This document presents the results of a long-term investigation into mining the Dolomeuse dolomite deposit. It includes details on the block model, constraints, pit design parameters, reserves calculations, and proposed multi-phase pushback designs. Key findings are that Pit 1 has a higher mining yield of 41.5% compared to 20.3% for Pit 2 due to differences in overburden and ore distribution. Further economic evaluation is still needed to determine the feasibility of mining Pit 2. Solutions to increase storage capacity in the future settling ponds were also proposed.

1. MIME 484 FINAL
PRESENTATION
Long-term investigation of
Dolomeuse deposit at Dolomie
de Marche-Les-Dames
Antoine FOURNIER
260457015
1
Academic advisor: Hani Mitri
Academic advisor on site: Julien
Vanneste

2. Table of contents
I. Introduction
II. Block model and cut-off grade
III. Localization
IV. Constraints
V. Pit parameters
VI. Final pits
VII. Pillar
VIII. Settling pond issues
IX. In-Pit-Waste
X. Reserves
XI. Mining yield
XII. Pushbacks design
XIII. Conclusion
2

3. Introduction
 Deposit of dolomite bought in 1992
 Separated from the deposit Wartet by a
public road
 Main application of Dolomeuse is for the steel
Industry
 Deposit contains high amount of iron (Not
suitable for glass industry)
 Sagrex, a contractor on-site makes
aggregates
3

4. Block model and Cut-off grade
Block model was created in the 90s by the geologists
and updated since. Last update was this year after other
core drilling.
Blocks are sized 2mX2mX1m (XYZ) and go from Z=20
to Z=200
Two attributes were assigned to this block model:
- Specific gravity
-Geological units (depending on concentration of the
different elements)
4

5. Block Model and cut-off grade
 7 geological units were defined:
5

6. Localization
6
-10km East from Namur
-70km South-East from the capital Brussels
-Situated along the river La Meuse
-Situated adjacent to railroads
-A4 highway is within 10km

7. Localization
7
-2 Deposits: Wartet and Dolomeuse

8. Constraints
8
Constraints Description
1 Actual tailing pond
2 Future tailing pond
3
Sagrex stone preparation plant
(contactor)
4
Dolomeuse stone preparation plant
(Lhoist)
Road
--------
The public road on the East part of the
mine permit boundary
Permit boundary Mine permit boundary in white

9. Final pit parameters
9

10. Final pit parameters
10
Letters Description Value Justification
A
Distance between mine permit
and top of overburden
20m Estimated for blast and noise issues
B Angle of overburden 30° According to previous mining activities
C
Distance between toe of
overburden and crest of quarry
Variable
0.5*I ( between 0 and
21.5m)
It was estimated by the geologists
D Mining Width 30m
Based on the largest equipment turning radius
(CAT777 with turning radius of 28.4m)
E Catch bench width 5m
According to previous mining activities
F Bench height 15m
According to previous mining activities
G Bench angle 65°
According to previous mining activities
H Overall slope angle 51° Based on E,F and G
I Thickness of overburden
Variable ( between 0 and
43m)
Difference between topography and contact
between OVB and ore. If contact is higher than
topo, then I is 0

11. Final pits
11
Left side:
• Final pit englobing the
installations
• From Z=30 to
Z=topography
• Ramps are 24m wide
at a gradient of 10%
Right side:
• Final pit without
taking the installations
• From Z=30 to
Z=topography
• Ramps are 24m wide
at a gradient of 10%
• A pillar is left to
protect the
installations

12. Pillar for pit 2
12
• A pillar is left to protect the installations from mining activities
• Top of pillar reaches 30m in width at Z=150m
• Bench width was chosen as 10m on N-S sides and 20m on E-W
sides according to the current topography
• Pillar goes down to Z=30m (bottom level)
• Volume blocked within the pillar: 2 475 208 m³

13. Settling pond issues
13
Elevation (m) Volume (m3)
1 2 3 Total général (m3)
100 23704 248 4832 28784
99 23316 320 4804 28440
98 22780 512 4788 28080
97 22332 632 4788 27752
96 21984 736 4776 27496
95 21652 812 4784 27248
94 21380 852 4768 27000
93 21008 972 4744 26724
92 20608 1044 4716 26368
91 20128 1120 4692 25940
90 18728 1588 4708 25024
89 18040 1676 4680 24396
88 17588 1776 4696 24060
87 17308 1832 4660 23800
86 16920 1916 4640 23476
85 16488 2004 4636 23128
84 15520 2248 4636 22404
83 14532 2456 4532 21520
82 14112 2532 4296 20940
81 13720 2580 4028 20328
80 13452 2588 3756 19796
79 13152 2588 3348 19088
78 12872 2576 2988 18436
77 12592 2552 2632 17776
76 11644 2488 2288 16420
75 9868 2288 1920 14076
Total général (m3) 455428 42936 110136 608500
• Lack of space in future settling ponds to
continue mining
• Proposed ways to increase capacity
-In green: Reduced ramps to have a width of 10m
-In red: Blast N-W side to gain more space
Additional volume: 153 172m³

