Delivering Predictable Project Outcomes

Jamie Morien
1

1
Lead Project Delivery Consultant, GRS Consultants, E-mail: jamie.moriengrsconsultants.com (Corresponding author);
This article draws upon intellectual property and concepts developed by GRS Consultants Principal David Bollands and
employees in the creation and marketing oI the proprietary GRS Project Management System discussed herein. The author
thanks David Bollands, Daniel Cahalarn and David Kast Ior additional editorial comments and suggestions.



_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: For decades, persistent Iailure has marred the delivery oI capital investment projects in the resource development
sector. Regrettably even though the causes are well known, companies have been slow to respond with eIIective control
strategies. As the scale and complexity oI projects has increased so too has the magnitude oI shareholder value destruction.
It seems that when the biggest projects Iail, they Iail spectacularly. PerIormance statistics going back several decades
demonstrate that mining projects oI all sizes and complexity mostly Iail to achieve objectives. For a time, the commodities
super cycle, which peaked in 2011, concealed poor capital expenditure discipline. High sales prices cover many sins, but
recent price turbulence has exposed companies to a legacy oI record impairments and over-priced and under-perIorming
assets unprecedented in the modern era. This has led to a renewed Iocus on reducing or eliminating capital expenditure.
Companies spending on capital developments have an opportunity to apply new levels oI discipline to both the allocation
and delivery oI capital in an environment oI stagnating labour costs and increasing competitiveness. Contracting
approaches that provide greater opportunities Ior cost certainty or gross cost reduction are now more readily available as
contractors are prepared to accept greater levels oI cost and schedule risk to secure work. Mining companies must also
improve in-house project management capability, especially in risk management and perIormance control. Teams oI proven
perIormers should be equipped with sound management processes and tools to capture the value oI the opportunity at the
Iront-end oI the project delivery cycle and maintain that value through to completion. We conclude with an overview oI
our proprietary capital delivery process and management system to demonstrate a methodology that reduces risks in a
project portIolio and greatly increases the likelihood oI achieving predictable project outcomes.
Keywords: Predictable project outcomes, mining project management system, project management Iramework, project
Iailure, project success, risk management, Iront-end loading, project controls, procedures, processes
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Mining Projects are Risky
Creation oI a mine, process plant and inIrastructure (the
mining project Iacilities as shown in Figure 1) is an
exceptionally risky business endeavour. The Mining LiIe
Cycle
1
begins with a search Ior a mineral deposit
(exploration), and in the unlikely event oI success the
deposit is classiIied into mineral resources and reserves.
2

The greatest uncertainty lies in this early phase and
problems relating to the resource and reserve estimate is the
most likely technical problem to account Ior Iailure oI
mining projects`.
3

Following a successIul exploration program, a planning
phase and Ieasibility assessment will ensue, culminating in
a Detailed Feasibility Study. The Ieasibility assessment is
phased using a stage-gate process to eliminate and limit
expenditure on projects that will Iail to achieve the Owner`s
goals. DeIinition oI key scope details and the plan and
process Ior project delivery are the greatest determinants oI
the eventual success oI the project. Some 70 oI eventual
project cost is tied up with the process design locked in at
the start oI Detailed Feasibility.
4
SpeciIic processes are
implemented to reduce uncertainty to a level that matches
the Owner`s appetite Ior risk. Once in execution, the control
strategies developed during Ieasibility allow strategic
management oI risks that may emerge. Failure to Iollow a
proven, disciplined and rigorous project delivery process
greatly increases the possibility oI project Iailure.

!"#$%& ' (&)%&*&+,-,".& /"+"+# 0%12&3, !-3"4","&*

2


2. What is Project Failure?
Project Iailure is not meeting objectives (within speciIied
limits) oI the sanctioned business case, typically deIined in
a Ieasibility study, with respect to the Iollowing criteria:
Failure to meet objectives with respect to Health,
SaIety, Environment and Community;
Not completed and ramped-up on schedule;
Not delivered within budget;
Does not achieve sustained plant perIormance; and
Does not deliver the expected business value and
return on investment (including such issues as
recovered grade and sales revenue).
3. Statistics on Failure
Net Present Value (NPV) measured at project completion
provides the best composite indicator oI perIormance.
Issues beyond the control oI the project team such as sales
revenue are excluded, whilst cost-schedule trade-oIIs
conducted during the project are included in the calculation.
It has been estimated that only about 10 - 20 oI all mining
projects produce the return on investment and NPV
projected in their respective Ieasibility studies.
5

