Articles tagged with: Feasibility Study

Work Breakdown Structures – Don’t Forget About The WBS

Date: May 22, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

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.

The 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.

Importance of a Study Manager – That’s the Key

Date: May 18, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 1 Reply

Over my career I have worked as an engineering team member on numerous projects and mining studies. Some studies went better than others. Unfortunately some dragged on, ran over budget, and ended up delivering a less than optimal product once all was said and done.

There are numerous factors that will influence the successful completion of a study. They can be related to the quality of the technical team, the budget, the time window, and direction from the Owner. However the key factor that I observed is the competency of the Study Manager (or Project Manager).

Study Managers must wear many hats

Study managers are responsible for being the main liaison with the Owner. They must herd a team of geologists and engineers in the same direction. They must ensure that technical quality and consistency is maintained by the entire group. They are responsible for ensuring that budgets and timelines are being met. The combination of all of these responsibilities can be an onerous mission, more so depending on the experience of the Owner’s team.

Every technical team has those members that will deliver quality within timelines consistently. There are also team members that have difficulty meeting targets. The Study Manager, early on, needs to figure out who fits into which category and then must be able to work with each.

Studies can quickly grind to a halt

An entire study can quickly grind to a halt simply because one key component becomes bogged down. A good Study Manager may occasionally ruffle some feathers but is always appreciated by the team knowing that everyone will be held to account.

The Study Manager also needs to understand the objectives of the Owner and ensure the team is working towards those objectives.

The Study Manager however must also be honest with the Owner, keeping him informed of the actual progress and warn if some target will not be met.

The Study Manager coordinates communication within the team and with the Owner. Some managers are excellent at this while others fall into the trap of communicating on a “need-to-know” basis or “too late” basis.

Timely and thorough communication is important. Don’t assume that one is hampering progress by involving the team in frequent communications. They serve a purpose.

Environmental Assessments need engineering input

Often the Environmental Impact Assessment is being conducted concurrently with an engineering study. The level of internal and external communication now becomes even more critical due to the large number of new technical disciplines involved.

It is not uncommon for EIA’s to make regulatory commitments that have not been signed off by the engineering side. The Study Manager should be aware when such commitments are being made because the engineering design needs to reflect them.

You should approve the Study Manager

When approving the consultant’s Study Manager, keep in mind that in some instances you may find that different managers within the same organization may have different internal authority. For example, if technical people are needed on another project, some managers are able to keep their team together. Other managers may lose team members to the other project if that manager has more internal authority. Losing manpower doesn’t help a study progress, so if possible try to get a sense for the authority that the Study Manager has within the organization.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that when a project Owner has received proposals for a study and is in the process of awarding that job, the most important consideration is who will be the Study Manager. If possible meet or chat about how they will manage the study and what their experience is. Check references if possible.

The voluminous proposals provided by consulting firms contain a lot of information like Gantt charts, organizational charts, cost estimates, team resumes, safety plan, and corporate project experience. Focus on the Study Manager. Don’t assume they are simply an administrator scheduling meetings and issuing monthly reports. They are the key to success.

A good Study Manager can make a poor engineering team perform, while a poor Study Manager can bog down a great technical team.

One thing to be aware of is that with some firms, a Study Manager is not the same role as a Project Manager. The SM may undertake more clerical duties, such as weekly or monthly reports, manhour tracking, distributing documents, and coordinating the logistics of the study rather than the technical aspects that a Project Manager may look after.

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

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

Date: May 15, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

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

Owner’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.

Large or Small Mining Consulting Firms – Any Difference?

Date: May 7, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 2 Replies

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.

Multi-Company Mining Studies Can Work Well…or Not

Date: May 4, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

These days most, if not all, economics mining studies rely on a engineering teams comprised of participants from different consulting firms or from different regional offices of the same firm. This approach gives the opportunity to use specific experts for different aspects of the study.

My recollection is that many years ago larger consulting firms would offer to do an entire study in-house. They would have the in-house team to cover almost the entire study. That approach seems to have changed and now the multi-company path is the norm.

This approach is partly being driven by the clients who wish to use specific consultants they are familiar with and have existing relationships with.

In some instances, larger firms may still make the argument they can take on all of the project scope themselves. However one must reflect on such offers. The danger being a less qualified technical team seconded from offices that are not busy. Possibly you won’t get the best team; you get who is available.

In many multi-company studies, it is not uncommon that few of the team members have ever worked together before. It may be a consultant’s team building exercise right from the start.

I have had both good and bad experiences with these types of engineering teams. Some of them work very well while others floundered. Even when working with different offices of the same firm, things may not go as planned.

The Study Manager is Key

To have a successful mining study team, in my experience the two key factors are;

The competency of the Study Manager;
The amount (and style) of team communication.

The Study Manager is vital to keeping everyone working on the same page and ensuring timelines are met. A single team member delaying their deliverables will delay others on the team.

Some consulting firms have multiple projects underway at the same time. Unexpected delays in one study may cause them to shift idle personnel onto other studies. Unfortunately sometimes it is difficult to bring the team back together on the original study at a moment’s notice.

