HOME

The Geomet Curve – A Model for

ABSTRACT
Geometallurgy is inherently multidisciplinary and it gains its power to deliver improved outcomes
for the minerals industry by bridging silos between disciplines. This cross-disciplinary approach
unlocks value, identifies (and avoids) value destruction and provides a pathway to better
implementation of an energy efficient and sustainable minerals industry. Despite this promise,
we argue that the cross disciplinary approach also represents the greatest threat to the success of
geometallurgy. Some key cross disciplinary issues identified are:
 Geometallurgy has so far evolved in the technical sphere, mainly by collaborations of geologists
and metallurgists. Consequently, in many cases the business dimensions and value have not
been incorporated. Financial and risk evaluation viewpoints need to be assimilated into the
geometallurgical paradigm. In fact, until such measures are integrated into practices, the value
cannot be fully demonstrated.
 The historical and current efforts on geometallurgy have been highly focused on improved
sampling and measurement of geometallurgical properties or appropriate proxies. This work
has been driven by professional and academic geologists and metallurgical engineers. It is
notable that mining engineers (who are critical in the value delivery of geometallurgy through
changed planning approaches) have so far been at the margins, or absent.
 The construction of valid three dimensional (3D) geometallurgical models raises some
important organisational, mathematical and geostatistical considerations. The enhancement
of resource models to account for geometallurgical aspects must be managed carefully if the
full value of geometallurgical thinking is to be realised.
 The use of 3D geometallurgical models to change business decision making and practices
is the real nub of the problem. We believe sophisticated scenario based evaluation methods
are required if the potential impacts of spatial rock properties on processes further down the
mining value chain are to be realistically evaluated. Such changed practices require ‘whole of
value chain thinking’ to embed this change into the business in an ongoing way.
 Because profitable geometallurgy demands changed approaches to business decision-making
and also organisation of the firm (radically changed in some cases), the senior executive
viewpoint must be incorporated into the language and thinking of geometallurgy. This
is unavoidable if the establishment of a geometallurgical approach to project evaluation,
development and operation is to be successful and sustained.
A powerful analogy for the problem faced by geometallurgy is the transformation of safety culture
in the mining industry in the past 20 years. We argue that, as in the safety revolution, explicit
models, cultural change and management of the ‘soft’ dimensions of the problem are pivotal to
success of geometallurgy. In light of this, we propose a model (‘the Geomet Curve’) that gives
a framework and pathway for geometallurgy in seven steps. The implications of this model for
technical and organisational steps required at different stages are discussed.

INTRODUCTION
Geometallurgy (Dunham and Vann, 2007; Walters, 2009; industry from the bridging of silos between disciplines. There
Walters and Kojovic, 2006) is inherently multidisciplinary. is no doubt that this cross-disciplinary approach will unlock
As an idea, technical tool and managerial strategy it gains value, identify (and avoid) value destruction and provide
its power to deliver improved outcomes for the minerals a pathway to better implementation of an energy efficient

1. FAusIMM, Director, Quantitative Group, PO Box 1304, Fremantle WA 6959. Email: jv@qgroup.net.au
2. Adjunct Professor, Centre for Exploration Targeting and School of Earth and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009.
3. Adjunct Senior Lecturer, School of Civil Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, SA 5000.
4. MAusIMM, General Manager – Strategic Development, JK Tech Pty Ltd, 40 Isles Road, Indooroopilly Qld 4068. Email: J.Jackson@jktech.com.au
5. Principal Geometallurgist, Quantitative Group, PO Box 1304, Fremantle WA 6959. Email: sc@qgroup.net.au
6. MAusIMM, Director, Quantitative Group, PO Box 1304, Fremantle WA 6959. Email: sd@qgroup.net.au

