Recently as part of a due diligence I was reviewing a couple of 43-101 technical reports and something jumped out at me. There were pages and pages of statistical plots. The plots included QA/QC and check assay diagrams, variograms, box plots, swath plots, and contact plots. There was no lack of statistical information. However, as a mining engineer, there was something missing that was of interest to me. Good geological sections were missing.
Its seems that most technical reports focus heavily on describing the mathematical aspects of the resource, but spend less time describing the physical aspects of the geology and the mineability.
Who is the audience
It’s always open to debate who these 43-101 technical reports are intended for. Generally we can assume correctly that they are not being written mainly for geologists. However if they are intended for a wider audience of future investors, shareholders, engineers, and C-suite management, then (in my view) greater focus needs to be put on the physical orebody description.
Understanding the nature of the orebody brings greater understanding of the entire project.
Everyone likes geology
Whenever I listen to investor conference calls, many of the analyst’s questions relate to the resource and the mining operation. Essentially the participants want to know if this will be an “easy” mine or a “hard” mine.
One simple way to explain this is with good geological sections. They help everyone understand any potential issues; i.e. a picture is worth a thousand words. Good cross-sections will describe the following aspects.
-
The complexity (or simplicity) of the ore zones,
-
The width of the ore zones,
-
The vertical extent of geological information,
-
The drill spacing and drilling density,
-
The spatial distribution of assay information,
-
The grade distribution laterally and vertically,
-
The waste distribution throughout the mine,
-
The mining block size in relation of the ore zone dimensions
One can learn a lot just by looking at well presented cross-sections. The nice thing is that they are generally understood by non-technical people.
Suggestions
I would like to suggest that every technical report includes more focus on the operational aspects of the orebody.
My recommendation is that the following information becomes standard in all technical reports.
-
At least three to five cross sections through the deposit. Don’t just present a best case typical cross-section.
-
At least one or two longitudinal sections.
-
At least three level or bench plans, showing the drill hole pierce points.
Each cross section/bench plan should consist of two parts.
Part 1 shows the drill holes with color coded grade intercepts, ore zone wireframes, and lithology or rock types.
Part 2 should be a block model cross section showing the wireframes, drill holes, and color coded block model grades using the ore/waste cutoff grade as one of the clearly defined grade bins.
It doesn’t really matter if the cross- sections are included in Section 14 or Section 16 of the Technical Report. However if they are included in Section 16 then one should overlay the pit design and/or underground stope shapes onto the sections.
I also recommend NOT incorporating these cross-sections in the appendices since they are too important to be hidden away. They should be described in the main report itself.
Conclusion
Improving the quality of information presented to investors is one key way of maintaining trust with investors. Accordingly we should look to improve the description of the mineable ore body for everyone. In many cases it is the key to the entire project.
Process water supply, water storage and treatment, and safe disposal of fine solids (i.e. tailings) are major concerns at most mining projects.
Electrostatic separation is a dry processing technique in which a mixture of minerals may be separated according to their electrical conductivity. The potash industry has studied this technology for decades.
The recovery of non-ferrous metals is the economic basis of every metal recycling system. There is worldwide use of eddy separators.
Given the contentious nature of water supply and slurried solids at many mining operations, industry research into dry processing might be money well spent.
In the past there would be binders with detailed calculations and backup for the different parts of the study. Typically there was a binder for the Executive Summary and separate sections (i.e. binders) for Geology, Mining, Processing, Infrastructure, Capital Cost, Operating Cost, Environmental, Project Execution, and Economic Analysis, etc.
The original intent of the 43-101 Technical Report was for it to be a summary document, only about 80-150 pages in length. The intent was to simplify all the technical work for the benefit of non-technical investors. Currently I have noticed that in many cases the 43-101 report is now the entire feasibility study document.
My recommendation is that, where budgets permit, mining companies return to the days of preparing the comprehensive feasibility study document. It’s the right thing to do.
If any mining industry credibility has been lost, re-establishing it should be important. One way to start doing this is to focus on creating the type of reports that best serve the needs of the industry stakeholders.
The technology consists of a floating LNG (liquefied natural gas) turbine power plant combined with high capacity seawater desalinization capabilities. MODEC is offering the FSRWP® (Floating Storage Regasification Water-Desalination & Power-Generation) system.
From a green mining perspective, the FSRWP produces clean power with the highest thermal efficiency and lowest carbon foot-print.
Currently there are three mooring options for the floating system that should fit most any tidewater situation.
The bottom line is that if your mining project is near shore, and has both water supply and power issues, take a look at the FSRWP technology. One might say it is greener technology by using LNG (rather than coal, heavy fuel oil, or diesel) to generate power. At the same time it avoids competition with locals for access to fresh water.
Each year business leaders are queried about what they view as their major risks. The survey results are summarized in the Global Risk Report.
It is also interesting to look at the detailed 10 year table in the report to see how the risk perceptions have changed over the last decade.
Mining companies are always on the hunt for new projects to grow their cashflows. They would all like to find the “perfect” project; one with ideal conditions and great attributes.
Now take an honest look at some recent (or past) projects that you have been involved with. How many of the perfect attributes listed above would be represented? It would be surprising to see them all checked off. Unfortunately that means certain flaws (risks) must be accepted when developing a project.
The bottom line is that management understandably have a difficult task in making go/no-go decisions. Financial institutions have similar dilemmas when deciding on whether or not to finance a project.
You a create your own checklist but if you would like a copy of mine just email me at KJKLTD@rogers.com and let me know a bit about how you plan to use it (for my own curiosity). Specify if you would prefer the Excel or PDF versions.
Mining due diligence exercises can be interesting and great learning experiences, even for senior people that have seen it all. However they can also be mentally taxing due to the volumes of information that one must find, review, and comprehend, all in a short period of time.
His topic is interesting and relevant to today’s mining industry. Paul raised many thoughtful points supported by data. He gave me permission to share his information.
I agree with many of the points raised by Paul in his study. The mining industry has some credibility issues based on recent performance and therefore understanding the causes and then repairing that credibility will be important for the future.
