See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343682440

Towards Integration of Oil Sands Mine Planning with Tailings and Reclamation
Plans

Conference Paper · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

8 159

2 authors:

Mohammad Mahdi Badiozamani Hooman Askari Nasab

University of Alberta University of Alberta
23 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    192 PUBLICATIONS   1,126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mine Operational Planning and Real-Time Decision Making: A Simulation-Optimization Approach View project

Long-Term Open Pit Production Scheduling Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hooman Askari Nasab on 17 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Towards integration of oil sands mine planning with tailings and
reclamation plans

M. Mahdi Badiozamani & Hooman Askari-Nasab

Mining optimization lab (MOL), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

ABSTRACT: One of the most concerning issues in oil sands surface mining is dealing with the
tailings produced in bitumen extraction process. The common approach is to develop tailings
and reclamation plans separately from the mine planning model. The goal of this research is to
develop an integrated optimization framework that links long-term mine planning to the tailings
management and reclamation plan. The objective of the optimization model is to maximize the
net present value (NPV) while minimizing the reclamation costs. In addition to the typical mine
planning constraints, the optimization model is constrained by the capacity of tailings facilities
and the volumes of tailings components. Moreover, material requirement for site reclamation is
considered in the proposed integrated model. Clark Hot Water Extraction method for bitumen
extraction is investigated to formulate tailings volumetric calculations. Afterwards, a mixed
integer linear programming (MILP) model is developed to find the optimal mine production
schedule that will honor the tailings and reclamation constraints. The proposed model is coded
in Matlab® and run using CPLEX. It is then verified by testing on real-case oil sands data sets.

1 INTRODUCTION

The economic value that is generated by mining companies is the most important driver in the
industry. Net present value (NPV) is well introduced to measure the economic value of production
over the life of an active mine. However, in addition to the economic aspects of the business,
related social and environmental issues must be considered in business plans. In mining industry,
limited natural resources that contain minerals are the main source of income. Mining companies
are now required to minimize the land disturbance and exploit natural resources in a responsible
manner.
The oil sands industry is one of the fastest growing industries in North America. Most of the
bitumen resources of the world are located in northern Alberta boreal forests. An oil sands deposit
is a mixture of bitumen and water in sands and clay. It is a thick, sticky, heavy and viscous material
and needs rigorous extraction treatment. Based on the resource depth, there are two methods for oil
sands bitumen production: surface mining and steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) technology.
Surface mining is used for near-surface reserves, requiring an open-pit mine operation with trucks
and shovels. However, more than 80 percent of Alberta’s bitumen is located deeper in sub-surface
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 1

and needs to be extracted using an in-situ methods such as SAGD. Different lists of environmental
impacts and their significance corresponding to mining projects are addressed in the literature
(Singh, 2008, Woynillowicz et al., 2005 and Rodriguez, 2007). The impacts are classified into
three categories as; (1) land-related, (2) water-related and (3) air quality-related issues. Some of
important land-related impacts are the effect on the boreal forests, erosion and remaining foot
prints in the sites. Water-related ones include withdrawal from surface fresh water, remaining
bitumen in tailings and decreased water pressure of aquifers. Finally, Air quality-related impacts
include emissions and dust from purification process and mining operations.
In order to address the environmental issues of bitumen production and honor sustainability, it
should be determined that which environmental issues must be considered in mine planning or
mine design and how they influence the problem. Mine design refers to the group of techniques
that are applied to determine what the overall configuration of the mine will be at the end of its life.
A number of environmental issues may be considered here by introducing a new cost as an
“environmental cost” (Rodriguez, 2007).
On the other hand in mine planning, the objective is to find the optimal production plan to
extract all the material out of the optimal designed pit. A typical mine plan maximizes the NPV
over the mine-life subject to some technical constraints such as block precedence, production and
processing capacities. Those environmental issues with ties to the block model can be included in
the optimization. For instance, the extraction of each block results in generating a certain volume of
waste. If the optimization model includes the capacity of reclaimable tailings facility, then the
optimal solution meets requirements of tailings facility reclamation that is one step towards
sustainable mining practice.
In recent decades, many papers have been published regarding different aspects of
environmental impacts in the mining industry. In the literature, two groups of tools are used to
evaluate sustainability in mining industry: descriptive versus quantitative methods. Descriptive
approaches are based on various reports, such as those dealing with the environmental conditions
and concerns in mining projects (Sinding, 1999). Quantitative approaches try to quantify the
qualitative measures and provide quantitative assessment results for mining operations. In some
cases, the environmental impacts are quantified in the designing phase of a mining project
(Rodriguez, 2007 and Odell, 2004). Fuzzy logic is another powerful tool that is used in
quantification of descriptive and qualitative values associated with environmental impact
assessment (Shepard, 2005).
The focus in the current literature is mostly on qualitative approaches for the assessment of
environmental impacts. There are few works that have considered the impacts quantitatively, but in
most of current cases, the scope of the quantitative approaches is mine design, not mine planning.
From the list of environmental issues, two impacts are believed to have significant ties to the
block model and can be considered in mine planning: (1) the tailings and (2) the land disturbance.
It is necessary to figure out the relation between tailings volume and block extraction and then, to
revise the traditional mine planning model in such a way as to generate the required material for the
reclamation of tailings ponds.
There are many works addressing the maximization of NPV in mine planning (Askari-Nasab and
Awuah-offei, 2009 and Askari-Nasab et al., 2010). There are also a number of models that have
considered different environmental costs in finding the optimal pit limits in mine design phase
(Odell, 2004 and Rodriguez, 2007). In addition to pure mine planning and mine design, tailings
plan is also considered in some works (Ben-Awuah and Askari-Nasab, 2011). However, the critical
aspect of mine planning that has been missed is a merger between all these areas: profit
maximization with respect to tailings plan and reclamation costs.
Therefore, the objective in this paper is to develop an integrated mine planning model that
maximizes the cash flow with respect to the amount of produced tailings as the main environmental
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 2

