For decades, persistent failure has marred the delivery of capital investment projects in the resource development sector. Regrettably even though the causes are well known, companies have been slow to respond with effective control strategies. As the scale and complexity of projects has increased so too has the magnitude of shareholder value destruction. It seems that when the biggest projects fail, they fail spectacularly. Performance statistics going back several decades demonstrate that mining projects of all sizes and complexity mostly fail to achieve objectives. For a time, the commodities super cycle, which peaked in 2011, concealed poor capital expenditure discipline. High sales prices cover many sins, but recent price turbulence has exposed companies to a legacy of record impairments and over-priced and under-performing assets unprecedented in the modern era. This has led to a renewed focus on reducing or eliminating capital expenditure. Companies spending on capital developments have an opportunity to apply new levels of discipline to both the allocation and delivery of capital in an environment of stagnating labour costs and increasing competitiveness. Contracting approaches that provide greater opportunities for cost certainty or gross cost reduction are now more readily available as contractors are prepared to accept greater levels of cost and schedule risk to secure work. Mining companies must also improve in-house project management capability, especially in risk management and performance control. Teams of proven performers should be equipped with sound management processes and tools to capture the value of the opportunity at the front-end of the project delivery cycle and maintain that value through to completion. We conclude with an overview of our proprietary capital delivery process and management system to demonstrate a methodology that reduces risks in a project portfolio and greatly increases the likelihood of achieving predictable project outcomes.

1. Delivering Predictable Project Outcomes
Jamie Morien1
1
Lead Project Delivery Consultant, GRS Consultants, E-mail: jamie.morien@grsconsultants.com (Corresponding author);
This article draws upon intellectual property and concepts developed by GRS Consultants Principal David Bollands and
employees in the creation and marketing of the proprietary GRS Project Management System discussed herein. The author
thanks David Bollands, Daniel Cahalarn and David Kast for additional editorial comments and suggestions.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: For decades, persistent failure has marred the delivery of capital investment projects in the resource development
sector. Regrettably even though the causes are well known, companies have been slow to respond with effective control
strategies. As the scale and complexity of projects has increased so too has the magnitude of shareholder value destruction.
It seems that when the biggest projects fail, they fail spectacularly. Performance statistics going back several decades
demonstrate that mining projects of all sizes and complexity mostly fail to achieve objectives. For a time, the commodities
super cycle, which peaked in 2011, concealed poor capital expenditure discipline. High sales prices cover many sins, but
recent price turbulence has exposed companies to a legacy of record impairments and over-priced and under-performing
assets unprecedented in the modern era. This has led to a renewed focus on reducing or eliminating capital expenditure.
Companies spending on capital developments have an opportunity to apply new levels of discipline to both the allocation
and delivery of capital in an environment of stagnating labour costs and increasing competitiveness. Contracting
approaches that provide greater opportunities for cost certainty or gross cost reduction are now more readily available as
contractors are prepared to accept greater levels of cost and schedule risk to secure work. Mining companies must also
improve in-house project management capability, especially in risk management and performance control. Teams of proven
performers should be equipped with sound management processes and tools to capture the value of the opportunity at the
front-end of the project delivery cycle and maintain that value through to completion. We conclude with an overview of
our proprietary capital delivery process and management system to demonstrate a methodology that reduces risks in a
project portfolio and greatly increases the likelihood of achieving predictable project outcomes.
Keywords: Predictable project outcomes, mining project management system, project management framework, project
failure, project success, risk management, front-end loading, project controls, procedures, processes
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Mining Projects are Risky
Creation of a mine, process plant and infrastructure (the
mining project facilities as shown in Figure 1) is an
exceptionally risky business endeavour. The Mining Life
Cycle 1
begins with a search for a mineral deposit
(exploration), and in the unlikely event of success the
deposit is classified into mineral resources and reserves.2
The greatest uncertainty lies in this early phase and
problems relating to the resource and reserve estimate is the
most likely technical problem to account for failure of
mining projects’. 3
Following a successful exploration program, a planning
phase and feasibility assessment will ensue, culminating in
a Detailed Feasibility Study. The feasibility assessment is
phased using a stage-gate process to eliminate and limit
expenditure on projects that will fail to achieve the Owner’s
goals. Definition of key scope details and the plan and
process for project delivery are the greatest determinants of
the eventual success of the project. Some 70% of eventual
project cost is tied up with the process design locked in at
the start of Detailed Feasibility. 4
Specific processes are
implemented to reduce uncertainty to a level that matches
the Owner’s appetite for risk. Once in execution, the control
strategies developed during feasibility allow strategic
management of risks that may emerge. Failure to follow a
proven, disciplined and rigorous project delivery process
greatly increases the possibility of project failure.
Figure 1 Representative Mining Project Facilities

2. 2
2. What is Project Failure?
Project failure is not meeting objectives (within specified
limits) of the sanctioned business case, typically defined in
a feasibility study, with respect to the following criteria:
• Failure to meet objectives with respect to Health,
Safety, Environment and Community;
• Not completed and ramped-up on schedule;
• Not delivered within budget;
• Does not achieve sustained plant performance; and
• Does not deliver the expected business value and
return on investment (including such issues as
recovered grade and sales revenue).
3. Statistics on Failure
Net Present Value (NPV) measured at project completion
provides the best composite indicator of performance.
Issues beyond the control of the project team such as sales
revenue are excluded, whilst cost-schedule trade-offs
conducted during the project are included in the calculation.
It has been estimated that only about 10 - 20% of all mining
projects produce the return on investment and NPV
projected in their respective feasibility studies.5
Numerous studies demonstrate that capital costs
consistently eclipse budget projections on average by 29%
(Table 1)6
, and, over time performance has apparently been
getting worse. One assessment of the status of all mining
projects publicly reported between October 2010 and
March 2011 showed an average overrun of 71%.7
As the size and complexity of projects increases, so
increases the quantity and magnitude of risks. Across all
industries, around 65% of so-called mega-projects
fail.8
Catastrophic failures of mining and metals mega-
projects in the last few years include a $10 billion near
write-off of a venture to make steel slabs in Brazil9
, a $4
billion write down in Brazil on an iron ore mine,10
and the
indefinite suspension of a major gold and silver mine
estimated to eventually cost 300% of the originally
sanctioned budget.11
Table 1. Mineral development project capital overruns
Period
Surveyed
Authors
No.
Projects
Avg.
Over-run
1965 – 1981 Castle12
18 33%
< 1980 Merrow13
44 27%
< 1996 Bennet14
16 27%
1987 - 1997 Gypton & Ward15
37 31%
1980 - 2002 Gypton16
60 22%
1980 - 2001 Bertisen & Davis17
63 25%
2010 – 2011 Mitchell18
>18 71%
Average ~256 29%
4. Attributes of Successful Projects
We deem the following to be the key attributes of a
successful project management process applied to major
mining projects.
• A rigorous project management process and
management system;
• Sound planning and risk management;
• Implementation in accordance with the business
process and project plan;
• Comprehensive scoping and estimating;
• Robust instruments of control: contracts; schedules;
budgets;
• Reliable, timely, informative and accurate control
reporting;
• Continuous review, revision and improvement;
• An ‘ego-free’ environment for harmonious working;
and
• A ‘no secrets, no surprises’ approach to all activities.
Ignoring any of these key attributes will prevent
creation of, or contribute to, breakdown of the control
environment. Establishment of an effective control
environment is one of the most fundamental yet neglected
requirements of mining project management.
Space does not permit us to provide comprehensive
descriptions of each of the above attributes in this article.
Here we focus on the first prerequisite for a successful
project: the implementation of a rigorous project
management process and management system.
