Geotechnical challenges of the

transition from open pit to

underground mining at
Chuquicamata Mine
Germán Flores, Codelco Norte Division, Codelco Chile

Abstract
Chuquicamata mine is an open pit operation located in the northern part of Chile. This mine went into production in 1915,
mining 1,000 tpd of oxide ore. Today it is a large scale operation mining 186,000 tpd of mainly sulphide ore. The present
mine plan is for open pit operations to cease in year 2013 at a depth of 1100 m. Although the orebody continues below
the bottom of the final pit shell, the cost increments associated with a deep pit operation do not allow for further open pit
mining, therefore it become necessary to initiate a transition from open pit to underground mining. The underground
operation will be implemented at depth, in a hard and massive rock mass and in high stress environments. To make this
project economically viable requires application of a large scale and low cost underground mass mining method in order
to achieve the required high production rates. The only methods that can achieve these requirements are block and panel
caving. The transition from a large scale and deep open pit to underground cave mining at Chuquicamata will face with
several geotechnical challenges. These include the presence of the large and deep open pit which will produce zones of
stress concentrations and zones of low confinement, the magnitude of induced stresses due to the pit depth, cave
propagation, simultaneous open pit and underground operations, the presence of the West fault and the shear zone,
subsidence and water inflows. This paper discusses these geotechnical challenges identified at the scoping engineering
stage of Chuquicamata’s project for a transition from open pit to underground mine by caving and describes technical
strategies to reduce and manage associated risk at all stages of project development.

1 INTRODUCTION in Figure 1. This mine is part of Codelco Norte Division

which has three open pit operations with Chuquicamata
Chuquicamata mine lies at approximately 3,000 m being the biggest, as shown in Figure 2. Currently,
elevation in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, some 16 Chuquicamata is one of the largest open pit mines in the
km from Calama city, in the Province of El Loa, and some world, as shown in Figure 3, with a strike length of 4.5 km in
250 km north-east of Antofagasta city, II Region, as shown NS direction, a width of 2.7 km in EW direction and a depth

Figure 1: Map showing the location of Chuquicamata Mine

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 591

Figure 2: Aerial view of Codelco Norte Division

Figure 3: Aerial view of Chuquicamata mine looking to the North

592 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

Figure 4: Reserves and geological resources at Chuquicamata orebody

Figure 5: Conventional panel caving method

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 593

of 850 m. This mine started in 1915 and currently mines 88 Fortuna granodiorite

Granodiorites
Mt of ore and 115 Mt of waste. The current mine plan is to
reach a depth of 1,100 m in year 2013. Although the ore Moderately sheared zone

Waste
body continues below of the final pit bottom the open pit, the Highly sheared zone
operational cost at that depth will not allow for continued
mining by the open pit method. Therefore, it has become
necessary to initiate a transition from open pit to
underground mining. This transition phase will require suc- -------------- West fault -----------------------------------------------
cessfully overcoming a number of technical and economic
issues (Arancibia and Flores 2004). The technical issues Quartz-sericitic rock / Highly sericitic rock

Increasing grade
include the geotechnical challenges which must take into

Porphyries
account the re-gional West Fault and its shear zone as East porphyry with sericitic alteration
shown in Figure 4, the presence of a large and deep open
pit which will produce zones of stress concen-trations and East porphyry with chloritic alteration
zones of low confinement, a hard and massive rock mass
and the depth of the un-derground excavations. It should be East porphyry with potassic alteration
evident, therefore, that the decision on transition from open
pit to underground mining should take into account the
number of geotechnical factors which control the rock mass Table 1: Geotechnical Units
response during this phase. This is particularly crucial when
simultaneous surface and underground operations are Geotechnical UCS FF RMRL GSI
considered. Unit (MPa) (fract./m)
The scoping study of this project has indicated that the
most suitable underground mining method is panel caving Quartz-sericitic
based on the characteris-tics of the Chuquicamata deposit rock 20 1 to 5 55 to 65 70 to 85
and the eco-nomic and business requirements of the Highly sericitic
project. Panel caving, illustrated in Figure 5, is considered to rock 10 > 10 35 to 45 25 to 40
be the only method that could achieve high production rates
East porphyry with
and low operational costs.
sericitic alteration 31 1 to 5 60 to 70 55 to 70
This paper presents and discusses the geotechni-cal
challenges which may have a significant im-pact on the East porphyry with
economic of this transition project from a large and deep chloritic alteration 84 1 to 10 55 to 65 55 to 65
open pit to underground cave mining at Chuquicamata mine East porphyry with
potassic alteration 85 1 to 10 55 to 70 55 to 75

