Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Modeling study demonstrates economic sensitivity of mining alternatives in caving zones, indicating optimal profitability at moderate orebody dip angles.
The recovery of residual and previously unmined ore reserves near caving and active-displacement zones is complicated by increased ore loss, dilution, development requirements, support demand, and economic uncertainty. This study presents an exploratory economic–mathematical framework for scenario-based assessment and local ranking of mining alternatives at the Annenskaya Mine of the East Zhezkazgan deposit. The analysis uses 54 modelled scenarios representing distinct combinations of mine-specific geological, technological, and cost parameters rather than independently observed production blocks. The framework integrates material-and-value balance, a quadratic penalty-based scenario model, and a standardised second-order polynomial fitted using Lasso regularisation. The variables include orebody dip, thickness as a stratification factor, ore loss, dilution, displacement-zone conditions, and principal development, extraction, and support costs. Five-fold cross-validation selected λ = 10. The model achieved R2 = 0.41 on the training set, whereas cross-validation yielded R2cv = −0.17, RMSE = USD 553,800, and MAE = USD 461,200. These results restrict the model to exploratory sensitivity analysis and local comparison. The positive-profit domain was widest at dip angles of 30–45° and narrowed at 50–51°. Hessian eigenvalues confirmed a saddle-shaped response surface without an unconstrained global maximum. Broader application requires recalibration, stronger baselines, continuous geomechanical indicators, and independent operational verification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bekbergenov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: