Search Documents

By J Coombes

"In today’s challenging climate of reduced staffing, limited funding and uncertain markets, we are called on to operate more productively and ‘be more innovative’. As an industry, we are quick to identify our practice areas as a mark of our role in the machinery of the mine value chain. We proudly note our profession – ‘geologist’, ‘mining engineer’ or ‘accountant’ – and demarcate our responsibilities and even our physical space. We even subdivide our disciplines into sacred entities such as ‘logging geologist’, ‘resource geologist’ or ‘structural geologist’ to prevent any blurring as though somehow the confusion will cost valuable disciplinary ground. How can we function professionally to heed the call to be more productive and more innovative?The purpose of this paper is to underscore what is expected from project evaluation, examine the ways in which we work as an industry and explore alternatives used in other industries and environments.The paper begins with a summary of project evaluation expectations and the ways in which disciplines typically interconnect when conducting project evaluations. Next, the paper examines alternative work frameworks and making a distinction between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary frameworks. In-practice examples of these frameworks in alternative industries and contexts provide evidence for application as well as an opportunity to examine their pros and cons.The paper closes with a call to re-examine working practices in the mining industry, with a view to enhancing productivity and heeding the call for greater innovation.CITATION:Coombes, J, 2016. Transcending the mining discipline divide – multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 2–10 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By R Knight

"In project evaluation there are two matters of keen interest to non-executive directors: the process by which an investment recommendation is reached, as well as the investment itself, as presented. It is sometimes mistakenly believed that Boards of directors are interested only in the result. That is not so. The process by which project evaluations are derived and socialised with the Board is as important as the result, sometimes more so.Setting aside the gloomy predictions of the doomsayers and looking through short-term volatility in supply and demand, the overall availability of mineral resources more often than not exceeds demand. There are in reality more development projects in prospect at any one time than are needed to meet the market. Only the fittest will prosper, although some others may survive.Optimism springs eternal in the mining industry and every project promoter, executive or entrepreneur has a convincing project development case. Some will create value for shareholders, but the historical evidence suggests that many will fail to meet the expectations set in their evaluation.Boards of directors make the final decision to invest, or not, in a new mine. Knowledge is power, and on that basis the balance of power favours management. Management has the facts (or in some cases, what passes for fact) and the passion to invest. The non-executives have the power of approval – yes or no – but before making a decision directors must demonstrate due diligence, the essential precursor to project approval.Management has a vital part to play in facilitating that due diligence process and in encouraging the independent thought processes of the Board. A closed approach by management fosters a negative, risk-averse attitude on the part of the Board. One that encourages an understanding of the rigour of the project evaluation process and the robustness of the result will allow directors to understand better the implications of their decision.CITATION:Knight, R, 2016. Project evaluation – a non-executive director’s perspective, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 11–19 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By L I. Rozman

"There have always been development projects that fall short of expectations. In the last decade, we have seen more than the usual number of mining and oil/gas development projects taking significantly longer to develop and costing materially more than expected. The recent resource-equity market slump proves that investors are now far more cautious about investing new capital in the mineral and petroleum resources sector.What have we learned since 2005? Why have projects missed their targets? Why do investors often feel misled?Valuation of a project and the estimation of value is a more complex process than the evaluation of the merits of project development. The merit of project development can be clear from a prefeasibility evaluation, but this is no reason to skip the rigour of a feasibility study. The valuation of any project that is developed with any added risk should be discounted for this added risk.The development of a project impacts on other stakeholders, and the indirect cost of these impacts can have material implications for the cost structure, time and ultimate valuation of the project for its financial backers. The development of new projects (and thereby supply) can also have an impact on commodity prices, and therefore an impact on returns for financial backers.This paper will provide commentary on the author’s experiences and observations as a project developer and operator for 25 years, before becoming a project financier a decade ago.CITATION:Rozman, L I, 2016. Project evaluation and valuation – an investor’s golden rule, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 31–36 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By J Evans-Wheeler