2 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL UCS Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock
SETTING AT CHUQUICAMATA FF Fracture frequency (including weak veinlets)
RMRL Laubscher’s rock mass rating
The Chuquicamata porphyry copper orebody is GSI Geological strength index
rectangular in plan, and dips vertically. The
mineralization was controlled by the West Fault which is
located at the toe of the West wall. From the fault to the The stress field at Chuquicamata has been measured
West is waste and from the fault to the East is ore, as using a hydro-fracturing technique in deep vertical down
illustrated in Figure 4. holes. The in situ stress field is defined by a vertical stress
About 2,470 Mt of ore, averaging 1.54% Cu, have being proportional to the depth, with a magnitude in the range of
mined out from the Chuquicamata ore body since 1915, and 35 to 40 MPa at the elevation of a future UCL. The hori-
870 Mt will be mined out from 2004 to 2013 (final pit). zontal stresses are defined by minimum and maximum
However, the ore body is open at depth, with geological stress ratios, KMIN and KMAX, respec-tively. KMIN ranges from
resources estimated to be 1,500 Mt at an average grade of 0.5 to 1.0, with a direc-tion of N20ºE and KMAX varies from
0.65% of Cu for the underground mining, as shown in Figure 1.0 to 1.7, with a direction of N70ºW (Torres et al 2003).
4. These values will be verified using the CSIRO hollow
At the Chuquicamata mine the predominant rock types inclusion technique to perform stress measurements from
are granodiorites and porphyries, whose western contact is the exploration tunnels which will be available below the
defined by the West fault, a large regional fault with a NS final open pit shell at the end of the year 2004.
trend, 4 to 6 m thick, and defining a 150 to 200 m wide shear
zone on its western side. This shear zone has a poor to very 3 THE TRANSITION PROCESS
poor geotechnical quality, and is located in the lower third
part of the West Wall’s slopes. In the upper part of these There are many near surface deposits that have
slopes the rock is Fortuna granodiorite. On the eastern side considerable vertical extent. Although they are initially
of the West fault appears a massive quartz-sericitic rock, exploited by open pit mining, there is often a point where
and beyond that porphyries with different types of alteration. decisions have to be made to either continue deepening the
Hence, from West to East the main rock mass types at pit or mining the same deposits by underground methods. At
Chuquicamata are: pre-sent several open pit mines are planning, or are in the
The engineering geology at Chuquicamata is such that process of implementing, a transition to underground
twelve geotechnical units have been defined (Torres et al mining. They include Bingham Canyon in USA,
2003), as shown in the plan view of Figure 6 and the EW Chuquicamata and Mansa Mina in Chile, Grasberg in
and NS cross sec-tions shown in Figures 7 and 8, which Indonesia, Palabora and Venetia in South Africa, Argyle,
also shown the main geological structures, as also the Mount Keith and Telfer in Australia.
current and final pits. The main geotechnical units in the The decision to make the transition from open pit to an
sector of interest to the transition project have the underground operation is often based on a simple
characteristics summarized in Table 1 (Flores et al 2004c). determination of the NPV of the next feasible open pit

