4
with a comprehensive understanding of the entire
process
• Trainers: Engineers with an extensive knowledge,
hands-on operating experience, and strong relational
aptitudes are preferred to build trusting relationships
with operators from various backgrounds
• Production metallurgists: It is usually preferred to
have an experienced metallurgist in the leading role,
overseeingsetpoints, ramp-up, and control room
operations
• Programmers/Instrumentation: Having a “cham-
pion” in programming is key and can save days or
even weeks in the start-up. Start-up demands differ-
ent skills from those used in a regular programming
or maintenance phase. Programmers and instru-
ments /control experts able to adapt to unusual and
stressful situations are required
• Maintenance experts: Unusual breakdowns can
occur during start-up. Relying only on an in-house
crew may result in significant delays. The presence of
skilled and resourceful maintenance professionals is
essential to minimize downtime
• IT Specialists: As IT environments become increas-
ingly complex, failures can quickly paralyze or at
least slow down start-up teams. Knowledgeable indi-
viduals who can assess the impact of their actions are
essential for adapting policies that may sometimes be
unsuitable in on-site conditions
• Equipment providers: Equipment providers often
need to be on-site for guarantee purposes. Extending
their stay can be beneficial, as they can offer valu-
able operational insights and additional maintenance
training.
The cost of bridging the gap illustrated in Figure 1,
covering all necessary disciplines, can range up to a few
million dollars, depending on plant size, process complex-
ity, and the qualifications of the operator’s own crew. The
costs of not filling the position are harder to estimate as
they depend on contingency factors. It is safe to estimate a
“tenfold” ratio when considering delays (several months) in
achieving design production, related increased borrowing
costs, and the increasing probability of equipment damage,
personnel injury, or environmental hazards.
FRAMEWORK FOR A SUCCESSFUL
PLANT START-UP
This section focuses on the processing aspect of a plant
start-up, summarizing the work presented in Berton et al.
(2016), which outlines a start-up framework designed to
minimize start-up risks.
In the mining industry, it is standard practice to imple-
ment structured commissioning procedures for individual
major equipment. Technical personnel from the equipment
manufacturer are typically involved on-site to conduct
pre-operation verification, perform dry runs of the equip-
ment, and support the plant crew during the first hours
of operation. Once this process is completed, the equip-
ment is considered safe for operation. However, the inter-
actions between the various pieces of equipment are often
overlooked. While these individual pieces of equipment are
critical to a successful startup, the true key to success lies in
understanding and managing the interactions among the
different equipment.
This section highlights the advantages of an indepen-
dent commissioning team that aligns all processing sectors
and equipment with the overall process goals. Major et
al. (2003) presented a case in which dedicated staff were
employed for the commissioning and start-up phases,
including operating personnel who had been involved in
the plant’s design phase. This strategy typically leads to a
quicker production ramp-up, allowing regular plant staff to
achieve a rapid learning curve and eventually operate inde-
pendently of external support. As a result, safe commercial
production is also achieved faster.
Risk Assessment
The complexity of a plant start-up and the effort required
for success depend directly on the level of risks involved in
the process. Mackay and Nesset (2003) introduced met-
rics to evaluate start-up performance, presenting a typical
start-up curve that varies with technological risk levels and
providing general guidelines to maximize the probability of
success. Although this paper does not focus on the impacts
of new technology, it is worth mentioning that these must
be considered in any risk assessment, as they are often
associated with challenging start-ups and longer ramp-up
periods:
• The Magnola (Noranda) plant exemplifies high tech-
nological risk, as its magnesium extraction process
was entirely new (Ficara et al. 1998)
• Global Mining Research reported in 2018 that many
nickel High Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) projects
failed to reach their nameplate capacity. Projects
which achieved the capacity could not sustain it
• High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR), despite
extensive testwork, presented numerous challenges
when they were first introduced, as documented by
Hart (2012).
with a comprehensive understanding of the entire
process
• Trainers: Engineers with an extensive knowledge,
hands-on operating experience, and strong relational
aptitudes are preferred to build trusting relationships
with operators from various backgrounds
• Production metallurgists: It is usually preferred to
have an experienced metallurgist in the leading role,
overseeingsetpoints, ramp-up, and control room
operations
• Programmers/Instrumentation: Having a “cham-
pion” in programming is key and can save days or
even weeks in the start-up. Start-up demands differ-
ent skills from those used in a regular programming
or maintenance phase. Programmers and instru-
ments /control experts able to adapt to unusual and
stressful situations are required
• Maintenance experts: Unusual breakdowns can
occur during start-up. Relying only on an in-house
crew may result in significant delays. The presence of
skilled and resourceful maintenance professionals is
essential to minimize downtime
• IT Specialists: As IT environments become increas-
ingly complex, failures can quickly paralyze or at
least slow down start-up teams. Knowledgeable indi-
viduals who can assess the impact of their actions are
essential for adapting policies that may sometimes be
unsuitable in on-site conditions
• Equipment providers: Equipment providers often
need to be on-site for guarantee purposes. Extending
their stay can be beneficial, as they can offer valu-
able operational insights and additional maintenance
training.
The cost of bridging the gap illustrated in Figure 1,
covering all necessary disciplines, can range up to a few
million dollars, depending on plant size, process complex-
ity, and the qualifications of the operator’s own crew. The
costs of not filling the position are harder to estimate as
they depend on contingency factors. It is safe to estimate a
“tenfold” ratio when considering delays (several months) in
achieving design production, related increased borrowing
costs, and the increasing probability of equipment damage,
personnel injury, or environmental hazards.
FRAMEWORK FOR A SUCCESSFUL
PLANT START-UP
This section focuses on the processing aspect of a plant
start-up, summarizing the work presented in Berton et al.
(2016), which outlines a start-up framework designed to
minimize start-up risks.
In the mining industry, it is standard practice to imple-
ment structured commissioning procedures for individual
major equipment. Technical personnel from the equipment
manufacturer are typically involved on-site to conduct
pre-operation verification, perform dry runs of the equip-
ment, and support the plant crew during the first hours
of operation. Once this process is completed, the equip-
ment is considered safe for operation. However, the inter-
actions between the various pieces of equipment are often
overlooked. While these individual pieces of equipment are
critical to a successful startup, the true key to success lies in
understanding and managing the interactions among the
different equipment.
This section highlights the advantages of an indepen-
dent commissioning team that aligns all processing sectors
and equipment with the overall process goals. Major et
al. (2003) presented a case in which dedicated staff were
employed for the commissioning and start-up phases,
including operating personnel who had been involved in
the plant’s design phase. This strategy typically leads to a
quicker production ramp-up, allowing regular plant staff to
achieve a rapid learning curve and eventually operate inde-
pendently of external support. As a result, safe commercial
production is also achieved faster.
Risk Assessment
The complexity of a plant start-up and the effort required
for success depend directly on the level of risks involved in
the process. Mackay and Nesset (2003) introduced met-
rics to evaluate start-up performance, presenting a typical
start-up curve that varies with technological risk levels and
providing general guidelines to maximize the probability of
success. Although this paper does not focus on the impacts
of new technology, it is worth mentioning that these must
be considered in any risk assessment, as they are often
associated with challenging start-ups and longer ramp-up
periods:
• The Magnola (Noranda) plant exemplifies high tech-
nological risk, as its magnesium extraction process
was entirely new (Ficara et al. 1998)
• Global Mining Research reported in 2018 that many
nickel High Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) projects
failed to reach their nameplate capacity. Projects
which achieved the capacity could not sustain it
• High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR), despite
extensive testwork, presented numerous challenges
when they were first introduced, as documented by
Hart (2012).