issue in oil sands industry and at the same time, considers material flow in the mine site to
minimize the reclamation costs.

2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

For a better understanding of reclamation process and also the missing part in mine planning chain,
a revision of Shell’s plan in fulfillment of Directive 074 (ERCB, 2009) is helpful. Shell Canada has
considered dedicated disposal area (DDA) for its JackPine Mine (JPM) in Athabasca river region,
Alberta, Canada. The site has in-pit tailings facility which is constructed with multiple cells
adjacent to each other (Shell-Canada, 2011).
Shell Canada considers three main stages in its plan for decommissioning of the external tailings
facility: (1) construction, (2) operations and (3) closure. All these three have ties to the operation
plan of the mine. The amount of waste material that is produced in extraction operations is used for
the preparation of a starter dyke, external dyke walls and upstream dyke (construction). In addition,
the thickened tailings (TT), centrifuge cake manufacturing and coarse sand tailings (CST) are the
by-products of extraction and processing operations and used in filling and reclamation (operations
phase). In addition, the over burden and cover soil is produced in the extraction phase and is used
later for reclamation (closure phase). Thus, any change to the production schedule has some effect
on the amount of produced tailings and required material for reclamation.
Now, it is required to find an optimized integrated mine production plan that takes into account
reclamation material requirement and available tailings capacity. Production and reclamation
should be integrated, because the extracted and processed materials are used in reclamation.
Therefore, it is important to take into account the destinations for different extracted materials so as
to properly manage the stream of materials for reclamation. The overview of the problem is
illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. An over view of the integrated mine plan

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In a typical mine planning problem, the number of variables is proportional to the number of
blocks, number of destinations and time periods considered in planning. Since in real long-term
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 3

mine planning problems, usually millions of blocks are considered in the optimum pit and multiple
destinations and periods are taken into account, the problem has millions of integer and continuous
variables. This makes the problem NP-hard and non solvable with current in hand software. In a
brief review, the literature regarding the methodology used in finding the solution for such NP-hard
problems can be classified into two main categories; (1) those based on the exact solutions, mainly
relying on linear programming (LP) to find the exact optimal solution that in most cases take a very
long solution time (CPU time), and (2) those based on the approximation of optimal solution by
applying heuristic and meta heuristic algorithms to find the best solution. Some good solutions can
be found by using the heuristic algorithms, but the optimality of solution is not guaranteed.
On the other hand, exact methods aim to find the optimal solution, but without simplification of
the problem they fail to solve problems due to real-case problem sizes. In some studies, the authors
have relaxed the binary nature of integer variables (Tan and Romani,1992), or have used a
combination of simulation and optimization to tackle the complexity of the problem (Fytas et al.,
1993). Another technique to reduce the size of problem is to aggregate blocks and create “mining-
cuts” (Askari-Nasab et al., 2010). In this paper, block aggregation is used to reduce the number of
decision variables.