594 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

pushback. Underground mining is only contemplated when
a further pushback is shown to be uneconomic. However,
any decision to go underground also requires consideration
of a wide range of technical factors, and careful planning,
which means a significant amount of time for achieving
underground mining (up to 20 years has been suggested by
Stacey and Ter-brugge 2000). This is in addition to the
thorough assessment of the risks associated with the rock
mass failure that accompanies underground cave mining,
and its interaction with the open pit and the surrounding
infrastructure.
Perhaps one of the most important decisions, in the initial
stages of a project for a transition from open pit to
underground mining, is the definition of the most suitable
underground mining method based on the characteristics of
the deposit and, at the same time, the economic and
business re-quirements of the mining company. If the busi-
ness requires high production rates and low op-erational
costs, then underground cave mining methods, such as
block or panel caving, are the only methods through which
these main objec-tives can be achieved. In such cases, it is
desir-able that the open pit continues its operation during
the first stages of underground mining, and that the
underground mine gets to a high productivity quickly and Figure 7: Section 3900 N illustrating the geotechnical units
before closure of the open pit operation. This means that and the major structures (Torres et al 2003)
there will be a period of simultaneous open pit and under-
ground mining operations.
This simultaneity implies an interaction between the open Additionally, there are many other factors or po-tential
pit and the underground mining which makes the problem hazards that could make the problem even more difficult if
more complex than the typi-cal open pit or underground they are not identified prior to making the transition from
mine designs, be-cause the presence of the deep open pit surface to under-ground mining.
will af-fect the stress field in which the underground mine will Some of the major hazards that could be expe-rienced in
be developed and, conversely, the propagation of the caving a transition from open pit to under-ground cave mining are:
will affect the stability of the surface crown pillar that defines 1. mining by caving in relatively massive rock masses will
the bot-tom of the open pit. induce seismicity which could trigger rockbursts;
2. if the caving propagation is arrested by the formation of a
metastable cavity, a sudden failure of the cave back may
occur which could trigger an air blast (de Nicola and
Fishwick 2000);
3. an early break down or failure of the surface crown
pillar, in simultaneous surface and un-derground
operations, may cause an unex-pected end of the open
pit operations, affecting the production plan and, if
sudden, could put at risk the safety of the entire mine
operations;
4. subsidence, which begins once the caving reaches the
pit bottom, could affect not only the surface infrastructure
close to the pit, but also the location of the main
underground ac-cesses and infrastructure; and
5. the open pit could act as a catch-basin for heavy rainfall,
increasing the risk of sudden water inflows and/or
mudrushes into the un-derground mine.

Even if these potential hazards are identified, it is difficult

to assign a probability of occurrence to each one and to
determine the potential safety risk/cost associated with it.
This makes the issue of transition even more complex and
challenging.
It should be evident, therefore, that the decision on
transition should not only be based on eco-nomic indicators,
but must also take into account the number of technical
factors which control the rock mass response during
transition. This is par-ticularly crucial when simultaneous
surface and underground operations are anticipated.
The behaviour of a rock mass in a transition from open
pit to underground mining by caving has been shown to be
a subject of interest to today’s mining industry, because of
the number of mines planning to start implementing the
Figure 6: Geological units present in Chuquicamata Mine first engi-neering stages of such a transition. In addition,
including lithology and alteration (Torres et al 2003) there are still a number of unknowns to be ad-dressed in
order to solve key geotechnical issues associated with

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 595

Figure 8: Section 3300E illustrating the geotechnical units and the major structures (Torres et al 2003)

