Optimisation, optimisation, optimisation!

[Guy Shelby]

Hi all
Optimisation phase of any project is ultimately a very exciting stage, as it means the company has gathered most of the inputs for the Feasibility study and they are on the last slog to maximise economic performance. So it is a really important stage so deserves to be under its own subject header.

Is quite apparent across boards that optimisation is not a hot topic per sae, it can even be almost a taboo subject. Is usual to see a company, in what seems a never ending cycle of optimising to try and eek out that last bit of economic performance necessary to get a new project over the line to produce its all important bankable feasibility study necessary for mine development funding.

With GGP and Hav DFS it is now in a completely different and almost unique situation. Yes, to satisfy funding facility terms, is dependant in the DFS but with Telfer inventory and revenue there are not those burdens placed fully on the target resource and reserves to carry all the mine development costs and then having to see the company have to give away most of the projects NPV to get it built like would be seen with just about every explorer developing its primary asset. It’s almost a miracle to see a new mine go into production these days, with most PI’s having usually long gone after the discovery phase on the Lasonde curve. Only long suffering investors usually get to experience optimisation so I’m sure many Greatland PI’s don’t truly appreciate the significance of the enviable position they are actually in due to the companies quick evolution to producer, although they have witnessed the dilution necessary in that respect to achieve that goal, but that goal has been uniquely transformational in fairness.

But hey, the Flowsheet design is certainly looking now to have the potential to see some significant optimisations in the DFS. From that 2nd decline and incorporation of bulk handling ore transfer, bitumen haul road that will be faster and smoother for road trains giving it longevity and be maintenance free. The other significant supporting study is looking into converting to a single train processing operation.

I’m sure there are other operational opportunities that can be streamlined or plant optimisations.

Are there any that have missed or potential other areas that could be incorporated to maximise profit?

Best, Guy
(Howezap lse)

[Hydrogen]

Thanks for this Guy!

Great to see this site now is attracting really connected and quality contributors and has become the go to site for serious investors.

Well done Liam

[Luxpagain]

And we seem to have long forgotten the decision to mine

Those were the days, pre SD

[Guy Shelby]

Appreciated that Hydro.

Why the fuss some might think? We got this amazing high grade ore body, just get it built and let the cash roll in.

But optimisation in UG mining is actually crucial due to the obvious complexities. They can and will interrogate 4 main areas, infrastructure layout, stope envelopes, production scheduling and the selection and utilisation of plant. Although these areas are all intrinsically linked. So there is huge scope to come up with the ultimate system to get the ore out and onto the ROM pad. The main reason to Optimise is to minimise input cost while maximising output ie. profit, while also reducing waste, which all in, will further exploit Havieron’s low AISC and drive up profitability.

What tends to be overlooked are the bigger challenges that come with underground mining unlike in open pit. UG is very unforgiving because once the infrastructure has been laid out and developed, the operation is 'locked-in' to the layout and any future changes can be very costly.

So therefore, optimising the development layout is critical for the future operation particularly if the viability of a second decline needs to be bought into the design planning and final mine plan.

These crucial design processes of the infrastructure will generally be from the desk study work, 3D modelled using algorithmic optimisation software.

How much will Ai be utilised to assist in ‘overall’ mine design would be an interesting question for the team to ask.

Guy

[Guy Shelby]

Listening again to latest vidcast the reasoning behind the decision looking into a single mill processing train becomes more clear. The bottleneck causing both mills having been run at 85% efficiency when working together appears to be upstream from primary crushers. Milling tends to be the usual bottleneck in the circuit, but shaun was quite clear in stating both crushers would be more efficient in running a single mill at 120%. There will of course be a trade off in overall throughput against cost savings in theory, with this under review will examine the economics.

It also means there will be increased flexibility in switching between dual crush/single mill and the dual train.

But, it opens a ‘theoretical’ type technical question. Can selective blasting be used as a pre concentration step for Havieron’ hard rock to increase fragmentation to smaller size material going to the ROM pad to help improve overall beneficiation efficiency?
Can appreciate an optimum and more precise blasting is required to create clean straight stope walls but was considering what technical or final recovery issues there could be from selective blasting the remainder of the stope, if at all feasible UG.

[Redirons]

One thing is for sure Guy, Shaun has built around him one of the most knowledgeable and experienced Team one could possibly wish for at GGP, so I have every confidence that as per the rest of Shaun’s strategy thus far, the rest will be actioned in the very best way possible for GGP and its shareholders. Exciting times!!!