Pit limits

'l'l~etimc has now come to combine the economics iotrtducerl i l l (:h;q~tcr 2 with the
~nineralinventory developed in Chapter 1 under the geometric constr,~iotsdiscussed ill
Chapter 4 to define the mineable portion of the overall inventory. 'l'hc pmcess involves
thc development atid superposition of a geometric surlacc called a pit o111otile mineral
A vertical
invel~tory.The mirleablc rllaterial hcconres th;tt lying within the pit bo~~nd;irics.
sectioo taken tlirough such a pit is shown i n Figure 5.1. 'The size and shape of the pit
depcmls upon economic factors and designlprodnction cunstuaints. With an increase in
price the pit would expand in si.x nssun,iog d l other factors rc~ixiinetlconstant. 'l'hc
inverse is obvioilsly also true, The pit existing :it the end o C mining is called the 'linal'
or the 'ultimate' pit. In betwccn the hirtli and tbc death 01' :to operr-pi1 mine, tberc ;ire
;I series of 'inler~ncdiatc' pits. This chnptcr will present a series of i~rocciluresbased
upon:
(I) Iwnd methods,
(2) computer methods, and
(1) cornpuler assisted h ~ methods
d
1'0s developing pit limits. Within the pit are found mntcrials of dilfcring value. Eco-
nomic criteria arc applied to assign destinations 1'or these materials based on their value
(i.c. mill, waste dump, leach dump, stock pile, etc.). 'Slrese criteria will be discussed.
Once the pit limits have hcen rletern~inedand rules est;iblishcd for cl;rssifying tile in-pit
~nateri;tls,then the ore reserves (tonnage am1 grade) can he c;~lculatctl.In Chapter 6,
the steps required to go from the ore reserve to production rate, ~minclife, etc. will Be
presented. down dip and this will he recovered later by undergroond techniques. It is desired to
know how large the open-pit will be. The final pit in this grcatly simplified case will
appear as in Figure 5.3. The slope angle of the left wall is 45". As can be see11a wedge
5.2 HAND METHODS of waste (area A) has been removed to uncover the ore (;ma B). l'hc locatioli of the
linal pit wall is dctennincd by examining a series of slices such as shown in Figure 5.4.
5.2.1 The basic concept For this example the width of the slice has been selected as 1.25 units (u) and the
thickness of the section (into tlie page) as I unit. Beginning with strip I the volu~nesof
Figure 5.2 sl~owsan idealized cross-scction through an orebody whicl~outcrops at the waste (V,) and ore (V,) are calculated. The volumes are:
surface and dips to the left at 45". 'f'hcrc arc distinct physical boundaries separating the
ore from the over- and under-lying waste. The known ore cxtcnds MI considerable depth
 'l'lre inst:~ntaneousstripping ratio (ISR) is dclined as
Vw 1
ISR, (instantaneous) = - (5.1)
V"1

Assun~ingthat tile net value from selling one unit volume of ore (that money remaining
after ;dl expenses have been paid) is $1.90 and the cost for mining and disposing of the
wastc is $1 /unit volume, the net value for strip 1 is

I f tllc IXOXSS is now repeated for strips 2, 1 and 4, tile results ;we as given below:

As can be seen, the net value changes from (+) to (-) as the pit is expanded. For strip 3,
the net value is just about zero. This pit position is termed 'hreakevco' since the costs
t'ignrc 5.4. Slices used to determine fi~ralpi1 limits. involved in mining the strip just equal the revenues. It is the location of the final pit
wall. The breakeven stripping ratio which is strictly applied at the wall is

Since the net value of t unit of ore is $1.90 and the cost for 1 w i t of waste is $I, one
can minc 1.9 units of waste to recover I unit of ore (Rg. 5.5).
The overall stripping ratio (OSR) for this section is calculdted as
Waste area -
OSR = -Ore area - B
 Pi1 limits 373

I. A slicc is selected.
2. 'l'lrc contained valuc is compared with the costs.
ositivc, the pit can he cnpnnrled. If ncgativc, tlre pit contracts.
n is where the net value of tltc slicc is zcro.