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 35
J VANN et al

and sustainable minerals industry. Despite this promise, we precision and accuracy of predicted performance from
argue that the cross-disciplinary approach also represents the 3D geometallurgical models will drive development of
greatest threat to the success of geometallurgy. enhanced reconciliation systems.
We suggest that a powerful analogy for the problem faced Finally, we briefly discuss some aspects of project and
by geometallurgy is the transformation of safety culture in the change management that are helpful when considering
mining industry in the past 20 years. For any paradigmatic implementation of geometallurgy.
change, like the safety revolution, explicit models, cultural
change and management of the ‘soft’ dimensions of the THE GEOMET CURVE
problem are pivotal to success. The Geomet Curve gives a Implementing geometallurgy at a new or existing operation
framework and pathway for geometallurgy in seven steps. is a staged process. Depending on the complexity of the
The organisation of this paper is to first introduce the Geomet mineralisation, mining and processing options, achieving
Curve and discuss the implementation of the seven steps that different stages (or maturity) will provide different benefits.
define the curve, including the implications of this model for The Geomet Curve was designed as a guide in the progression
technical steps required at different stages. Following this, of these steps, and it is illustrated in Figure 1.
we discuss the way in which we believe this model will help The Geomet Curve outlines the progression from non-
to achieve sustainable geometallurgical practices across the spatial metallurgical performance modelling through to a
value chain and project cycle. The key issues we think need sustainable, systemic and fully embedded ‘geometallurgically
consideration are: aware’ business, where geometallurgy is integral to business
thinking and the value proposition. The model divides the
• Financial and risk evaluation viewpoints need to be
progression into seven steps and describes those steps using
assimilated into the geometallurgical paradigm measure
the analogy of an aircraft progressing from being parked on the
and to realise the value of geometallurgy.
runway to being in cruise mode at the top of its flight. These
• Mine planning engineers must have meaningful seven steps are grouped into four stages of geometallurgical
involvement with geometallurgical programs to ensure ‘maturity’.
the value delivery of geometallurgy, which can only arise
through changed planning approaches (which may need to Stage A: Non-spatial metallurgical testing
co-evolve with geometallurgy as a consequence). This stage is traditional metallurgical testing. Resource models
• Incorporation of geometallurgical considerations into usually have geological (lithological, structural, weathering,
resource modelling practices. alteration) domain drivers and are generally used as inputs
• The use of 3D geometallurgy models as a basis to to optimisation processes based solely on grades. Domain
change business decision making and practices must drivers may not correctly reflect distributions of attributes
be accelerated. Sophisticated scenario based evaluation that drive processing performance. The two substeps in Stage
methods must be implemented to fully capture the value A are:
promised by geometallurgy.
• Changed approaches to business decision-making and Step 1: Formulate the mess
organisational design dictate that the senior executive This step is a situation and gap analysis. In most existing
viewpoint must be incorporated into the language and project or operational frameworks it would involve assessment
thinking of geometallurgy. Importantly, confidence in the and collation of a range of disparate existing data, information

FIG 1 - The Geomet Curve, see text for discussion.

36 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 THE GEOMET CURVE – A MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GEOMETALLURGY

and knowledge. The authors have described this step as Step 4: Test 3D geometallurgical modelling
‘formulating the mess’ (after Ackoff, 1999). Ackoff defines This step aims to establish a 3D geometallurgical data set and
‘mess’ as a complex system of interacting problems. This is a undertake collection of spatially attributed geometallurgical
succinct description of trying to understand the interactions data based on the program design established in Step 3.
between rock characteristics, processing and resultant cash- Designing a preliminary 3D geometallurgical modelling
flows. ‘Formulating the mess’ involves systems analysis, approach must include the critical task of defining
data collation and correct framing of the problem. This step appropriate spatial geometallurgical domains. In Step 4 there
must be completed in the light of the business evaluation is a refined focus on critical attributes and value drivers.
options being envisaged because the data and knowledge The significant cost of Step 4 occurs in the data collection
requirements of subsequent steps are driven by the options phase. In this description we talk more about the model
that are to be contemplated. The key outputs of Step 1 are than the data collection and yet we can’t build the model
to establish the state of current systems, including data and without the data. In Step 4 we expand the extent of data
knowledge, identify opportunities and plan initial steps to collection. Using the results of the pilot program in Step 3,
explore these opportunities. In the flight analogy, the aircraft the measures identified as important to geometallurgical
is parked and we are yet to get moving. modelling are collected at more locations, ultimately across
In Step 1 we should also define how far along the curve we the full extent of the mineralisation. In this approach we
intend to push. Is the project going all the way to Step 7 in employ fewer measurement types at more locations. Test or
one flight? There are certainly cases where significant value is trial 3D modelling is implemented in this step. An early 3D
achievable by setting Step 4 as the initial destination and using uncertainty model to help guide further geometallurgical
the data to operate a plant more efficiently. Understanding sampling campaigns is also possible at this step: it is never too
that Step 7 is the eventual goal is helpful even in these cases, early to start your uncertainty analysis. In the flight analogy
because it assists with the drive to better project design. this is the acceleration down the runway and the business and
technical processes start to gather momentum.
Step 2: Gather additional knowledge
This step involves additional sampling and test work, but Stage C: Full 3D geometallurgical evaluation
with limited spatial context. The aim is to establish a strategy
to acquire the required data and knowledge to progress to
and optimisation
Stage B. While Step 1 is ‘formulating the mess’, Step 2 is about This stage involves full 3D geometallurgical modelling using
‘knowing what you don’t know’. We envisage Step 2 as that data and domains established previously. Issues around
part of the process where the big ticket performance drivers support and additivity must be managed carefully (Coward et
are identified. Initial validation of some of the measurements al, 2010).
and their relevance for prediction could be included in Step 2,
and contemplated in some instances in Step 1. The key output
Step 5: Full 3D geometallurgical modelling
of Step 2 is an initial geometallurgical strategy that will guide Based on data and domains established in Step 4, full 3D
us to a fully spatial consideration of geometallurgy. In the geometallurgical modelling is established in Step 5. The
flight analogy, this is where we taxi to the runway, and get model should account for additivity and support issues in a
ready for take off. pragmatic manner. This requires practitioners to be cognisant
of and to manage the possible biases resulting from these
Stage B: Establish spatial geometallurgy issues. The output should be a preliminary mine plan and
This stage entails steps to determine what spatially distributed process design evaluation based on a geostatistically sound
geometallurgical data will be collected, what geometallurgical 3D geometallurgical model. At a minimum, kriging models
domains are suitable and how the data will be utilised in are required and ideally these should be complemented
3D modelling. It should be noted that there are likely to be by stochastic models of spatial variability; ie, conditional
significant risks in progressing to Stage B without adequately simulations (Journel, 1974, Chilés and Delfiner, 1999).
completing the steps in Stage A. Geostatistical simulations are critical to realistic assessment of
nearly all geometallurgical problems (throughput, deleterious
Step 3: Establishing the business case – pilot materials etc), since these invariably involve evaluation of
program systems with constraints (cut-offs, thresholds, limits) and/or
non-linear relationships. This requires fine-scale models that
Establishment of a business case requires validation that
encapsulate variability (geostatistical simulations). To return
the geometallurgical approach is appropriate and value
adding. This step involves problem characterisation and to our flight analogy, Step 5 corresponds to getting airborne.
identification of performance proxies and primary variables
for geometallurgical modelling. It may also progress to a pilot Step 6: Evaluation and optimisation based on
program on a limited spatial subset, for example on several geometallurgical modelling
cross sections of drill holes. The objective is to obtain a broad In Step 6, the model generated in Step 5 is used to evaluate
range of attribute measurements. This step can be thought sensitivities and selection of project and operating strategies.
of as an orientation or pilot geometallurgical test program. If possible, the evaluation should involve multiple scenario
In general we would expect to correlate less expensive proxy analysis with conditional simulation models as inputs in
measurements with more expensive and precise tests to order to capture two essential aspects of geometallurgy: (i) the
guide the collection of widespread spatial data as described variability of the attributes considered; and (ii) the inherent
in Step 4. The end goal is development of a comprehensive uncertainties. The outputs of full scenario analyses are
sampling and testing strategy. In addition, early definition of estimates of value distributions, specifically stochastic cash-
possible drivers of spatial domains should emerge here. In the flow predictions that allow a granular representation of value
flight analogy, this is a systems check before we start to gather that is fully cognisant of geometallurgical rock and operating
speed down the runway, heading for take off. The next steps properties interacting with the value chain. Ultimately this
after this involve a significant increase in efforts and cost (but allows consideration of NPV distributions (or other financial
also benefits). metrics with associated uncertainty; that is full distributions)

