7
G. Case B with plan created by deterministic optimiza-
tiown using OK model input
H. Case B with plan created by stochastic optimization
using CS model input
I. Case C with plan created by deterministic optimiza-
tion using OK model input
J. Case C with plan created by stochastic optimization
using CS model inputs
The strategic sensitivity cases (Figure 7, first group of
5 bars) show the significant value added by using a cut-
off grade which varies over time and varies depending on
the actual grade tonnage distribution revealed by mining.
Additional value is generated by stockpiling and adding
a leach process. Although the strategic options increase
expected value, they have limited ability to mitigate the
orebody’s impact on NPV uncertainty as shown in the
Yearly Metal Mined (=0.02 oz/ton cutoff): Case C
Mean Metal 0.249 0.496 0.445 0.305 0.281 0.361 0.184 0.175 0.103 0.079 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rel Std Dev 12.4% 8.7% 13.6% 11.6% 8.8% 12.4% 10.9% 6.4% 19.2% 18.7% 21.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean Tons 2.677 5.272 5.124 3.801 3.917 4.474 2.750 2.569 1.850 1.296 0.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rel Std Dev 3.7% 2.3% 4.7% 6.0% 3.6% 5.5% 6.9% 5.5% 11.0% 10.0% 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean Grade 0.093 0.094 0.087 0.080 0.072 0.080 0.067 0.068 0.055 0.061 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rel Std Dev 9.9% 7.7% 10.3% 8.9% 6.6% 7.6% 7.1% 6.5% 9.7% 12.1% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15
Figure 5. Base Case mine plan (Case C) box plot view: contained Au metal mined ≥ 0.02 oz/ton cut-off for nine orebody
conditional simulations
Yearly Mill Metal Produced: Case C
Mean Metal 0.215 0.343 0.307 0.239 0.214 0.259 0.166 0.161 0.119 0.107 0.078 0.061 0.049 0.049 0.047
Rel Std Dev 12.2% 9.5% 14.5% 10.7% 7.9% 11.7% 7.9% 5.1% 9.5% 10.6% 4.0% 10.4% 1.3% 0.0% 7.5%
Mean Tons 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250
Rel Std Dev 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean Grade 0.106 0.169 0.152 0.118 0.106 0.128 0.082 0.080 0.059 0.053 0.039 0.031 0.025 0.024 0.024
Rel Std Dev 12.2% 9.5% 14.5% 10.6% 7.8% 11.7% 7.9% 5.1% 9.5% 10.5% 3.9% 10.4% 1.3% 0.0% 7.5%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15
Figure 6. Base Case mine plan (Case C) box plot view: recovered Au metal
Metal
(Mozs)
Metal
(Mozs)
G. Case B with plan created by deterministic optimiza-
tiown using OK model input
H. Case B with plan created by stochastic optimization
using CS model input
I. Case C with plan created by deterministic optimiza-
tion using OK model input
J. Case C with plan created by stochastic optimization
using CS model inputs
The strategic sensitivity cases (Figure 7, first group of
5 bars) show the significant value added by using a cut-
off grade which varies over time and varies depending on
the actual grade tonnage distribution revealed by mining.
Additional value is generated by stockpiling and adding
a leach process. Although the strategic options increase
expected value, they have limited ability to mitigate the
orebody’s impact on NPV uncertainty as shown in the
Yearly Metal Mined (=0.02 oz/ton cutoff): Case C
Mean Metal 0.249 0.496 0.445 0.305 0.281 0.361 0.184 0.175 0.103 0.079 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rel Std Dev 12.4% 8.7% 13.6% 11.6% 8.8% 12.4% 10.9% 6.4% 19.2% 18.7% 21.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean Tons 2.677 5.272 5.124 3.801 3.917 4.474 2.750 2.569 1.850 1.296 0.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rel Std Dev 3.7% 2.3% 4.7% 6.0% 3.6% 5.5% 6.9% 5.5% 11.0% 10.0% 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean Grade 0.093 0.094 0.087 0.080 0.072 0.080 0.067 0.068 0.055 0.061 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rel Std Dev 9.9% 7.7% 10.3% 8.9% 6.6% 7.6% 7.1% 6.5% 9.7% 12.1% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15
Figure 5. Base Case mine plan (Case C) box plot view: contained Au metal mined ≥ 0.02 oz/ton cut-off for nine orebody
conditional simulations
Yearly Mill Metal Produced: Case C
Mean Metal 0.215 0.343 0.307 0.239 0.214 0.259 0.166 0.161 0.119 0.107 0.078 0.061 0.049 0.049 0.047
Rel Std Dev 12.2% 9.5% 14.5% 10.7% 7.9% 11.7% 7.9% 5.1% 9.5% 10.6% 4.0% 10.4% 1.3% 0.0% 7.5%
Mean Tons 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250 2.250
Rel Std Dev 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mean Grade 0.106 0.169 0.152 0.118 0.106 0.128 0.082 0.080 0.059 0.053 0.039 0.031 0.025 0.024 0.024
Rel Std Dev 12.2% 9.5% 14.5% 10.6% 7.8% 11.7% 7.9% 5.1% 9.5% 10.5% 3.9% 10.4% 1.3% 0.0% 7.5%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15
Figure 6. Base Case mine plan (Case C) box plot view: recovered Au metal
Metal
(Mozs)
Metal
(Mozs)