Of course there are other practices attributed to the
achievement of consistent and predictable project
outcomes. The National Research Council found 92 such
characteristics of successful mega-projects.19
All of these
characteristics and the above attributes are embedded into
the Principles and Rules that dictate our project
management process and system. This ensures successful
project management principles are implicit in the very
processes applied by the project team in the implementation
of the project.
5. Project Management Process
The project management process, depicted in figure 2, is a
structured framework of activities intended to enable the
identification, definition and development of a mine and
process plant that meets the cost, time and quality
objectives of the enterprise. The project management
process begins with the framing of the project opportunity,
and finishes with the close-out of the project.
A process-based approach ensures objectives,
expectations, roles and responsibilities, metrics, key
activities, inputs, resources, outputs, deliverables and
products are clearly defined for the entire process. It further
assures that projects are sufficiently scoped, planned and
estimated so that an accurate and functional control baseline
can be established and used to control the project.
6. Project Management System
The Project Management System (PMS) is a business
process solution built around the project management
process. It includes all the standards, processes, procedures,
guidelines, templates, tools and applications to apply the
corporate policy for delivery of capital.

3. Project (Study) Management
Feasibility Studies
Project
(Study)
Initiation
Risk
Management
Scope
Definition
Cost
Estimating
JFC Process
(Scoping Study)
Planning/
Scheduling
All studies
complete?
Scope
Verification
No
Project Management
Project
Initiation
Risk
Management
Scope
Finalisation
Cost
Estimating
Planning/
Scheduling
Procurement
& Contracts
Yes
Design (PFS/DFS only)
Detailed
Design
Construction
Commiss-
ioning
Close-out
JFC Process
(PFS/DFS)
Project (Study) Controls
JFC Process
(Project Execution)
Verify Study
Documentation
Project Controls
Risk Management
Opportunity
Framing
Procurement
(Major Supplier
Enquiries)
Figure 2 Project Management Process (Major Projects)
3
7. Scope of the Project Management System
The PMS, depicted in figure 3, encompasses the entire
project delivery life cycle and is organised around the
following groupings:
• Capital Projects Policy
• PMS Business Process
Overview
• Principles and Rules;
• Opportunity
Development;
• Program Management;
• Project Management;
• Project Initiation;
• Quality and Risk;
• Support Services;
• Project Controls;
• Engineering;
• Procurement;
• Contracting;
• Construction;
• Commissioning; and
• Project Closeout.
In all, there are more than 250 separate tools integrated in
the system.
8. System Architecture
Our system architecture utilises a proprietary three-tier
hierarchy which places at the highest level a policy
document that defines the vision, mission and objectives for
each management area. The second tier enshrines the
Principles and Rules at the heart of the management system
which distil best practice into a succinct handbook for, in
this instance, capital projects. Tier 3 system components
include all the standards, processes, procedures, guidelines,
templates, tools and applications.
This three-tier system architecture is replicated across
all management areas e.g. Operations Management,
Information Technology, Risk and Assurance etc. and is not
exclusive to project management. The architecture supports
a simple, yet powerful solution to the communication
challenge faced by all companies that wish to direct both
their employees and service providers in how the company
wishes to conduct itself in business. The Principles and
Rules for capital projects engender generally accepted best
practice and, as such, present nothing onerous to a good
contractor.
Figure 3 Project Management System in Context of Mine MOS

4. 4
9. Opportunity Development
Before an opportunity becomes a project it must be
accepted by the organisation and included in the Capital
Plan. Rigorous opportunity development procedures and
tools optimise the allocation of capital and ensure the
portfolio management process aligns with shareholder
expectations. They ensure rigour around:
• Capturing, documenting and carrying out
preliminary assessments of ideas and
opportunities;
• Gaining endorsement of the idea for inclusion
into a company’s budget and capital plan; and
ultimately
• Creation of a Justification for Capital (JFC) for
approval to advance the opportunity.
10. Feasibility
The feasibility management system ensures a uniform
approach to the planning and implementation of all types of
studies and the production of study deliverables.