Numerous studies demonstrate that capital costs
consistently eclipse budget projections on average by 29
(Table 1)
6
, and, over time perIormance has apparently been
getting worse. One assessment oI the status oI all mining
projects publicly reported between October 2010 and
March 2011 showed an average overrun oI 71.
7

As the size and complexity oI projects increases, so
increases the quantity and magnitude oI risks. Across all
industries, around 65 oI so-called mega-projects
Iail.
8
Catastrophic Iailures oI mining and metals mega-
projects in the last Iew years include a $10 billion near
write-oII oI a venture to make steel slabs in Brazil
9
, a $4
billion write down in Brazil on an iron ore mine,
10
and the
indeIinite suspension oI a major gold and silver mine
estimated to eventually cost 300 oI the originally
sanctioned budget.
11

Table 1. Mineral development project capital overruns
Period
Surveyed
Authors
No.
Projects
Avg.
Over-run
1965 1981 Castle
12
18 33
1980 Merrow
13
44 27
1996 Bennet
14
16 27
1987 - 1997 Gypton & Ward
13
37 31
1980 - 2002 Gypton
16
60 22
1980 - 2001 Bertisen & Davis
17
63 25
2010 2011 Mitchell
18
~18 71
Average ~256 29
4. Attributes of Successful Projects
We deem the Iollowing to be the key attributes oI a
successIul project management process applied to major
mining projects.
A rigorous project management process and
management system;
Sound planning and risk management;
Implementation in accordance with the business
process and project plan;
Comprehensive scoping and estimating;
Robust instruments oI control: contracts; schedules;
budgets;
Reliable, timely, inIormative and accurate control
reporting;
Continuous review, revision and improvement;
An ego-Iree` environment Ior harmonious working;
and
A no secrets, no surprises` approach to all activities.
Ignoring any oI these key attributes will prevent
creation oI, or contribute to, breakdown oI the control
environment. Establishment oI an eIIective control
environment is one oI the most Iundamental yet neglected
requirements oI mining project management.
Space does not permit us to provide comprehensive
descriptions oI each oI the above attributes in this article.
Here we Iocus on the Iirst prerequisite Ior a successIul
project: the implementation oI a rigorous project
management process and management system.
OI course there are other practices attributed to the
achievement oI consistent and predictable project
outcomes. The National Research Council Iound 92 such
characteristics oI successIul mega-projects.
19
All oI these
characteristics and the above attributes are embedded into
the Principles and Rules that dictate our project
management process and system. This ensures successIul
project management principles are implicit in the very
processes applied by the project team in the implementation
oI the project.
5. Project Management Process
The project management process, depicted in Iigure 2, is a
structured Iramework oI activities intended to enable the
identiIication, deIinition and development oI a mine and
process plant that meets the cost, time and quality
objectives oI the enterprise. The project management
process begins with the Iraming oI the project opportunity,
and Iinishes with the close-out oI the project.
A process-based approach ensures objectives,
expectations, roles and responsibilities, metrics, key
activities, inputs, resources, outputs, deliverables and
products are clearly deIined Ior the entire process. It Iurther
assures that projects are suIIiciently scoped, planned and
estimated so that an accurate and Iunctional control baseline
can be established and used to control the project.
6. Project Management System
The Project Management System (PMS) is a business
process solution built around the project management
process. It includes all the standards, processes, procedures,
guidelines, templates, tools and applications to apply the
corporate policy Ior delivery oI capital.
Project (Study) Management
Feasibility Studies
Project
(Study)
Initiation
Risk
Management
Scope
DeIinition
Cost
Estimating
JFC Process
(Scoping Study)
Planning/
Scheduling
All studies
complete?
Scope
VeriIication
No
Project Management
Project
Initiation
Risk
Management
Scope
Finalisation
Cost
Estimating
Planning/
Scheduling
Procurement
& Contracts
Yes
Design (PFS/DFS only)
Detailed
Design
Construction
Commiss-
ioning
Close-out
JFC Process
(PFS/DFS)
Project (Study) Controls
JFC Process
(Project Execution)
VeriIy Study
Documentation
Project Controls
Risk Management
Opportunity
Framing
Procurement
(Major Supplier
Enquiries)

