Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

I am a metallurgical and mining engineer holding a Ph.D. in Mining Engineering (Major in Mineral Processing) from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. I also obtained an MBA from the University of New Brunswick.  I have been working in the mining industry for 35 years, with much of that time spent in operations, and most recently moving into consulting. I started my career working in Canada for a small gold mine, then went to Barrick Gold as an autoclave metallurgist. This was followed by a significant period working in West Africa, eventually ending up with Ashanti Goldfields.  I transitioned into technology development for refractory gold treatment and eventually to copper heap leaching, with a focus on bioleaching.  Currently, as a consultant, I have multiple projects at various stages of design, including lithium, gold, copper, and cobalt. 

Q2. How are changing investor expectations around sustainability and ESG influencing how mining feasibility studies or resource planning are conducted?

Over the last 10 years, we have witnessed an increased focus on the ESG components in many of our studies, particularly on the environmental side. The main impact is that early-stage studies now put more effort into better defining the ecological impact of the project.  These early-stage projects often lacked sufficient information to fully evaluate the environmental impact, particularly the closure plan and costs. Closure was often considered an event so far in the future that less effort was spent analyzing closure scenarios.  The impact of closure cost on a project’s NPV is usually minimal because of the time discounts applied. Today, we see much more effort put into studies to define the closure in tighter terms, not because of the cost impacts, but for societal reasons.  The net effect is that studies take longer because closer often require test work (Acid/base accounting, Geotech, etc), and test work comes with increased costs.  Similarly, on the social side, projects that impact indigenous people or sensitive areas are more complicated and require early engagement with the stakeholders to obtain buy-in.  This further impacts both the timing and costs of the study.

Q3. Which technologies do you see driving the next big leap in mining efficiency or safety — and how are clients reacting to them?

Efficiency and safety have always been key production metrics and, as such, have received significant effort from mining companies.  The issue is often how to analyze the production data to find areas for improvement.  Data collection has increased exponentially over the last 20 years, but only recently has data analysis started to catch up.  The use of machine learning and AI is likely going to change how we identify patterns that can be used to improve efficiency and safety in the mining industry.  Optimizing a mining project involves the analysis of many variables, and the number of degrees of freedom has traditionally made this problematic. The ability to run multiple scenarios quickly could improve resource utilization and overall efficiency.  Safety can benefit from technology advancements in several ways, including improved equipment sensors (cameras, radar, etc) as well as identifying patterns that lead to safety incidents.  AI and machine learning are still in their infancy, but clients are highly interested in how these tools can be applied.

Q4. Which mineral segments or resource types are currently commanding the largest share of project activity — and how has that shifted in recent years?

Higher metal prices tend to be the main driver in project activity, along with government policies.  In recent years, we have seen a large increase in gold and copper projects due to the improved metal prices as well as increased activity in the rare earth and battery minerals segments.

Q5. In your view, what core capabilities or differentiators have become essential for engineering consultancies to stay relevant in today’s resource sector?

There are several contributing factors here.  The first is the talent pool.  It has become increasingly more difficult to find and retain top-level talent.  There are fewer graduates in the mining industry, and many of the current leaders are aging out.  We have found that it is necessary to build your team by hiring the best engineers you can and then growing their capabilities through training/education and field experience.

The second factor is innovation.  A successful consultant needs to work closely with the client to identify project opportunities that others may miss.  Tools that can help include geometallurgy studies, mining and process technologies, and experience.

Among other vital factors are response time, how quickly you can respond to client needs, and cost, keeping costs down so that your consulting rates are competitive or lower than those of the next group.  The overall goal is to provide good value to your clients.  

Finally, your reputation is critical; you have limited survivability if a bad project design, cost overruns, or an environmental or safety incident tarnish your company’s reputation.  You must produce quality work; don’t let external pressures compromise your result (schedules, costs, client influence).

Q6. Have you observed any new entrants or international players gaining traction in areas traditionally dominated by established firms?

This is a broad question as it can relate to both consultancies and technology/equipment providers. The mining boom underway has allowed multiple boutique consultancies to prosper.  SME type consulting companies have seen a significant increase in both the number of projects and the scale of the projects (PFS and FS).  There is not enough capacity in the industry for the majors to do all the work promptly.  Further, many mining projects of late have been plagued by cost and schedule overruns.  There is a saying that your least favorite engineering company is the one you just used; smaller firms are capitalizing on this by offering a more personalized and collaborative environment.

On the technology side, increased project development (improved metal prices) provides numerous opportunities to sell equipment/technology, and the industry has seen a rise in the number of technology providers.  There has been a significant rise in copper leaching technology, for example, many of which have been developed by smaller startup firms. Also, there are a considerable number of new entrants in the process technology area, including flotation, filtration, automation, and control systems.

Q7. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

Not sure if this is asking about investing in consulting firms or mining companies.  Many consulting companies are privately held, so this may not apply. For a consulting company (and mining companies), it is all about talent attraction and retention, and project pipelines. How is the company planning to differentiate itself to attract and retain employees – salary, incentives, location, travel requirements, work/life balance, enjoyment, and good leadership. What is the company doing to keep the project pipeline full?  In the consulting world, it is a fine line between no work and too much work. Similarly, for mining companies, how are reserves being replaced, what risks are we willing to take (geopolitical, technology, capital expenditure, etc). For mining companies, the ESG aspects can’t be overlooked, but I think that most companies are now on a level playing field here.  ESG efforts are a core metric that are usually well addressed, the challenge is assessing the actual operational risks related to them.