Strictly following the process ensures that:
• Due consideration has been made on whether the
project should be investigated further;
• All of the alternatives are investigated before a
particular direction is taken;
• Project viability has been investigated in detail
and confirmed prior to carrying out additional
design and estimating and committing significant
funds; and
• Due processes are followed in determining and
fine-tuning the project scope, timeframes and cost
estimates.
The management system includes procedures for
conducting studies and economic evaluations of the project.
Support tools include checklists that are used to determine
whether the level of definition and therefore accuracy has
been reached to meet the requirements of the study and
capital cost estimate. It also includes a sophisticated
economic modelling tool with instructions.
Owner standards around feasibility study quality are
essential. An Owner must overcome the moral hazard that
arises when using a consultant who may later be engaged
under an EPC or EPCM contract to deliver the project.
11. Initiation, Setup and Project Management
Project management procedures define the roles,
responsibilities and processes to be followed in the overall
management of projects including:
• Establishment of a structure for project
governance, capital expenditure approvals and
authority levels, delegation and limitation of
authority; and
• Project organization requirements and
appointment of project personnel;
Project initiation procedures and templates ensure
disciplined set-up of the following:
• Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities;
• Communication and document distribution
matrices and workflows, meeting and reporting
processes and matrices, project diary;
• Project information management systems;
• Establishment of support services (e.g. Human
Resources, Information Technology etc.) and
other administrative requirements;
• Development of the Project Charter, a project
briefing mechanism, broadly framing project
purpose, scope, timing, quality, cost, and key
project personnel, their acceptance of the charter
and the Project Manager’s acceptance of
responsibility for delivery of the project;
• Project categorization and the consolidation of the
Project Procedures Manual;
• Development of the Project Roadmap, a concise
and powerful communication tool setting out the
game plan for delivery of the project opportunity;
• Development of the Study or Project Execution
Plan (PEP); and
• Scope definition guidelines and tools for
development of the scope of work and scope of
services.
12. Document Management
Project teams must establish a controlled environment for
document management and team collaboration. As the
primary decisions-makers it is crucial for the Owner’s team
to have unfettered access to all project information. This
supports good project governance and reduces uncertainty.
Exclusive reliance on the document management systems
of the contractor invariably results in information
asymmetry and places the Owner in a weak position in the
event of a commercial dispute. Procedures and standards
dictate the management of documents, including
numbering, registration, transmittal, filing, storage and
retention.
13. Program Management
Program management procedures and tools support a
Project Review Process to monitor the status of a project
and its performance against the PMS business process, the
Principles and Rules and a project’s identified objectives
and associated deliverables. Periodic and planned reviews
provide ongoing insight into company-wide project
performance and business process compliance. The system
also defines the requirements and provides templates for
enterprise-wide reporting of project performance.
14. Quality and Risk Management
Project Risk Management is principally used to determine
whether the Project Execution Plan and supporting
management plans adequately address the risks associated
with project specific activities. The risk management
system components include a procedure and support tools
for identification and classification of a project’s overall
risk profile. The tools include a sophisticated risk register
database tool to track mitigation of project risks and the
ongoing risk profile of the project. To judge whether risk
management practices are effective, objective measures of
success are established and both the inherent risk (prior to
controls) and the residual risk (subsequent to the application

5. 5
of controls) are measured on an ongoing basis so that the
team can know the control mechanism is working.
The project quality process is a fundamental element of the
project risk management process. The quality management
procedure covers the processes associated with defining the
business processes that will govern the conduct of work on
the project (preparing a Project Quality Plan), the method
of checking compliance with the business process and
triggering remedial action if necessary (project quality
auditing) and confirming the technical adequacy of the
basic parameters, the methodology and the product (project
technical reviews).
15. Project Controls
Effective decision making relies on accurate and timely
project controls information. The project controls system
must provide accurate measurement and forecasts of cost,
resources, progress and productivity at an appropriate level
of detail to deliver the necessary intelligence for decision
makers to make project critical decisions in a proactive
environment rather than a reactive environment where
potential deviations occur.