"The mandate of the 2005 VALMIN Code to provide ‘(all) reliable, thorough, understandable material information required by investors and their advisers when making investment decisions’ requires that due diligence for tenure be full and thorough. Yet a published due diligence would often appear to be simply a list of tenures allegedly held without any commitment as to the standing of the tenure as safe and secure or otherwise.The value of due diligence for tenure, as mandated in the 2012 JORC Code and the 2005 VALMIN Code, must focus on compliance rather than simply on ‘vital statistics’. Enforcement in every jurisdiction in Australia focuses on penalties (some more harsh than others) for non-compliance, which, in turn and most importantly, reflects directly on security of tenure. Some 22 Acts (on average) impinge on security of tenure and fundamentally underpin the security of any mineral asset.This paper will outline regulatory processes to demonstrate how tenure compliance is achieved and argue that the rigorous application of good practices in tenure evaluation will lead to more of this information being made available on a regular basis.The paper will then focus on further practical examples of tenure compliance failures, the application of these to the requirements of the JORC and VALMIN Codes and due diligence that failed to fulfil the mandate. Examples will be given that alerted other professionals using the JORC Code to complex geological and mining situations of which they were unaware in their valuations.Finally, the author will make a personal plea for tenure to be considered at the commencement of any reporting process.CITATION:Evans-Wheeler, J, 2016. The VALMIN code and tenure compliance – not just a list, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 112–121 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

"Recognising that the mining industry is wedded to the break-even cut-off grade rather than a cut-off grade that optimises value, the author examines some perils and pitfalls in the use of break-even grades that lead to what the author calls ‘negatively geared ore reserves’.Negatively geared ore reserves occur when a portion of the ore reserves actually has a negative value and is effectively being subsidised by the more profitable portion of the ore reserves. This situation is generally difficult to detect with the level of information available to the public investor. The ore reserves can still be quite profitable in total, but now possess a level of risk that may not be appreciated.The risk profile (financial risk) of a negatively geared ore reserve is far greater than for a non-negatively geared ore reserve. Like a negatively geared investment property in a falling property market (for readers familiar with the Australian tax minimisation investment strategy), when the price of a commodity falls, a company that possesses a negatively geared ore reserve loses value at a magnified rate relative to a company that has a neutral or positively geared ore reserve. In the extreme case of a major commodity price reduction, as happened with the gold price in mid-2013, the negatively geared ore reserve can easily become negative value in total, not just in part.The negatively geared ore reserve is sometimes intentional – for instance in order to increase published ore reserve tonnages and meet the CEO’s key performance indicators – but is also often unintentional, resulting from various errors in the break-even calculation. Common errors in calculating a break-even grade include using fixed metallurgical recoveries, not including allowances for ideal laboratory versus real plant results, ignoring available operational data and using modal rather than mean parameter values in cost and performance calculations.This paper examines a common value distribution profile in many ore reserves and the effect of common break-even grade errors on this profile.CITATION:Poniewierski, J, 2016. Negatively geared ore reserves – a major peril of the break-even cut-off grade, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 236–247 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By E C. Holloway

"The financial valuation of mining assets has a number of fundamental differences to the valuation of many other asset groupings. One such difference is that typically, the greater proportion of both the cost and revenue sides of the cash flow are inherently governed by systemic market forces.As a result, the range of outcomes for the valuation of each mining asset is more unpredictable, with higher levels of risk and uncertainty. In contrast, the management function of many other non-mining businesses or industry groups can control at least a portion of the cash flow by maintaining the margin or controlling the sales price. The management teams of mining businesses and operations typically have limited options, and are thus price-takers for both costs and revenues. As mining is an inherently cyclical industry, large, long-life operations can exist through several price cycles, making valuation both subjective and challenging.The outcomes of both static- and stochastic-based valuations, as well as the internal probabilities of the associated cash flow statements, are significantly impacted when the correlations between the appropriate parameters are quantified, modelled and incorporated into the valuation framework. The appropriate parameters for correlation modelling primarily include those that are governed by systemic market forces. Applying this process results in a different risk profile for the asset by allowing the risks resulting from systemic market movements to be more accurately quantified and then objectively minimised. This process also reduces the level of residual uncertainty in the valuation outcome.This paper presents a valuation methodology to pragmatically incorporate this level of valuation sophistication and statistically quantify the associated increase in the level of confidence of the valuation outcomes reported.CITATION:Holloway, E C, 2016. Correlated valuation methodology, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 181–200 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By S G. Gemell