111 the previous scctio~~, the natore of the deposit was srlclt that time was no ambiguity
regarding what wi~smeant by orc and waste. 170r inany deposits however the dislioction
is 111~tc1r
inme subtle. 'l'hc lerrr~'culoff grades' refers to grades for which the destination
of pit rnatcrials changes. It should he noted that 'gmdes' were used rather tlran 'grade'
since tlicre may hc scvcral possible destinittions. 'She simplcst c;tsc would he tltat in
w l d ~tlrcrc arc two destinations: thc mill or the waste d u ~ ~ One ~ p . cntoCf gl-;ale is
needed. For inany operations today there are three possihlc dcs\inntims: the mill, the
leach d ~ m pand tlte waste dump. Each of the decisions
mill or lcacl~?
leaclt or w;rste?
requires ;I cutoff grade. A definition of cutoffgrailc wlticlt is often used (ktvcy, 1979):

11, this C;W

Waste irrca - A = sou' applies to the sin~pleore-waste dccisi6n. 'l'liis will be tisccl i n developing the preli~~~inary
pit lil~tits.'l'l~conly destinations allowed are the waste d u n ~ por forther processing. With
Ore m a :
:. II :
:: h2u' Illis delinition the net value of material as a function o l grade I ~ I L I She~ determined.
llence 'l'hat grade for which the net value is zero is called the breakeven cutoff grade. This
OSK " 0.8 cnicul;ttio~~ will be illustrated using tlie exarnple provided by 1)avcy (1979) for copper.
T!te w i ~ p e rore is n~illecltl~erehyproducing a copper coocentrate. Tl~ismill concentrate
'I'l~isis compared to the instnntaneous stripping ratio at the pit boundary is stlipped to a smelter and the resulting blister copper is cventu;tlly relined.
In tltis example the following will be assumed:
ISR (pit limit) = 1.9
Mill recovery rate = 80%
The OSI< must always he less tltan the ISK ((tit li~nit).
The net value for the sectktn (assurning unit thickness) is Mill concentrate grade = 20%
S~ncltingloss =: 10 ibslst of concentrate
NV =- Ore m a x Net ore value - Waste area x Waste re~novalcost
Refining loss = 5 lhslst of blister copper
U ~ $ 1 . 9 0 - A ~ $ ~16 2 x $ 1 . 9 0 - 5 0 x $ I
:- : $68
'l'l~csteps of the net value co~nputationarc outlined hclow for an ole corrlaining 0.55%
Wltereas tile net value is zcro at the pit limit, it is positive lor tlre overall sectioo. copper. All of the costs and revenues will be calculated with respect to one ton of ore.
In this exantple the quantities, costs and rcvcnues were all expressed in tenns of
volumes. Since the strip width and tltickness is the s a m in both ore and waste, the final Srep I. Corry~urerhe amount of saleahle copper (Ib.s/.sr of or(,).
pit limit in this situation is that position where the lengrh of waste (L,) is just equal to
1.9 times the length of ore (Lo)as measured along the midline of the mined strip. (a) Contained copper (CC) is
Often the costslrcvenues are expressed as a function of weigl~t($/ton). If the density
0.55
of the ore and waste is the same then the ratio of lengths can still be used. If they are CC = 2,000 lhslst x -= 11.0 ib
not, then the different densities must be included in the calculations. 100
As this chapter proceeds, more realistic geometries both for the pit and the orebody
will he introduced. A gradual rather than sharp ore-waste tramition will he included. As (h) Copper recovered by the mill (KM) is
will he seen, even with tltese changes the followi~tghasic steps involved in determining
pit limits remain the same:
(c) Cw~ce~itration
ratio (I.). 'I'hc ratio of concentr;~tionis dclined as (a) I'r(1ducti01i (oper;lling) costs (PC) excluding stripping arc:

.rI-
Ihs Culst of conccn1r;ite ~
Mining $ 1.00
Ibs Cu recoveredlst of ore Milling $2.80
Since the rnill product runs 20% copper ti~creare 400 lh 01' coppcr contained in one ton Gcncral md tidi~iir~k~ti:sti,~~~ $:I57
of concentrate. One ton of ore contains 8.8 lb 01 recoverable copper. Hence (15% of mining and milling)
-
PC - $4.37

'l'liis means tl~at45.45 tons of ore running 0.55'% copper arc required to produce I ton (h) An~ortimtionand depreciation (A&l)). 7'his amount is charged against wch ton of
of concentrate running 20%. orc lo ;icc<wnt for the capital iovesttnellt in n~ine;mi n~illpl;ml, I f the total A&I) is
$10,000,000 xnd overall ore tonnagc is 50.000,000 tons, IIICII Iliis v:~luewould he $0.20.
(d) Coppcr recovered by t l ~ csu~elter(RS). l'be mill c~inccntratcis sent lo a smelter. In this p;iilicul;~rcase. 20% of the total pmduction ccsls will hc used
Since the s~lreltingloss is 10 lhlst of concentrate, the smclting loss (SI.) per ton of ore A&ll : 0.20 x $4.37 = $0.87
is

SL - 10 .~
lblsl of conccntrafc
.- ~~ : 0.22 11, (c) 'fic;ltrncnt, relining and selling (TRS) cosl.
45.45 tons of orelst of cooccnlrate - Shipment or mill concentrate t r j 111c\meltcr Since transpurt costs 01.40 pcr t m of
conccntt.;~lc,tlic cost per ton of ore is
'I'hu\ the recovered coppcr is
$1.40
(:onccntlale transport ::- -
- $0.03
45.45
- Snlelting cost. Smelling costs $50.001st or co!lcenlralc. Slrc slnclling cosl pcr loll
(e) Copper rccovercd by tllc relinery (Rlt). Tile nunlbcr of tons of ore required to produce of 0rc is
one ton of blister coppcr is

2,000 Iblst of hlister coppcr

233.1 - S l ~ i p c n of
t (he blister copper rtl rl~ercliuc~y.Thcre is d transport cost of $50.00/st
8.58 lh of copperlst of ore
of blister copper involved. The cost per ton of ore Bcconles
Sincc d i n i n g losses are 5 lblst of blister copper, the refining loss (KL) per ton of ore 8.58
is I3listcr transport = $50.00-- == $0.21
2,000

ItL .-233
5 lb of copperlst of hlister coppcr
..-. ~

tons of orelst of blister copper

= 0.02 lb - - Refining cost. Refining costs $130.001st of blister copper. 'I'he relining cost per too
of ore is
'l'l~usthe recovered coppcr is

- Selling and delivery cost (S&D). The selling and dclivcry cost is $0.01 11b of copper.
Since 8.56 ib are available for sale
Step 2. Co~nputethe gross value (CV) for tlre ore ($/.sl). The copper price assumed for s m = $0.09
this calculation is $I.OO/lb. Futtherrnore there is a hy-product credit for gold, molybde-
m m . ctc. of $1.77/st of ore. Thus the gross value is - General plant (GP) cost. These costs amount to $0.07/lh of copper. lfcnce the GP
cost per ton of ore is
GI' = $0.07 x 8.56 = $0.60
Step 3. Conrpute the associrrred total co.sr.s (?%) ($/st). - 'lhtal treatment cost is
TRS -- $2.59
 Pit 1inril.s 177

Assrlming tlre rccovcrics and rmit costs renr;~intlie same, the net v;ilnc is $ 0 . 3 0 ,