llgure 2 ro[ecL ManagemenL rocess (Ma[or ro[ecLs)
3

7. Scope of the Project Management System
The PMS, depicted in Iigure 3, encompasses the entire
project delivery liIe cycle and is organised around the
Iollowing groupings:
Capital Projects Policy
PMS Business Process
Overview
Principles and Rules;
Opportunity
Development;
Program Management;
Project Management;
Project Initiation;
Quality and Risk;
Support Services;
Project Controls;
Engineering;
Procurement;
Contracting;
Construction;
Commissioning; and
Project Closeout.
In all, there are more than 250 separate tools integrated in
the system.
8. System Architecture
Our system architecture utilises a proprietary three-tier
hierarchy which places at the highest level a policy
document that deIines the vision, mission and objectives Ior
each management area. The second tier enshrines the
Principles and Rules at the heart oI the management system
which distil best practice into a succinct handbook Ior, in
this instance, capital projects. Tier 3 system components
include all the standards, processes, procedures, guidelines,
templates, tools and applications.
This three-tier system architecture is replicated across
all management areas e.g. Operations Management,
InIormation Technology, Risk and Assurance etc. and is not
exclusive to project management. The architecture supports
a simple, yet powerIul solution to the communication
challenge Iaced by all companies that wish to direct both
their employees and service providers in how the company
wishes to conduct itselI in business. The Principles and
Rules Ior capital projects engender generally accepted best
practice and, as such, present nothing onerous to a good
contractor.
!"#$%& 5 0%12&3, /-+-#&6&+, 78*,&6 "+ 91+,&:, 1; /"+& /<7

4

9. Opportunity Development
BeIore an opportunity becomes a project it must be
accepted by the organisation and included in the Capital
Plan. Rigorous opportunity development procedures and
tools optimise the allocation oI capital and ensure the
portIolio management process aligns with shareholder
expectations. They ensure rigour around:
Capturing, documenting and carrying out
preliminary assessments oI ideas and
opportunities;
Gaining endorsement oI the idea Ior inclusion
into a company`s budget and capital plan; and
ultimately
Creation oI a JustiIication Ior Capital (JFC) Ior
approval to advance the opportunity.
10. Feasibility
The Ieasibility management system ensures a uniIorm
approach to the planning and implementation oI all types oI
studies and the production oI study deliverables.
Strictly Iollowing the process ensures that:
Due consideration has been made on whether the
project should be investigated Iurther;
All oI the alternatives are investigated beIore a
particular direction is taken;
Project viability has been investigated in detail
and conIirmed prior to carrying out additional
design and estimating and committing signiIicant
Iunds; and
Due processes are Iollowed in determining and
Iine-tuning the project scope, timeIrames and cost
estimates.
The management system includes procedures Ior
conducting studies and economic evaluations oI the project.
Support tools include checklists that are used to determine
whether the level oI deIinition and thereIore accuracy has
been reached to meet the requirements oI the study and
capital cost estimate. It also includes a sophisticated
economic modelling tool with instructions.
Owner standards around Ieasibility study quality are
essential. An Owner must overcome the moral hazard that
arises when using a consultant who may later be engaged
under an EPC or EPCM contract to deliver the project.
11. Initiation, Setup and Project Management
Project management procedures deIine the roles,
responsibilities and processes to be Iollowed in the overall
management oI projects including:
Establishment oI a structure Ior project
governance, capital expenditure approvals and
authority levels, delegation and limitation oI
authority; and
Project organization requirements and
appointment oI project personnel;
Project initiation procedures and templates ensure
disciplined set-up oI the Iollowing:
Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities;
Communication and document distribution
matrices and workIlows, meeting and reporting
processes and matrices, project diary;
Project inIormation management systems;
Establishment oI support services (e.g. Human
Resources, InIormation Technology etc.) and
other administrative requirements;
Development oI the Project Charter, a project
brieIing mechanism, broadly Iraming project
purpose, scope, timing, quality, cost, and key
project personnel, their acceptance oI the charter
and the Project Manager`s acceptance oI
responsibility Ior delivery oI the project;
Project categorization and the consolidation oI the
Project Procedures Manual;
Development oI the Project Roadmap, a concise
and powerIul communication tool setting out the
game plan Ior delivery oI the project opportunity;
Development oI the Study or Project Execution
Plan (PEP); and
Scope deIinition guidelines and tools Ior
development oI the scope oI work and scope oI
services.
12. Document Management
Project teams must establish a controlled environment Ior
document management and team collaboration. As the
primary decisions-makers it is crucial Ior the Owner`s team
to have unIettered access to all project inIormation. This
supports good project governance and reduces uncertainty.
Exclusive reliance on the document management systems
oI the contractor invariably results in inIormation
asymmetry and places the Owner in a weak position in the
event oI a commercial dispute. Procedures and standards
dictate the management oI documents, including
numbering, registration, transmittal, Iiling, storage and
retention.
13. Program Management
Program management procedures and tools support a
Project Review Process to monitor the status oI a project
and its perIormance against the PMS business process, the
Principles and Rules and a project`s identiIied objectives
and associated deliverables. Periodic and planned reviews
provide ongoing insight into company-wide project
perIormance and business process compliance. The system
also deIines the requirements and provides templates Ior
enterprise-wide reporting oI project perIormance.
14. Quality and Risk Management
Project Risk Management is principally used to determine
whether the Project Execution Plan and supporting
management plans adequately address the risks associated
with project speciIic activities. The risk management
system components include a procedure and support tools
Ior identiIication and classiIication oI a project`s overall
risk proIile. The tools include a sophisticated risk register
database tool to track mitigation oI project risks and the
ongoing risk proIile oI the project. To judge whether risk
management practices are eIIective, objective measures oI
success are established and both the inherent risk (prior to
controls) and the residual risk (subsequent to the application