3.1. Tailings model

For the integrated mine planning, it is essential to have an estimate for the volume and tonnage of
total tailings and its components that are produced as a result of oil sands processing in surface
mining. In this paper, Suncor’s flow sheet is used to find the mass-balance relationship between ore
feed and tonnage of the total ponded slurry tailings, total sand, water and fine material (Suncor,
2009). A schematic view of a related part from Suncor’s oil sands processing flow diagram is
illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Suncor processing flow diagram

In this paper, the focus is on three main streams that produce the tailings. The first one, which
feeds the largest portion of the tailings material, is the over flow slurry. The second one is the
under flow slurry and finally the third one is the bitumen froth treatment stream. The tailings
components for each of streams are illustrated in Figure 2. For the sake of simplification, more
details from the flow sheet, regarding composite tailings (CT) and mature fine tailings (MFT) are
not included in this paper.
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 4

The total volume of produced tailings is calculated as in Equation(1).

VTailings =VOverflow + VUnderflow + VBitumen froth
(1)
The total volume of fines, sand and water are calculated as in Equations(2), (3) and(4).
Overflow Underflow
VFines VFines
= + VFines (2)
Overflow Underflow
VSand VSand
= + VSand (3)
Overflow Underflow Bitumenfroth
VWater =VWater + VWater + VWater (4)

3.2. Mathematical model

The long-term mine production scheduling problem is formulated using mixed integer linear
programming. The formulated model for the strategic production and operational reclamation
material scheduling problem has an objective function and number of constraints. The materials
used for reclamation purposes in oil sands surface mining - overburden, interburden and coarse
sand – all are coming from mining or processing. However, the cost relating to each portion is
different. In reality, due to the different activities associated with dumping, reloading and hauling
of each type of material for each destination, there are different costs corresponding to each
portion. Thus, different decision variables and cost coefficients are defined in the mathematical
model to differentiate between different portions of each cut.
The notation used in the formulation of the problem has been categorized into sets, indices,
subscripts, superscripts, parameters, and decision variables. Multiple material types and
destinations are taken into account in the MILP formulation. The mixed integer linear
programming (MILP) formulation framework is developed based on mining-cuts.

3.2.1 Sets
K = {1,..., k }
set of all the mining-cuts in the model.
J = {1,..., J }
set of all the phases (push-backs) in the model.
U = {1,...,U }
set of all possible destinations for materials in the model.
Ck ( L ) For each mining-cut k, there is a set Ck ( L) ⊂ K defining the immediate
predecessor mining-cuts above mining-cut k that must be extracted prior to
extraction of mining-cut k, where L is the total number of mining-cuts in
the set Ck ( L) .
Mk ( P) For each mining-cut k, there is a set M k ( P ) ⊂ K defining the immediate
predecessor mining-cuts in a specified horizontal mining direction that
must be extracted prior to extraction of mining-cut k at the specified level,
where P is the total number of mining-cuts in the set M k ( P ) .
Bj ( H ) For each phase j, there is a set B j ( H ) ⊂ K defining the mining-cuts
within the immediate predecessor pit phases (push-backs) that must be
extracted prior to extracting phase j, where H is an integer number
representing the total number of mining-cuts in the set B j ( H ) .

3.2.2 Indices, subscripts and superscript

Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 5

A parameter, f, can take indices, subscripts, and superscripts in the format f ku, ,je,t . Where:
t ∈ {1,......, T } index for scheduling periods.
k ∈ {1,....., K } index for mining-cuts.
e ∈ {1,....., E} index for element of interest in each mining-cut.
j ∈ {1,....., J } index for phases.
u ∈ {1,.....,U } index for possible destinations for materials.
D, S , M , P subscripts and superscripts for over/inter burden material, tailings sand,
mining and processing respectively.

