 1 938 128 502 2 650 936 2 103 927 1 131 876 264 155 6 281 33375 2 306 964 1 927 525 1 143 645 713 361 6 091 49560 1 043 909 1 734 272 1 211 355 935 268 4 924 80345 152 954 1 789 403 681 294 1 219 277 3 842 92830 1 120 230 594 320 1 125 955 2 840 505Total 0 792 6 408 128 720 8 045 691 11 722 461 5 832 072 4 264 293 30 000 437

Sum of IPW UnitLevel 0_sob 1_hob 12_stock 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total165 605 968 207 010 812 978150 726 656 3 424 970 70 373 162 119 2 419 4 386 537135 1 076 240 54 302 2 282 947 1 826 032 10 897 5 250 418120 1 188 1 227 707 1 652 834 253 718 3 135 447105 1 490 73 357 485 648 405 300 146 2 093 1 309 69190 342 22 677 467 812 371 281 199 743 46 616 1 108 47175 256 329 214 169 127 072 79 262 676 83360 115 990 192 697 134 595 103 919 547 20045 16 995 198 823 75 699 135 475 426 99230 124 470 66 036 125 106 315 612Total 1 332 624 4 709 408 1 832 147 425 4 887 385 5 231 130 1 167 905 492 470 17 970 179

16

ReservesPIT 2:

Note: Only 5_d2, 6_d1,7_bc will be sent to the primary crusher

Crusher feed UnitLevel 0_sob 1_hob 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total 165 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0135 0 0 0 0 0 0120 756 539 508 1 101 116 167 530 1 808 909105 260 237 1 852 835 897 148 5 702 3 015 92190 3 470 1 302 688 1 131 573 253 909 2 691 64075 261 342 1 036 454 679 856 1 977 65160 10 340 297 836 105 1 176 41245 485 281 485 28130 195 032 195 032Total 0 756 0 803 214 4 517 990 3 573 001 2 455 884 11 350 845

Sum of Ipw UnitLevel 0_sob 1_hob 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total 165 605 688 206 960 812 648150 726 224 3 420 540 57 650 159 019 2 419 4 365 853135 1 074 050 21 373 2 066 407 1 825 664 10 886 4 998 381120 1 134 809 261 1 651 674 251 294 2 713 364105 86 746 617 612 299 049 1 901 1 005 30790 612 229 886 199 689 44 808 474 99575 29 038 115 161 75 540 219 73960 1 37 811 92 901 130 71245 53 920 53 92030 21 670 21 670Total 1 331 912 4 702 684 79 024 3 122 046 4 356 294 913 892 290 739 14 796 590

17

Mining yield

Now, the mining yield (MY) can be calculated as followed:

MY==

For tonnes processed, only units 5_d2, 6_d1 and 7_bc will be sent to the primary crusher.

For pit 1:MY=== 41.5% For pit 2:MY=== 20.3%

18

Mining yield

• Higher mining yield in pit 1 than pit 2Explanations:1. Overburden is only situated in pit 22. Crusher feed for Unit 5_d2 is only situated under the

installations3. Unit 6_d1 is found in both pits but the crusher feed is

10 times higher under the installations4. The pillar contains good quality dolomite

19

Pushbacks designFor pit 1, the pushbacks will be1. Pit 2 from Z=topo to Z=1052. Pit 2 from Z=105 To Z=30(Installations are removed)3. Pit under the installations from Z=105 to Z=304. Central pillar

20

Conclusion

• This project investigated the feasibility of Dolomeuse• Not finished, needs to do an economic evaluation of pit 2

to see if it is worth mining• Two final pits shape are presented but further economical

evaluation needs to be done• An evaluation on increasing the storage space of the new

settling pond was done. The two main possibilities are:-Reduce access ramps to leave a 10m width ramp-Blast the NW side of the settling pond

• This report will be used by the geologists and mining engineers for further investigation

21

THANK YOU