5

oI controls) are measured on an ongoing basis so that the
team can know the control mechanism is working.
The project quality process is a Iundamental element oI the
project risk management process. The quality management
procedure covers the processes associated with deIining the
business processes that will govern the conduct oI work on
the project (preparing a Project Quality Plan), the method
oI checking compliance with the business process and
triggering remedial action iI necessary (project quality
auditing) and conIirming the technical adequacy oI the
basic parameters, the methodology and the product (project
technical reviews).
15. Project Controls
EIIective decision making relies on accurate and timely
project controls inIormation. The project controls system
must provide accurate measurement and Iorecasts oI cost,
resources, progress and productivity at an appropriate level
oI detail to deliver the necessary intelligence Ior decision
makers to make project critical decisions in a proactive
environment rather than a reactive environment where
potential deviations occur.
It is essential that the Owner sets minimum requirements
Ior project controls. The management system provides
standards, guidelines, procedures and tools to support the
Iollowing:
Development oI the Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) and Code oI Accounts;
Cost control procedures including budget
management, change control, commitments and
payment procedures;
Planning and scheduling standards;
Project progress and perIormance management
Preparation and review oI estimates;
Estimating standards and guidelines; and
Reporting requirements.
16. Engineering
Engineering management system tools ensure a uniIorm
and appropriately reviewed design oI the project plant and
processes to the company`s technical standards.
17. Procurement
The procurement procedures, templates and tools ensure a
uniIorm and controlled approach to project procurement
activities, including the processes, responsibilities and
methods to be Iollowed Ior the planning, bidding,
management, expediting, inspection and receipt oI goods
Ior the project.
18. Contracting
Contract management procedures and tools support the
execution oI the contracts Iunction Ior a project. They apply
to the Owner`s team managing an EPCM, EPC or other
Iorm oI contract and set the standard Ior contractors
executing projects on the Owner`s behalI.
The system includes:
Pre-contract tools Ior development oI the contract
plan, identiIication and pre-qualiIication oI
potential contractors, quotation and tendering
processes, tender receipt and opening through to
the tabulation, and equalization oI tenders,
selection and justiIication oI a tender submission;
All templates and boilerplates Ior tendering,
contracts, administration guides and audit tools
required to manage all types oI contracts
including EPC, EPCM, construction and
consultancy agreements;
Contract administration processes encompassing
the mobilization oI the contractor and kick-oII`,
the governance processes including issues around
insurance, perIormance guarantees, monitoring
and review oI the contractor`s perIormance,
establishing contract Iiles and keeping and
maintaining proper records, payment processes,
claims management and change management.
Contract close-out procedures ensuring all
administration is complete, all inspections have
been conducted, all matters resolved, all
certiIicates have been issued and all claims and
disputes settled.
19. Construction
The procedures and tools to support best practice
construction management including:
Site establishment, coordination and management
oI temporary Iacilities;
Site administration;
Contractor compliance with contract in areas oI
EH&S, IR and QA/QC Mobilisation/
demobilisation and rehabilitation oI site
Conduct oI inductions oI all site personnel
Inspection oI the works
Scheduling and overall sequencing oI the works
Coordination oI interIaces between contracts
Contract administration
Control oI Scope oI Work
Monitoring oI perIormance and progress
Contractor completion oI contract works and
demobilisation.
Provision oI Field Engineering Services;
Management oI site warehouse and Iree issue`
goods; and
Coordination between construction and
commissioning activities.
20. Commissioning and Operational Readiness
Ensures commissioning and operational readiness is in line
with company operational standards and achievement oI
sustainable plant operation that meets or exceeds design
capacity. System drives the closeout oI construction and
commissioning execution via the generation oI the
necessary handover packages, energisation notices and
transIer oI care custody and control certiIicates. The system
includes an operational readiness-training program and
manages all elements oI plant commissioning and
operation.