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 37
J VANN et al

as a basis of decision making. The use of multiple scenarios is potentially time), especially in Steps 3 to 6. The Geomet
a powerful route to exploration of strategies and options for Curve provides a useful framework for first determining the
mining, processing and other project configuration decisions. current status of a project and then establishing the next steps
In the flight analogy, Step 6 corresponds to the climb phase. towards progressing up the ‘geometallurgy knowledge curve’.
As with aircraft flight we expend a lot of effort and resources The framework can also be used to assess the likely impact of
in order to execute this step. The authors believe that much progression from one stage to the next.
of the benefits of geometallurgical modelling are only realised The time, cost and resources required to progress through
in Step 6, because this is where the business decision making the stages of the Geomet Curve are dependent not only on
and planning is impacted. the spatial variability of the mineralisation, but also on the
complexities, uncertainties and constraints inherent in mining
Stage D: Embed geometallurgy in business and processing steps used to obtain a saleable end-product.
thinking and culture Finally, it is worth mentioning that:
Stage D involves change management, modification of
organisational design and performance metrics and focused  While full value requires a progression to Steps 6 and
education and training for management, technical and 7, value can also be added through early phases of the
operational personnel. journey. Some operations have gained value by going
part of the way (for example to Step 4/5). During Steps
Step 7: The geometallurgical business system 1 - 4 value can be gained by making operational or process
design improvements using the new data/understanding
Step 7 involves establishing and maintaining pervasive,
acquired and this gives early pay offs; and
integrated and reconciled geometallurgical models as a basis
for business planning. This step embeds geometallurgy for  There are a handful of operations worldwide that have
sustainable value delivery to the business. progressed to Step 6 for brief unsustained periods. This
demonstrates that the journey is possible and achievable.
Steps 6 and 7 are the end goal of geometallurgy. They focus Note that these operations focused purely on the technical
on integrating the geometallurgical model into business design solution and did not change the culture/organisation that
and business decision making practices and this enables the is required for Step 7.
real step-change shifts in decisions that impact value. The
actualisation of value from geometallurgy is limited prior to TECHNICAL AND ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES
Steps 6 and 7, and the early steps should therefore be designed
The end goal of the Geomet Curve (Step 7) is to embed
and managed with these final steps in mind. Achieving the
geometallurgy into business thinking, culture and systems.
level of resourcing and change management required for a
This means taking geometallurgy into account across the
successful geometallurgical strategy depends on executive whole business cycle and value chain, from exploration
leadership. Without identifying and clearly communicating through to operations and marketing. It necessitates
the goals defined in Steps 6 and 7 it is unlikely such support incorporating geometallurgical parameters, for example
will be forthcoming. The Geomet Curve is conceived as a throughput measures and proxies, in business accounting by
model to achieve this identification and communication. means of expanded scope for reconciliation. Most existing
In Step 7, the geometallurgical approach is embedded as businesses incorporate throughput in their financial systems.
a standard business practice and requires a constant plan- The difference from a geometallurgical perspective is that the
do-check-act (Deming, 2000; Shewart, 1980) reconciliation ‘drivers’ of throughput are spatially represented in 3D resource
feedback loop to improve the model and the use of the model. models, potentially impacting all subsequent scheduling,
A test to see whether Step 7 has been achieved in a business is planning and other decision making. Thus throughput is
to confirm that reconciliation of geometallurgical properties is considered spatially and monitored at ‘input level’ instead
considered to be normal for management of the business and of solely as an ‘outcome’. Geometallurgy is thus ‘integrated’
is required by senior leaders. The adoption of geometallurgy and ‘holistic’ not only in the sense that it spans technical
will significantly impact reconciliation practices (Carrasco, disciplines, but also in the sense that it penetrates business
Chilès and Segurét, 2008). thinking across the value chain. Performance metrics and
key performance indicators (KPIs) are designed around the
As the level of geometallurgical knowledge increases geometallurgical properties that directly affect outcomes.
(ie, progressing from left to right in Figure 1) there is a This will increasingly drive the use of fully integrated
corresponding decrease in risk and increase in the realised models and simulations to evaluate the options presented by
value of the geometallurgical approach. In this sense the geometallurgical data (Nicholas et al, 2006; Nicholas et al,
Geomet Curve is a ‘geometallurgy implementation and reward 2007).
model’ that allows demonstration of the benefits of the staged
Increasing focus across the industry on managing energy,
approach.
carbon footprint, environmental sustainability and niche
Defining ‘realised value’ is important. For a given project or product sales will drive adoption of business models where
operation, a geometallurgical approach may result in a lower the fundamental characteristics of the mineralisation and the
NPV, but higher confidence in that NPV and, collaterally, waste are heard throughout the value chain and not just in the
better capital efficiency. Valuing risk reduction is a very mining process.
difficult issue for the industry to deal with and it benefits from We consider here five key technical and organisational
thinking in terms of efficiency of capital allocation. issues that we believe need to be addressed to achieve full
Simulation based planning (extensive re-scheduling of value from geometallurgy. These are required to achieve and
mine and plant) is required to convert the geometallurgical sustain embedded geometallurgical thinking and processes
knowledge into an increased NPV. This again demonstrates across an organisation. In each case, overcoming these issues
the critical requirement for mining engineers to be closely is greatly helped by having a formal framework such as the
involved in the geometallurgical strategy. Geomet Curve, which means:
The increasing knowledge gained through the steps of the • stronger financial and business dimensions need to be
Geomet Curve requires escalating resources and cost (and embedded in geometallurgical studies;

