The full picture of IPCC system implementation; The reason why so many fail

"The history of the mining industry is littered with in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC), which should not be confused with the International Protocol for Carbon Capture, projects that failed. The failure is not the technical one of “did it achieve the desired tonnage rate for a longish test period” but, rather, the far more important one of “did it provide return on the investment in the manner that was promised?” While quite a few can claim the former, very few system installations can claim the latter.The reasons for the many failures are numerous, but they are all characterized by a combination of an element of engineering optimism in any, or all of the production rates, the productivity, or the operating and maintenance costs and in predicting the continuity of operating conditions. In these days of big data, propagating such a situation is rapidly becoming unforgivable.In this article, the three most common scenarios put to the corporate board for approval, and the logic as to why they were selected, are examined (with the irony included intentionally).• Fully mobile crusher, fed by a shovel and conveyed out of the pit to a waste dump / process plant.• Semimobile crusher (much more expensive than a fixed crushing station but which apparently allows trucks to short haul inside the pit and improve productivity), which moves when the face moves.• Relocatable crusher (more expensive than a fixed crushing station but which gets relocated at great expense after all the fixed infrastructure impeding relocation is demolished) fed by trucks that don’t leave the pit mostly.This paper will also consider the truth about their operational performance and associate costs."