One bit I haven't manage to understand is why you wouldn't just infill past open pits with the overburden from new open pits. If its similar overburden being placed into the pits as is taken out then its broadly the same material that was there in the first place, just less a slice of pegmatite that has been taken out. It would also materially reduce the size of the overburden waste landform required. Additionally, if you infill the earlier open mining pits it would appear you would leave a lot flatter environment for the subsequent closure and rehabilitation of the landscape. This would ease the transition back to potential other uses.
I'm sure there's a logical reason, but I just haven't figured out what it is. I note that projects like PLL and LAC look like they are employing rolling infill where the new overburden is deposited in areas that were previously mined.
It could be that this was just the easiest option to model as a scoping study and any improvement on this would therefore be beneficial.
A11 Price at posting:
65.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)