6

21. Project Closeout
Ensures accounting, contractual, technical and commercial
close-out oI projects and provides a platIorm Ior learning
Ior Iuture projects.
22. Management System Interface
Embedding a management system into an organisation is
vital to ensure consistent application and broad acceptance.
Once in place a project management system is optimised by
successive application and is honed to reIlect prevailing
company policy. It becomes the way oI the company` and
requires only minor customisation Ior each new project
application.
SimpliIying accessibility to the management system
components can be challenging. The system must be easily
accessible, searchable and comprehensible. We developed
a Graphical User InterIace (GUI). The web-enabled GUI
(screenshot in Iigure 4) is an interactive Ilowsheet oI the
entire project management process that enables users to step
through the process and retrieve inIormation on an as
required basis. Selecting a step in the process will retrieve
all relevant procedures and tools Ior rapid deployment. We
can oIIer many diIIerent GUI designs to match a company`s
branding style and other preIerences.


23. Does a Mining Company Really Need a PMS?
There are numerous reasons why mining companies do
not implement comprehensive end-to-end business
solutions that also encompass the project delivery cycle.
Project management is primarily deemed a non-core
process and is supposedly the sole responsibility oI a
contractor who designs and constructs the project. This
attitude is expressed by the senior executive oI a company
mentioned earlier who suIIered one oI the worst project
Iailures. Asserting that Iuture success relies on a more
hands-oII approach using an EPCM contractor, he stated,
we`re a mining company, not a construction company, and
we`re going to let the construction companies build these
mines Ior us.`
20

