Production Scheduling and Waste Disposal Planning for Oil Sands Mining Using Goal Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In oil sands mining, timely provisions of ore and tailings containment with less environmental footprints are the main drivers of profitability and sustainability. The recent Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board Directive 074 requires oil sands waste disposal planning to be an integral part of mine planning. This requires the development of a well integrated strategy of directional mining and tailings dyke construction for in-pit and ex-pit tailings storage management. The objectives of this paper are to: 1) determine the order and time of extraction of ore, dyke material and waste that maximizes the net present value; 2) determine the destination of dyke material that minimizes construction cost; and 3) minimize deviations from the production goals of the mining operation. We have developed, implemented, and verified a theoretical optimization framework based on mixed integer linear goal programming (MILGP) to address these objectives. This study presents an integration of mixed integer linear programming and goal programming in solving large scale mine planning optimization problems using clustering and pushback techniques. Application of the MILGP model was presented with an oil sands mining case. The MILGP model generated a smooth and uniform mining schedule that generates value and provides a robust framework for effective waste disposal planning. The results show that mining progresses with an ore to waste ratio of 1:1.5 throughout the mine life, generating an overall net present value of $14,237M. This approach improves the sustainable development of oil sands through better waste management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".