such a transition, and the follow-ing questions must be For example, if the layout design was based on a certain
addressed: fragmentation finer than the actual one, the occurrence of
1. What is the optimum height of the ore column that can be hangouts would become a serious operational problem, and
mined safely from a economi-cal/geotechnical/ operatio- the need for secondary blasting and draw point repairs will
nal perspective? be larger than expected.
2. Will the cave propagate upwards through the entire block As the evaluation of the cavability of the rock mass is
height? commonly based on Laubscher’s chart, the MRMR
3. What is the minimum thickness of the surface crown pillar estimates must be as reliable as possi-ble, as illustrated by
required to allow simultaneous surface and underground the following example:
operations? If the data available indicates that Laubscher’s RMR
4. When is it no longer safe to be mining in the open pit could vary from 55 to 65, a Monte Carlo simulation indicates
while caving is occurring? How long could both mines that a value of 57 for MRMR have a 15% probability of
operate simultaneously? exceedance, and caving initiation would require a hydraulic
5. Will the subsidence generated by the under-ground radius, HR, equals to 38, which corresponds to a 23000 m2
mining affect the surface infrastructure surrounding the square area.
pit ? When? If the data indicates that RMR varies from 45 to 65, the
6. What are the main geotechnical hazards, and how should same analysis would indicate that a 22000 m2 square area
they be dealt with? is required (HR = 37).
On the other hand, if the data indicates that RMR varies
The potential consequences of an ill-defined transition from 55 to 75, the same analysis would indicate that a
project can be large, not only economi-cally but also 37000 m2 square area is required (HR = 48).
environmentally, and even politi-cally. Hence an overestimation of the lower bound for RMR has
In addition, many aspects of the transition prob-lem are a minor effect on the project (-4%), but a underestimation of
beyond the ranges of applicability of known solutions. For the upper bound for RMR could have a major impact on the
example, the simultaneous operation of the open pit and project (+61%).
underground mines by caving methods requires a stable Therefore, any additional cost incurred improving the
surface crown pillar between the cave back and the pit reliability of the geotechnical data must be considered a
bottom. However, at the same time, cave propagation very good investment and, at the same time, an insurance
requires the failure of this pillar to connect to ground against changes from the expected geotechnical setting.
surface, so the definition of crown pillar failure is not the The key geotechnical issues that are considered relevant
usual. Furthermore, the span of this surface crown pillar is in a project for a transition from open pit to underground
much larger than the maximum span of surface crown pillar mining by caving are:
used in open stope mining. 1. The selection of the undercut level, which defines the
The answer to this and other questions requires an block height. Proper selection of the block height is
improved understanding of the behaviour of the rock mass, particularly important when there is the potential for
the mechanics of caving propagation, and the effects of a simultaneous open pit and underground operations.
simultaneous surface and underground mining by caving 2. The cave initiation and propagation through the rock
methods. column to be caved. This is important to determine if the
The quality and reliability of the geotechnical data is of rock mass will cave or stall.
paramount importance for the engineering of a transition 3. The minimum crown pillar thickness required for
project, and factors such as the strength, cavability and simultaneous open pit and underground operations.
fragmentation of the rock mass could have a large impact 4. Subsidence due to the failure of the pit slopes after the
on the project. connection of the cave back with the pit bottom, with a

596 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

Figure 9: Diagram illustrating the different stages of caving propagation in a transition from open pit to under-ground mining
by caving