3.2.3 Parameters
d ku ,t the discounted profit obtained by extracting mining-cut k and sending it to
destination u in period t.
rku ,t the discounted revenue obtained by selling the final products within
mining-cut k in period t if it is sent to destination u, minus the extra
discounted cost of mining all the material in mining-cut k as ore and
processing at destination u.
nku ,t the extra discounted cost of mining the over/inter burden material of the
mining-cut k in period t and sending it for reclamation in destination u.
mku ,t the extra discounted cost of producing tailings sand from mining-cut k in
period t and sending it for reclamation in destination u.
qku ,t the discounted cost of mining all the material in mining-cut k in period t as
waste and sending it to destination u.
g ke the average grade of element e in the ore portion of mining-cut k.
u ,t , e
g the lower bound on the required average head grade of element e in period
t at processing destination u.
u ,t , e
g the upper bound on the required average head grade of element e in period
t at processing destination u.
f ko the average percentage of fines in the ore portion of mining-cut k.
u ,t , o
f the lower bound on the required average fines percentage of ore in period t
at processing destination u.
u ,t , o
f the upper bound on the required average fines percentage of ore in period t
at processing destination u.
f kc the average percentage of fines in the over/inter burden reclamation
material portion of mining-cut k.
u ,t , c
f the lower bound on the required average fines percentage of over/inter
burden reclamation material in period t at reclamation destination u.
u ,t , c
f the upper bound on the required average fines percentage of over/inter
burden reclamation material in period t at reclamation destination u.
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 6

ok the ore tonnage in mining-cut k.

wk the waste tonnage in mining-cut k.
dk the over/inter burden material tonnage in mining-cut k.
lk the tailings sand material tonnage in mining-cut k.
tk the tailings volume produced downstream from extracting all of the ore
from mining-cut k.
fk the fines volume produced downstream from extracting all of the ore from
mining-cut k.
sk the sand volume produced downstream from extracting all of the ore from
mining-cut k.
rk the water volume produced downstream from extracting all of the ore from
mining-cut k.
t
TMu the upper bound on mining capacity (tonnes) in period t.
t
TMl the lower bound on mining capacity (tonnes) in period t.
TPuu ,t the upper bound on processing capacity (tonnes) in period t , destination u.
TPlu ,t the lower bound on processing capacity (tonnes) in period t , destination u.
TCuu ,t the upper bound on over/inter burden reclamation material requirement
(tonnes) in period t at destination u.
TClu ,t the lower bound on over/inter burden reclamation material requirement
(tonnes) in period t at destination u.
u ,t
TNu the upper bound on tailings sand reclamation material requirement (tones)
in period t at destination u.
TNlu ,t the lower bound on tailings sand reclamation material requirement (tones)
in period t at destination u.
TTuu ,t the upper bound on capacity of tailings pound (tones) in period t at
destination u.
TTlu ,t the lower bound on capacity of tailings pound (tones) in period t at
destination u.
r u ,e the proportion of element e recovered (processing recovery) if it is
processed at destination u.
p e ,t the price of element e in present value terms per unit of product.
cs e,t the selling cost of element e in present value terms per unit of product.
cp u ,e,t the extra cost in present value terms per tonne of ore for mining and
processing at destination u.
cl u ,t the extra cost in present value terms for mining and shipping a tonne of
over/inter burden material for reclamation at destination u.
cu u ,t the extra cost in present value terms for mining and shipping a tonne of
tailings sand material for reclamation at destination u.
cmt the cost in present value terms of mining and shipping a tonne of waste in
period t.
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 7

3.2.4 Decision variables

xku ,t ∈ [ 0,1] a continuous variable representing the portion of ore from mining-cut k to
be extracted and processed at destination u in period t.
wk ∈ [ 0,1]
u ,t
a continuous variable representing the portion of over/inter burden
material from mining-cut k to be extracted and used for reclamation
purposes at destination u in period t.
vk ∈ [ 0,1]
u ,t
a continuous variable representing the portion of tailings sand material
from mining-cut k to be extracted and used for reclamation purposes at
destination u in period t.
yk ∈ [ 0,1]
t
a continuous variable representing the portion of mining-cut k to be mined
in period t, which includes ore, over/inter burden reclamation material,
tailings sand reclamation material and waste.
bk ∈ [ 0,1]
t
a binary integer variable controlling the precedence of extraction of
mining-cuts. bkt is equal to one if the extraction of mining-cut k has started
by or in period t, otherwise it is zero.
ctj ∈ [ 0,1] a binary integer variable controlling the precedence of mining phases. ctj
is equal to one if the extraction of phase j has started by or in period t,
otherwise it is zero.

