1428 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
circuit can be baselined on a circuit-by-circuit basis. This
information can then be compared to actual performance.
By calculating actual yield losses versus the benchmark
model yield (and knowing from plant feed size distribu-
tion), potential tonnage gains can be calculated. Then,
using market values for the coal sold, monetary opportuni-
ties can then be established.
To illustrate the use of this concept, consider the KPI
assessments conducted for eight actual different preparation
plants (Table 5). The results of these comparisons (actual vs
best practice) indicate that several substantial financial ben-
efits can be realized by improving efficiency and reducing
coal losses for the first four plants (i.e., Plants A-D). Plant
A had the greatest overall losses of potentially recoverable
coal at 27,385 tonnes. This facility also corresponded to the
highest monetary loss at just over $4.1 million per month.
Although Plant D had a significantly greater loss of coal
than Plant C (i.e., 5,042 vs 3,406 tonnes), the higher coal
sales price for Plant C resulted in these plants having simi-
lar $losses (i.e., $0.323 and $0.303 million). A detailed
examination of the data showed that for these inefficient
plants, the efficiency opportunity exceeded the total plant
operating costs. In contrast, the last four plants (i.e., Plants
E-H) cited in Table 5 were found to operate with negative
losses. This indicates that these operations had attained a
level of performance that exceeded the expectations of their
benchmark best practice targets, thereby limiting opportu-
nities for improving profitability at these sites.
This approach can also be used effectively for evalu-
ating single plant performance over time. For example,
Table 6 shows monthly KPI metrics for a large plant. The
“Base” case represents the initial evaluation of the plant
taken prior to circuit efficiency improvements. This data
indicated that an opportunity existed to recover an addi-
tional 17,710 tonnes per month from this facility. Over the
next several months, steps were taken to correct operational
and maintenance issues that were identified as the probable
causes of coal losses. New KPI evaluations conducted in
January, April, and June, showed a steady improvement in
plant efficiency and a corresponding decline in the losses
of saleable clean coal. Compared to the base case, a gain
of nearly $1 million per month was achieved at this site
as a result of (i) detailed sampling programs that identi-
fied and quantified the substantial coal tonnage losses, (ii)
Table 5. Key monthly performance indicators (KPIs) for seven CPPs
Circuit Loss (dry tonnes) Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D Plant E Plant F Plant G Plant H
Coarse Circuit 9,138 9,567 3,203 –5,271 4,580 –143 –3,354 –204
Small Circuit 0 –3,856 –635 –4,559 –6,471 0 –2,843 –9,423
Fine Circuit –7,344 –2,459 –2,737 –2,213 –5,916 –301 1,800 –2,764
Froth Circuit 25,586 27,724 1,151 0 –6,885 –1,121 0 1,502
+0.15 mm In Fine Refuse 0 955 0 1,696 0 0 0 0
–0.15 mm Contamination 5 49 2,424 15,389 4,335 0 45 0
Total Coal Loss 27,385 31,980 3,406 5,042 –10,357 –1,565 –4,352 –10,889
Net Coal Lost 27,385 31,980 3,406 5,042 0 0 0 0
Coal Market Price ($/tonne) $150 $110 $95 $60 — — — —
Lost Value ($× 1000) $4,108 $3,518 $323 $303 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loss Raw ($/tonne Feed) $1.81 $2.06 $0.13 $0.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Table 6. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a single CPP
Circuit Coal Loss, tonnes Base January April June
-$200
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Baseline Jan April June
Coarse Circuit 5,830 7,340 2,930 1,455
Small Circuit 939 –15 –139 –604
Fine Circuit 2,645 –113 –112 –132
Froth Circuit 3,835 1,473 –298 1274
+0.15 mm In Fine Refuse 292 2,754 –2,709 195
–0.15 mm Contamination 282 39 –57 53
Net Coal Lost 17,710 11,478 –385 2,240
Coal Market Price, $/t $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00
Lost Value, ×$1,000 $1,063 $689 ($23) $134
Loss/Ton Raw Feed, $/t $1.77 $1.15 ($0.04) $0.22
)0001x$(eulaVtsoL
circuit can be baselined on a circuit-by-circuit basis. This
information can then be compared to actual performance.
