Mine design selection under uncertainty

Abstract Frequently, alternative technically feasible mine designs and production scenarios are available for decision makers to consider. The selection of a mine design is then based on estimating net present values of all possible, technically feasible mine plans so as to select the one with the maximum value. Conventional risk and sensitivity analysis are also performed as decision supporting tools. Given the multiple market and geological uncertainties associated with mining investments, as well as the management flexibility to respond to new future information, the sufficiency of conventional economic analysis tools based on the static discounted cash flow analysis may be questionable. This paper proposes a multicriteria ranking system for selection between alternative mine designs under uncertainty. The system is based on integrating multiple market and geological uncertainties as well as the operating flexibility to revise the ultimate pit limits using a Monte Carlo based real options valuation (ROV) model. To compare the methods, the article applies the proposed system, along with other three ranking methods, to rank possible mine designs for a copper and a gold mine. It has been found that, in addition to the higher value of the mine design selected by the proposed system, its average mis-ranking is significantly lower than the other three ranking methods. For the copper mine, a reduction in the average mis-ranking of 37–58% could be achieved when using the proposed ranking system, while for the gold mine case, a higher reduction of 51–64% in the average mis-ranking is obtained.

[1]  E. Prescott,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty , 1971 .

[2]  Raman Uppal,et al.  Valuing risk and flexibility: A comparison of methods , 1996 .

[3]  K. Dagdelen,et al.  Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design , 2005 .

[4]  Sean D. Dessureault,et al.  Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry , 2005 .

[5]  Roussos Dimitrakopoulos,et al.  Evaluating mine plans under uncertainty: Can the real options make a difference? , 2007 .

[6]  Francis A. Longstaff,et al.  Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach , 2001 .

[7]  R. Poulin,et al.  Valuing management flexibility : A basis to compare the standard DCF and MAP valuation frameworks , 1998 .

[8]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[9]  Roussos Dimitrakopoulos,et al.  Stochastic optimisation model for open pit mine planning: application and risk analysis at copper deposit , 2007 .

[10]  R. Bateman.  Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning.R. Dimitrakopoulos, Editor. Pp 402. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Spectrum Series 14. Second edition. 2007. ISBN 978-1-920806-76-7. Price (outside Australia) hardcopy A$80.00, CD-ROM A$60.00. , 2008 .

[11]  Eduardo S. Schwartz.  The stochastic behavior of commodity prices: Implications for valuation and hedging , 1997 .

[12]  Lou Caccetta,et al.  An application of discrete mathematics in the design of an open pit mine , 1988, Discret. Appl. Math..

[13]  R. Dimitrakopoulos,et al.  A maximum upside / minimum downside approach to the traditional optimization of open pit mine design , 2007 .

[14]  S. A. Abdel Sabour,et al.  Valuing Real Capital Investments Using The Least-Squares Monte Carlo Method , 2006 .

[15]  M. Vallee,et al.  Mineral resource + engineering, economic and legal feasibility = ore reserve , 2000 .