Forge - March 2009
‘Considering our modern day mining environment, it is not uncommon to find moats surrounding the business process forming part of the mining value chain. These moats are typically the result of a lack of integration between systems facilitating the different business processes and disciplines in a mine.’ Karel Gilliland 
Feedback and automation adding value to the Mining Execution Chain |
Maptek takes the initiative in bridging the Mining Execution Value Chain
There can be no doubt as to the impact made by computerised systems on operational efficiency in the mining industry over the past two decades. While significant progress has been made at the equipment, process and enterprise levels, surprisingly little headway has been made at the operational level.
It is common practice today for a central control room operator to manage the primary production fleet at a mine via a Fleet Management System - controlling the activity of the load and haul fleet, maximising fleet availability, utilisation and efficiency, while also managing production tonnage and grade targets.
Other examples of process level automation include medium and short term planning as well as the control of fixed mining plant via a centralised SCADA system. In a similar fashion, more operations are using Enterprise Resource Planning systems to plan, automate and optimise the mining supply chain at enterprise level.
One version of the truth
When it comes to automating or optimising across business processes, however, the mining industry is lagging behind. Terms such as ‘silos of automation’ are often used to refer to the lack of integration across the mining execution value chain.
‘One version of the truth’ is commonly used to indicate the need to align disciplines such as production, engineering and quality, while ‘bridging the gap’ is a phrase coined to express the requirement to breach the divide between the production and enterprise levels.
This terminology reflects on the absence of a mining execution system on the operational level. The full paper, presented by Karel Gilliland to IQPC Mine Haulage in 2008, looks at the implications of this, specifically focusing on load and haul activities at the process level.
Example scenarios
Consider a mechanised underground operation. If the face activities are not synchronised, or if the incline conveyors are not taken into account, then the haulage activities on the tramming level will be restrained.
Similarly, in an open pit scenario, it is not uncommon to see a short-term plan for the week outdated by day 2, resulting in sub-optimal recovery, and in some instances the throttling of production in order to achieve the required blend for a consignment.
The logical conclusion is that unless the operation is managed from an operational level perspective, through the introduction of a Mining Execution System, then the goal of managing and optimising across the Execution Value Chain, as well as aligning the executional and enterprise environments, will remain elusive.
Extract from Manoeuvering the Moats - Spanning the Mining Execution Value Chain.
Download the full paper (654kb pdf) >>
| Subscribe to Forge |
|---|