Gregory B S, 2002. 12th International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection. Kalgoorlie.

Excavator Selection
By B S Gregory 1

Abstract
The excavator selection process is quite complex due to the large number of influencing factors, many of these are variable and difficult to accurately define. The majority of mining companies prepare a tender of general specifications and suppliers will then match a product to those specifications. The mining company will then evaluate the tenders on the basis of the best available deal. In this paper, the importance of open pit excavator selection in terms of its impact on operating costs is analysed and discussed. A rigorous process for selection is then outlined.

The Authors Relevant Experience

The author has been personally involved in excavator selection analyses resulting in purchases for the following operations: Bougainville Copper Limited, Panguna; Murrin Murrin; Cadia; Telfer.

loaders, draglines, bucket wheel excavators, scrapers and continuous miners may be valid alternatives in specific applications but these will not be discussed in detail. The selection of the type, size and operating mode of a loading unit can be a complex task governed by a number of factors that may be variable and poorly defined depending upon the maturity of the mining operation. Selection of an excavator is often dependent upon factors such as: mine design; mine production schedule; geology; material characteristics performance; and expected blasting

He has also been involved in numerous other analyses involving truck selection considerations including the following operations: Tarmoola; Mt Keith; Harmony.

climate and/or environment; expected reliability of the excavators; capital cost and operating cost; required mobility of the excavator; maintenance support analysis; power costs vs fuel costs.

Introduction
In this paper the importance of the open pit excavator selection process is examined and a suggested methodology is outlined. The term "excavator" is used here as a collective term covering face shovels and backhoes. (The author is aware that the term "excavator" is sometimes used as an alternative to "backhoe".) A general observation is that there is no accepted industry standard methodology for the selection of the most suitable excavator for an open pit. As is discussed in this paper, excavator selection can have a significant impact on the efficiency and profitability of a mining operation and hence a comprehensive systematic approach is warranted. This paper primarily focuses on the selection of face shovels and backhoes for medium to large scale, hard rock open pit mining. Other types of loading equipment such as front end

The costing analysis presented in this paper has been performed using Australian Mining Consultants Pty Ltd's (AMC's) OPMincost cost estimation model. The version utilised was based on a mine with the following attributes: 20 year mine life; maximum uphaul of 500m; total movement averaging 50 Mtpa; average dry density of material ~2.5 t/bcm.

1. Principal Mining Engineer, AMC Consultants Pty Ltd, 9 Havelock Street, West Perth, WA. Email: [email protected]

OPMincost is a comprehensive, spreadsheet-based model, which has been developed over a number of years by AMC and has been utilised successfully on about 20 projects. For the version used in this analysis, the following basic assumptions were used: owner mining;

Excavator Selection

owner maintenance; fuel price after rebate of A$0.36; interest rate of 7.5% per annum; 365 day, 24 hour operation with a two and one FIFO roster.

insufficient selectivity may result in grade, dilution and ore loss; poor matching with haul trucks results in increased haulage costs; loading inefficiency can cause downstream problems including a poor match with processing plant capacity and haulage fleet inefficiencies; poor excavator reliability can cause significant inefficiencies downstream including haulage fleet redirection, haul truck stand-down and/or production shortfalls; poor loading performance can directly impact on ore production and hence revenue; poor loading performance can result in insufficient waste stripping which may cause ore production delays and reduced revenues; sub-optimal sizing of excavators will result in opportunity costs, especially with regard to loading and hauling activities.

Cost inputs were based on May 2002 budget quotations from equipment suppliers. Considerable effort has been made to validate cost inputs and model outputs, including reference to recent benchmarking data and checking with various relevant industry professionals. Although the model is based on a real project, it is not appropriate or necessary to name the project.

The Importance of Excavator Selection For Operational Profitability

To put this subject in context, we should examine the importance of excavator selection in terms of its impact on operational profitability. Firstly, let us look at the proportion of total mining costs, represented by the loading activity. Using OPMincost, the contributions of the various mining activities to total mining costs were analysed. Results are summarised below in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Total Mining Cost by Activity

12% Other 6% Management & Supervision 12% Load Ancillary 17% 5% 10% Drill Blast

The effects mentioned above are discussed in more detail below and in order to examine the significance of these effects, an order-of-magnitude profit impact has been calculated based on the example project mentioned above (low grade open pit gold, 20 year mine life, 50 Mtpa total movement). Of course, the relative magnitude of these impacts will vary significantly for different operations but the intention here is simply to illustrate the importance of excavator selection.

Dilution and ore loss effects

Because geology and the nature of the occurrence of ore varies widely between operations, the potential for excessive dilution and ore loss, resulting from sub-optimal excavator selection, will also vary. In narrow vein deposits this can be a major issue but in disseminated orebodies excavator selectivity may be irrelevant. In operations where selectivity is an issue, the effect of ore dilution and ore loss that could result from inappropriate excavator selection will likely outweigh any mining cost effects on profitability. For example, an indicative calculation showed that if ore dilution at the example operation mentioned above increased from 10 to 20%, the loss in annual revenue would be equivalent to approximately 50% of the total annual mining cost.

Haul

38%

Effect of poor match with haul trucks

In most cases in the author's experience, excavators are firstly selected by matching excavator production characteristics with operational requirements and then haul trucks are matched to the selected excavators. So it could be argued that poor matching of trucks and excavators is usually a truck selection issue. However, instances do occur where excavators need to be matched to an existing truck fleet so the following is relevant here. To analyse and illustrate the effect on mining costs of excavator/truck matching, five different truck sizes were matched with three different excavator sizes. A particular mining scenario - mining bulk waste from a particular bench was selected and the total cost of loading and hauling (excluding ancillary, supervision and administration costs) was determined. These costs were converted to an index for comparative purposes. The results from this analysis are listed in Table 1. This table shows:

These proportions will obviously vary from operation to operation but a check on AMC's database confirmed that loading costs typically make up between 15 to 20% of total mining costs for large open pits. Based on this analysis, it appears that loading costs may not be as important as haulage costs and it could be mistakenly concluded that less effort may be warranted in selection of loading equipment. However, because of the pivotal nature of the loading activity in a mining operation, excavator performance affects the efficiency of the whole operation, including the processing plant and excavator selection often requires as much or more effort than truck selection. In addition to its impact on the cost of the loading activity, suboptimal excavator selection may impact on operational profitability via the following mechanisms:

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

number of passes to load the truck; load time (which includes truck exchange time); the cost index.

Research by the Parker Bay Company has shown that the industry average number of passes per truck load is five. The results shown in Table 1 tend to support this. See also Figure 2 which shows a minimum cost index around four to five pass loading for the 650t and 400t excavators but an unexpected result for the 100t excavator where cost efficiencies of larger trucks override the excavator/truck match effect.

It is very unlikely that mining operations would select an excavator that is more than one class away from the optimal match, so for this analysis it is assumed that the sensitivity to a shortfall in this aspect is the difference between the cost indices of two adjacent classes. The approximate average magnitude of this difference is 5%. The effect of this truck selection shortfall on total mining costs would be approximately 2.5% because load and haul accounts for roughly 50% of total mining costs as defined in this analysis.

Table 1 - Analysis of the effects of excavator/truck matching on load and haul costs
Operating Weight (t) Bucket Capacity (cu.m) Truck Size (Payload) (t) 49 91 146 187 230 353 Number of Passes 4 7 12 15 18 100 6.5 Load Time (min) 2.13 3.48 5.73 7.08 8.43 Cost Index (%) 200% 144% 130% 126% 134% Number of Passes Excavators 400 20 Load Time (min) Cost Index (%) Number of Passes 650 34 Load Time (min) Cost Index (%)

2 3 4 5 8

1.25 1.72 2.18 2.65 4.05

125% 114% 104% 101% 110%

2 3 3 4 6

1.25 1.72 1.72 2.18 3.12

135% 115% 102% 100% 106%

Figure 2 - Excavator cost index vs number of truck passes

230%

210%

190%

170%

Cost Index (%)

150% 100 tonne excavator 130% 400 tonne excavator 110%

90%

650 tonne excavator

70%

50% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Truck Passes

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

Effect of loading inefficiency on hauling costs and total mining costs

In this scenario inefficiencies that relate to sub-optimal matching of excavators to digging conditions is examined. Examples here include: Poor match of excavators to bench height. There is a bench height range where each size of face shovel and backhoe performs at maximum efficiency. Outside that range inefficiencies relate to problems like poor bucket fill and frequent repositioning where the bench is too low, or rilling and safety problems if the bench is too high. For reasons of selectivity and/or operational efficiency, bench (or flitch) heights cannot always be adjusted to suit the digging characteristics of the excavator. Inappropriate excavator attachment configuration resulting in insufficient breakout force and/or digging power. This situation can arise during the selection process where insufficient attention is paid to material characteristics such as expected density, fragmentation and swell factors.

