8. Proof of Concept (PoC)

Estimated reading: 6 minutes 91 views

MiningMath Proof of Concept (PoC) is a well-guided workflow to evaluate the performance of MiningMath directly in your mining project. Test key geometric parameters and quickly identify improved pit shapes that offer better trade-offs between operational constraints and project value, often revealing opportunities for higher NPVs.

🚀 Let the MiningMath experts run your PoC!

Unlock hidden value in your mining project with the MiningMath PoC. Our team runs dozens of optimized scenarios based on your base case, testing key operational constraints to quickly identify higher-value and more practical mine plans. Instead of spending time learning the process yourself, you receive a clear, professional report highlighting the best opportunities to increase NPV and improve project outcomes.

Acquire your Proof of Concept!

Introduction

Uncertain parameters or aspects

This is an example of an ongoing mining project, with well-defined parameters. Although any constraint could be the object of risk analysis, the focus of this PoC is on searching for better geometries and/or NPVs, while also improving fleet management by leveraging the non-linear aspects of MiningMath optimization.

Dataset and parameters

The project entitled “McLaughlin” was provided by the client, along with the following parameters

Base case scenario

The Validation, the Super Best Case, and the Base Case scenarios were also provided by the client, with the following results:

The Base Case scenario properly includes all desired constraints and serves as the starting point for this Proof of Concept.

Proof of Concept

Considering the non-linear aspects of the Single-Step optimization proposed by MiningMath, it is highly probable that other solutions for the same Base Case simultaneously improve the NPV, the geometric aspects, and/or the production profile of the project.

Mining Width (MW)

The minimum mining width constraint is, usually, the one that affects the geometric aspects of the solution the most. Therefore, it is chosen for the first round of risk analysis, in the search for better geometries that do not compromise the project’s NPV.

Scenario	MW (m)	NPV (M$)	Notes
Base Case	50	1226.5	No warnings
MW_052	52	1232.5	No warnings
MW_067	67	1221.6	No warnings
MW_091	91	1200.2	No warnings

Solutions that have shown good trade-offs in relation to the Base Case.

Plan view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (MW_067).

3D view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (MW_067).

Although the scenario MW_052 presented an NPV higher than the Base Case, it was considered a good trade-off to lose 0.4% in NPV and work with the wider mining widths of scenario MW_067. Therefore, this was chosen as the basis for the next risk analysis to be performed.

Vertical Rate (VR)

The maximum vertical rate of advance constraint also has a significant impact on the geometric aspects of the solution. The smaller it is, the easier it becomes to design the delivered solution. Therefore, it is chosen for the second round of risk analysis.

Scenario	VR (m)	NPV (M$)	Notes
MW_067	80	1221.6	No warnings
VR_076	76	1213.4	No warnings
VR_068	68	1205.4	No warnings
VR_058	58	1190.4	No warnings

Solutions that have shown good trade-offs in relation to the Base Case (MW_067).

Plan view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (VR_068).

3D view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (VR_068).

By visually comparing the solutions, it was considered a good trade-off to lose 1.3% in NPV and work with the better shapes of scenario VR_068. Therefore, this was chosen as the basis for the next risk analysis to be performed.

Bottom Width (BW)

The minimum bottom width constraint usually has less impact on the geometric aspects when compared to the previous constraints. However, any change in this constraint forces MiningMath to produce a brand new solution, providing a set of options to be chosen according to the project’s needs.

Scenario	BW (m)	NPV (M$)	Notes
VR_068	50	1205.4	No warnings
BW_064	64	1195.4	No warnings
BW_080	80	1190.3	No warnings
BW_096	96	1162.2	No warnings

Solutions that have shown good trade-offs in relation to the Base Case (VR_068).

Plan view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (BW_080).

3D view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (BW_080).

By visually comparing the solutions, it was considered a good trade-off to lose 1.2% in NPV and work with the better shapes of scenario BW_080. Therefore, this was chosen as the basis for the next risk analysis to be performed.

Mining Length (ML)

The minimum mining length constraint forces the algorithm to expand the mining front areas in all possible directions, which tends to deliver a smaller number of mining fronts operating simultaneously. In general, it produces better shapes for higher values, but it deserves a careful analysis when comparing solutions.

Scenario	ML (m)	NPV (M$)	Notes
BW_080	50	1190.3	No warnings
ML_117	117	1195.7	No warnings

Solutions that have shown good trade-offs in relation to the Base Case (BW_080).

Plan view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (MW_117).

3D view comparison of Base Case with best identified alternative (MW_117).

By visually comparing the solutions, it was considered that the improvement of 0.4% in NPV, along with more favorable shapes of scenario ML_117. Therefore, this was chosen as the basis for the next risk analysis to be performed.

Total Production (TP)

The maximum total production constraint can be used to force the algorithm to produce plans with better fleet management, as we push for smaller production rates. It also enables further exploration of the solution space, creating alternative solutions that adhere to the same geometric constraints. Therefore, it works as a final check in the search for other potential positive outliers.

In this case, none of the scenarios produced has delivered better indicators.

Conclusion

Best scenarios

This proof of concept has shown dozens of alternatives for the mine plans for the McLaughlin deposit. The ones that have shown greater potential are listed next, with special attention to the scenarios in green:

Scenario	MW (m)	VR (m)	BW (m)	ML (m)	NPV (M$)
MW_052	52	80	50	52	1232.5
Base Case	50	80	50	50	1226.5
ML_67	67	80	50	67	1221.6
VR_076	67	76	50	67	1213.4
VR_068	67	68	50	67	1205.4
MW_091	91	80	50	91	1200.2
ML_117	67	68	80	117	1195.7
BW_064	67	68	64	67	1195.4
VR_058	67	58	50	67	1190.4
BW_080	67	68	80	67	1190.3
BW_096	67	68	96	67	1162.2

Plan view comparison of Base Case with best identified scenario (MW_117).

3D view comparison of Base Case with best identified scenario (MW_117).

Recommendation

In summary, this PoC has identified a solution (ML_117) that offers significant improvements in mining shapes with a small decrease of 2.5% in NPV, compared to the Base Case scenario.

Solutions VR_068 and MW_067 could be considered as alternatives, also with good trade-offs.

MiningMath

Loading...

8. Proof of Concept (PoC)

🚀 Let the MiningMath experts run your PoC!

Introduction

Uncertain parameters or aspects

Dataset and parameters

Base case scenario

Proof of Concept

Mining Width (MW)

Vertical Rate (VR)

Bottom Width (BW)

Mining Length (ML)

Total Production (TP)

Conclusion

Best scenarios

Recommendation

8. Proof of Concept (PoC)