It is essential that the Owner sets minimum requirements
for project controls. The management system provides
standards, guidelines, procedures and tools to support the
following:
• Development of the Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) and Code of Accounts;
• Cost control procedures including budget
management, change control, commitments and
payment procedures;
• Planning and scheduling standards;
• Project progress and performance management
• Preparation and review of estimates;
• Estimating standards and guidelines; and
• Reporting requirements.
16. Engineering
Engineering management system tools ensure a uniform
and appropriately reviewed design of the project plant and
processes to the company’s technical standards.
17. Procurement
The procurement procedures, templates and tools ensure a
uniform and controlled approach to project procurement
activities, including the processes, responsibilities and
methods to be followed for the planning, bidding,
management, expediting, inspection and receipt of goods
for the project.
18. Contracting
Contract management procedures and tools support the
execution of the contracts function for a project. They apply
to the Owner’s team managing an EPCM, EPC or other
form of contract and set the standard for contractors
executing projects on the Owner’s behalf.
The system includes:
• Pre-contract tools for development of the contract
plan, identification and pre-qualification of
potential contractors, quotation and tendering
processes, tender receipt and opening through to
the tabulation, and equalization of tenders,
selection and justification of a tender submission;
• All templates and boilerplates for tendering,
contracts, administration guides and audit tools
required to manage all types of contracts
including EPC, EPCM, construction and
consultancy agreements;
• Contract administration processes encompassing
the mobilization of the contractor and ‘kick-off’,
the governance processes including issues around
insurance, performance guarantees, monitoring
and review of the contractor’s performance,
establishing contract files and keeping and
maintaining proper records, payment processes,
claims management and change management.
• Contract close-out procedures ensuring all
administration is complete, all inspections have
been conducted, all matters resolved, all
certificates have been issued and all claims and
disputes settled.
19. Construction
The procedures and tools to support best practice
construction management including:
• Site establishment, coordination and management
of temporary facilities;
• Site administration;
• Contractor compliance with contract in areas of
EH&S, IR and QA/QC Mobilisation/
demobilisation and rehabilitation of site
• Conduct of inductions of all site personnel
• Inspection of the works
• Scheduling and overall sequencing of the works
Coordination of interfaces between contracts
• Contract administration
• Control of Scope of Work
• Monitoring of performance and progress
• Contractor completion of contract works and
demobilisation.
• Provision of Field Engineering Services;
• Management of site warehouse and ‘free issue’
goods; and
• Coordination between construction and
commissioning activities.
20. Commissioning and Operational Readiness
Ensures commissioning and operational readiness is in line
with company operational standards and achievement of
sustainable plant operation that meets or exceeds design
capacity. System drives the closeout of construction and
commissioning execution via the generation of the
necessary handover packages, energisation notices and
transfer of care custody and control certificates. The system
includes an operational readiness-training program and
manages all elements of plant commissioning and
operation.

6. 6
21. Project Closeout
Ensures accounting, contractual, technical and commercial
close-out of projects and provides a platform for learning
for future projects.
22. Management System Interface
Embedding a management system into an organisation is
vital to ensure consistent application and broad acceptance.
Once in place a project management system is optimised by
successive application and is honed to reflect prevailing
company policy. It becomes ‘the way of the company’ and
requires only minor customisation for each new project
application.
Simplifying accessibility to the management system
components can be challenging. The system must be easily
accessible, searchable and comprehensible. We developed
a Graphical User Interface (GUI). The web-enabled GUI
(screenshot in figure 4) is an interactive flowsheet of the
entire project management process that enables users to step
through the process and retrieve information on an as
required basis. Selecting a step in the process will retrieve
all relevant procedures and tools for rapid deployment. We
can offer many different GUI designs to match a company’s
branding style and other preferences.
23. Does a Mining Company Really Need a PMS?
There are numerous reasons why mining companies do
not implement comprehensive end-to-end business
solutions that also encompass the project delivery cycle.