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 597

 zone of influence with an important width. Knowledge of need, and it should be implemented when the initial
the extent of the subsidence zone is crucial for the developments of the underground mine begin.
location of the main accesses to the underground mine 3. Cave initiation and propagation. The initial stage of the
and the underground infrastructure. This is in addition to underground mining will be in a hard and massive rock
assessing the likely impact of the subsidence zone to the mass, where cave ini-tiation and propagation may be difficult.
existing surface infra-structures, which eventually would As the cave propagation approaches the pit bot-tom the rock
have to be relocated. mass above the cave back would be affected by the higher
5. The presence of a large open pit above the underground stresses associated with the presence of the open pit, which
mine increases the likelihood of water inflows/mudrushes may affect the rate of the caving propagation by either
because the open pit could act as a catchment for heavy accelerating or arresting the process. The main factors
rainfalls, and the water could seep into the underground affecting cave propagation in a transition from open pit to
mine through fractures induced by the caving and the underground cave mining are shown in Figure 11. Also, it
broken rock above the UCL. This may cause disruptions becomes important to define and implement an
in production and, worst, safety risks for the underground instrumentation system to monitor the de-velopment of the
operation. cave. Considering the expe-rience at El Teniente (Rojas et al
2000) and Palabora mines (Glazer and Hepworth 2004), this
Figure 9 illustrates the different stages of the caving system would include seismic instru-mentation, TDR´s and
process in a transition for open pit to un-derground mining. borehole camera ob-servations.
The detail and mechanisms associated with these issues 4. Simultaneous open pit and underground mine operations.
have been discussed in an accompanying paper (Flores et The economic and business re-quirements of
al, 2004b). Chuquicamata are such that a period of simultaneous
open pit and under-ground mining would be required.
Hence, at least for a certain period, a stable crown pillar
4 MAIN GEOTECHNICAL must be maintained between the cave back and the pit
CHALLENGES AT CHUQUICAMATA bottom. This period must be defined considering the
stability of the crown pillar and the fact that its thickness is
The planned transition from a large scale and deep open reducing due to the ore draw from the underground mine,
pit to underground cave mining at Chuquicamata is as illustrated in Figure 13. A longer period of simultaneity
expected to face a number of unique geotechnical requires a larger block height. A low block height would
challenges, as illustrated in Figure 10. Given their potential lead to a very short period of simultaneous operation,
impact to the transition project these need to be addressed which could be non practical. Once the period of
dur-ing the early and subsequent design stages of the simultaneity has been established it is pos-sible to define
project. These main geotechnical challenges are: when the underground mining should begin.
1. The presence of the large and deep open pit, which will 5. The presence of the West fault and the shear zone. The
produce zones of stress concentra-tions and zones of low West fault forms an abrupt contact between the ore and
confinement. These in-duced stresses will likely affect the the waste. The waste is a soft, weak and highly fractured
propaga-tion of caving and must therefore be consid-ered rock mass which potentially could become a source of
in evaluating the likelihood of caving propagation through early dilution of the ore if the cavity reaches the West fault
the whole ore column to be cave, as illustrated in Figure before connecting with the pit bottom. Hence, a rib pillar
11. is required between the West fault and the undercut area
2. The level of induced stresses due to the pit depth in as illustrated in Figure 10. If this rib pillar is too thin it could
addition to the height of the block to be caved. When the fail and early dilution may occur. On the other hand, if it is
final pit is reached in 2013 with a depth of 1,100 m, the too wide some high grade ore would not be mined. Figure
undercut level will be located at a depth of around 1,500 14 il-lustrates the rib pillar at Chuquicamata.
m from surface. Therefore, the induced stresses are likely 6. Subsidence. Once the caving connects to the pit bottom the
to be high and induced seismicity will be expected during pit will become a subsidence crater with a zone of influence
under-ground mining, which eventually could gen-erate extending be-yond the pit perimeter. Of course, this condi-tion
rockbursts. Figure 12 illustrates the con-sequences of a will evolve with time, and due to slope failures and the
rockburst phenomenon in a caving operation. Due to this extension of the undercut area this crater will grow. The
a seismic monitoring system is considered an absolute geometry of a subsidence crater at Chuquicamata will be
defined by the crater depth, H, and the angle of break, a,
which is the angle between the edge of the undercut level and
the start of discontinuous deformations (large tension cracks).
The influence zone adjacent to the crater perimeter is defined
in terms of the in-fluence width, dIZ. The a and dIZ terms de-
pend on the rock mass quality and the pres-ence of major
geological structures. The morphology of the subsidence
phenomenon at Chuquicamata is illustrated in Figure 15. The
importance to define the a and dIZ is due to the requirement
to determine the location of the main accesses to the
underground mining and the location of the underground
infrastructure which must be outside of the influence zone. In
addition, it is necessary to know if the subsidence due to the
under-ground mining will affect the current surface
infrastructure related to the open pit opera-tions.
7. Ground water. Due to the presence of ground water in the
slopes of Chuquicamata’s open pit and some rains during
the Bolivian winter (January and February), there is a non
zero probability of inrushes of water or mud into the
Figure 10: Geotechnical challenges associated with a underground mine. These inflows/mud-rushes could be
transition project at Chuquicamata facilitated by the presence of major geological structures

598 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

 Figure 11: Induced stresses affecting the caving propagation

Figure 12: Consequences of rockburst phenomenon in a panel caving operation

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 599

 Figure 13: Diagram illustrating the surface crown pillar developed in a transition
from open pit to underground cave mining