3.2.5 Modeling of economic mining-cut value

The objective function of the MILP model is to maximize the net present value of the mined
bitumen, including the operation-related portion of the reclamation costs. The concept of economic
mining-cut value is based on ore parcels within mining-cuts, which could be mined selectively. The
profit from mining a mining-cut is a function of the value of the mining-cut based on the
processing destination and the costs incurred in mining, processing and reclamation material
shipment at a specified destination. The cost of reclamation is also a function of the location of the
tailings facility being constructed and the type and quantity of used dyke and tailings sand material.
The discounted profit from mining-cut k is equal to the discounted revenue obtained by selling the
final product contained in mining-cut k minus the discounted cost involved in mining mining-cut k
as waste (Askari-Nasab and Awuah-offei, 2009). In this study, in addition to the previous terms,
two new terms are considered in calculation of economic mining cut value; the extra discounted
cost of mining over/inter burden (OI) and tailings sand (TS) material for reclamation. This has been
simplified into Equations (5) to (9).
d ku ,t = rku ,t − qku ,t − nku ,t − mku ,t ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } , k ∈ {1,..., K } (5)
Where:
E E
rku ,=
t
∑o e
k × gk × r
u ,e
( ) ∑
× p e,t − cs e,t − ok × cp u ,e,t ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , u ∈ {1,..,U } , k ∈ {1,.., K } (6)
e 1= e 1

qkt = ( )
ok + d k + wk × cmt ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , k ∈ {1,.., K } (7)
nku=
,t
d k × cl u ,t ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , u ∈ {1,..,U } , k ∈ {1,.., K } (8)
mku ,t= lk × cu u ,t
∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , u ∈ {1,..,U } , k ∈ {1,.., K } (9)

3.2.6 The mixed integer linear programming model

 Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 8

The objective functions of the MILP model for strategic and operational production plan for oil
sands mining can be formulated as: i) maximizing the NPV and ii) minimizing the reclamation
cost. These are combined as a single objective function, formulated as in Equation. (10).
U T J  
Max ∑∑∑ ∑ (


u 1 =t 1 =j 1  k∈B j
 )
 rku ,t × xku ,t − qkt × ykt − (nku ,t × wku ,t + mku ,t × vku ,t )  
 (10)
= 
The complete MILP model comprising of the combined objective function and constraints can
be formulated as:
Objective function:
U T J  
Max ∑∑∑ ∑ (


u 1 =t 1 =j 1  k∈B j
 ) (
 rku ,t × xku ,t − qkt × ykt − nku ,t × wku ,t + mku ,t × vku ,t  
 (11) )
= 
Constraints:
J  
t
TMl ≤ 
 ∑ ∑
=j 1  k∈B j
( ok + wk + d k ) × ykt  ≤ TMu

t
∀t ∈ {1,..., T } (12)

J  
TPlu ,t ≤ ∑  ∑ ( o
=j 1  k∈B j
k

)
× xku ,t  ≤ TPu
u ,t
∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (13)

J  
TClu ,t ≤ ∑  ∑ ( d
=j 1  k∈B j
k

)
× wku ,t  ≤ TCu
u ,t
∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (14)

J  
TNlu ,t ≤ ∑  ∑ ( l
=j 1  k∈B j
k

)
× vku ,t  ≤ TNu
u ,t
∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (15)

J  
∑  ∑ g ∑o
u ,t , e e u ,t , e
g ≤ k × ok × xku ,t × xku ,t  ≤ g
1  k∈B j
k
 ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , u ∈ {1,..,U } , e ∈ {1,.., E} (16)
j= k∈B j 

J  
∑  ∑ f ∑o
u ,t , o o u ,t u ,t , o
f ≤ k × ok × xk × xku ,t  ≤ f
k
 ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , u ∈ {1,..,U } (17)
1  k∈B j
j= k∈B j 

J  
∑  ∑ f ∑d
u ,t , c c u ,t u ,t , c
f ≤ k × d k × wk × wku ,t  ≤ f
k
 ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , u ∈ {1,..,U } (18)
1  k∈B j
j= k∈B j 

J  
TTlu ,t ≤ ∑ ∑( 

1  k∈B j
tk × xku ,t )  ≤ T u ,t
Tu ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (19)
=j 
J  
TFlu ,t ≤ ∑  ∑ ( f
=j 1  k∈B j
k

)
× xku ,t  ≤ TFu
u ,t
∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (20)

 Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 9

J  
TSlu ,t ≤ ∑  ∑ ( s
=j 1  k∈B j
k )
× xku ,t  ≤ TSuu ,t

∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (21)