.Src,[~ 6 . G~,t.scrrrc/(I lrer tinllrc

- f i n ~ d
(:urr,c
~ 'I'lrc IWO points 011 a net value -- grade
curve whicli lrave hce11dclerrrtinetl by ll~cprocess outlined above
I'oint Net value ($/st) Grade (% Cuj
I $2.50 0.55
2 $0.30 0.35
arc plutted in I'igurc 5.6. Assuming lhat t l ~ cnet valuc '%I ('ti ic1;nionship is linear it is
]~ossiibclo find an equation of the for1111) a I hl: rclating net value (1)) to grade (r).
'L'hc rcsirlt is

wbcrc ?/ is lltc net value ($/st of ore) and :c is lhc (x:rccnt copper

Srep 7. Lferernlim file brprzkeom cur<,// jirdc, (for q~plicutio,~ ot tlie pit lirnil). The
hrcnkevcn cutoff grade is defined as that gr& for which the net value is zero: One can
detcr~ninctlrat point by inspcctinp, 1:igure 5.6 or by solving the eqoatiou found in Step
6 lor 11 -: 0. One finds that
r (hreakeven) = 0.17% Cu

SIq) 8. Ilevel(,pin,ing (i stripping r a i o - firurltz curvr. The cutoff gmdc distinguishes that
rnatcrial which can be rnincd and processed with a net value greater than or equal to zero.
Material with a zcro net value cannot pay for any stripping. Thus it must be exposed
at the surfacc or be overlying richer blocks which can pay for the required stripping.
Assurric that thc cost for stripping 1 ton of wastc is $1.00. Ore with a net value of
$1.00 can pay for tlie stripping of 1 ton of waste. Ore with ;I net value of $2.00lton can
pay for the stripping of 2 tons of wastc, etc. ?'he stripping ratio axis has been added in
Figure 5.7 to show &is. The net valuc - grade equation
NV = -$5.20 + $14.00 x (% Cu) (5.4)
can be lnodified to yield the stripping ratio (S11) - grade relationship
Figure 5.7. Net v*lue and breakwen stripping ratio venur ore grade.
SR = -~$5.20+ $14.00 x (% Cu) (5.5)
 Pit limit^ 379

I:nr a grade US 0.55% Cu, the l)rc;ike\wn stl.ipping ratio is

SIC (0.55%) = 2.5
This was as expected since the net vrtluc is 02.50 and the stripping cost is $1.00

Step 9. Prescrrlirrg the ,fir101curves. 'She net value - grade curve should be completed
by the addition of the cost of stripping line (SC). This is shown in Figure 5.8. It should
he noted that no nlaterial can ever have a value less than that uf waste. In this case the
value of waste is -$1.00. The horizontal line (NV = --$1.00) and the NV-grade line
(NV = --5.20 4- 14.00 x (% Cu)) intersect at a grade of
I'qwc 5.10. Pit limit dctennination with huon> in waste (Koslisiemi. 147%

For grades less than 0.3070, the material is considered as waste with respect to milling.
Depending upon the economics, some other treatment process such as dump leaching
may be possible. When using band methods all material having grades less than the used tias been presented by Koskiniemi (1979). 1,ocating the pit limit on each vertical
breakeven cutoff (0.37% in this case) is considcrd as waste. The final stripping ratio- section is a trial and error process. I t will be assumed that
grade curve is shown in Figure 5.9. - I'it slopes:
For the computer techniques discussed later, the portion of tlie curve lying between Left hand side = 50";
0.30 and 0.37% Cu is also included. Right hand side = 40";
- Minimum width of the pit bouom = 100 it;

- Material densities:
5.2.3 Locntiotl of pit limits - pit horfom in wusre
Ore = 165 lblft3;
The application of this curve to locating the final pit wall positions will be illustrated Waste rock = 165 lblft3;
using tlie vertical section (Fig. 5.10) taken through the block model. The basic process Overburden = 165 lhlft3;
 -Relative mining ch;~l;tctcristics:
Waste rock
Overburden
- 'She strippinl:
I;
I; - grade curve of Rgure 5.9 applies;
I.engt11(fl)
~

Ovcrburdcs Wste (1,)

~

O m If,>,)
~ Otc grailc
la,,)
Orc lesgh r
OOO!I,,,)
orc gradc

- rillio~ore
~~ ..
- 'Shc pit bottom is 211 the ore-waste contact.