Project management is primarily deemed a non-core
process and is supposedly the sole responsibility of a
contractor who designs and constructs the project. This
attitude is expressed by the senior executive of a company
mentioned earlier who suffered one of the worst project
failures. Asserting that future success relies on a more
hands-off approach using an EPCM contractor, he stated,
‘we’re a mining company, not a construction company, and
we’re going to let the construction companies build these
mines for us.’ 20
With respect, we believe this proposition derives from
a confusion that abounds in regard to the differences
between the EPC and EPCM forms of contract. Many
Owners incorrectly assume a level of risk hedging in EPCM
contracts that is simply not there.21
An EPCM contract is
merely a contract for services and there is no guarantee in
regard to price or schedule regardless of how negligent the
contractor may have been. Typically the EPCM contractor
has limited liability in terms of time, cost and performance
of design, manufacture and construction. 22
EPCM
contracts are often selected because they provide flexibility
for the Owner to fast-track a project and start construction
with low levels of scope definition; which implies high cost
and schedule risks.23
The Owner must be a very active
participant and ‘…drive the project, investing more
resources and assuming all risks... the contractor has little
incentive to be efficient’. 24
EPCM commercial vehicles
offer a range of other management challenges which must
be addressed by the Owner.
We would encourage all mining companies to consider
a range of delivery strategies based on an assessment of
project needs in its specific context. Herein lies the risk of
continued failure and also the opportunity for success, i.e.:
What can be contracted to external service providers, and
what needs to be controlled in-house to secure successful
project outcomes and deliver capital with confidence in a
predictable project outcome? This is fundamentally
dependent on assigning work to resources that possess the
core competency to complete the tasks assigned. Access to
such resources is constrained by location, market and
organisational supply. Such constraints can lead to the
assignment of works to resources lacking the core
competency to perform the work, resulting in suboptimal
outcomes. The common misperception that an Owner can
effectively contract out cost and schedule risk (to an
EPCM) often results in disastrous project delivery
outcomes. Risk when realised always returns to the Owner;
the risk must be controlled and managed.
Selection of a particular contracting strategy, from the
mosaic of different options, requires at the very least an
Owner’s team that is resourced adequately to manage the
risks involved with the particular strategy. The Owner must
clearly understand and define the roles, responsibilities,
liabilities, and authorities of all the various participants.
Procedures in the Owner’s project management system
must provide guidance to the Owner’s team in the
development of the delivery strategy and management of
the contractor specific to the contracting approach. The
Project Management System contains all contracting
procedures, tendering templates, contract boilerplates,
administration guides and audit tools required to manage all
types of contracts including EPC, EPCM, construction and
consultancy agreements.
Without a prescribed minimum standard for project
management processes, by what standard can the
performance of the project management entity be assessed?
EPCM contracts, typically being contracts for services
only, are drafted to require the standard of reasonable or
best endeavours. During implementation there may be a
difference of opinion as to what that standard is. In a worst
case scenario how does a court or arbitrator interpret this?
Our solution is to append the Principles and Rules
document to the primary contract with the EPCM
contractor so that expectations are clear and unambiguous
and the responsibilities of the contractor are clearly
understood from the outset. This aims to enhance and define
the behavior desired by the contracting parties.
In our experience, neither Owner organisations nor
project management service providers have adequately
upgraded their project management and control processes
or systems to meet the new challenges of mining mega-
projects. Most companies with at least one operating mine
have documented business processes and procedures to
support a range of activities across back office
administration. Some have adopted Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) solutions such as SAP and Oracle to
integrate processes across the business into a single
software platform. These ERP systems, which typically
Figure 4 Graphic User Interface

7. 7
arose in discrete manufacturing environments, are
inadequate for the management of a project. The
differences between an operation and a project in terms of
engineering management needs, supply chain, contracting
methodology, cost management processes, reporting, etc..
make ERP systems simply the wrong tool for a project. We
have assisted many clients in configuring their ERP
systems with additional technology to support projects but
ERP systems alone cannot meet the needs a mining project.