J  
TWlu ,t ≤ ∑  ∑ ( r × x )  ≤ T
=j 1  k∈B j
k
u ,t
k
u ,t
Wu ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , u ∈ {1,...,U } (22)

U

∑(o
u =1
k )
× xku ,t + d k × wku ,t ≤ ( ok + d k ) × ykt ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , k ∈ {1,.., K } (23)

U U

=
∑(
u 1=u 1
lk × vku ,t ≤ ) ∑(o k × xku ,t ) ∀t ∈ {1,.., T } , k ∈ {1,.., K } (24)

U T

∑∑ x
u 1 =t 1
=
u ,t
k ≤1 ∀ k ∈ {1,.., K } (25)

U T

∑∑ w
u 1 =t 1
=
u ,t
k ≤1 ∀ k ∈ {1,.., K } (26)

U T

∑∑ v
u 1 =t 1
=
u ,t
k ≤1 ∀ k ∈ {1,.., K } (27)

t
bkt − ∑y
i =1
i
s ≤0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , k ∈ {1,..., K } , s ∈ Ck ( L) (28)
t
bkt − ∑y
i =1
i
r ≤0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , k ∈ {1,..., K } , r ∈ M k ( P ) (29)
t

∑y
i =1
i
k − bkt ≤ 0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , k ∈ {1,..., K } (30)

bkt − bkt +1 ≤ 0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T − 1} , k ∈ {1,..., K } (31)

t
H × ctj − ∑y
i =1
i
h ≤0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , j ∈ {1,..., J } , h ∈ B j ( H ) (32)
t

∑y
i =1
i
h − H × ctj ≤ 0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T } , j ∈ {1,..., J } , h ∈ B j +1 ( H ) (33)

ctj − ctj+1 ≤ 0 ∀t ∈ {1,..., T − 1} , j ∈ {1,..., J } (34)

T

∑y
t =1
t
k =1 ∀k ∈ {1,..., K } (35)

Equation (11) is the objective function of the formulation, which seeks to i) maximize the NPV and
ii) minimize reclamation costs. Equation (12) is the total mining capacity constraint. Equations (13)
, (14) and (15) are the capacity constraints for processing, OI and TS for reclamation requirements,
respectively. Equations (16), (17) and (18) specify the limiting requirements for bitumen in ore,
fines in ore and fines in OI reclamation material for all destinations. Equation (19) represents the
upper and lower bounds on the capacity of each tailings facility in each period. Equations (20), (21)
and (22) ensure that the volume of tailings contents including fines, sand and water does not violate
Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 10

the bounds in each period. Equation (23) ensures that the total material that is mined in each period
for all destinations does not exceed the sum of the ore and OI material that is mined. Equation (24)
states that the tonnage of TS that is mined for reclamation in each period should be less than or
equal to the tonnage of ore material that is mined for all destinations. Any unscheduled TS material
becomes available for preparation of mature fine tailings (MFT). Equations (25), (26) and (27)
ensure that the total fractions of mining-cut k sent to all destinations in all periods are less than or
equal to one. Equations (28), (29), (30) and (31) control the set of immediate predecessor mining-
cuts that must be mined prior to mining mining-cut k for all periods and destinations. Equations
(32), (33) and (34) check the set of immediate predecessor pit phase that must be mined prior to
mining phase j in all periods for all destinations. Equation (35) ensures that the whole blocks within
the optimal pit are completely extracted.

4 CASE STUDY

A real oil sands data set is used to test performance of the MILP model. There are four pushbacks
(PBs 1, 2, 3 and 4) in the case. However in this paper, only pushbacks 1 and 2 are considered as the
case study. Pushbacks 1 and 2 contain 45600 blocks of 50 by 50 by 15 meters, aggregated into 980
mining cuts in 9 benches. Two material destinations are the processing plant and the waste dump.
As in MILP model, three sets of precedence are considered for extraction, including vertical,
horizontal and pushback precedence. In this case, the direction for horizontal extraction is
considered to be west to east, as it is the best direction according to Whittle results (Gemcom
software International, 2008). Moreover, it is assumed that PB 1 precedes PB 2 in extraction,
meaning that any mining in PB2 only can be initiated when PB 1 is completely mined.