Ovcrht~rdcn;is defined hcrc means soil, glacial till, gravcl, highly weathered rock, etc.
not rcquiring drilling and blasting prior to rernoval. Waste rock, on the other hand, does
require drillil~gand hlnsting. l'he general procedure will be deoronstrated with rcslrcct
to the left-hand slopc.

.Srcp I. A trial slopc (guess i f ] ) is drawn through the seaion. The lengtl~sand grades
arc cntercd intn a table such as Tid~lc5.1. 'l'ltc purpose will be lo ohtain the average
w: gr;& and stripping ratio along this line. The lengths can si~nplybe scaled off thc
secliot~with cnoi~ghaccuracy. 'I'hc cuto1.f grade is 0.37% Cu.

Ibhlc 5.1. 8cmm in wastc: pit limif ~ I I C I SH I ( 1 . i ~GI)

1 10 296 ?38 9 = 0.82 194.8

~~p ~- .. . ~.
~~~- - ~ .~ . ~ ,

slc (actual) 130+?96

= -- Ci 1.79 : 1:
238
Sll (allowable) Ci6.2 : 1: Slep 2. 'I'bc average ore grade is determined. l'he pn~ductsof ore grade x ore length arc
Cwiclusioe: mnvc to tile lcfr. dcterr~~incd The s u ~ uof Ibc ore lengths is found (Clo,).
(l,,jy,,,) and summed (C(l,ig,,,)).
'She average ore grade is found from

I ~ n g t l r(ft) Oregrade Ore length x ore grade

. ..
V"f#"O
~

Overburden (lob) Waste (I,) I (1,j (m)

B ~3. JThe stripping ratio for this line is determined. This must he expressed in the
s m c form as the stripping ralio - ore grade curve. In this case it is required to havc
tons of waste per ton of ore. Since the densities are all equal and lhe relative diggability
of the ovcrburdcn and the waste rock is the same, the stzipping ratio is simply the ratio
of the lengths.

130+385 2 3.3 : 1;
SR - +
Length overburden Length waste rock
Length ore
~~
lob
-. - - 4~ lw
l.,
SIC (actual) .- -----
156
Sf<(allowable) Y 5.6 : 1:
Cunclusion: move to the len.
SIC,!, 4. Uetur~rrinatior~ stripping ratio lix average ore grade using the
of the ;~llov~able 17
iix
SII - ore grade curve (Pig. 5.1 1). lo this case one finds lhat 70
SR (allowable) S 6.2 . I

Slep 5 . Comparison of the actual a d ;~llowahleSK. Since the actual stripping ratio

SR (actual) = 1.79 : 1 143 296 310

.
143 + 296
~~ p~ ~p~~~

is much less than that allowable (6.2 : I), the pit slope can he ~rlovedto the left. SK (actual) = % 1.42 : 1;
310
SK (ellow~ble)
s! 7 : I ;
Sle,, 6.A new gucss of thc linal pit l o p e location is rrrnde and the process repeated. Cosclusius: llic pit can k 'Hoatcd' cansirlcrable d c c p i
This iteration process is continued until the actual and allowable stripping ratios are
close.
Conclusion: Guess #4 is the final position of the left hand slope. Note that the block
having grade 0.3 is considered waste since it is below cutoff. calculation becomes

Step 7. Determination of right-hand slope position. Tlie same process is repealed for the ... -
right hand wall of the pit. The results are shown in i'igure 5.10. The final pit bottom where pObis the overburden densily, p, is the waste density, and p, is the ore density.
has a width of about 215 ft. If the mineability characteristics of the overburden and waste rock are different, then
If the wasteloverburder~have densities different from the ore, then the calculation of thc costs involved in their removal will also be different. It will be recalled t11at a single
stripping ratio using simple length ratios does not work. The generalized stripping ratio waste mining cost was used in the development of the SR - grade curves. Assume that
 Guess 112 Guess #I

SIC (;illowable)rr 2 9 5 : I

5.2.4 1~1mrionofpit 1irr1it.s-pit hottom irr ore

I:igure 5.12 shows the case when the orchrrdy continues to

1.cf1hand slope - 50"
I<ight I m d s l o p :y 40"
Minimum pit bottom width - 100 f t
Sitice the pit buttoni is now in ore, the costs for stripping can he paid for hy tlie ore in
the strip long tlie pit bottom as well as that along tlre pit sides. A 50 St wide allocation
