Best Mining Solutions For Everyone, Get a Free Quote.

Zhengzhou, China

[email protected]

Blogs

  1. Home
  2. Cone Crusher
  3. economic feasibility of mining and processing of basalt

economic feasibility of mining and processing of basalt

Cone Crusher

Cone Crusher

Cone crushers are also known as cone breakers. Compressive strength of cone crusher is no more than 250MPa.

Production capacity:12-1000t/h

Cone diameter:600-2200mm

Feeding size:35-300mm

Applied Materials:  Granite, basalt, quartz stone, iron ore, pebbles, green stone, copper ore and limestone.

[email protected]
Sent Message Chat Online

We Provide You The Highest Quality Mining Machine That Meets Your Expectation.

Need A High Quality Mining Machine For Your Project?

Contact With Us

You May Also Like

development of the efficient technology for processing

To produce new, non-conventional, environmentally friendly, and high-quality products, the basaltic rocks are recommended. The growing demand for basalt products contributes to the improvement of integrated basalt minerals processing and to the manufacture of various products on the basis of preset parameters of chemical and physical/mechanical properties of rocks

In such conditions, solving the above-mentioned issues is an urgent problem that requires comprehensive studies of basalt properties and composition, aimed at further raising local basalt raw materials utilization rate, enrichment and manufacture of new, quality and sustainable products

optimizingmining feasibilitystudies: the $100 billion

We use cookies essential for this site to function well. Please click "Accept" to help us improve its usefulness with additional cookies. Learn about our use of cookies, and collaboration with select social media and trusted analytics partners hereLearn more about cookies, Opens in new tab.

After getting badly burned in the commodities bust earlier in this decade, miners and metals producers are embarking on another round of capital investment. As a new build cycle begins, owners and contractors have the opportunity to reflect on where they’ve excelled in planning and executing capital projects—and where they’ve fallen short. 1 1. Matthieu Dussud, Mark Kuvshinikov, Piotr Pikul, Ryan Price, and Robert Samek, “Avoiding mistakes of the past: A CEO’s checklist in a commodity upswing,” August 2018, McKinsey.com. Several common issues tend to erode value in mining projects, ranging from inadequate design to insufficient supervision. But one issue is persistently under-addressed: a lack of rigor at the feasibility-study (FS) stage

Many mining executives still rely on the same FS processes they did years ago, when resources were more accessible and projects less risky to plan and execute. That’s a problem because today’s projects are becoming larger, more complex, and often more remotely located—making them more susceptible to cost overruns. 2 2. McKinsey analysis of publicly available data finds that projects built above 3,000 feet run overbudget by an average of approximately 47 percent, underground mining projects by an average of some 55 percent, and largest open-pit projects by around 40 percent. It’s clear that the methodology of years past simply won’t suffice: when we studied the financial statements of more than 40 recent mining and metals projects, only a fifth of them delivered the financial returns predicted at feasibility stage (Exhibit 1). The potential value at stake is significant here—if we believe that moving a feasibility study from “good to best” could generate some 10 percent additional value on projects, 3 3. Edward Merrow, Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success, John Wiley & Sons, March 31, 2011. changing FS practices may be worth over $100 billion to the mining and metals project industry over coming years (2020–25). 4 4. A 2018 McKinsey Basic Materials Institute study forecasts approximately $1,200 billion in mining and metals capex between 2020 and 2025.