To quantify these potential effects, the following arbitrarily determined parameter changes were made to the OPMincost model: 10% increase in excavator maintenance costs

Increase of 10 minutes per shift in trucks waiting for excavators. These resulted in a: 2% increase in haulage costs 4% increase in loading costs 1% increase in total mining costs.

As for the effects of reduced ore production, again the relative importance compared to other cost impacts will vary greatly from operation to operation but generally this effect is the most serious in terms of potential impact on profitability. For example, an indicative calculation showed that if annual ore production was reduced by 5% for the example operation mentioned above, the loss of revenue would be equivalent to approximately a 20% increase in annual mining costs.

To analyse this effect the digging efficiency factor within OPMincost was reduced by 10%. The result of this was: 10% increase in loading costs 1% increase in hauling costs 2% increase in total mining costs.

Effect of excavator sizing on load and haul costs

The OPMincost model was used to analyse the effect of excavator sizing on load and haul costs. It was not considered appropriate to compare loading costs in isolation. This is because of the effect that changes in loading time have on haulage costs and because haulage costs usually make up about 40% of total mining costs whereas loading costs only account for about 15 to 20% for large hard rock open pit mines. Load and haul costs for five different excavator sizes and four truck sizes were calculated on the basis of a fixed mining schedule. To simplify analysis, auxiliary equipment costs were not included in this analysis. In general, inclusion of auxiliary costs would tend to make the larger excavators look more attractive because the number of loading units and hence cleanup dozers would be lower. Load and haul costs were converted to indices relative to the lowest cost alternative and these results were plotted as shown in Figure 3. Equipment matches that were not seen as practical were not included. Conclusions that were drawn from this analysis are: Truck size is a more dominant driver of load and haul than excavator size. The lowest load and haul cost was achieved with the combination of the largest mining equipment analysed. Given a particular truck size, the largest excavator did not always result in the lowest cost index. This was due mainly to the fact that lowest costs are generally achieved where shovel bucket and truck tray capacities are well matched. For a good excavator/truck match, each swing of the excavator delivers the maximum bucket payload and load time is not excessive. As mentioned previously, usually four to six pass loading delivers the best results. Given a particular truck size, load and haul costs varied in a range of +5% with different excavator sizes.

Effect of poor excavator reliability on hauling costs and total mining costs
Poor reliability is defined here to mean frequent breakdowns. The most common measure of this aspect is the mean time between failures (MTBF). Reliability is related to availability (the time the machine is available for productive use divided by calendar time) but reliability reflects the level of operational disruption (inefficiency) caused by breakdowns. Poor excavator reliability can be related to excavator selection if the problem is a function of the excavator design, suitability of the machine for its duties, performance of parts suppliers or technical backup of equipment suppliers. All these issues need to be thoroughly researched and responded to in the selection process. A mining operation can be affected by poor excavator reliability in the following ways: Increased maintenance costs, especially through inefficient use of maintenance resources. This is because poor reliability implies frequent unplanned maintenance activities. Production shortfalls caused by reduced effective excavator hours. The most serious potential consequence of this would be loss of revenue due to interruption of ore supply to the processing plant. Haulage fleet inefficiencies, especially where unexpected excavator breakdowns cause unplanned re-allocation of haulage resources.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

Figure 3 - Load and haul cost indices

135%

125%

115% Truck Payload 91.2 t 105% 146 t 187 t 230 t

95%

85%

75% 100 180 250 500 700 Excavator Sizes (Tonnes Op. Wt.)

Summary of potential impacts on profitability

The abovementioned indicative potential impacts on profitability that could be caused by excavator selection shortfalls are summarised below in Table 2. Table 2 - Summary of potential impacts on profitability Effect Type of Impact Potential Impact on Profitability (converted to equivalent total mining cost percentage) 50.0% 2.5% 2.0% 20.0%

Figure 4 - Potential impacts on profitability (in terms of percentage of total mining costs)

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Dilution Poor Reliability Truck Match Inefficiency

Dilution due to poor selectivity Poor match with haul trucks Inefficient loading Poor excavator reliability

Revenue Mining cost Mining cost Revenue

Description of a Rigorous Process For Loading Unit Selection

Key considerations
The following key considerations need to be addressed in the selection process: Selectivity requirements geological occurrence of the ore will influence selection of the mining method and excavator size and type required to minimise dilution and ore loss effects. requirements of various

Please note, the profitability effects relating to dilution and reliability were quantified in terms of loss of revenue. These quantities were converted to an equivalent total mining cost for comparison purposes. Obviously these effects are potentially very significant and their magnitude highlights the importance of excavator selection. Refer to Figure 4 for a graphical representation of these effects.