24. Outcomes and Conclusion
Project management systems for the mining industry need
to encompass the full project delivery cycle from
opportunity identification through to project close-out.
Development of a robust, rigorous, comprehensive and
effective suite of procedures, tools and enabling processes
from first principles is a significant undertaking. Investment
into ‘first principles’ solution development can cost
millions of dollar, tens of thousands of labour hours and
should be practically complete prior to the execution phase
of a proejct.
The value of a project management system is measured
in terms of a reduced level of uncertainty and improvements
in the efficiency and effectiveness of the management
process. A PMS is intended to engender a behavioural
change within an organisation whereby:
• Project opportunities are identified, evaluated and
converted to projects in a uniform manner;
• Rigour is applied to project planning and projects
are implemented as planned;
• Projects are executed in a controlled and
predictable manner;
• There is emphasis on accountability for
performance;
• Management attention is focused where it really
matters – on control performance – not merely
reported project performance;
• There are early identification and management of
risks that may compromise the project objectives
and key result areas;
• There exists a framework to manage the Owner’s
project team, consultants and EPCM/EPC
contractors;
• Business objectives are achieved.
About the Author
Jamie Morien has 14 years of
experience and acquired
competencies in project delivery
roles across some of the world’s
largest industrial, minerals
processing and infrastructure
projects. He has university
degrees in Construction Law,
Project Management and
Construction Management from
Australian institutions. As a lead project delivery consultant
Jamie has completed assignments with management
responsibilities for project disciplines including contracts,
procurement, estimating, cost control, planning and
scheduling, facilities management, risk management,
information management systems and document control.
Past assignments include projects in Australia, Canada,
Peru, Kazakhstan, Laos, New Caledonia and the Dominican
Republic.
About GRS
Global Resource Solutions (GRS) was established in 1994
to provide Feasibility Study, Project Management and
Operations Management expertise to the petroleum, mining
and chemical processing industries.
Our core skills and resources encompass strategic
consulting and include the provision of:
• Feasibility study management;
• Project management and ‘Turn Key’ delivery;
• Project opportunity framing and planning;
• Management of capital programs, throughout the
project delivery cycle; and
• Operations improvement.
GRS mission is to select and nurture working relationships
that allow us to develop a business environment of
excellence, knowledge and trust, with a transparent
approach to daily business activities, assisting our clients in
the realisation of their objectives. We firmly believe that
our collective attitudes and beliefs structure our corporate
and individual conduct and achievements.
GRS focuses intensively on supporting clients in the
development and delivery of their business plans, with a
spotlight on the management of business risk and
opportunity inherently embedded within the execution
plans and daily business activities. Gaining more control
over business outcomes, also allows a focus on engaging
people in the more rewarding challenge of driving
improvement and increasing profitability. With the benefit
of increased productivity, predictability and reliability
clients are better able to withstand negative market forces
and capitalise on periods of high commodity value.
Operating as a consistent low-cost producer enhances
capability to convert marginal resources or projects into
more viable operations and business cases, effectively
reducing the risk envelope in growth and operating strategy.
GRS has a market presence in Asia, Europe, Africa,
Australasia, North America and South America. The GRS
Project Management System (PMS) and GRS Operational
Management System (OMS) business solutions are
packaged and sold, in units and as a complete enterprise-
wide solution, to companies around the world such as
Newcrest Mining, MMG, Doe Run, Newmont, Iluka
Resources and Chevron. These business solutions and their
successes represent an investment into first principles
solution development over a 12-year period with an
investment of some 120,000 man-hours. They are
optimised through successive application and honed to
reflect today’s prevailing market providing clients access to
what we believe is the world’s best management system.