Figure 3. Sample plan view, bench 4

Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 11

To run the model for the presented case study, a MATLAB program (MathworkInc., 2009) is
developed. The code calls TOMLAB/CPLEX (ILOGInc., 2007) to solve the MILP model. Figure 3
illustrates a plan view of the resulting extraction sequence. The extraction sequence results in a
specific tonnage of rock to be mined in each period and a tonnage of ore feed to the plant (Figure
4). The results show that the bottom-up direction (pushback precedence) and left-to-right direction
(horizontal precedence) is perfectly followed, as well as capacity constraints.

Figure 4. Total tonnage of mining and processing

The code is executed on an Octa-core Dell Precision T7500 computer at 2.8 GHz, with 24GB of
RAM. The run time to find the optimal solution for the MILP model through branch and cut
method for this case is a relatively large run-time for this problem size. It indicates the necessity to
investigate for problem-size reduction techniques, including the relaxation of irrelevant decision
variables and constraints and/or defining larger mining units (panels) by aggregation of cuts in each
pushback.

5 CONCLUSION

An integrated mine planning model is proposed in this paper, including long-term production plan
with respect to tailings capacity constraints and material requirement for site reclamation. Bitumen
extraction process is investigated and tailings model is developed to calculate the volume of
tailings slurry, over flow and under flow material associated with the ore feed to the processing
plant. The proposed MILP model is verified through running the model using a real case oil sands
data set. Resulted mining schedule follows pushback and horizontal precedence. However, there
are some fragmentations associated with the mining operation in some benches, meaning that two
or more segmented areas in bench are scheduled to be mined in one period. Therefore, the next
steps of this research include model modifications to fix the fragmentation, presenting a more-
detailed tailings model, as well as considering advanced assumptions in definition of horizontal and
pushback precedence and implanting some size-reduction techniques for the problem.
 Badiozamani, M.Mahdi 12

REFERENCES

Askari-Nasab, H. & Awuah-offei, K. 2009. Mixed integer linear programming formulations for open pit
production scheduling. Mining Optimization Laboratory (MOL) report one , University of Alberta,
Edmonton.
Askari-Nasab, H., Tabesh, M., & Badiozamani, M. M. 2010. Creating mining cuts using hierarchical
clustering and tabu search algorithms. Paper presented at International Conference on Mining Innovation
(MININ), Santiago, Chile. 159-171.
Ben-Awuah, E. & Askari-Nasab, H. 2011. Oil Sands Mine Planning And Waste Management Using Mixed
Integer Goal Programming. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 25,(3), 226 -
247.
ERCB 2009. Tailings performance criteria and requirements for oil sands mining schemes (Directive 074).
Fytas, K., Hadjigeorgiou, J. & Collins, J. L. 1993. Production scheduling optimization in open pit mines.
International journal of surface mining, reclamation and environment, 7,(1), 1-9.
Gemcom Software International 2008. Whittle strategic mine planning software. Ver. 4.3, Vancouver.
ILOGInc. 2007. ILOG CPLEX. Ver. 11.0.
MathworkInc. 2009. MATLAB Software. Ver. 7.9 (R2009b).
Odell, C. J. 2004. Integration of sustainability into the mine design process. Master of applied science Thesis,
University of British Colombia, Vancouver, 252 Pages.
Rodriguez, G. D. R. 2007. Evaluating the impact of the environmental considerations in open pit mine
design. PhD. Thesis, Golden, Colorado, 160 pages.
Shell-Canada 2011. Jackpine Mine: Dedicated disposal area (DDA) plan for DDA1 (TT Cell). Shell Canada
Energy, Fort McMurray, Alberta,
Shepard, R. B. 2005. Quantifying environmental impact assessments using fuzzy logic. Springer.
Sinding, K. 1999. Environmental impact assessment and management in the mining industry. Natural
resources forum, 23, 57-63.
Singh, G. 2008. Environmental impact assessment of mining projects. Paper presented at Proceedings of
international conference on TREIA-2008, Nagpur.
Suncor 2009. Tailings reduction operations, Project application, Suncor Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, October
2009, 1-395.
Tan, S. & Romani, R. 1992. Optimization models for scheduling ore and waste production in open pit mines.
Paper presented at 23rd Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industries
(APCOM) symposium, Littleton, CO. 781-791.
Woynillowicz, D., Severson-Baker, C. & Raynolds, M. 2005. Oil sands fever: the environmental implications
of Canada's oil sands rush. The Pembina institute.

View publication stats