Junior Mining

Work Breakdown Structures – Don’t Forget About The WBS

Date: May 22, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply
mining project WBS
Normally at the start of a mining study, the team members receive a matrix of responsibilities.  This table shows which people (or groups) are responsible for different aspects of the study, i.e. who is responsible for geology, for mine design, for process design, infrastructure, etc.  This is great tool and a necessity in making sure that everyone knows what they are supposed to do.
Next we generate a project schedule based on some work plan.  In realty this isn’t the correct sequence.

Sometimes the WBS is forgotten

What often gets forgotten in early stage studies is providing the team members a Work Breakdown Structure (“WBS”).   I consider the WBS an equally important component as the responsibility matrix and both should always be provided.
The WBS is a hierarchical breakdown of the project into phases, deliverables, and work packages usually associated with cost estimation. It is a tree based structure, developed by starting with the final objective and then dividing that into manageable components based on size, duration, and responsibility.  Typically this is done for the capital cost estimate, breaking it down into individual cost areas and cost components.  A WBS can also be used for the operating cost estimate.
request for propoalsThe WBS can provide the following information to the team:
  • It assigns the costing responsibility to specific people or group so each know what must be delivered.
  • It provides a consistent format for developing and reporting the capital costs (and operating costs).
  • It helps ensure that no cost components get omitted and no costs get double counted.
  • It provides the cashflow modeler with a clean format to import the capital cost into the cashflow model.
  • The WBS should be developed before the project schedule, not after it.

Any study will benefit from a WBS

Typically a WBS is developed for pre-feasibility and feasibility mining studies but is often ignored at the PEA stage.  Some feel it is too detailed for that level of study.  I don’t feel this is the case.
The WBS is a communication tool to confirm responsibilities.  Thus even a simplified WBS is still useful at the PEA stage.
I have seen some instances where a WBS has been created but does not get wide distribution to the entire team.  The WBS should be provided to everyone and ideally a team session be held to walk through the WBS structure.
The idea is not make everyone a costing expert, but rather to ensure all understand how the project cost estimate will be structured.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that regardless of the level of study, a WBS should always be created.
Some will say the WBS is not required for early stage studies but I have found benefits in having one, at least for the capital cost estimate.   Obviously the level of detail in the WBS should be appropriate to the level of the study.
Once the WBS is in place, then go ahead and build your project schedule.
A competent Study Manager can easily create an initial WBS, thereby mitigating some headaches when the final study is being assembled.   You may even want a basis WBs at the proposal stage.
By the way, before awarding a study to anyone, try to have a prepared Request for Proposal beforehand.   I have written about the benefit of this document in a blog post titled “Request For Proposal (“RFP”) – Always Prepare One“
My entire blog post library can be found at this LINK with topics ranging from geotechnical, financial modelling, and junior mining investing.

 

Note: If you would like to get notified when new blogs are posted, then sign up on the KJK mailing list on the website.  
Share

Request For Proposal (“RFP”) – Always Prepare One

Date: May 15, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply
Mining request for proposal
When it comes to time to undertake any type of mining study, whether small or large, whether sole sourced or competitively bid, it is always a good idea to prepare a Request For Proposal (“RFP”) document.
I know that it can be an annoyance, but an RFP document is a lot better than a simply phone calling a consultant describing what you want.  Its also better than a cursory email outlining what you want. In many cases the RFP doesn’t need to be a complex document; however RFP’s are appreciated by everyone involved.   It provides the documentation that can help make things go smoothly.

The RFP doesn’t need to be complicated

executive meetingOwner’s Perspective: preparing an RFP gives the opportunity to collect the Owner’s team thoughts on the scope of study needed, on the deliverables required, and on the timing.   The RFP will outline this for the consultants and simultaneously help the owner’s team to get on the same page themselves.
The RFP is the opportunity for the owner to tell the consultants exactly what they are looking for in the mining study.  It also specifies what they want to see in the proposal to help them compare multiple proposals if needed.
Consultant’s perspective: receiving an RFP is great to them since having a detailed scope of work laid out means they don’t need to guess the scope when preparing their cost estimate.  It will be clear to the consultant what work is “in scope”.  If extra services are required in the future, then “out-of-scope” work can be defended.
An RFP also gives the consultant some reassurance that the Owner has put thought into exactly what they want them to do.