38 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 THE GEOMET CURVE – A MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GEOMETALLURGY

• mining engineers, especially planning engineers, need to cannot. We argue that the end outcome of such processes
be full participants in geometallurgy; will be more robust planning and better valuation of real
 building the required 3D models necessitates a more options in minerals projects.
multidisciplinary approach to the task of resource 2. The ultimate goal of the Geomet Curve is to achieve
modelling (which is historically the domain of geologists Step 7, in which the management of the business requires
alone); fully reconciled measures of throughput, energy use,
 the substantive value delivery in geometallurgy arises processing performance and product quality that are only
from use of the models, not simply building them. The use possible via geometallurgy. In fact, improved planning
of such models requires modified evaluation approaches; approaches (not just mine planning, but more holistic
and business planning) that incorporate geometallurgical
• the senior executive viewpoint must be incorporated into attributes, will necessitate increased engagement from
geometallurgy if we are to sustain value delivery. mine planning engineers.
In practical terms, we are unconvinced that there is a
Stronger financial and business dimensions ‘discipline of geometallurgy’, rather it is envisaged that
Geometallurgy has evolved in the technical sphere, mainly progression to Steps 6 and 7 of the Geomet Curve will
by collaborations of geologists and metallurgists. In general, engender an increased emphasis on multidisciplinary project
the business dimensions and value proposition have not been teams with professionals needing to develop increasingly
incorporated to date. Financial and risk evaluation viewpoints cross-functional skills. In the same way that IT skills or project
need to be assimilated into the geometallurgical paradigm. management skills are requisite for minerals professionals,
In fact, until such measures are integrated into practices, the geometallurgical know-how will be highly regarded. An
value cannot be demonstrated. A geometallurgical approach essential part of this skill set will be deep understanding of
to business evaluation has the potential to provide a much interactions between rock properties and the value chain
richer and more fully informed decision-making environment for geologists, mineral processing engineers and mining
compared to existing standard practices. Geometallurgical engineers. In fact, this broadens the definition of ‘geometallurgy’,
outcomes must be presented such that business decision- because a natural consequence of holistic, ‘whole of value-
makers understand the implications and robustness of chain’ thinking is that geometallurgical models will also need
the value outcomes. The results need to be presented in an to capture rock properties that impact other steps; an example
understandable fashion but also with business context and would be those influencing material transport (abrasion,
guidance on risk; ie, the uncertainty of the outcome. In any dustability, etc) in mining, mineral processing and other
contemplation of real options, characterisation of uncertainty handling steps. Another example would be models predicting
is a first step. dust generation of materials at various steps to optimise
addition of water to trains in bulk mining businesses. In iron
Geometallurgy and whole of value chain ore, coal etc, the optimisation of dust suppression represents,
planning cumulatively, a potentially major efficiency gain (transport
Historical and current efforts on geometallurgy have focused more product and less water).
on the early parts of the curve (dominantly Stage A; ie, Steps 1 There is significant cultural inertia to overcome in order
and 2). These efforts have made great gains in developing to arrive at fully multidisciplinary geometallurgy in practice
innovative and improved sampling and measurement and we believe a structured model like the Geomet Curve
methods of geometallurgical properties or appropriate proxies can facilitate the required communication across silos. In
(Walters, 2009). However, efforts to date have been driven summary, there is a distinction between deep technical
by professional and academic geologists and metallurgical specialists in each discipline and broad generalists with
engineers, to the (general) exclusion of mining and mine knowledge across multiple disciplines. In some ways,
planning engineers. geometallurgy represents a progression to less specialisation
Value delivery of geometallurgy can only be through amongst mining professionals. It requires ‘silo busting’, but
changed planning decisions. These planning decisions span not at the cost of disciplinary excellence. The key requirement
the value chain and are not limited to mine planning, but for success of this holistic approach is making sure that a clear
and unambiguous collective understanding of the drivers and
extend to the integrated mine and processing (and whole of
value trade-off opportunities exists in the business.
value chain) planning functions. Some planning decisions
at the metallurgical design stage have been the focus of a
lot of current geometallurgical efforts (getting the plant
Implications of geometallurgy for building 3D
design ‘optimised’). We are now arguing for the next stage resource models
– integrating mine design and scheduling with plant design Some of the more critical problems facing those tasked with
and operating parameters. As an aside, the authors have construction of 3D geometallurgical models are summarised
seen surprisingly large benefits in project value through here:
manipulating design considerations such as the number • The resource model and the geometallurgical model are
and size of stockpiles – an area that is usually not rigorously intimately associated and therefore the two estimates
considered or is left to operations personnel. should not be separated. There is a temptation to have a
A major challenge is to move thinking forwards from ‘geomet’ model with a separate existence to the resource
model building to use of models in order to impact business model and this should be resisted.
decisions: this must involve mine planning engineers. We  There are two broad approaches that can be taken to
propose two strategies to achieve this: building the model:
1. The Geomet Curve clearly focuses on the value chain and 1. modelling response variables (such as recovery and
delivery of value via the scenario analysis proposed in Step throughput) directly in the 3D block model; or
6. Explicit focus on this as a goal will capture the attention 2. modelling primary variables (such as mineralogy and
of mining engineers in a way that new tests and measures other rock properties) that drive these responses.