14. In-Pit-Waste (IPW)
14
IPW is defined as part of the reserves but will not be conducted to
the primary crusher.
The table shows the IPW, which was estimated per level by the
quarry manager, but what is below the current topography was
estimated through some interpolations. IPW is equal to 1-Recovery
From (m) To (m) IPW (%)
165 + 100
150 165 100
135 150 100
120 135 60
105 120 25
90 105 15
75 90 10
60 75 10
45 60 10
30 45 10

15. Reserves
15
PIT 1:
Note: Only 5_d2,
6_d1,7_bc will be
sent to the primary
crusher
Crusher feed Unit
Level 0_sob 1_hob 12_stock 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total
165 0 0 0
150 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 792 818 472 1 101 889 169 145 2 090 298
105 4 470 219 1 072 456 1 945 215 900 437 6 278 3 929 074
90 1 938 128 502 2 650 936 2 103 927 1 131 876 264 155 6 281 333
75 2 306 964 1 927 525 1 143 645 713 361 6 091 495
60 1 043 909 1 734 272 1 211 355 935 268 4 924 803
45 152 954 1 789 403 681 294 1 219 277 3 842 928
30 1 120 230 594 320 1 125 955 2 840 505
Total 0 792 6 408 128 720 8 045 691 11 722 461 5 832 072 4 264 293 30 000 437
Sum of IPW Unit
Level 0_sob 1_hob 12_stock 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total
165 605 968 207 010 812 978
150 726 656 3 424 970 70 373 162 119 2 419 4 386 537
135 1 076 240 54 302 2 282 947 1 826 032 10 897 5 250 418
120 1 188 1 227 707 1 652 834 253 718 3 135 447
105 1 490 73 357 485 648 405 300 146 2 093 1 309 691
90 342 22 677 467 812 371 281 199 743 46 616 1 108 471
75 256 329 214 169 127 072 79 262 676 833
60 115 990 192 697 134 595 103 919 547 200
45 16 995 198 823 75 699 135 475 426 992
30 124 470 66 036 125 106 315 612
Total 1 332 624 4 709 408 1 832 147 425 4 887 385 5 231 130 1 167 905 492 470 17 970 179

16. Reserves
16
PIT 2:
Note: Only 5_d2,
6_d1,7_bc will be
sent to the primary
crusher
Crusher feed Unit
Level 0_sob 1_hob 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total
165 0 0 0
150 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 756 539 508 1 101 116 167 530 1 808 909
105 260 237 1 852 835 897 148 5 702 3 015 921
90 3 470 1 302 688 1 131 573 253 909 2 691 640
75 261 342 1 036 454 679 856 1 977 651
60 10 340 297 836 105 1 176 412
45 485 281 485 281
30 195 032 195 032
Total 0 756 0 803 214 4 517 990 3 573 001 2 455 884 11 350 845
Sum of Ipw Unit
Level 0_sob 1_hob 5_d2 6_d1 7_bc 8_a 9_sub Total
165 605 688 206 960 812 648
150 726 224 3 420 540 57 650 159 019 2 419 4 365 853
135 1 074 050 21 373 2 066 407 1 825 664 10 886 4 998 381
120 1 134 809 261 1 651 674 251 294 2 713 364
105 86 746 617 612 299 049 1 901 1 005 307
90 612 229 886 199 689 44 808 474 995
75 29 038 115 161 75 540 219 739
60 1 37 811 92 901 130 712
45 53 920 53 920
30 21 670 21 670
Total 1 331 912 4 702 684 79 024 3 122 046 4 356 294 913 892 290 739 14 796 590

17. Mining yield
17
Now, the mining yield (MY) can be calculated as followed:
MY=
𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑
=
𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑜𝑟𝑒+𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑
For tonnes processed, only units 5_d2, 6_d1 and 7_bc will be
sent to the primary crusher.
For pit 1:
MY=
𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑜𝑟𝑒+𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑
=
8045691+128720+11722461
30000437+17970179
∗ 100 = 41.5%
For pit 2:
MY=
𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑜𝑟𝑒+𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑
=
0+803 286+4 530 819
11 485 128+14 797 895
∗ 100 = 20.3%

18. Mining yield
18
• Higher mining yield in pit 1 than pit 2
Explanations:
1. Overburden is only situated in pit 2
2. Crusher feed for Unit 5_d2 is only situated under the
installations
3. Unit 6_d1 is found in both pits but the crusher feed is 10
times higher under the installations
4. The pillar contains good quality dolomite

19. Pushbacks design
19
For pit 1, the pushbacks will be
1. Pit 2 from Z=topo to Z=105
2. Pit 2 from Z=105 To Z=30
(Installations are removed)
3. Pit under the installations from Z=105 to Z=30
4. Central pillar

20. Conclusion
20
• This project investigated the feasibility of Dolomeuse
• Not finished, needs to do an economic evaluation of pit 2 to see if it
is worth mining
• Two final pits shape are presented but further economical
evaluation needs to be done
• An evaluation on increasing the storage space of the new settling
pond was done. The two main possibilities are:
-Reduce access ramps to leave a 10m width ramp
-Blast the NW side of the settling pond
• This report will be used by the geologists and mining engineers for
further investigation

21. THANK YOU
21