and/or the frac-tures and the cave generated by the the near future a number of large open pit operations which
caving. Water inflows and/or mudrushes can cause include Bingham Canyon and Grasberg will be undergoing
damage to underground mines by caving methods due to similar transition. As a result, the subject of transition was
the sudden inflow of wa-ter/mud from drawpoints, ore included as one of the major research topics in the ICS-II.
passes or other underground openings. Figure 16 This research was focussed on developing guidelines on
illustrates the consequences of a mud rush in a mine by rock mass charac-terization, caving propagation, surface
caving. crown pillar, subsidence and water inflows, all of which are
important geotechnical issues for consider-ation in a
transition project.
5 CONCLUSIONS The outcomes of this research will be used in the
Chuquicamata transition project as part of the overall
The geotechnical challenges associated with the planned Codelco Norte strategy to ensure the suc-cessful transition
transition from open pit to underground cave mining at from open pit to underground cave mining given the
Chuquicamata have been identified at the early stage of the geotechnical challenges identified.
project (scoping study), and Codelco Norte Division is
developing appropriate technical strategies to reduce and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
manage the potential risks associated with the geotechnical
challenges identified. These strat-egies are now being The author acknowledges the Division Codelco Norte for
incorporated into the ongoing engineering studies of the the permission to publish this paper. He wishes to also
transition project. thank the Geotechnical Group of Codelco Norte Division for
Hence, and as an integral part of the overall tran-sition having provided material used in the paper. Special thanks
project at Chuquicamata, a worldwide benchmark study and are given to Professor E T Brown AC and Drs. Antonio
literature review on transi-tion from open pit to underground Karzulovic and Gideon Chitombo for their encouragement
mining by caving was undertaken (Flores et al 2004a). This and technical discus-sions.
was carried out through the International Caving Study
Stage II (ICS-II), managed by the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral REFERENCES
Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia, of which CODELCO
is one of the sponsors. • Arancibia, E and Flores, G, 2004. Design for under-
The benchmark concluded that there is currently neither ground mining at Chuquicamata orebody. Scoping
sufficient experience in transition for deep pits nor available engineering stage. Proceedings MassMin 2004,
design methodologies in spite of the topic’s importance to Santiago, (Ed: A Karzulovic and M Alfaro).
mining in-dustry. The only documented transition involv-ing • de Nicola, R and Fishwick, M, 2000. An under-ground air
a large open pit and underground mining by caving is blast - Codelco Chile - Division Salva-dor. Proceedings
Palabora mine, South Africa (Glazer and Hepworth 2004). In MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 279-288.

600 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

Figure 14: Rib pillar between the caving cavity and the west fault

Figure 15: Subsidence phenomenon

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 601

 Figure 16: Effects of a mud rush in an underground mine
by caving.

Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: RSA. Proceedings MassMin 2004, Santiago, (Ed: A
Melbourne. Karzulovic and M Alfaro).
• Flores, G, Karzulovic, A and Brown, E T, 2004a. Current • Rojas, E, Cavieres, P, Dunlop, R and Gaete, S, 2000.
practices and trends in cave mining. Pro-ceedings Control of induced at El Teniente Mine, Codelco – Chile.
MassMin 2004, Santiago, (Ed: A Karzu-lovic and M Proceedings MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo),
Alfaro). 775-784. Australasian Institute of mining and Metallurgy:
• Flores, G, Karzulovic, A and Brown, E T, 2004b. Melbourne.
Evaluation of the likelihood of cave propagation in mining • Stacey, T R and Terbrugge, P J, 2000. Open pit to
engineering practice. Proceedings MassMin 2004, underground – transition and interaction. Pro-ceedings
Santiago, (Ed: A Karzulovic and M Alfaro). MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chi-tombo), 97-104.
• Flores, G, Karzulovic, A and Gonzalez, G, 2004c. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Geotechnical considerations for the scoping engi-neering Melbourne.
stage of the transition project from open pit to • Torres, R, Araya, E, Córdoba, S y Domínguez, O, 2003.
underground mining at Chuquicamata mine (in Spanish). Geotechnical characterisation for the scop-ing
Technical Report, Codelco Norte Division, Codelco Chile. engineering stage of the transition from open pit to
• Glazer, S and Hepworth, N, 2004. Seismic monitor-ing of underground mining at Chuquicamata mine (in Spanish).
block cave crown pillar – Palabora Mining Company, Technical Report, Codelco Norte Division, Codelco Chile.

602 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004