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 39
J VANN et al

In general the former are non-additive and the latter are selective mining units (SMU). This means we should be
additive (Coward et al, 2009). This means that, all things cautious of aggregated modelling of processing that bundles
being equal, we should be cautious about direct modelling large time periods into averages (for example quarterly
of response variables. However, if a strong argument can be or annual average values). This sort of aggregation risks
made that the response variables are being considered over a disguising much of the variability revealed by sound
range of values for which behaviours are close to linear then geometallurgical modelling and may bias estimations of
direct modelling may be admissible. Each variable must be the benefits or losses through the value chain arising from
considered carefully to determine the appropriate modelling interaction of variability with constraints. This is a further
pathway. Simply ignoring the issue is not an option: argument for use of geostatistical simulations as inputs.
• Processing efficiency is driven, in the main, by mineralogy, • Do not lose sight of the precision of the geometallurgical
not grade. While grade can be a useful proxy it is not model. There are measurement errors, regression and
necessarily the best attribute to use for estimation of correlation ‘errors’, human (Reason, 1990) and machine
recovery and ultimately realised value. In general, ‘mineral errors. It is important that the precision of data and
grades’ are more effective. Geometallurgical models modelling steps be understood and there should be an
will therefore almost invariably incorporate significant attempt to quantify risk in the geometallurgical model.
mineralogical variables. Much of the sustainability and Again, simulations help in this regard by characterising
energy efficiency dimensions of geometallurgy are driven uncertainty (but only part of it). The issue of parametric
by mineralogy. Furthermore, mineralogy is additive risk should be kept in mind, for example – what is the
(Coward et al, 2009; Carrasco, Chilès and Segurét, 2008), uncertainty on the parameters used to build the model?
which makes modelling of this primary variable relatively Another issue is that sophisticated conditional simulation
straightforward. within a fixed geological model will understate the risk
• Ratios, however, are non-additive. Direct estimation of arising from uncertainty in the geological (geometric)
ratios using kriging or other linear interpolators is not modelling of domains.
recommended and may produce potentially materially
incorrect results (depending on the statistical properties
Value arises from using the 3D
of the individual components of the ratio). geometallurgical model, not from building it
• The domains used in spatial modelling for geometallury The construction of three dimensional (3D) geometallurgical
are very important and may be significantly different models raises some important mathematical and geostatistical
from traditional grade domains. Domains must be considerations (see Carrasco, Chilès and Segurét, 2008;
geostatistically robust and generally have geological Coward et al, 2009). However, the use of these models to
meaning. It is arguable that geometallurgical domains change business decision making and practices has not been
must have an even stronger geological basis than simple focused on to date. We argue that the real nub of the problem
grade domains! Simply adding geometallurgical variables will be how to use these models to effect change in decision-
to existing models without revisiting domains is highly making, and then embed this change into the business in
risky. an ongoing way. We believe that to gain the full value of 3D
geometallurgical models scenario based project evaluation
 Historically many metallurgical properties have
been considered in the framework of regression. In methods must be developed and implemented. This involves
geometallurgical models, regression based approaches the use of conditional simulation models to allow variability
can be dangerous. Regression can be distorted by a small and uncertainty of a range of important attributes to be
number of points to the detriment of the majority of data; captured in a granular manner (ideally at the selective mining
it may also suggest that there is a meaningful relationship unit or SMU scale) throughout the value chain – through to
between variables when none exists. Regressions (and granular cash flows. Critically, such evaluation approaches
other multivariate tools like principle components can account for the interaction of attribute variation with
analysis or PCA) are rarely linked to spatial context and system constraints and thus allow informed decision making
ignore spatial domaining. We advise that if they are used around design of flexibilities to manage such constraints.
in a geometallurgical context, practitioners and managers There are significant benefits possible for capital optimisation
should always closely examine the underlying data using arising from whole of value chain scenario analysis.
scatter plots or other graphic tools, and in particular This will require considerable shifts in thinking for many
consider the spatial context. mining and business professionals because use of stochastic
• Any statistical or geostatistical analyses and techniques (rather than deterministic models) is not well accepted in
used must be appropriate and fit for purpose. It is very routine project evaluation and operations. Ironically, in our
important that the conceptual approach behind the experience, senior leaders are more likely to engage quickly
geometallurgical model be transparent and auditable. with the idea of having multiple cases, distributions of outputs
• The variability of geometallurgical attributes, in and the shift to decision making in the presence of uncertainty
conjunction with the uncertainty associated with than many professional engineers and geologists. This may be
them, generates risks that are integral to the business because modern senior leaders think in terms of uncertainty
problem. In consequence, single outcome, deterministic when considering strategic and financial options (Luehrman,
geometallurgical models such as kriging are generally less 1994; Trigeorgis, 2005). In any case, there is still a strong
fit for purpose than multiple realisation models that capture tendency in the minerals industry to use a single case as an
uncertainty; ie, geostatistical simulations (Journel, 1974). input to optimisation (usually some type of kriging model).
One single ‘best’ solution is unrealistic when considering Retaining this deterministic mind set in the later stages of the
the uncertainty and variability associated with all of the Geomet Curve will fail to deliver the full value of the approach.
performance drivers and will be an oversimplified input to
evaluation and scenario analysis. Management considerations
• Many geometallurgical parameters will impact on the Achieving high pay offs from geometallurgy will require
financial performance of the operation at the scale of radically changed approaches to business decision-making

40 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 THE GEOMET CURVE – A MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GEOMETALLURGY