"The financial model is an integral component of any project evaluation based on mineral resources, ore reserves and (at least internally) exploration targets. Given the unity of purpose for preparing financial models for project evaluation purposes, the diversity of both format and content of the finalised models is surprising. Many models are prepared by staff or consultants who are comfortable with a particular format that may be used for other purposes, such as budget preparation or financial reporting. It is natural in these situations that the practitioner will take these models and adapt them to the purpose. The end result may or may not succeed in providing a clear, accurate and sufficiently detailed view of the project’s economic viability.When preparing a model, the practitioner should be cognisant of the interpretation and review, or audit, process. The auditor may be a consultant or employee of a bank, potential equity provider or of the project sponsor itself. Depending upon the scale of the project and the level of participation of the entity that the auditor represents, the financial model will be interrogated more or less rigorously. In any event, the end user will require the model to permit easy change of inputs and will wish to confirm that such change is appropriately and thoroughly transmitted throughout.Accordingly, there are some ‘dos and don’ts’ that can be readily applied in the creation of the financial model that will greatly assist the end user, not just in the change of inputs, but also in reviewing the model’s integrity. The less time and effort required by an auditor in this regard is reflected directly in the cost of the review process.CITATION:Gemell, S G, 2016. Financial modelling with the auditor in mind, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 172–180 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By D Hunter, N Cusworth, J Miller

"Recent project failures have called into question the use and relevance of benchmarking and independent reviews, forcing a rethink of traditional processes and procedures.With cost estimates and schedules dramatically varying from lows seen around the global financial crisis to peaks experienced in the recent mining boom, benchmarking has ranged between essential and misleading.Profound shifts are now underway in future project delivery strategies as the market moves away from cost-plus engineering, procurement and construction management. The current trends in project implementation are to utilise more lump-sum design and construct or fixed-price supply and construct contracts. This trend will remove transparency in detailed cost information by reducing the sources and clarity of cost data.Independent peer reviews (IPRs) of studies and investment recommendations performed over the last decade have both failed to prevent flawed or deficient projects from proceeding to approval and funding, and been successful in ensuring that owners did not proceed with doomed investments.In recent times, it has been recognised by some owners, contractors and engineers that traditional benchmarking checks or IPRs, or a combination of both, will not necessarily produce reliable assessments of study conclusions and of the forecasts of project outcomes. To be of value, the benchmarking process now also needs to recognise the highly volatile responses from the engineering and construction industry to the current and future markets for their services.Similarly, reviewers who draw upon benchmarks of past project experiences on an understanding of the things that shaped and influenced their outcomes need to be more aware of how a future dynamic market may impact the outcome of the projects and raise warning flags accordingly.With the commodity cycle currently approaching what is hoped is its bottom, ensuring that benchmarking and independent reviews evolve into reliable, transparent and worthwhile processes becomes even more important. This can only be achieved with more transparent and analytical benchmarking and business-orientated reviews that both recognise and calculate the impacts of dynamic markets on project implementation.CITATION:Cusworth, N, Hunter, D and Miller, J, 2016. The role of benchmarking and independent reviews, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 249–259 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By R Jacobs

"The Jaguar project is relatively unique in that it was evaluated, financed, built and operated to completion within the last ten years, providing the opportunity to holistically review and reconcile expectations against the actual outcomes. It is a case study that allows wider conclusions to be drawn with respect to the risks and opportunities involved with project evaluation and execution.Jaguar is located in the Leonora Mining District of Western Australia and was commissioned in mid-2007 as an underground accessed, single high-grade volcanic-hosted massive sulfide (VHMS) deposit with an on-site concentrator, producing copper and zinc concentrates exported via the Port of Geraldton to South-East Asian markets.The feasibility study (FS) had several iterations (JML, 2005a); the last dated July 2005 was specifically targeted to secure project funding, and summarised the reserves-only portion of the resource and its planned exploitation. The commissioning of the mine was the transition for the owner Jabiru Metals NL from junior explorer to producer and the project was the dominant asset of the company.Jaguar operated through several significant deviations from the linear project plan set out in the FS, including the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), a corporate takeover and disruption to the mine plan from the onset of material geotechnical issues. Whilst the GFC or mining disruption were not specifically predicted in the FS or peer reviews, the generic effects of the events were assessed in the project risk assessment and they influenced subsequent management decisions. In parallel to the internal project-specific risks, the short planned life of Jaguar was a risk to the continuation of the corporate entity which was being addressed by significant investment into brownfields exploration to extend or replicate the project, and ultimately added value such that attracted a corporate takeover.Holistically, the project delivered the returns predicted in the FS, but in a much different guise than was expected. This paper will describe the reality of operations compared with the study predictions and expectations through the perspective of the project and corporate risk assessment.CITATION:Jacobs, R, 2016. Jaguar base metals project case study – has reality reflected the study?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 86–97 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By J A. Wells, K G. Thomas, R F. Dewhirst