The Study Manager must ensure that everyone understands what their deliverables are. Generally this is done using a “Responsibility Matrix”, but these can sometimes be too general.

Where cost estimation is involved, the Responsibility Matrix should be supported by a Work Breakdown Structure (“WBS”) assigning the costing responsibilities. Given that the contentious parts of many studies are the capital and operating cost estimates, I personally view the WBS equally as important as the Responsibility Matrix.

Team communication is vital and there are different ways to do it. Weekly or bi-weekly conference calls work well but these need to be carefully managed. With a large team on a conference call, there is a fine line between getting too much technical detail versus not enough detail.

On some studies I have seen a weekly call restricted to one-hour long and then everyone flees until next week’s call. At the end of these conference calls, one might have an uneasy feeling of it being incomplete. Perhaps people were not clear on something but hesitated to ask become the one-hour time limit is up. In such cases it is important for the relevant parties to continue on or to have a separate call.

Make it important to speak up

The bottom line is that multi-company teams will work fine as long as the study manager is capable. Its not a simple task, and not everyone can do it well. However everyone (client and the other team members) appreciate working under a really good study manager.

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“.

In another blog post I have gone into a bit more depth on the role a Work Breakdown Structure plays. You can read that post at this link “Work Breakdown Structures – Don’t Forget About The WBS“.

4 Mining Study Types (Concept to Feasibility)

Date: April 29, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 2 Replies

Over my career I have been involved in various types of mine studies, ranging from desktop conceptual to definitive feasibility. Each type of study has a different purpose and therefore requires a different level of input and effort, and can have hugely different costs.

I have sat in on a few junior mining management discussions regarding whether they should be doing a PEA or a Pre-Feasibility Study, or a Feasibility instead of a Pre-Feasibility Study. Everyone had their opinion on how to proceed based on their own reasoning. Ultimately there is no absolute correct answer but there likely is one path that is better than the others. It depends on the short term and long term objectives of the company, the quality and quantity of data on hand, and the funding available.

4 types of mining studies

In general there are 4 basic levels of study, which are listed below. In this blog I am simply providing an overview of them. On the web there are detailed comparison tables, but anyone can contact me at KJKLTD@rogers.com for an a full copy of my table (an excerpt is shown below).

1. Desktop or Conceptual Mining Study

This would likely be an in-house study, non-43-101 compliant, and simply used to test the potential economics of the project. It lets management know where the project may go (see a previous blog at the link “Early Stage “What-if” Economic Analysis – How Useful Is It?”. I always recommend doing a desktop study, and preparing some type of small internal document to summarize it. It doesn’t take much time and is not made public so the inputs can be high level or simply guesses. This type of early stage study helps to frame the project for management and lets one test different scenarios.

2. Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”)

The PEA (or scoping study) can be 43-101 compliant and present the first snapshot of the project scope, size, and potential economics to investors. Generally the resource may still be uncertain (inferred classification), capital and operating costs are approximate (+/- 40%) since not all the operational or environmental issues are known at this time. Avoid promoting the PEA as an “almost” feasibility level study.

Don’t Announce a PEA Until You Know the Outcome

I recommend not announcing the start of a PEA until you are confident in what the outcome of that PEA will be. A reasonable desktop study done beforehand will let a company know if the economics for the PEA will be favorable. I have seen situations where companies have announced the start of a PEA and then during the course of the study, things not working out economically as well as envisioned. The economics were poorer than hoped and so a lot of re-scoping of the project was required. The PEA was delayed, and shareholders & analysts negative suspicions were raised in the meantime.

The PEA can be used to evaluate different development scenarios for the project (i.e. open pit, underground, small capacity, large capacity, heap leach, CIL, etc.). However the accuracy of the PEA is limited and therefore I suggest that the PEA scenario analysis only be used to discard obvious sub-optimal cases. Scenarios that are economically within a +/-30% range of each other many be too similar to discard at this PEA stage. This is where the PFS comes into play.

3. Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”)

The PFS will be developed using only measured and indicated resources (no inferred resource used) so the available ore tonnage may decrease from a previous PEA study. The PFS costing accuracy will be greater than a PEA. Therefore the PFS is the proper time to evaluate the remaining mine development scenarios. Make a decision on the single path forward going into the Feasibility study.

Use the PFS to determine the FS case

More data will be required for the FS, possibly a comprehensive infill drilling program to upgrade more of the the resource classification from inferred to indicated. Many companies, especially those with smaller projects might skip the PFS stage entirely and move directly to Feasibility. I don’t disagree with this approach if the project is fairly simple and had a well defined scope at the PEA stage.

4. Feasibility Study (“FS”)

The Feasibility Study is the final stage study prior to making a production decision. The feasibility study should preferably be done on a single project scope. Try to avoid more scenario option analysis at this stage.

Smaller companies should be careful when entering the FS stage. Once the FS is complete, shareholders will be expecting a production decision. If the company only intends to sell the project with no construction intention, they have now hit a wall. What to do next?