Maximum production material types.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

Blending requirements may require ore from several sources to be delivered at specified feed rates. considering capacities and loading heights.

E. F. G. H. I.

Matching to haul trucks Expected digging characteristics of material to be mined for example, loose density, fragmentation, swell factor.

Develop/customise cost estimation model. First pass analysis and maintenance cost estimation. Prepare and distribute tender requests for excavator supply. Prepare and distribute tender requests for contract maintenance. Finalise analysis.

A - Assemble a cross-functional team

Ideally, the following fields of expertise would be represented on the excavator selection team: Operations. Maintenance. Mine planning. Financial analysis. Contract administration.

Minimum mining width required. Excavator mobility requirements how often does the excavator need to relocate and how far does it have to move? electric rope shovels are most competitive in bulk mining situations and where power costs are reasonably low. usually driven by selectivity considerations. Face shovels require higher bench heights for efficient digging.

Electric rope shovel versus hydraulic excavator

Face shovel versus backhoe configuration

B - Determine key operational requirements and analyse where necessary

In hard rock mining the three main operational requirements to be considered for excavator selection are production rate, selectivity and flexibility. Production rate - to match waste stripping schedules and required ore delivery rates to the process plant. In mature operations the estimation of production rates should be fairly reliable because of experience with the diggability of materials to be mined. However, for a greenfields operation, estimation can be more difficult because of uncertainty in predicting the main productivity factors such as: swell factors which are related to material characteristics and blasting performance (fragmentation); bucket fill factors which vary according to material characteristics, blockiness, fragmentation, operator performance, bench heights etc; cycle times which can be affected by digging conditions.

Reliability of excavator. Reliability of suppliers/support. Operating costs: life-cycle maintenance fuel/power and lubrication operator costs GET.

Capital costs. Lead time for delivery. New versus second-hand equipment. Residual/salvage values. Cost analysis (preferably Net Present Cost). Industry trends.

Suggested process
Different circumstances may require markedly different approaches to that described below. The following process is based on a situation where: Time constraints (in relation to the selection process) are not overly onerous. There are no special relationships between the purchaser and any particular supplier group. Excavators would be owned (or leased) by the mine owner. Mine life exceeds the economic life of the excavators.

In estimating these factors it is useful to have access to a database of comparable, measured examples. That is, previous performance in similar material-types may be the best starting point for estimation factors. Note that, in relation to production rates, mine planning and excavator selection can, in some situations, be an iterative process comprising variations of the following steps: a mine plan is developed to satisfy production targets; excavators are selected that best meet the mine plan requirements and satisfy other criteria, eg least cost; the mine plan may be adjusted to take advantage of any excess excavator capacity.

In summary, the suggested process would be: A. B. C. D. Assemble a cross-functional team. Determine key operational requirements and analyse where necessary. Review industry trends. Request detailed information from equipment suppliers.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

Selectivity. As discussed in the previous section, the importance of mining selectivity for operational profitability varies widely between mines according to the style of occurrence of mineralisation. Where selectivity is an issue, careful analysis is warranted because of the need to find the appropriate trade-off between dilution/ore loss and mining costs.

Figure 6 - Effect of mining block size on ore grade reef deposit

102%

100%

21 cubic metre backhoe

Ore Grade relative to base case

26 cubic metre shovel

98%

35 cubic metre shovel 38 cubic metre rope shovel

This aspect can be analysed using standard integrated mine planning software such as Datamine. The methodology for this analysis can be summarised as follows. For each excavator type and size: re-block the resource model to match the excavator's selective mining unit dimensions, producing uniform blocks with diluted grade; apply appropriate mining and processing costs to orebody model blocks; apply appropriate metallurgical recoveries for calculated grade ranges; apply profit algorithm; calculate total operating cashflow; plot results of operating cashflow versus excavator size.

