TSV Mining's presentation on variation not planned for and its impacts on inventories and intensity in open cut mining operations. Contingency, for many mining operations, can be a better option to ensure that recovery can occur in a budgeted period.

1. Presented by:
Christopher Braund
Director
TSV Mining Pty Ltd
M: +61 438 886 473
cbraund@tsvmining.com.au
www.tsvmining.com.au
Total System Value

2. Why would there be variation outside of
planning?


Because you do not plan for events that do not often occur….
When was the last time someone actually planned for a:
1 in 10 year wet weather event
2.
poor blasted horizon
3.
geotechnical event
4.
mistake in a plan
5.
equipment not performing as planned
6.
third party supplier unable to meet requirements
7.
major breakdown
8.
geological information being incorrect
9.
excessive coal loss
10. safety incident changing site policy
11. poor ground conditions
12. etc
1.
NOTE: Current count is over 65 variables unplanned for that historically have occurred at least once a decade
Total System Value

3. But for one of these events to occur and
to have a large impact on a plan would
be rare

Individually, yes they are rare, but the odds of just one occurring that
will significantly impact on the plan is actually quite high:
EVENT
1 in 10 year wet weather event
poor blasted horizon
geotechnical event
mistake in a plan
equipment not performing as planned
third party supplier unable to meet requirements
major breakdown
geological information being incorrect
excessive coal loss
safety incident changing site policy
poor ground conditions
CHANCE OF ANY ONE OF THESE OCCURING
Chance of event occurring in a 1 year plan
10%
20%
20%
30%
20%
10%
10%
10%
20%
20%
10%
86.5%
NOTE: This is just for the 11 events listed here, there are many more and they eventually get the
chance of occurring to over 99% (usually takes 16 to 20)
Total System Value

4. The odds are not good

The chance of an event occurring that will have a major impact on
a budget or 1 year mine plan are usually in the order of 99% or
higher (long term plans are lotto tickets, but an operation does get
some direction from them)

With such a high chance of the mine failing to meet the plan, why
is it that not all mines are seen as constantly failing?

It will depend on what is seen as a failure
Total System Value

5. What is a failure for a mining operation?

Keeping to the operational side of the mine, a failure is usually
seen in two ways:
1.
2.
Production was not met – as in final product sales
Costs were not met

Failure is rarely viewed as no longer having the ability to follow the
mine plan

But if the mine plan can no longer be followed, shouldn’t the
production or costs no longer be met?

This depends on the layout and strategy of the operation
Total System Value

6. Layout and strategy

Factors that impact on how an operation can recover on production
and costs include:
 Timing on sales requirements
 Processing plant capacity and requirements
 Pit configuration
 Mine sequencing requirements
 The capacity and location of inventories
 The ability to expedite product and delay cost
 The intensity of operations (overall and in certain locations)
 Contingency in the plan
 And many more….


Even when excluding contingency, some operations can put off a
measurable failure for years
However, only the time from failure to the end of the budget needs to
be covered (less then a year) as the new budget will make up what
was used to cover the previous budget
Total System Value

7. Something must always be replaced
each budget

Unless there was contingency already contained in the plan that
was able to cover the failure with no loss of production or cost,
there must have been something consumed in the budgeted
period that needs to be put back in the next budget

It is usually inventories*
*There can be other options such as expenditure that can be pushed into a future
budget, most of the time it is inventories
Total System Value

8. Contingency and inventory



Contingency for some sites is a necessity, not a hidden cost.
Unfortunately, this risk mitigation can often be seen as an
unnecessary factor that sites put into their plans to make their life
easy (“fat” in the plan). It is perceived this way, as there is a lack of
explanation or science behind why it is required. It was typically
added due to individual tacit knowledge that there was a need for it.
As this knowledge disappears, so does the contingency.
As the contingency disappears, the inventory plays a larger part in
the operation to recover from unplanned events and prevent the plan
from failing (ahhh inventory, the visa card we don’t want to pay off,
particularly in a downturn).
The less contingency is used, and avoiding replacing used inventory
regularly creates a building requirement of inventory needing to be
replaced
Total System Value

9. Replacing used inventory



If the inventory is allowed to constantly deplete, and assuming that
there has been no significant reduction in variation (to reduce
variation not planned for significantly would not be economically
viable), costs per production unit will eventually escalate
dramatically as throughput collapses
Trying to put back inventory once throughput has started to be
impacted significantly can be very difficult
Steady, consistent return of inventories in each budget is important
to keep production sustainable in an operation, particularly for
operations working in a high intensity environment
Total System Value

10. Replacing inventory and maximum
production



When planning the production out of a highly profitable operation or
an area of an operation, they are the most likely to be pushed to the
production limit – the pit operations will be at the higher end of
intensity
At the higher end of intensity returning used inventory can be
difficult. It becomes even more difficult when the inventory is not
consistently returned
Maximum production out of an area or an operation is only
sustainable when it still has capacity to replace used inventory at
the rate it typically gets consumed
Total System Value

11. Where things can go wrong




Some operations do not (and it is not viable to) contain the right
inventories in the right locations to cater for variation not planned
for, they will always need to use a contingency
Most operations only track certain key inventories, which many not
be the only inventories that get consumed to recover a plan
Inventories that are not tracked, may be depleting without the
operation knowing
Any consistently depleting inventory is a lead indicator that current
resource allocation and production levels are unsustainable
Total System Value

12. Summary





Operations will not be able to follow the plan for a year, and it
will be due to a negative impact
All operations are different, and the ability to delay failure will
change site to site
The less contingency in the plan, the more inventory will be
consumed within the budgeted period
In order to be sustainable, inventory needs to be replaced
consistently
High intensity plans need to include the ability to replace used
inventory
Total System Value

13. Always customised – no two sites are
the same
Thank you
Total System Value