"One of the contributing factors to the extreme cost escalation in the first decade of the 21st century was the increase in the amount and cost of engineering work that went into studies and projects. Various reasons for this were identified, including unsatisfactory productivity due to a shortage of experienced/qualified engineers, the increased complexity and infrastructure requirements of many projects due to location, metallurgy that is more challenging and increasing environmental and social requirements. These conditions often led to unsatisfactory project results in terms of cost and schedule blowouts and created a loss of confidence – both internally and externally – in the industry’s ability to complete projects on time and on budget.Technical fundamentals aside, the experience and effectiveness of project teams has had, and continues to have, a major impact on project cost, schedule and ramp-up to nameplate capacity and operating parameters. There are unfortunately too many examples of where project teams have not been as effective as they could or should have been, all to the ultimate detriment of the project.Using the authors’ extensive experience on both owner’s and engineer’s teams, this paper discusses some of the main reasons for suboptimal team, and hence project, performance and offers thoughts on how best to build and maintain project teams. The analysis and conclusions drawn are built around the Tuckman model of group development known as ‘forming-storming-norming-performing’, which was first proposed some 50 years ago. Given the importance of good teamwork to project success, understanding how project teams grow and become efficient and productive is an essential part of good project management that should receive more attention.CITATION:Dewhirst, R F, Thomas, K G and Wells, J A, 2016. Building and maintaining effective project teams, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 38–48 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P B. Card

"The website www.economicevaluation.com.au, which had its origins at the Project Evaluation Conference 2009, provides a free way for industry professionals to teach themselves economic evaluation. At its core is a set of fast-moving modules and three worked examples.The website recognises that economic evaluation is a discipline with a hierarchy of three levels:decision-makingevaluating the project/businesshands-on modelling.There are a set of modules for each level that describe the concepts and activities in detail. These emphasise that the most important and rewarding work is the evaluation of Level 2. The economic model created in Level 3 is merely a working tool and should not become a sophisticated ‘trophy’ in Excel that only one or two people can comfortably use.Hands-on modelling contains three sets of practices designed to make any model rigorous and intuitive so that it can be easily understood and used by others in the project team. Even if the model develops into a long, detailed and complex workbook, it should remain easy to follow and be intuitive. The website advocates freedom to devise any architecture that best suits the project under study, but promotes rigour through the following practices:four cash streams and graphsthree architectures – concept, prefeasibility and feasibilitysix principles.The modules in the Level 2 evaluation use conversational language to describe in detail the broad range of activities needed to properly understand and characterise a project/business. It stresses that net present value is nothing more than the mathematical treatment of a whole set of opinions, is not an absolute truth and is only a fraction of the evaluation process. The modules describe in detail the range of economic metrics that should be computed and the full spectrum of equally important characterisations required to make the decision in Level 3.CITATION:Card, P B, 2016. Teach yourself economic evaluation, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 160–171 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By S Love, M Anderson, M Boland