96%

50 cubic metre rope shovel

94%

92%

90%

88% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 SMU Volume (Bcm)

This graph shows that with this type of deposit, the larger the block size the more dilution of ore grade. Figures 7 and 8 show the same relationships as described above (ie, cashflow versus excavator bucket size and ore grade versus mining block size) for more disseminated (actually a quartz stockwork deposit in this example) ore deposits where selectivity is less important. As can be seen in Figure 7, the economics of using larger mining equipment balance out the benefits of selectivity and, on the basis of this graph, it would be equally valid to select a 21m3 backhoe or a 50m3 rope shovel. Clearly other operational factors should be considered in conjunction with this analysis in order to make the appropriate selection. Flexibility. In this context, flexibility relates to the ability of an excavator to respond to changes in digging requirements. These requirements may involve selectivity issues and/or the need to relocate the excavator between different material types or mining areas on a regular basis.

An example of such a graph is shown below in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Operating surplus versus excavator bucket size - reef deposit

110%

105%

21 cubic metre backhoe 26 cubic metre shovel 35 cubic metre shovel 38 cubic metre rope shovel 50 cubic metre rope shovel

Cashflow relative to base case

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

SMU Volume (Bcm)

Please note that the shape of the curves will vary from operation to operation in accordance with geological, operational and cost variations. Also, the curves on the graph have resulted from analysis of a reef type deposit where selectivity is a significant factor. The average diluted ore grade resulting from selective digging with the smaller excavator, is higher than for the larger excavators. In this case the 21m3 backhoe should be selected because it would provide the best operating surplus. Figure 6 shows an example of the effect of mining block size on diluted ore grade in a reef type deposit where selective mining is desirable.

In terms of selectivity, backhoes are more flexible than face shovels and hydraulic faced shovels are more flexible than electric rope shovels, due to the digging actions of the machines. Backhoes can better selectively mine flat-dipping deposits than face shovels and backhoes can also selectively mine to steeply dipping contacts. Face shovels can usually mine selectively to steep dipping contacts. Rope shovels have a fairly restrictive digging action because the bucket must mainly be lifted vertically through the face so selective mining is usually not suited to these machines. In terms of flexibility to relocate, hydraulic excavators are more mobile than electric rope shovels because they typically travel at about 2 kph compared to 1 kph for rope shovels. Also, the cable-handling work required when relocating rope shovels necessitates the use of more resources. To better balance the comparison between electric rope shovels and hydraulic excavators it should be noted that rope shovels remain the loading tool of choice for a significant proportion of applications worldwide. These machines are especially suited for bulk mining applications where frequent shovel-moves are not required and where power costs are attractive.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

Figure 7 - Operating surplus versus excavator bucket size - quartz stockwork deposit
110%

D - Request detailed information from equipment suppliers

This request would generally include the following: Reason for request. Description of operation including: description of loading duties; material characteristics such as density, swell factors etc; mine life; mining rate; estimated number of excavators required.

105% Operating Cashflow relative to Base Case

100%

95%

90%

21 cubic metre backhoe 26 cubic metre shovel

8,000

85%

35 cubic metre shovel 38 cubic metre rope shovel

80%

50 cubic metre rope shovel

Budget pricing. Component replacement schedule and parts pricing. Maintenance labour hours estimate component replacement schedule. Average fuel consumption rates. Lubrication consumption rates. Technical specification. Maximum suspended load and bucket weight. A listing of equipment numbers in the state, country and worldwide. Estimated delivery time from time of order. to match

75% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 SMU Volume (Bcm)

Figure 8 - Effect of mining block size on ore grade quartz stockwork deposit
102%

100%

Ore Grade relative to base case

98%

96%

E - Develop/customise cost estimation model

21 cubic metre backhoe 26 cubic metre shovel

94%

92%

35 cubic metre shovel 38 cubic metre rope shovel

90%

This model needs to cover all costs that would be affected by the excavator selection decision so that the total cost of alternatives can be compared. It is usual practice that Net Present Costs (NPC's) are calculated and compared so that the time value of money is taken into account. Development of comprehensive cost estimation models can be a time-consuming process. AMC's approach is to minimise this time by customising the OPMincost model for each application. A flow diagram representing OPMincost methodology is presented in Figure 9. In brief terms OPMincost calculates equipment productivities and hourly operating costs and combining the two calculates the total cost of the respective activity such as load and haul. Inputs to the cost estimation model, eg OPMincost include: are being Truck travel times and average fuel consumptions for each haul profile. Mining schedule. Truck specifications. Excavator specifications. Equipment maintenance costs. Calendar and operating roster parameters. Material characteristics. Equipment operating cost parameters. Wage rates. Operating delay estimates and efficiency factors, etc.