What to include in the RFP

The RFP sent to bidding consultants should contain (at a minimum) the items listed below. A sole sourced study can have a scaled back RFP document, but many of these key items should be maintained.
Much of this RFP information can be a single template document that will be modified if different scopes of work will be sent to different consultants (e.g. tailings design, pit geotechnical, groundwater, feasibility study, etc.).
  • Project Introduction (a high level overview of the project and the Owner).
  • Table of Responsibilities for the Study (if other consultants are being involved in different areas).
  • Scope of Work (for this Proposal), and highlight any specific exclusions from the scope.
  • Additional Requirements (update meetings, monthly reports, timesheets, documentation, etc.)
  • Schedule (the timing for the proposal, job award date, study kickoff, and completion date).
  • Instructions to the Bidder (e.g. what information should be provided in each proposal and in what format).
  • Other (the legal rights of the Owner, confidentiality statement, how proposals will be evaluated, etc.).

Specifying format makes it easier to compare proposals

If a company is competitively bidding the study, it can be easier to compare multiple proposals if certain parts are presented in the exact same format.  Usually different consulting firms have their own proposal format, which is fine, however certain sections of the proposal should be made easily comparable.
The RFP can request that each proposal should contain (at a minimum):
  • Confirmation of the scope of work based on the RFP, which may be more detailed than the RFP itself.
  • List of exclusions.
  • List of final deliverables.
  • Proposed Study Manager, resume and relevant study management experience.
  • Proposed team members, organizational structure by areas of responsibility, and resumes.
  • Cost estimate on a not-to-exceed basis for each area, subdivided by team member, hours and unit rates ,and possibly in a specific table format.
  • A fee table for the various job classifications that would be applied to out-of-scope additional man hours.
  • All indirect costs, administrative costs, indicating mark-ups (if any).
  • Miscellaneous disbursements (i.e., airfares, hotel, vehicles) and indicate if there are mark-ups.
  • Detailed study schedule to completion.
  • Payment schedule.
  • Specify if there are any potential conflicts of interest with other projects.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that an owner should always take the time to prepare some type of RFP for any mining study they want to undertake.  The owner should also request a consultant proposal based on that RFP, even if it is being sole sourced to just one consultant.
Depending on the size and nature of the study, one can use judgement on how detailed the RFP or consultant’s proposal must be, but one should always have the proper documentation in place beforehand.
A key part of any mining study is the project capital cost estimate.  In my view it is important that any RFP includes the requirement to develop a Work Breakdown Structure.  This has many uses, and is discussed further in the blog post “Work Breakdown Structures – Don’t Forget About The WBS“
My entire blog post library can be found at this LINK with topics ranging from geotechnical, financial modelling, and junior mining investing.

 

Note: If you would like to get notified when new blogs are posted, then sign up on the KJK mailing list on the website.  
Share

Junior Miners – Get Your Own Independent Consultant

Date: May 12, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 1 Reply
PEA consultants
Over the past few years I have worked in different consulting roles; as an independent consultant; as a member of a large consulting team; and as owner’s representative managing consultants.   I have learned that there is a role for both the independent consultant and larger consulting firms.  Read on for more in this self-serving article.

Independents have a role

A previous blog (“9. Large Consulting Firms or Small Firms – Any Difference?”) discusses where large and small consultants fit into the overall picture.   Large technical teams are required where there are broader scopes of work, significant effort levels, and where multiple skills sets are needed.
Independent consultants are a different thing.  They are best suited for assisting the Owner directly, either independently or as part of an overall corporate advisory team.  Non-technical junior mining management teams should always have access to in-house engineering capability for brainstorming or technical direction.
Even if some of the management are technically oriented, having independent thought is valuable. The question is whether the engineer should be a cheerleader or a true independent observer.
Independent consultants will differentiate themselves from large engineering firms in several ways.
  • They don’t bring a lot of extra personnel onto a job.  They focus only on what is needed and can draw in other expertise when needed.
  • They can provide unbiased advice.  Larger firm sometimes have business development conflicts. The independent consultant does not have the motivation to win a feasibility study or EPCM contract.
  • A company can develop a long term working relationship with an independent consultant.  Everyone gets familiar with each other’s objectives and goals.  Large engineering firms can be revolving doors with people moving on to other firms.
  • Independents can work efficiently at a pace of their own choosing.  This can result in lower costs and faster deliverables.  I know many independent consultants will work evenings and weekends to meet client targets.
  • Independents can provide long term stability since they won’t have any employee turnover.  Personally I was involved for over 15 years with a mining operating in Suriname.  The expat staff at the mine site experienced significant turnover.  This was partly due to them being promised personal development relocations.  I ended up being the only constant for the mine site.  I knew the history and why things were done they way they were.  I even had copies of old study reports they could no longer find in their files on site.  I knew what was done previously, thereby avoiding re-inventing the wheel each time there was a new technical manager was brought in.