is orzalc to both the right and left hand sidcs. The procedure is similar to that described
157+617
(iictwt) = - -Y 2.56 : 1;
SR
I"".,"A
wit11 t l ~ epit bottom in waste. However, now both sides and the bottom must be examined
SIC(;bllowable) s 2.6 : I ; at the same time. The procedure is as follows:
Conclusion: guess if2 is close to the pit shlz kxaion.
Stq' I. Draw to scale a final pit profile using the appn~priateleSt and right hand slopes
as well as the minimum pit bottom on a piece of tracing paper. Supcrimposc this on the
section. Guess an initial position.
the given cost (Cwlton) applies to waste rock and that t l ~ covcrburden removal cost is
aC,lton. The factor a is the relative mining cost of the overburden to that of the waste . S ~ J2. Calculate the average ore grades and stripping ratios for the left and right hand
rock. The stripping ratio formula can be further modified to sides. Compare these to the allowable values. For simplicity it will be assumed that the
densities and mineabilities of the materials involved are the same.
Because of the freedom of the pit to 'float' both vertically and horizontally, thc
ilerative procedure can be quite rime consuming.
If the costlton to remove the overburden is only half that of the waste rock then a = 0.5.
This factor changes the overburden into an equivalent waste rock. If the cost used to
dcvelop the SR - grade curve had been based on overburden, then one needs to convert
waste rock into equivalent overburden. A third possible situation is one in which one of the pit slopes is in ore. In Figure 5.13
it will be assunred that the right hand slope follows the ore-waste contact, the left hand
 Longitudinal Section

Imgtlr (II) Oic gi;ale

.~~ ~~. ~~ ~-~~ ~ ~

o m (I,,,) (!l'nl

Transvcrsc sections such as 1-If, 2-2'. etc. i n 1;igurc 5.14 have been constructed par-
allel to one ar~ollierand nomel to the orebody axis. The infloeoce of these sections is
assunled to extend halfway to the neighboring sections. 'Sliey are of constant thickness
by constmction (Fig. 5.15). A srnall Pace area (AA) at location A at the crest of the pit
represents the same volume as the same area located at the toe (location B).
The pit location proccdures described in Subsections 5.2.3 through 5.2.5 apply with-
out modification to parallel cross-sections and longitudinal sections. As can be seen in
Figure 5.14, radial sectiolis are often needed to describe pit ends. For radial sections such
SK (sllowable) a 2.21; as shown in Figure 5.16, the voluri~erepresented hy an area AA at the crest (location C)
Conclusion: Illis is Ilre tinal pit lkm.atios.
is nmch greater than one at 11 due to the varying section thickness.
A modilication in the procedure used to locate the linal pit limit is required. This is
slope is at 50". and a minimum pit bottom width is 100 ft. In this case the ore along the accomplished through the development of a curve relating the apparent stripping ratio
pit bottom contributes to the cost of stripping the left wall. The approximate position as measured on the radial section to the true stripping ratio.
of the final pit is shown superiinposed on the figure. The corresponding calculatioli is Figure 5.17 is a plan view showing the region at the end of the pit in which radial
given in Table 5.7. scctions are being used.
I'igure 5.18 is isometric view of the sector in question, The exposed ore area is
5.2.6 Radial section.\ identified as A and that of waste as I?. The apparent (measnred) stripping ratio for the
radial section as shown on Figure 5.19a would he
The types of sections used depends upon the shape of the orebody. For the elongated
orebody shown in Figure 5.14, trmsvcrse scctions yield the hest representation in the b
SIC (measured) = - (5.10)
central portion. Along the axis of the orehody, a longitudinal section may be taken. a