(for example the use of multiple scenarios and real options 1. Generate some urgency – Identify the ultimate pay-off of
thinking) and also organisational re-design of the firm. Step 7, make objectives real and relevant. Attach value to
Consequently, the senior executive viewpoint must be the pay-off (eg, lower capital costs and increased process
incorporated into the language and thinking of geometallurgy reliability or improved operational practices).
since they must sponsor the required changes. The necessity 2. Get the vision/strategy right – ‘Formulate the mess’,
to engage senior leadership is thus unavoidable if the then establish a simple and communicable strategy (the
establishment of a geometallurgical approach to project Geomet Curve can help with this). The value of distilling
evaluation, development and operation is to be successful and and clarifying the situation before setting strategy should
sustained. not be underestimated.
Change management warrants some comment here. In every 3. Build a guiding team – ‘Get the right people in the
significant change of technical practices there is accompanying right seats on the bus’ (Collins, 2001) with the right
cultural change. In the case of geometallurgy, this centres emotional commitment, and the right mix of skills and
around two key aspects. The first, clearly, is the shift to levels. Multidisciplinary teams are vital. At Codelco this
increasing and genuinely collaborative, multidisciplinary involved creating ‘triads’ of geologist-planning engineer-
approaches between the key technical disciplines in mining; ie, metallurgist to focus on geometallurgy (Pedro Carrasco,
geology, mining engineering, metallurgy (mineral processing), Pers Comm).
business analysts, marketing professionals and operational 4. Communicate for buy-in – Communicate the essentials,
management. These disciplines have historically been highly simply. Identify and appeal to key people’s needs. Utilise
compartmentalised, existing in cultural and organisational a persistent framework in communication; this is a key
silos. Furthermore, they have also often been geographically application of the Geomet Curve.
fragmented, both at operations and across organisations. The 5. Empower action – Identify and remove obstacles (esp
second aspect is the shift to ‘whole of value chain thinking’ organisational structure; ie silos), enable constructive
previously discussed. While efforts of individuals and teams feedback (reconciliation), ensure support via a high
to improve multidisciplinary collaboration are necessary level sponsor(s). Reward and recognise progress and
to achieve this it is generally not sufficient: organisational achievements (understanding that KPIs drive behaviour).
changes will also be required and these must be driven by 6. Create short-term wins – Identify steps or stages clearly
senior leaders. Accordingly, we believe there are requirements (again Geomet Curve). Set bounded aims that are plausible
for change management from the first step of the Geomet and achievable; ie, bite-size chunks. Have a manageable
Curve onwards. Ultimately, it is likely that mines will cross- numbers of initiatives. Explicitly evaluate the benefits of
discipline mineral extraction teams rather than discipline completing each step/stage.
silos, or at least some matrix organisational approach that has 7. Don’t let up – Foster and encourage determination
geometallurgical groupings as well as disciplines. and persistence – ongoing change. Encourage ongoing
Any significant shift in the way an organisation achieves its progress reporting – highlight achieved value and future
goal requires change management. The dramatic and laudable milestones. Reconciliation is the vital tool, not only to
progress in the area of safety in the past two decades provides measure improvement, but also to necessitate inter-
important lessons for geometallurgy. Firstly, like safety, the discipline interaction across the value chain and provide
transition to geometallurgical business systems cannot be leaders with a tool.
managed ‘ad hoc’. Both require deeply embedded systems and 8. Make change stick – Reinforce the value of successful
culture and thus active change management. change via new systems, language, recruitment and
promotion. Weave geometallurgical thinking, and more
To improve safety outcomes in the mineral industry most broadly, holistic thinking about the impact of rock
companies have adopted similar strategies. Commonalities properties on all steps of the value chain, into company
include (Hudson, 2001): culture. Reward and facilitate collaboration ‘whole of
 ensuring that everyone understands they are responsible value-chain thinking’ as a core value of the firm.
for safety and prioritises it; Implementing and sustaining (Kotter’s Steps 7 and 8) are
 a shift from top-down process to bottom-up process; likely to be the hardest steps. Hence we advise contemplation
 despite this, visible sponsorship by senior leaders is vital; of every step on the Geomet Curve with a clear idea of the
and ultimate goal (Step 7).
 the importance of learning feedback loops (Plan-Do- Management of mineral deposits is complex with conflicting
Check-Act) in improvement cultures. priorities, for example:
To transition to a new paradigm about value (Step 7:  short-term performance opportunities versus long-term
‘integrated, holistic geomet’) requires similar cultural re- sustainability; and
alignment. Tracking of metrics, via geometallurgically-aware  capital investments versus subsequent operating costs.