Consultants and Stocks Options

A point of discussion is whether the independent consultants should receive stock option compensation.  I have worked under both situations.
Awarding stock options might eliminate the “independent” nature of the relationship and hence negated the ability to sign off as an independent QP.  In some circumstances, the company may not require the independent consultant to be a QP since they mainly fulfill an advisory role.
Does one want independent advice, from someone who may not be a significant shareholder or option holder?
One advantage of awarding stock options is that the consultant may become more beholden to the project.  They feel it is their project too, rather than simply acting as an adviser.  They may have a longer term interest in being involved with the project and the company.
Conversely the company may prefer the consultant doesn’t have any direct ownership so that their advice can be viewed as being unbiased. Having a contrarian view of corporate plans is a good thing.
I feel that awarding stock options is a good way to foster long term commitment from the consultant. It can be easier for them to walk away without any such inducement.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that independent consultants have a role to play and should be part of all owner’s teams, whether be on the Board or on an Advisory Panel.   The independent consultants can be selected based on their technical specialization (i.e. exploration, resource modelling, mining, metallurgy, environmental) and provide valuable part time guidance to the company.
The caveat is to ensure that the consultant is technically capable.  I have seen instances where certain members of the advisory panel gave poor advice.  perhaps they weren’t that technically capable but simply friends with some of the management.  Unfortunately other advisors would see these limitations, but not say anything out of professional courtesy.
Lastly, decide whether the engineer should be an honest advisor or a cheerleader.  Companies should want to hear the truth.  If a 3rd party due diligence teams comes in, they will be looking for flaws in the project.  It would be in a company’s self interest to know what those flaws are before the due diligence teams finds them.
One of the things an advisor can help do is decide the study path the company should take.  To learn more about the 4 mining study types, you can check out this blog post “4 Mining Study Types (Concept to Feasibility)“.
Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and insights.
Share

Large or Small Mining Consulting Firms – Any Difference?

Date: May 7, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 2 Replies
Mining feasibility pre-feasibility
Some junior mining companies select their mining study consultant based on the assumption that they need a “big name” firm to give credibility to their study.   This creates an interesting dilemma for many smaller mining companies since they the larger firms can cost more.  Its also a dilemma for smaller engineering firms trying to win jobs.  While large consultants may cost more due to higher overheads; their brand name on a study may bring some value.
In my personal experience I find that larger consultants are best suited for managing the large scale feasibility studies.  This isn’t because they necessarily provide better technical expertise.  Its because they generally have the internal project management and costing systems to manage the complexities of such larger studies.
The larger firms are normally able to draw in more management resources; for example, project schedulers, cost estimators, and document control personnel.  Ultimately one will pay for all of these people, albeit they may be a critical part in successfully completing the study.
A feasibility study is more rigorous than a pre-feasibility study, which in turn is more rigorous than a PEA or scoping study.

Sub-contracting Parts

For certain aspects of a feasibility study, one may get better technical expertise by subcontracting to smaller highly specialized engineering firms.  However too much subcontracting may become an onerous task.  Often the larger firms may be better positioned to do this.
In my view, likely the best result will come from a combination of a large firm managing the feasibility study but undertaking only the technical aspects for which they are deemed to be experts.
The large lead firm would be supported by smaller firms for the specialized aspects, as per a previous article “Multi-Company Engineering Studies Can Work Well..Or Not”.

What about smaller studies?

For smaller studies, like scoping studies (i.e. PEA’s), which can be based on limited amounts of technical data, I  don’t see the need to award these studies to large engineering firms.  The credibility of such early studies will be linked to the amount of data used to support the study.  For example, there may be limited metallurgical testing, or limited geotechnical investigations; or the resource is largely inferred.
Not all PEA’s are equal (see “PEA’s – Not All PEA’s Are Created Equal”).  A large firm’s application of limited data may be no more accurate or defensible than a small firm’s use of the same data.
One of the purposes of an early stage study is to see if the project has economic merit and would therefore warrant further expenditures in the future.  An early stage study is (hopefully) not used to defend a production decision.  The objective of an early stage study is not necessarily to terminate a project (unless it is obviously highly uneconomic).
I have seen instances where larger firms, protecting themselves from  limited data, were only willing to use very conservative design assumptions in early stage mining studies. This may not be helpful to a small mining company trying to decide how to advance such a project.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that for early stage studies like a PEA, smaller engineering firms can do as good a job as larger firms.  However one must select the right firm.  Review some of their more recent 43-101 reports to gauge their quality of work.  Don’t hesitate to check with previous client references.
For the more advanced feasibility level studies, be wary if a smaller firm indicates they can do the entire study. Perhaps they can be responsible for some parts of the feasibility study as a sub-contractor to a larger firm. Managing these large study may be beyond their experience and internal capabilities.
Whether you are considering a small or large engineering firm, know their strengths and weaknesses as they will relate to the specific’s of your study.
In another blog post I have expanded the discussion about the importance of the study manager role. You can read that post at this link “Importance of a Study Manager – That’s the Key“.
Another blog post discusses undertaking studies using multiple engineering teams and the pitfalls to watch out for.  That blog post is at “Multi-Company Mining Studies Can Work Well…or Not“.
Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted.
Share