50 cubic metre rope shovel

88% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 SMU Volume (Bcm)

C - Review industry trends

It is useful to understand trends within the industry because these will reflect the opportunities that are available currently and in the future as a result of excavator selection. For example: Is the trend towards electric rope shovels or hydraulic excavators? Why? What is the most popular excavator size? What cost-cutting implemented? developments

What new technological developments are likely to be available in the near future? Is owner-maintenance becoming more popular? or OEM maintenance

Which makes and models of excavators are selling the most and how happy are current users?

Methods of review are many and varied, including literature search, suppliers' information, field visits, conferences, internet searches, magazines, utilising specialist consultants and visiting manufacturing plants.

Outputs required from the cost estimation model to compare alternatives include:

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

Excavator Selection

Excavator productivities and numbers required to meet the mining schedule. Number of trucks required to meet the mining schedule. Total load and haul operating costs. Total load and haul ownership costs. Total load and haul cash flows. Load and haul NPC.

It is also preferable to produce the following outputs to provide a clear understanding of equipment combination scenarios and allow for reality checks, eg comparing with statistics from other operations: Total annual operating hours. Total operating personnel requirements. Total maintenance personnel requirements. Hourly maintenance costs.

Figure 9 - OPMincost flow diagram - load and haul costing version

Set Basic Inputs

Determine Haul Profiles

Talpac Inputs

Talpac Analysis

Costing Parameters Productivity Parameters Material Characteristics Truck Travel Times and Fuel Consumptions

Calendar Parameters Excavator Productivity Load Time Payload

Calculate Excavator Productivities

Calculate Truck Productivities and Match to Excavators

Truck and Excavator Productivities

Calculate Equipment Hourly Costs

Available Equipment and Labour Hours

Annual Equipment Hours

Calculate Truck and Excavator Hours

Mining Schedule Quantities

Annual Labour Hours

Operating Hours

Calculate Operator Numbers

Caculate Maintenance Labour Numbers

Calculate Excavator and Truck Numbers

Calculate Truck and Excavator Costs

Misc. Fixed Costs

Calculate Wages Costs

Calculate Ownership Costs

Calculate Load and Haul NPC

F - First pass analysis and maintenance cost estimation

Carry out a first pass analysis using the cost estimation model and discuss options with equipment suppliers, with a view to AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

gaining an understanding of issues and opportunities and developing a tender request short-list.

Excavator Selection

It is during this phase of the analysis that maintenance cost projections are developed. This is a very important exercise (maintenance costs account for approximately 50% of loading costs), especially if owner-maintenance is being considered but even if contract maintenance is preferred, results provide a useful check on tendered contract maintenance rates. A checklist for items to be included in maintenance costs follows: Freight. Lubrication fluids. On-site and/or off-site labour costs. Unscheduled maintenance allowances. Bucket maintenance. Supervision and management. Tooling. GET replacement costs. Cranage. Oil sampling. Servicing costs.

new fleets of mining equipment are acquired. Possible reasons for this are: The risk of maintenance costs being underestimated is reduced. The problems associated with the owner recruiting and managing the maintenance crew is largely eliminated. Outcomes from contract maintenance from the owner's perspective have been quite good in terms of maintenance costs and equipment availability.

I - Finalise analysis
The steps involved here include: Review of tender responses. Discussion and negotiation with tenderers. Validation of key aspects of tender responses by checking actual industry experience. Calculate NPCs using the cost estimation model, incorporating tender responses. Carry out a risk analysis. If necessary, prepare a decision matrix to assist in finalising the selection.

Projected from time to time, these items may either be included or excluded from suppliers life-cycle maintenance cost projections. Major component lives should be checked against experience from other operations and from truck to truck to improve confidence in the numbers. It is preferable to have projections checked by an experienced haul truck maintenance professional.

Conclusion
The main messages to be noted when planning an excavator programme are that: The potential operating cost and production revenue impacts of excavator selection shortfalls are significant. A rigorous process should be followed in an effort to make the best possible selection. Thorough research needs to be carried out to determine the status of the market, industry trends and to validate suppliers' information.

G - Prepare and distribute tender requests for excavator supply

Prepare and distribute requests for tenders for the supply of excavators.

H - Prepare and distribute tender requests for contract maintenance

Prepare and distribute requests for tenders for the provision of contact maintenance services, if required. In open pit mining there is currently a definite trend in the industry towards contract maintenance in preference to owner-maintenance when

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au

10