recon- ciliation practices will be essential, both to measure
Critically, it is not possible to achieve the expected long term
change, but also to ensure visibility of performance and the business outcome if the day-to-day operating environment
validity of modelling practices and decision processes. In the is aligned to a different set of objectives. Therefore
same way that safety culture and performance was shifted organisations that use a geometallurgical approach to the
significantly when operations started to track ‘near misses’ design and evaluation of their business must also incorporate
as well as injuries and fatalities, this shift to more holistic geometallurgy as an operational tool. Failure to do so will
consideration of value in the business may benefit from the result in mismatches between actual and desired performance
concept of ‘value near misses’, ‘value injuries’ and ‘value and may, ultimately, cause the business to deliver below
fatalities’ for escalating process and project losses. expectations. Such failures would count against the success of
Kotter (1996) proposed an ‘8 step model’ for understanding geometallurgy as an approach and, like many well intended
and managing change. We summarise a modified version of previous initiatives, geometallurgy may be seen as another
Kotter’s model, with geometallurgy in mind: fad that failed to deliver its promises. In short, geometallurgy

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 41
J VANN et al

will further drive the need for better integrated planning • form the guiding strategic framework for a successful
hierarchy. change management process.
Finally, it should be understood that real progress towards
Step 7 of the Geomet Curve can commence immediately ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
on all operations and projects. One of the authors had Discussions with a range of current and past colleagues at JK
direct managerial experience of simple steps that made Tech, JKMRC and QG across many years have contributed to
significant enhancement of operational effectiveness in the our views on the crucial role of geometallurgy in the minerals
geometallurgical realm; at a large base metal mine a weekly industry. The ideas behind the Geomet Curve evolved as
‘stockpile management meeting’ was instigated where the collaboration between JK Tech and Quantitative Group
geologists, mine planning engineers and metallurgists all got professionals, who authored this paper. These ideas were
together and discussed what the characteristics of material tested on a range of professionals in a pilot workshop course at
streams from the mine were likely to be and what the the University of Queensland involving researchers from CRC
implications were – could deleterious materials be moderated, ORE and other QG and JK Tech consultants. A refined version
what were throughput implications, etc. A primary advantage of this workshop was then presented to audiences of senior
was that the sort of cross-disciplinary relationships and minerals industry professionals in Australia, Canada and Chile
communication (and alignment of business practices and during March and April 2011. We appreciate the constructive
performance criteria) that is sought for the geometallurgical and enthusiastic feedback from the 65 professionals involved
business model was organically built. in those workshop courses. As is usually the case, the writing
of a paper has further clarified our conception of the core
CONCLUSIONS propositions.
Geometallurgy should deliver improved outcomes for the The first author would like to personally acknowledge his
minerals industry. This cross-disciplinary approach should mentor in geostatistics, Pedro Carrasco, also one of the prime
identify and potentially unlock value, identify (and avoid) value movers of geometallurgical applications in Chile, who sadly
destruction and provide a pathway to better implementation passed away last year.
of an energy efficient and sustainable minerals industry; Finally, Professor Alan Bye of CRC-ORE, Dan Alexander
however success is unlikely without a sound implementation and Karin Olson-Hoal of JK Tech, Scott Jackson of QG and
and management model. an anonymous reviewer are all gratefully thanked for their
The cross-disciplinary approach represents the greatest assistance in improving this paper. Any remaining deficiencies
are entirely the responsibility of the authors.
threat to the success of geometallurgy. We have proposed a
model we call the Geomet Curve for progression from non-
spatial consideration of rock properties impacting mineral REFERENCES
processing (and more generally all steps in the value chain). Ackoff, R, 1999. Re-Creating the Corporation: A Design of
This model is designed to encourage increasing levels of Organizations for the 21st Century, p 352 (Oxford University
cross-discipline involvement as geometallurgical practices are Press).
progressively incorporated into business culture. Carrasco, P, Chilès, J P and Segurét, S, 2008. Additivity,
The Geomet Curve outlines the evolution from non-spatial metallurgical recovery and grade, in Proceedings Eighth
International Geostatistical Congress, Santiago, 1188:237-246.
metallurgical performance modelling (Step 1) to a sustainable,
systemic and fully embedded ‘geometallurgically aware’ Chilès, J P and Delfiner, P, 1999. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial
business (Step 7), where geometallurgy is integral to business Uncertainty, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, p 720
thinking and the value proposition. (Wiley Interscience).