Mining PEA’s – Is it Worth Agonizing Over Details

Date: May 5, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 3 Replies
Mining PEA
As stated in a previous article (“PEA’s – Not All PEA’s Are Created Equal“) different PEA’s will consist of different levels of detail.  This is driven by the amount of technical data available and used in the study.    The same issue applies to a single PEA whereby different chapters of the same study can be based on different degrees of data quality.
I have seen PEA’s where some of the chapters were fairly high level based on limited data, while other parts of the same study went into great depth and detail. This may not be necessary nor wise.

Think about the level of detail justifiable

If the resource is largely inferred ore, then the mine production plan will have an inherent degree of uncertainty in  it.  So there is not a lot of justification for other engineers (for example) to prepare detailed tailings designs  associated with that mine plan.
Similarly there is little value in developing a very detailed operating cost model or cashflow model for a study that has many underlying key uncertainties.  Such technical exercises may be a waste of time and money, adding to the study duration, increasing engineering costs, and giving the unintended impression that the study is more accurate than it really is.
Different levels of detail in the same study can crop up when diverse teams are each working independently on their own aspect of the study.   Some teams may feel they are working with highly accurate data (e.g. production tonnage) when in reality the data they were provided is somewhat speculative.
The bottom line is that it is important for the Study Manager and project Owner to ensure the entire technical team is on the same page and understands the type of information they are working with.   The technical detail in the final study should be consistent throughout.
Experienced reviewers will recognize the key data gaps in the study and hence view the entire study in that light regardless of how detailed the other sections of the report appear to be.
You can read more on the subject of uncertainty in PEA’s in another blog post at this link “Mining PEA’s – Not All PEA’s Are Created Equal“.
Note: If you would like to get notified when new blogs are posted, then sign up on the KJK mailing list on the website.  Otherwise I post notices on LinkedIn, so follow me at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenkuchling/.
Share

Mine Site Visit – What Is the Purpose?

Date: April 28, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply
Mining due diligence
National Instrument NI43-101(6.2) specifies that “before an issuer files a technical report, the issuer must have at least one qualified person (“QP”) who is responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of all or part of the technical report complete a current inspection on the property that is the subject of the technical report.”
In most technical reports one may see a list of QP’s but most often only one or two of those QP’s will actually have been to the mine site. I have worked on numerous mining studies and not been involved in the site visit.
Normally the limited number of people taking  the site visit may be due to the high cost for travel, especially if the site is remote. The logistics of travelling around with a large team, and the associated cost can be onerous.  In some cases the number of personnel visiting the site may be restricted simply because there isn’t much to see at the property, yet the company needs to meet the NI43-101 requirement.

Get the best bang for your buck

Site inspections that I have taken part in ranged from simple tours of the property only taking photographs to more detailed data room reviews, meeting the owner’s team, meeting with vendors and contractors.
Exploration Program in AndesIn my opinion the more advanced the study the more important the site visit becomes.  However, given the cost, this requires that one maximizes the scope of the trip.
At the feasibility stage it is important that several QP’s complete one or more site visits at the same time, if possible.  They need to see and hear the same things.  Obviously the QP’s will be focusing on different technical areas, but the over-riding message should be consistent to the entire team.
For an earlier study stage (e.g. PEA), it is less critical that a large team complete the site visit.   However I would recommend that the QP making the site visit be in prior contact with the team members to determine what information they will want to see.
The visiting QP should then be responsible for collecting their data.  Sorting through information files covering different disciplines may be difficult for one person, but inspecting and photographing key parts of the site may be of value to everyone.
In addition it is useful to make first contact with local vendors and contractors on behalf of others.   Ultimately spending an extra day or two at site is relatively inexpensive compared to the fixed cost of getting there.
Once back at the office, the QP should distribute and explain his findings to the rest of the team, thereby benefiting everyone with better information.   I often see that post-site visit information sharing does not happen.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that rarely I have seen pre-site visit data gathering lists prepared for the QP .  In many cases the QP simply collects the information they themselves personally need.  Generally the pre-trip planning is focused on timing, travel, and hotel logistics and less so on the team’s information needs.
Quick drive-by site visits meet the requirements of NI 43-101 but they don’t add much to the study quality.
If you site is complex, and would benefit from a group visit, one way to help do this by using Google Earth.   I have another blog post the explains how a Zoom or Skype fly-around by someone knowledgeable with the site is useful.  You can read that post at “Google Earth – Keep it On Hand“.