First, the industry does not widely use standard criteria for what constitutes a FS with sufficient maturity to ensure a narrow estimate band and predictable outcomes. While some standards exist for resource estimation and reporting at FS stage, companies have few benchmarks to go by for a wide swath of other elements, such as engineering definition, execution and operational readiness, business objectives, or commodity price predictions—all of which can change a project calculus significantly. In one example, a major mining company failed to align its FS and marketing strategy on a large project, causing it to delay submitting the project to its investment committee. As a result, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars in net present value (NPV)

optimizingmining feasibilitystudies: the $100 billion

Second, FS often suffer at the hands of subpar management practices. Owners may impose artificial schedule constraints to rush to get a project live or meet timeboxed key performance indicators (KPIs). They may also take technical shortcuts, such as bypassing metallurgical test work, or undertake risk assessments that are incomplete. One international miner eschewed value-improvement exercises on a project due to a cited “lack of time,” leaving approximately $500 million of NPV on the table. The project failed investment committee review

Third, many FS continue to rely on the current state of technology rather than account for anticipated technology advances such as autonomous vehicles, advanced analytics, and other digital tools. When they become operational five to seven years later, such mines run with outdated technology and owners leave value on the table

establishing the feasibility of your proposed miningventure

We use cookies essential for this site to function well. Please click "Accept" to help us improve its usefulness with additional cookies. Learn about our use of cookies, and collaboration with select social media and trusted analytics partners hereLearn more about cookies, Opens in new tab.

After getting badly burned in the commodities bust earlier in this decade, miners and metals producers are embarking on another round of capital investment. As a new build cycle begins, owners and contractors have the opportunity to reflect on where they’ve excelled in planning and executing capital projects—and where they’ve fallen short. 1 1. Matthieu Dussud, Mark Kuvshinikov, Piotr Pikul, Ryan Price, and Robert Samek, “Avoiding mistakes of the past: A CEO’s checklist in a commodity upswing,” August 2018, McKinsey.com. Several common issues tend to erode value in mining projects, ranging from inadequate design to insufficient supervision. But one issue is persistently under-addressed: a lack of rigor at the feasibility-study (FS) stage

Many mining executives still rely on the same FS processes they did years ago, when resources were more accessible and projects less risky to plan and execute. That’s a problem because today’s projects are becoming larger, more complex, and often more remotely located—making them more susceptible to cost overruns. 2 2. McKinsey analysis of publicly available data finds that projects built above 3,000 feet run overbudget by an average of approximately 47 percent, underground mining projects by an average of some 55 percent, and largest open-pit projects by around 40 percent. It’s clear that the methodology of years past simply won’t suffice: when we studied the financial statements of more than 40 recent mining and metals projects, only a fifth of them delivered the financial returns predicted at feasibility stage (Exhibit 1). The potential value at stake is significant here—if we believe that moving a feasibility study from “good to best” could generate some 10 percent additional value on projects, 3 3. Edward Merrow, Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success, John Wiley & Sons, March 31, 2011. changing FS practices may be worth over $100 billion to the mining and metals project industry over coming years (2020–25). 4 4. A 2018 McKinsey Basic Materials Institute study forecasts approximately $1,200 billion in mining and metals capex between 2020 and 2025.

First, the industry does not widely use standard criteria for what constitutes a FS with sufficient maturity to ensure a narrow estimate band and predictable outcomes. While some standards exist for resource estimation and reporting at FS stage, companies have few benchmarks to go by for a wide swath of other elements, such as engineering definition, execution and operational readiness, business objectives, or commodity price predictions—all of which can change a project calculus significantly. In one example, a major mining company failed to align its FS and marketing strategy on a large project, causing it to delay submitting the project to its investment committee. As a result, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars in net present value (NPV)

establishing the feasibility of your proposed miningventure

Second, FS often suffer at the hands of subpar management practices. Owners may impose artificial schedule constraints to rush to get a project live or meet timeboxed key performance indicators (KPIs). They may also take technical shortcuts, such as bypassing metallurgical test work, or undertake risk assessments that are incomplete. One international miner eschewed value-improvement exercises on a project due to a cited “lack of time,” leaving approximately $500 million of NPV on the table. The project failed investment committee review

Third, many FS continue to rely on the current state of technology rather than account for anticipated technology advances such as autonomous vehicles, advanced analytics, and other digital tools. When they become operational five to seven years later, such mines run with outdated technology and owners leave value on the table

Recent Posts