"The high rate of failure of new mine developments to meet feasibility study expectations has been the subject of many fine technical papers. Yet failure rates remain stubbornly high.Similarly, the common occurrence of disastrous acquisitions resulting from failed due diligence on projects is well known. Yet such mistakes continue to be made.The authors argue that project and due diligence failure are caused at least partly by cognitive biases. These biases pervade decision-making throughout project evaluations.A wider understanding of these biases (and their effects) is necessary. Only then can mitigating actions be taken.The opportunity for this wider understanding exists. A number of best-selling books have been published on the topic in recent years. With wider understanding of key concepts and terms, cognitive biases can be recognised and discussed. They can also be challenged and mitigated.The authors believe that these concepts should be entry-level, required knowledge for anyone evaluating, developing, reviewing or financing mining projects.Perhaps the most prevalent biases in project evaluation failure are the ‘over-optimism’ biases. In particular, the planning fallacy and confirmation bias.The anchoring effect is also pervasive. This bias propagates unrealistic assumptions from scoping and prefeasibility studies through to so-called definitive feasibility studies. Unrecognised anchoring biases also undermine the validity of many ‘independent’ due diligence reviews. They are also prevalent in corporate acquisitions.The availability heuristic refers to a mental shortcut that can lead to a number of biases. One of these is the narrative fallacy. The mind constructs coherent narratives and opinions, regardless of the amount and quality of the information that support them. Narrative fallacy commonly occurs in the evaluation of social and political risk. Another is disaster neglect, which is especially common in the failure to assess risks associated with tailings management.This paper outlines the relevance of these biases to mine project evaluations. It also provides examples where the authors have observed their effects.CITATION:Love, S, Boland, M and Anderson, M, 2016. Influence of cognitive biases on project evaluation, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 226–235 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

"Cash flow modelling during project evaluation is enhanced when probabilistic methods are applied to the inputs. One of the important inputs is the quarterly production profile. Typically, the steady-state production profile provided to project evaluation practitioners is deterministic, with each quarter the same as every other quarter. This is unrealistic as actual production profiles from existing mines exhibit a range or quarter-on-quarter variance. Monte Carlo stochastic simulation of the production profile can be used to provide a range of possible outcomes, but how are these ranges selected? This paper describes the use of quarterly production variance from a large database of mines worldwide as a benchmark to inform the appropriate selection of ranges. The coefficient of variation is used to rank the production from mines, with quartile analysis applied to indicate industry best, median and worst variation. Due diligence of existing mines and evaluation of future production performance can be quantitatively assessed using this approach. Examples of the effect on value are provided.CITATION:Stewart, C A, 2016. Production variance benchmarks and their use in project evaluation and due diligence, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 201–213 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By R Jacobs, J Yeates

"The Stockman base metals project is situated in State Forest in the alpine area of East Gippsland, Victoria, adjacent to a National Park and within the headwaters of a major Ramsar-listed wetland catchment and the Murray-Darling River system. Site topography is steep, and elevated (650 m – 1200 m above sea level), and subject to circa 1 m annual rainfall, with occasional winter snowfall. The project consists of two volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits to be mined by underground methods and treated in a 1.0 Mt/a central concentrator to produce copper and zinc concentrates for export over a ten year operational life. New resource projects are rare in Victoria. Recognising the sensitive setting, planning for the Stockman Project, which is now in the advanced permitting stage, has focused on balancing economic, environmental and social outcomes to ensure social licence to operate is secured and can be maintained. This has involved close attention to triple bottom line (TBL) risks and outcomes. Stockman has successfully gained State and Federal approvals via the Environmental Effects Statement process. The process of obtaining these approvals has required close attention to effective stakeholder involvement, and management of a lengthy and difficult approvals process, which is still to be finally concluded. This paper is a case study of the process of that permitting and the issues encountered to date. Key learnings from the experience have included: successful approvals require close attention to much more than just the project and its technical aspects and physical setting – effective stakeholder involvement and endorsement is critical the differing consultation requirements for local, regional and government stakeholders, to design and plan implementation of a project to meet TBL objectives, and to gain social licence to operate within the Victorian approvals process, the need for an effective lead government agency with policy authority dealing with material policy change requiring post-closure financial sureties estimating realistic permitting time and cost during the project evaluation phase. CITATION: Jacobs, R and Yeates, J, 2016. Stockman base metals project – sustainability, social licence to operate and permitting lessons learnt, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 98–110 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By Jorge Sandoval

El presente texto señala un modelo conceptual genérico, cuyo uso de plataformas informáticas permite revisar la validación de la data, previa a la emisión del KPIs, de forma que genera rigurisidad y representatividad para el análisis. En ese sentido, el modelo se basa en la integración de las plataformas, reduciendo los tiempos de procesamiento de la data y eliminando sesgos por la manipulación de la misma. Asimismo, homologa y standariza los árboles de equipos, modos de falla, entre otros aspectos.

