Reduce Ore Loss & Dilution in Mining
Ore Loss & Dilution Project Highlights
  • $42,406 USD saved by preventing ore loss
  • 8% Reduction in P80
  • 9.7% Reduction in powder factor
Site Profile
Location South America
Site Type Open Pit
Material Copper
Bench Height 10.0m
Burden & Spacing 7.0 x 8.0m
Hole Diameter 230mm
Explosive Emulsion
Product BLASTBAG™ ACE II

Background

You lose ore and waste money when the muckpile moves too far, when waste rock gets mixed in with good ore, or when ore ends up buried at the bottom of the pit where you can't get to it. That pushes up your mining and processing costs and cuts the amount of ore you actually recover — which hits your bottom line.

A few things can cause it: the block model not matching what's actually in the ground, tricky orebody shapes, unclear boundaries between ore and waste, or a blast design that doesn't account for where the ore needs to end up.


The Challenge

High up in the Andes, there's a copper mine that's been running for over 100 years. It produces more than 400,000 tonnes of copper a year. The pit is deep, steep, and narrow — and getting more so as they go deeper.

With benches that tight, keeping control of where the ore goes after a blast is a big deal. It's common for blasted material to spill over the bench edge, which means lost ore and blocked ramps. This project was set up to deal with a few specific problems:

  • Muckpile moving too far. Blasts were pushing ore down to the bottom of the pit, blocking ramps and access roads. Getting it back was expensive and slow.
  • Losing ore during blasting. They needed to get more high-grade ore to the plant and less waste mixed in with it.
  • Cutting drill and blast costs without dropping production — the usual balancing act.

When they looked at what was actually happening, two things stood out:

  1. Not enough control over where the muckpile ended up. Ore was getting shoved into spots they couldn't easily reach — like the pit floor — which hurt recovery.
  2. Too much stemming in the holes. The explosive charge was over-confined, so it couldn't break rock properly. That wasted energy and materials.

The takeaway was straightforward: if they could control the blast better, they'd recover more ore, reduce dilution, and bring costs down. The fix was to add air decks into the blast design. Air decks spread the explosive energy more evenly through the hole, which cuts down on heave and keeps the muckpile closer to where you want it.


The Solution

Working with Enaex's EMTS team, they put together a new blast design (Fig. 3). It used two buffer lines with a lower powder factor — made possible by using MTi's BLASTBAGS™ as air decks. The aim was to keep the muckpile from moving too far while still getting good breakage.

They set up two test zones to compare:

  • Zone A: Stemming + explosives + air decks.
  • Zone B: Stemming + explosives, no air decks.

To see what difference the air decks made, they checked each blast using:

  • Visual assessment — watching how far material moved in each zone.
  • Topographic survey software — mapping where the muckpile ended up and estimating how much spilled over or mixed with waste.
  • Fragmentation analysis — comparing how well the rock broke in both zones.

The Result

A visual check after the blast showed the muckpile stayed much closer to where it should. Compared to previous blasts at the mine (see Fig. 1 & 2), there was very little spillage in Zone B and even less next to Zone A. No ramps were blocked in either zone — a clear improvement.

The survey data backed it up. Zone A lost 1,297 m³ of material to lower benches. Zone B lost 2,046 m³. That's a 36.6% reduction in ore loss with air decks. In dollar terms, that saved USD $42,406 just by not having to recover spilled material.

Fragmentation didn't suffer — it actually got better. Replacing some of the stemming with an air deck reduced over-confinement and let the explosive energy do its job more effectively. The P50 dropped by 13%, meaning finer, more consistent rock. The P80 came down 8% as well.

Because the air deck replaced part of the explosive column, the powder factor dropped from the site's typical 260 to 235 — a 9.7% reduction. That's less explosives per blast, which means lower costs without giving up breakage quality.