By calculating actual yield losses versus the benchmark
model yield (and knowing from plant feed size distribu-
tion), potential tonnage gains can be calculated. Then,
using market values for the coal sold, monetary opportuni-
ties can then be established.
To illustrate the use of this concept, consider the KPI
assessments conducted for eight actual different preparation
plants (Table 5). The results of these comparisons (actual vs
best practice) indicate that several substantial financial ben-
efits can be realized by improving efficiency and reducing
coal losses for the first four plants (i.e., Plants A-D). Plant
A had the greatest overall losses of potentially recoverable
coal at 27,385 tonnes. This facility also corresponded to the
highest monetary loss at just over $4.1 million per month.
Although Plant D had a significantly greater loss of coal
than Plant C (i.e., 5,042 vs 3,406 tonnes), the higher coal
sales price for Plant C resulted in these plants having simi-
lar $losses (i.e., $0.323 and $0.303 million). A detailed
examination of the data showed that for these inefficient
plants, the efficiency opportunity exceeded the total plant
operating costs. In contrast, the last four plants (i.e., Plants
E-H) cited in Table 5 were found to operate with negative
losses. This indicates that these operations had attained a
level of performance that exceeded the expectations of their
benchmark best practice targets, thereby limiting opportu-
nities for improving profitability at these sites.
This approach can also be used effectively for evalu-
ating single plant performance over time. For example,
Table 6 shows monthly KPI metrics for a large plant. The
“Base” case represents the initial evaluation of the plant
taken prior to circuit efficiency improvements. This data
indicated that an opportunity existed to recover an addi-
tional 17,710 tonnes per month from this facility. Over the
next several months, steps were taken to correct operational
and maintenance issues that were identified as the probable
causes of coal losses. New KPI evaluations conducted in
January, April, and June, showed a steady improvement in
plant efficiency and a corresponding decline in the losses
of saleable clean coal. Compared to the base case, a gain
of nearly $1 million per month was achieved at this site
as a result of (i) detailed sampling programs that identi-
fied and quantified the substantial coal tonnage losses, (ii)
Table 5. Key monthly performance indicators (KPIs) for seven CPPs
Circuit Loss (dry tonnes) Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D Plant E Plant F Plant G Plant H
Coarse Circuit 9,138 9,567 3,203 –5,271 4,580 –143 –3,354 –204
Small Circuit 0 –3,856 –635 –4,559 –6,471 0 –2,843 –9,423
Fine Circuit –7,344 –2,459 –2,737 –2,213 –5,916 –301 1,800 –2,764
Froth Circuit 25,586 27,724 1,151 0 –6,885 –1,121 0 1,502
+0.15 mm In Fine Refuse 0 955 0 1,696 0 0 0 0
–0.15 mm Contamination 5 49 2,424 15,389 4,335 0 45 0
Total Coal Loss 27,385 31,980 3,406 5,042 –10,357 –1,565 –4,352 –10,889
Net Coal Lost 27,385 31,980 3,406 5,042 0 0 0 0
Coal Market Price ($/tonne) $150 $110 $95 $60 — — — —
Lost Value ($× 1000) $4,108 $3,518 $323 $303 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loss Raw ($/tonne Feed) $1.81 $2.06 $0.13 $0.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Table 6. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a single CPP
Circuit Coal Loss, tonnes Base January April June
-$200
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Baseline Jan April June
Coarse Circuit 5,830 7,340 2,930 1,455
Small Circuit 939 –15 –139 –604
Fine Circuit 2,645 –113 –112 –132
Froth Circuit 3,835 1,473 –298 1274
+0.15 mm In Fine Refuse 292 2,754 –2,709 195
–0.15 mm Contamination 282 39 –57 53
Net Coal Lost 17,710 11,478 –385 2,240
Coal Market Price, $/t $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00
Lost Value, ×$1,000 $1,063 $689 ($23) $134
Loss/Ton Raw Feed, $/t $1.77 $1.15 ($0.04) $0.22
)0001x$(eulaVtsoL