The Contribution of Geomechanics and Engineering Geology to Mine Enterprise Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to identify the value of geomechanics and engineering geology to mine enterprise value for hardrock underground mines.It was decided that the most effective way to highlight the value of geomechanics and engineering geology was by identifying an increase in expenditure that could be economically justified in the present to mitigate the cost of a future event, thus providing a means for showing the economic value of the work performed.Cost models were generated for several events based on the direct cost, value of ore lost and decline in value of ore due to the event.A cost associated with fatalities was also included.Six rockburst events were developed into cost models from publicly available information.A further 13 were developed from confidential information provided by mining companies, bringing the total number of events analyzed to 19.A probabilistic approach was then taken to identify the probability of a rockburst with a certain magnitude occurring and, if an event occurs, the probability it will cause damage.The former is based on the Gutenberg-Richter Frequency-Magnitude relationship while the latter was derived from Unusual Occurrence Reports provided by the Ontario Ministry of Labour.Three case studies were then developed to show how to use the average cost of a rockburst event in conjunction with the probability analysis to arrive at an increase in expenditure above baseline spending.The first case study is based on the Unusual Occurrence Reports provided by the Ontario Ministry of Labour and analyzes Ontario operations as a whole.The second and third are based on information provided by mining companies and are defined as Mine A and Mine B respectively.iii It was found that the total average cost of a rockburst based on the 19 events analyzed from 13 mines in 4 different countries for events occurring between 1984 and 2009 is $35.4 million (2010 CAD) CAD) with a range of $1.1 to $263.5 million (2010 CAD).Using the probabilistic method outlined above and cost models from the specific region involved, the increase in expenditure for the Ontario hard rock underground case study, Mine A and Mine B was found to be $12.1 million (2010 CAD), $5 million (2010 CAD) and $4.0 million (2010 CAD) respectively.I am truly indebted to many individuals and organizations who contributed to the success of this thesis and my graduate studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".