With respect, we believe this proposition derives Irom
a conIusion that abounds in regard to the diIIerences
between the EPC and EPCM Iorms oI contract. Many
Owners incorrectly assume a level oI risk hedging in EPCM
contracts that is simply not there.
21
An EPCM contract is
merely a contract Ior services and there is no guarantee in
regard to price or schedule regardless oI how negligent the
contractor may have been. Typically the EPCM contractor
has limited liability in terms oI time, cost and perIormance
oI design, manuIacture and construction.
22
EPCM
contracts are oIten selected because they provide Ilexibility
Ior the Owner to Iast-track a project and start construction
with low levels oI scope deIinition; which implies high cost
and schedule risks.
23
The Owner must be a very active
participant and .drive the project, investing more
resources and assuming all risks... the contractor has little
incentive to be eIIicient`.
24
EPCM commercial vehicles
oIIer a range oI other management challenges which must
be addressed by the Owner.
We would encourage all mining companies to consider
a range oI delivery strategies based on an assessment oI
project needs in its speciIic context. Herein lies the risk oI
continued Iailure and also the opportunity Ior success, i.e.:
What can be contracted to external service providers, and
what needs to be controlled in-house to secure successIul
project outcomes and deliver capital with conIidence in a
predictable project outcome? This is Iundamentally
dependent on assigning work to resources that possess the
core competency to complete the tasks assigned. Access to
such resources is constrained by location, market and
organisational supply. Such constraints can lead to the
assignment oI works to resources lacking the core
competency to perIorm the work, resulting in suboptimal
outcomes. The common misperception that an Owner can
eIIectively contract out cost and schedule risk (to an
EPCM) oIten results in disastrous project delivery
outcomes. Risk when realised always returns to the Owner;
the risk must be controlled and managed.
Selection oI a particular contracting strategy, Irom the
mosaic oI diIIerent options, requires at the very least an
Owner`s team that is resourced adequately to manage the
risks involved with the particular strategy. The Owner must
clearly understand and deIine the roles, responsibilities,
liabilities, and authorities oI all the various participants.
Procedures in the Owner`s project management system
must provide guidance to the Owner`s team in the
development oI the delivery strategy and management oI
the contractor speciIic to the contracting approach. The
Project Management System contains all contracting
procedures, tendering templates, contract boilerplates,
administration guides and audit tools required to manage all
types oI contracts including EPC, EPCM, construction and
consultancy agreements.
Without a prescribed minimum standard Ior project
management processes, by what standard can the
perIormance oI the project management entity be assessed?
EPCM contracts, typically being contracts Ior services
only, are draIted to require the standard oI reasonable or
best endeavours. During implementation there may be a
diIIerence oI opinion as to what that standard is. In a worst
case scenario how does a court or arbitrator interpret this?
Our solution is to append the Principles and Rules
document to the primary contract with the EPCM
contractor so that expectations are clear and unambiguous
and the responsibilities oI the contractor are clearly
understood Irom the outset. This aims to enhance and deIine
the behavior desired by the contracting parties.
In our experience, neither Owner organisations nor
project management service providers have adequately
upgraded their project management and control processes
or systems to meet the new challenges oI mining mega-
projects. Most companies with at least one operating mine
have documented business processes and procedures to
support a range oI activities across back oIIice
administration. Some have adopted Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) solutions such as SAP and Oracle to
integrate processes across the business into a single
soItware platIorm. These ERP systems, which typically
!"#$%& = >%-)?"3 @*&% A+,&%;-3&