Mar 1, 2016

By Walter Valery

Dado que el mercado de metales se hace cada vez más competitivo, se busca implementar nuevas tecnologías y metodologías más eficientes que aseguren la rentabilidad de la operación minera largo plazo. En ese sentido, el presente texto describe el procedimiento para iniciar e implementar el programa Metso Process Technology & Innovation (PTI) como parte de la metalurgia. Para ello, se describen los datos requeridos y la forma cómo deben ser evaluados e incorporados a los modelos GeoMetso. Así el programa surge como una alternativa costo-efectiva para ejecutar modelos geometalúrgicos de mayor precisión, de forma que se optimizen los resultados para las operaciones a lo largo del periodo de vida de la mina.

Mar 1, 2016

By José Beltrán

El monitoreo de condiciones es una herramienta importante en las operaciones mineras -en tanto asegura una buena salud de los equipos de producción. En ese sentido, el presente texto muestra los resultados de un equipo evaluador que opera el sistema de condiciones MineCare y valida distintos casos de análisis reales y cotidianos, verificando las ventajas de utilizar esta herramienta en ejemplos reales para las mejores prácticas operacionales dentro de la operación extractiva minera.

Mar 1, 2016

By Fernando Saavedra

En la concentradora y planta Molito, perteneciente a la minera Codelco, la infraestructura de control para la producción es soportada por la plataforma Contrologix y las redes de comunicaciones ControlNet y EtherNet/IP. Sin embargo, las redes de control y saneamiento son exigidas por los aumentos de producción, generando un aumento en los volúmenes de información de control en los equipos de operación y mantención. Por ello, se requiere analizar la necesidad de mejorar la disponibilidad, confiabilidad y robustez de las redes existentes en las diferentes áreas de la minera. En ese sentido, el presente texto señala el proyecto de la mina Codelco Chuquicamata que consiste en evaluar, diagnosticar y optimizar las condiciones de las redes ControlNet y EtherNet/IP que existen en diferentes áreas de la mina, a fin de fortalecer las redes mencionadas y así optimizar la comunicaciones de las mismas.

Mar 1, 2016

By Luis Maldonado Zorrilla

El consorcio minero Horizontes (La Libertad, Perú) contiene un yacimiento de rocas intrusivas fragmentadas y alteradas por acción tectónica, que son dífíciles de controlar ante las fuertes convergencias que dañan las labores. Por tal motivo, el sostenimiento de roca de la mina es un procedimiento difícil, lento y complejo que dificulta el trabajo de exploración y explotación del sub-suelo. En ese sentido, el presente trabajo señala una nueva técnica de reforzamiento del sostenimiento de labores principales y zonas de intersección donde se tienen problemas de inestabilidad y riesgo para el personal y equipos a través de inyecciones a presión de un líquido o suspensión (resinas) en las labores subterráneas muy inestables para rellenar los vacíos o discontinuidades del macizo rocoso como las fallas geológicas, diaclasas, juntas, contactos y oquedades.

Feb 1, 2016

By J. Gutiérrez

"La conciliacíón minera es la comparación entre un ítem estimado (un modelo de recursos, de reservas, programa de producción de concentrados, etc.) y un ítem medido o procesado (mineral in situ, mineral extraído, concentrados producidos, etc.). Antes de entrar de lleno al proceso de conciliación es necesario mostrar las definiciones utilizadas en Fortuna Silver Mines. En ese sentido, el presente texto señala los logros más importantes dentro de la implementación de un proceso corporativo de conciliación en dos operaciones subterráneas del Perú y México. En el primero, tenemos el yacimiento polimetálico y en el segundo; el yacimiento de alta ley en plata y oro. De otro lado, se plantea evaluar los problemas más comunes de datos de entrada, salida e índices dentro de la conciliación. "

Feb 1, 2016