Working as a team with our clients’ personnel, we operate
under the principle:
‘NO SECRETS, NO SURPRISES, SIMPLY DELIVER’

8. 8
References
1
Gavin M Mudd, ‘The Sustainability of Mining in Australia: Key
Production Trends and Their Environmental Implications for the Future’
(2007) Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University and Mineral
Policy Institute, 6. Available online:
<http://www.mpi.org.au/attachment/d016df19778a7c563cd1c99afe29
c43a/f2065acefd9648fc79d94181e9032269/1_SustMining Aust
aReport Master.pdf> on 13 July 2008.
2
‘The South African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (The SAMREC Code)’, 2007
Edition, The South African Mineral Resource Committee (SAMREC)
Working Group Under the Joint Auspices of the Southern African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Geological Society of South
Africa.
3
Shillabeer, J, and Gypton, C, ‘Highlighting Project Risk Following
Completion of the Feasibility Study’, in Proceedings Mining Risk
Management (2003) 101 109 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
4
Nick J Lavingia, ‘Best Practices in Cost Engineering’ (2004) AACE
International Transactions 9.03.
5
McMahon, 2007, quoted by Bullock RL, ‘Accuracy of Feasibility Study
Evaluations Would Improve Accountability’ Mining Engineering April
2011.
6
Ibid, 3.
7
Ernst & Young, “Effective Capital Project Execution: Mining and
Metals”, 2011
8
“Edward Merrow Reveals Why Megaprojects Fail in ‘Project
Manager,’” IPA Independent Project Analysis, January 2012,
http://ipaglobal.com/News Room/Announcements/Edward Merrow
Reveals Why Megaprojects Fail in Pr, accessed on 4 Feb 2014.
9
“Emerge, splurge, purge: Western firms have piled into emerging
markets in the past 20 years. Now comes the reckoning” The Economist
Mar 8th 2014 http://www.economist.com/news/business/21598642
western firms have piled emerging markets past 20 years now comes
10
Els, F. “Report: Anglo American set for $5bn Minas Rio writedown”
21 Jan 2013, Available Online: http://www.mining.com/report anglo
american set for 5bn write off over minas rio 69010/
11
Lazenby, H. “Barrick Gold suspends Pascua Lama project” Mining
Weekly, 31 Oct 2013, Available online:
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/barrick gold suspends pascua
lama project 2013 10 31
12
G R Castle, 1985, “Feasibility studies and other project estimates,
How reliable are they?” February, Proceedings of the Finance for the
Minerals Industry, New York 18.
13
Bullock RL, ‘Accuracy of Feasibility Study Evaluations Would Improve
Accountability’ Mining Engineering April 2011.
14
Ibid, n.13.
15
C Gypton and D. Ward, 2001, “Feasibility Study Quality, Capital
Overruns & Investment Decisions”, Speech to the North West Mining
Association, www.miningamerica.org
16
C Gypton, “How have we done? Feasibility study performance since
1980” (2002) January Engineering and Mining Journal, 22.
17
Bertisen, J., and Davis, G. 2007, Bias and error in mine project capital
cost estimation. SME Preprint No. 07 082, Littleton, CO: SME.
18
P. Mitchell, 2011, “Achieving major capital project effectiveness and
corporate performance” in Effective Capital Project Execution Mining
and Metals, Ernst & Young.
19
National Research Council, ‘Characteristics of Successful
Megaprojects’ (2000) National Academy of Sciences.
20
J. Sokalsky quoted in Wall Street Journal, [online] <
http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2012/07/26/wsj canada
interview barrick ceo defends record optimistic on gold price/>
21
Philip Loots, Nick Henchie, ‘Worlds Apart: EPC and EPCM Contract
Risk Issues and Allocation’, (2007) The International Construction Law
Review 253.
22
Doug Jones, ‘Where Are the Standard Forms Going?’ 47 Australian
Construction Law Newsletter 15, 21.
23
Christof von Branconi, Chistoph H Loch, ‘Contracting for Major
Projects: Eight Business Levers for Top Management’ (2004)
International Journal of Project Management 22, 119, 120.
24
Ibid.