7

arose in discrete manuIacturing environments, are
inadequate Ior the management oI a project. The
diIIerences between an operation and a project in terms oI
engineering management needs, supply chain, contracting
methodology, cost management processes, reporting, etc..
make ERP systems simply the wrong tool Ior a project. We
have assisted many clients in conIiguring their ERP
systems with additional technology to support projects but
ERP systems alone cannot meet the needs a mining project.
24. Outcomes and Conclusion
Project management systems Ior the mining industry need
to encompass the Iull project delivery cycle Irom
opportunity identiIication through to project close-out.
Development oI a robust, rigorous, comprehensive and
eIIective suite oI procedures, tools and enabling processes
Irom Iirst principles is a signiIicant undertaking. Investment
into Iirst principles` solution development can cost
millions oI dollar, tens oI thousands oI labour hours and
should be practically complete prior to the execution phase
oI a proejct.
The value oI a project management system is measured
in terms oI a reduced level oI uncertainty and improvements
in the eIIiciency and eIIectiveness oI the management
process. A PMS is intended to engender a behavioural
change within an organisation whereby:
Project opportunities are identiIied, evaluated and
converted to projects in a uniIorm manner;
Rigour is applied to project planning and projects
are implemented as planned;
Projects are executed in a controlled and
predictable manner;
There is emphasis on accountability Ior
perIormance;
Management attention is Iocused where it really
matters on control perIormance not merely
reported project perIormance;
There are early identiIication and management oI
risks that may compromise the project objectives
and key result areas;
There exists a Iramework to manage the Owner`s
project team, consultants and EPCM/EPC
contractors;
Business objectives are achieved.
About the Author
Jamie Morien has 14 years oI
experience and acquired
competencies in project delivery
roles across some oI the world`s
largest industrial, minerals
processing and inIrastructure
projects. He has university
degrees in Construction Law,
Project Management and
Construction Management Irom
Australian institutions. As a lead project delivery consultant
Jamie has completed assignments with management
responsibilities Ior project disciplines including contracts,
procurement, estimating, cost control, planning and
scheduling, Iacilities management, risk management,
inIormation management systems and document control.
Past assignments include projects in Australia, Canada,
Peru, Kazakhstan, Laos, New Caledonia and the Dominican
Republic.
About GRS
Global Resource Solutions (GRS) was established in 1994
to provide Feasibility Study, Project Management and
Operations Management expertise to the petroleum, mining
and chemical processing industries.
Our core skills and resources encompass strategic
consulting and include the provision oI:
Feasibility study management;
Project management and Turn Key` delivery;
Project opportunity Iraming and planning;
Management oI capital programs, throughout the
project delivery cycle; and
Operations improvement.
GRS mission is to select and nurture working relationships
that allow us to develop a business environment oI
excellence, knowledge and trust, with a transparent
approach to daily business activities, assisting our clients in
the realisation oI their objectives. We Iirmly believe that
our collective attitudes and belieIs structure our corporate
and individual conduct and achievements.
GRS Iocuses intensively on supporting clients in the
development and delivery oI their business plans, with a
spotlight on the management oI business risk and
opportunity inherently embedded within the execution
plans and daily business activities. Gaining more control
over business outcomes, also allows a Iocus on engaging
people in the more rewarding challenge oI driving
improvement and increasing proIitability. With the beneIit
oI increased productivity, predictability and reliability
clients are better able to withstand negative market Iorces
and capitalise on periods oI high commodity value.
Operating as a consistent low-cost producer enhances
capability to convert marginal resources or projects into
more viable operations and business cases, eIIectively
reducing the risk envelope in growth and operating strategy.
GRS has a market presence in Asia, Europe, AIrica,
Australasia, North America and South America. The GRS
Project Management System (PMS) and GRS Operational
Management System (OMS) business solutions are
packaged and sold, in units and as a complete enterprise-
wide solution, to companies around the world such as
Newcrest Mining, MMG, Doe Run, Newmont, Iluka
Resources and Chevron. These business solutions and their
successes represent an investment into Iirst principles
solution development over a 12-year period with an
investment oI some 120,000 man-hours. They are
optimised through successive application and honed to
reIlect today`s prevailing market providing clients access to
what we believe is the world`s best management system.
Working as a team with our clients` personnel, we operate
under the principle:
NO SECRETS, NO SURPRISES, SIMPLY DELIVER`