 

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted.
Share

Early Stage “What-if” Mine Economic Analysis – Its Valuable

Date: April 27, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply
Mining study economics
Over my career I have worked with large and small mining companies and seen how they studied projects and potential acquisitions.
Large mining companies have their in-house evaluation teams that will jump on a potential opportunity that comes around and start examining it quickly.  These evaluation teams may consist of a specialized head office group supported by people temporarily pulled in from their mining operations.
They are experienced at what they do and can provide management with solid advice even if working with only limited data.  This help management decide very early on whether to further pursue the opportunity or walk away immediately.
Early stage economics are normally part of this evaluation approach.   Although they are not correct all of the time, more than often they save their company from wasting money on projects unlikely to fly.
However if you are a small mining company, what are your options?
You don’t have an in-house technical team sitting around ready to go.  Management still needs to know if this project has a chance.  If the project is early stage, sometimes management thinks its fine to take a gamble, acquire the project, and then put money into the ground rather than spending on early studies.

It is possible to do both

Management and the exploration team usually have a vision for their projects, even those projects with only limited information.   Each person may have a different opinion on the potential size and scope of what may ultimately exist there.  However the question is whether any of those visions have sufficient accuracy to warrant spending more shareholder money on the project.
Some of the junior mining management teams that I have worked with have found it beneficial early on to have a basic internal cashflow model on hand.   If properly constructed, these are simple to tweak to examine “what-if’s” scenarios.  Input the potential deposit size and mine life, potential head grades, expected metallurgy, and typical costs to see what the economic outcome is.  Does this project have a chance and, if not, what tonnage, head grade, recovery, or metal price is required to make it work?   The simple cashflow model can tell you all of this.

Early stage modelling adds value

The tangible benefits to very early financial modelling are:
  • It helps management to conceptualize and understand their project.  If done honestly, it will reveal both the opportunities and threats to success.
  • It helps management to understand what technical parameters will be most important for them to resolve and what technical factors can be viewed as secondary. This helps guide the on-going exploration and data collection efforts.
  • Periodically refreshing the economic model with new information will reveal if the economic trends are getting better or worse.

Its not 43-101 compliant

I must caution that this type of early stage economic analysis is not 43-101 compliant and hence can not be shared externally, no matter how much one might wish to.
Another caution is that in some cases these early stage un-engineered projections become “cast in stone”, with management treating them as if they are accurate estimates.  Then suddenly all subsequent advanced studies must somehow agree with the original cost guesses, thereby placing unreasonable expectations on the project and the people doing the work.
The early stage economic models can consist of simple one-dimensional tables using life-of-mine tonnages or two-dimensional tables showing assumed annual production by year.  Building simple cashflow models may take only 2-3 days of effort.  That is not an onerous exercise compared to the overall benefit they can provide.
The bottom line is that it is useful to take a few days to develop a simple cashflow model.  “Simple” also means that management themselves can tweak the models and don’t need to be modeling expert on hand at all times.  “Simple” means the model should be well.  In another block post I discuss why to avoid demonstrating one’s Excel skills in building models. Read more on that at this link  Financial Spreadsheet Modelling – Think of Others.
Most companies have a CFO that can easily undertake this type  of modelling, with the help of some technical input.  Be careful though, often CFO’s take the simple cashflow model to an unwarranted level of complexity.
The simplest of all models is the one-dimensional approach.  To learn more about the concept behind a simple 1D financial models, read the blog post “Project Economics – Simple 1D Model” .
The entire blog post library can be found at this LINK with topics ranging from geotechnical, financial modelling, and junior mining investing.
Note: If you would like to get notified when new blogs are posted, then sign up on the KJK mailing list on the website.  Otherwise I post notices on LinkedIn, so follow me at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenkuchling/.
Share