It is proposed that the Geomet Curve can help to drive Collins, J, 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the
and manage change from the narrow focus of geometallurgy Leap... and Others Don’t, p 300 (Harper Business Press).
to date. The involvement of geologists and metallurgists is Coward, S, Vann, J, Dunham, S and Stewart, M, 2009. The
insufficient – mine planning and business decision making are Primary-Response framework for geometallurgical variables,
the critical value delivery steps. In addition, the historically in Proceedings 7th International Mining Geology Conference,
limited scope of geometallurgy to date (mostly Steps 1 and 2 of Perth, WA, pp 109-113 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
the Geomet Curve) requires that the end goal and the requisite Metallurgy: Melbourne).
steps to get there are clear in our minds in the earliest steps of Deming, W E, 2000. Out of the Crisis, p 507 (MIT Press).
the Geomet Curve. Dunham, S and Vann, J, 2007. Geometallurgy, geostatistics and
While there is now some attention being given to the project value – Does your block model tell you what you need to
construction of 3D geometallurgical models, we argue that the know? in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2007, pp 189-196 (The
real value delivery comes with the use of 3D geometallurgical Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
models, specifically understanding the impact of variability Hudson, P, 2001, Safety management and safety culture: the
and uncertainty in the presence of constraints. This requires long, hard and winding road, in Occupational Health & Safety
use of geostatistical conditional simulation to generate Management Systems, Proceedings of the First National
geometallurgical models in most cases. Conference (eds: W Pearse, C Gallagher and E Bluff), Work Cover
NSW, pp 3-32.
Finally, the technical geometallurgy literature to date is
couched in the wrong language for senior leaders, who must Journel, A, 1974. Geostatistics for the conditional simulation of ore
sponsor such a major change in business practices. We bodies, Economic Geology, 69(5):673-688.
propose the Geomet Curve not only to guide technical project Kotter, J P, 1996. Leading Change, 208 p (Harvard Business Press).
management, but to:
Luehrman, T, 1994. Capital projects as real options: An introduction,
• clearly distill and articulate the value proposition to senior Harvard Business School Teaching Aide N-9-295-074 (Revised
leadership in mining organisations; and 22 March, 1995), 12 p.

42 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 THE GEOMET CURVE – A MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GEOMETALLURGY

Nicholas, G D, Coward, S J, Armstrong, M and Galli, A, 2006. Shewart, W, 1980. Economic control of quality of manufactured
Integrated mine evaluation – Implications for mine management, product, 50th anniversary commemorative Issue, American
in Proceedings International Mine Management Conference, Society for Quality (facsimile edition of original 1939 volume),
pp 69-79 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: 501 p.
Melbourne).
Walters, S, 2009. New research initiatives in geometallurgical
Nicholas, G D, Coward, S J, Rendall, M and Thurston, M L, 2007. integration: Moving towards a common operating language,
Decision-making using an integrated evaluation model versus in Proceedings 7th International Mining Geology Conference,
sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, in Proceedings
pp 19-24 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
CIM International (Canadian Institute of Mining Metallurgy and
Melbourne).
Petroleum: Montreal).
Walters, S and Kojovic, T, 2006. Geometallurgical mapping and
Reason, J, 1990. Human Error, 316 p (Cambridge University Press).
mine modelling (GEMIII) – The way of the future, in International
Trigeorgis, L, 2005. Making use of real options simple: An overview Autogenous and Semi Autogenous Grinding Technology, SAG
of applications in flexible/modular decision making, The 2006, Vancouver, Canada, pp 411-425.
Engineering Economist, 50:25-53.

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 43