The differences in underground mines dewatering with the application of caving or backfilling mining methods

Abstract

Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. (ZCCM) is planning a substantial increase in ore production in several of their underground mines on the Zambian Copperbelt over the next 10 years. The future production strategy is based on development of productive and economic mining methods through the application of mechanization and backfilling. Mechanization is designed to provide the production capability and the backfilling is designed to reduce water inflow into the mines. A similar trend can be seen in world-wide changes in mining methods from open stoping and sub-level caving to cut-and-fill stoping. Backfill is being employed worldwide, including in Australia, Canada, Sweden, Latin America, Zambia, and the U.S.A. Plans for backfill mining methods are underway for future operations in Chile, Canada, Zambia, and Mexico. The principal reasons for these changes in mining methods are twofold: The main difference in the environmental impacts between mining with sub-level caving or open stoping and mining with backfilling methods is the reduction in subsidence or the potential for subsidence. Backfilling reduces ground movements in the rock overlying and adjacent to mine openings as well as subsidence at the surface. Reduced ground movement decreases the number and size of fracture-controlled hydraulic flow paths into a mine and, thereby, the impact of mining on surface and ground water resources. This paper deals with: 1) The impacts caused by open stoping and sub-level caving in comparison to backfilling methods; 2) The approximate impact of backfill on dewatering strategies, and; 3) The environmental benefits of backfill mining. The differences in mine drainage strategies are supported by case histories from various mines.