News

This summary outlines the cost benefit of using BMMs vs lower cost polypipe method of blast movement monitoring.

White Foil’s geology team compared polypipe (BVIs) to the BMM system¹. Read the complete AusIMM paper here.

While polypipe is a cheaper alternative, the BMM system was shown to track ore and waste boundaries more effectively, resulting in better quality control that minimized dilution and ore loss and maximized profit.

The White Foil study monitored eight blasts where polypipes were installed adjacent to BMM monitoring holes. The resulting movement vectors were used to move ore blocks to post-blast locations.

• Polypipe had a poor recovery rate of 32%, whereas the BMMs overall detection rate was 93%
• The improved data accuracy produces significantly better results and is more representative of the bulk movement

For the eight monitored blasts, the geology team calculated that the BMM system increased recovered value by A$664,978 (US$450k) through a reduction of ore loss alone.

Dilution

• Waste prevented from going to the mill totalled 7610 t (as 0 grade), avoiding $179 589 in processing costs

Misclassification

• High-grade misclassified as LG was minor; prevented 420 t @ 1.57 g/t Au
• Low-grade misclassified as high grade prevention was 2030 t @ 0.82 g/t Au

Ore loss

• Potential ore loss using BVIs vs BMMs was 9850 t @ 1.47 g/t Au
• Revenue lost by using BVIs would have been $664,978