Sometimes management feel that a FS may help sell the project.

I don’t feel that a FS is needed to attract buyers and sell a project. Many potential buyers will do their own in-house due diligence, and possibly some alternate design and economic studies. Likely information from a PFS would be sufficient to give them what they need. A well advanced Environmental-Socio Impact Assessment may provide more comfort than a completed Feasibility Study would.

Conclusion

My final recommendation is that there is no right answer as to what study is required at any point in time. Different paths can be followed but consideration must be given to future plans for the company after the study is completed. Also consider what is the best use of shareholder money?

Company management may see pressure from retail shareholders, major shareholders, financial analysts, and the board of directors to “do a study”. Management must decide which mining study path is in the best longer term interests of the company. Maybe no study is warranted.

Note: If you would like to get notified when new blogs are posted, then sign up on the KJK mailing list on the website. Follow us on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and insights.

Mine Financial Modelling – Please Think of Others

Date: April 27, 2015 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

In my role as a mining consultant I am often required to review spreadsheet cost models or cashflow models built by others. Some of these spreadsheets can be monsters, incorporating multiple worksheets, cross-linking between worksheet cells, and having hard wired numbers inside cell formulas.

Some of the models I have reviewed will build the entire operating cost (mining, processing, G&A) in one grand file. They will build in the capital cost too and finally provide the economic model… all in one spreadsheet!

This makes the model very complex to audit and it becomes difficult to follow the logic. Sometimes gut feel says there are formula or linkage errors in there somewhere but you just can’t find them. In these types of models my focus is on trying to figure out the formula logic than actually looking at the validity of the inputs and output.

It seems that only the model developer can really work with these spreadsheets and the rest of us can just hope that they have created everything correctly.

Don’t be too clever

Over the years, I have learned that there is an art to creating a clear, concise, and auditable cashflow model (or cost model). Once in awhile you come across one that is well crafted and isn’t an example of someone trying to show how clever they are.

In building the spreadsheet models I have learned to not do too much within the same model, especially if different people are involved in its foundation. My other suggestions are:

Color coded input cells differently than formula cells.
Carry over values rather than linking to other worksheets.
Highlight cells that are carried over from other worksheets.
Never hardwire numbers into a formula.
Use named cells for key fixed inputs (like exchange rate, fuel price, etc.)
Use conditional formatting when possible to help identify errors.
Put your “Totals” column along the left side of the worksheet so you can add columns if needed.

I won’t go into detail on good spreadsheet practices, but you can check out the instructional presentations prepared by Peter Card at Economic Evaluations (http://economicevaluation.com.au).

He has some excellent practical recommendations that all financial modellers should consider. It doesn’t take long to review his online courses and it’s worth your time to do it. His recommendations can generally apply to any Excel modelling exercise, whether its costing, scheduling, or economic analysis.

Try to help by building in clarity.

The bottom line is that you must build your spreadsheet models compatible with the way you think. However not everyone thinks the same way so try to keep all aspects easily identifiable and traceable. Be consistent in the model format from worksheet to worksheet. Be consistent in methodologies on all worksheets and with all your models. Your client, colleagues, and reviewers will thank you.

Another aspect of due diligences that can be taxing is figuring out the structure of a data room. Simply throwing all of your files into an unstructured data room helps no one. I have written another blog about this annoyance at “Mining Due Diligence Data Rooms – Help!“

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/.

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 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.

Over my career I have worked as an engineering team member on numerous projects and mining studies. Some studies went better than others. Unfortunately some dragged on, ran over budget, and ended up delivering a less than optimal product once all was said and done.

Study Managers must wear many hats

Every technical team has those members that will deliver quality within timelines consistently. There are also team members that have difficulty meeting targets. The Study Manager, early on, needs to figure out who fits into which category and then must be able to work with each.

Studies can quickly grind to a halt

An entire study can quickly grind to a halt simply because one key component becomes bogged down. A good Study Manager may occasionally ruffle some feathers but is always appreciated by the team knowing that everyone will be held to account.

The Study Manager also needs to understand the objectives of the Owner and ensure the team is working towards those objectives.

The Study Manager however must also be honest with the Owner, keeping him informed of the actual progress and warn if some target will not be met.

The Study Manager coordinates communication within the team and with the Owner. Some managers are excellent at this while others fall into the trap of communicating on a “need-to-know” basis or “too late” basis.

Timely and thorough communication is important. Don’t assume that one is hampering progress by involving the team in frequent communications. They serve a purpose.

Environmental Assessments need engineering input

Often the Environmental Impact Assessment is being conducted concurrently with an engineering study. The level of internal and external communication now becomes even more critical due to the large number of new technical disciplines involved.

It is not uncommon for EIA’s to make regulatory commitments that have not been signed off by the engineering side. The Study Manager should be aware when such commitments are being made because the engineering design needs to reflect them.

You should approve the Study Manager

Conclusion

A good Study Manager can make a poor engineering team perform, while a poor Study Manager can bog down a great technical team.

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

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.

The RFP doesn’t need to be complicated

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.

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

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.

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?