8

References
1
Cavln M Mudd, '1he SusLalnablllLy of Mlnlng ln AusLralla: key
roducLlon 1rends and 1helr LnvlronmenLal lmpllcaLlons for Lhe luLure'
(2007) ueparLmenL of Clvll Lnglneerlng, Monash unlverslLy and Mlneral
ollcy lnsLlLuLe, 6. Avallable onllne:
<hLLp://www.mpl.org.au/aLLachmenL/d016df19778a7c363cd1c99afe29
c43a/f2063acefd9648fc79d94181e9032269/1_SusLMlnlngAusL
a8eporLMasLer.pdf> on 13 !uly 2008.
2
'1he SouLh Afrlcan Code for Lhe 8eporLlng of LxploraLlon 8esulLs,
Mlneral 8esources and Mlneral 8eserves (1he SAM8LC Code)', 2007
LdlLlon, !"# $%&'" ()*+,-. /+.#*-0 1#2%&*,# 3%44+''## 5$(/1637
8%*9+.: ;*%&< =.>#* '"# ?%+.' (&2<+,#2 %) '"# $%&'"#*. ()*+,-.
@.2'+'&'# %) /+.+.: -.> /#'-00&*:A -.> '"# ;#%0%:+,-0 $%,+#'A %) $%&'"
()*+,-.
3
Shlllabeer, !, and CypLon, C, 'PlghllghLlng ro[ecL 8lsk lollowlng
CompleLlon of Lhe leaslblllLy SLudy', ln roceedlngs Mlnlng 8lsk
ManagemenL (2003) 101109 (1he AusLralaslan lnsLlLuLe of Mlnlng and
MeLallurgy: Melbourne).
4
nlck ! Lavlngla, '8esL racLlces ln CosL Lnglneerlng' (2004) AACL
lnLernaLlonal 1ransacLlons 9.03.
3
McMahon, 2007, quoLed by 8ullock 8L, 'Accuracy of leaslblllLy SLudy
LvaluaLlons Would lmprove AccounLablllLy' Mlnlng Lnglneerlng Aprll
2011.
6
lbld, 3.
7
LrnsL & ?oung, LffecLlve CaplLal ro[ecL LxecuLlon: Mlnlng and
MeLals", 2011
8
Ldward Merrow 8eveals Why Megapro[ecLs lall ln 'ro[ecL
Manager,'" lA lndependenL ro[ecL Analysls, !anuary 2012,
hLLp://lpaglobal.com/news8oom/AnnouncemenLs/Ldward Merrow
8evealsWhyMegapro[ecLslalllnr, accessed on 4 leb 2014.
9
Lmerge, splurge, purge: WesLern flrms have plled lnLo emerglng
markeLs ln Lhe pasL 20 years. now comes Lhe reckonlng" 1he LconomlsL
Mar 8Lh 2014 hLLp://www.economlsL.com/news/buslness/21398642
wesLernflrmshaveplledemerglngmarkeLspasL20yearsnowcomes
10
Lls, l. 8eporL: Anglo Amerlcan seL for $3bn Mlnas 8lo wrlLedown"
21 !an 2013, Avallable Cnllne: hLLp://www.mlnlng.com/reporLanglo
amerlcanseLfor3bnwrlLeoffovermlnasrlo69010/
11
Lazenby, P. 8arrlck Cold suspends ascuaLama pro[ecL" Mlnlng
Weekly, 31 CcL 2013, Avallable onllne:
hLLp://www.mlnlngweekly.com/arLlcle/barrlckgoldsuspendspascua
lamapro[ecL20131031
12
C 8 CasLle, 1983, leaslblllLy sLudles and oLher pro[ecL esLlmaLes,
Pow rellable are Lhey?" lebruary, B*%,##>+.:2 %) '"# C+.-.,# )%* '"#
/+.#*-02 @.>&2'*A, new ?ork 18.
13
8ullock 8L, 'Accuracy of leaslblllLy SLudy LvaluaLlons Would lmprove
AccounLablllLy' Mlnlng Lnglneerlng Aprll 2011.
14
lbld, n.13.
13
C CypLon and u. Ward, 2001, leaslblllLy SLudy CuallLy, CaplLal
Cverruns & lnvesLmenL ueclslons", Speech Lo Lhe norLh WesL Mlnlng
AssoclaLlon, www.mlnlngamerlca.org
16
C CypLon, Pow have we done? leaslblllLy sLudy performance slnce
1980" (2002) !anuary 6.:+.##*+.: -.> /+.+.: ?%&*.-0, 22.
17
8erLlsen, !., and uavls, C. 2007, 8las and error ln mlne pro[ecL caplLal
cosL esLlmaLlon. SML reprlnL no. 07082, LlLLleLon, CC: SML.
18
. MlLchell, 2011, Achlevlng ma[or caplLal pro[ecL effecLlveness and
corporaLe performance" ln LffecLlve CaplLal ro[ecL LxecuLlon Mlnlng
and MeLals, LrnsL & ?oung.
19
naLlonal 8esearch Councll, 'CharacLerlsLlcs of Successful
Megapro[ecLs' (2000) naLlonal Academy of Sclences.
20
!. Sokalsky quoLed ln Wall SLreeL !ournal, [onllne] <
hLLp://blogs.ws[.com/canadarealLlme/2012/07/26/ws[canada
lnLervlewbarrlckceodefendsrecordopLlmlsLlcongoldprlce/>
21
hlllp LooLs, nlck Penchle, 'Worlds AparL: LC and LCM ConLracL
8lsk lssues and AllocaLlon', (2007) !"# @.'#*.-'+%.-0 3%.2'*&,'+%. D-E
1#F+#E 233.
22
uoug !ones, 'Where Are Lhe SLandard lorms Colng?' 47 (&2'*-0+-.
3%.2'*&,'+%. D-E G#E20#''#* 13, 21.
23
ChrlsLof von 8ranconl, ChlsLoph P Loch, 'ConLracLlng for Ma[or
ro[ecLs: LlghL 8uslness Levers for 1op ManagemenL' (2004)
@.'#*.-'+%.-0 ?%&*.-0 %) B*%H#,' /-.-:#4#.' 22, 119, 120.
24
lbld.