IS YOUR CLASS 1 NICKEL DEVELOPMENT BIASED FOR SUCCESS OR FAILURE?

摘要

Driven by explosive demand for electric vehicle (EV)'s, the dynamics of the nickel market are changing with battery grade nickel poised to become the second-largest end-use application. The high purity form required for batteries ("Class 1") attracts a premium (nom. 35% over LME reference), which combined with increased demand has resulted in a rush to develop the operations that can capitalise on the opportunity. Rushes are an exciting time in the Mining and Mineral Processing (M&MP) sector, where expectations and sentiments are high and there are many exhilarating projects being proposed. Developments in pursuit of the Class 1 nickel prize generally share common attributes including the need to the process higher volumes of lower grate laterite ore and more complex beneficiation flowsheet to produce battery grade chemicals. Regrettably the most likely outcomes are disappointment and loss, as it is a historical fact that only 5% of sanctioned M&MP projects meet their self-proclaimed criteria for success, especially if they require multi-step processing and chemical transformation(s) to achieve high purity. Extensive research into this systemic underperformance over the last 50 years continually flags the quality and completeness of the front-end loading or "study-phase" that precedes project sanctioning, as the most telling factor in terms of the success or failure of M&MP projects. Despite this very consistent conclusion, study-phase is still often seen as a waste of time and effort that would be better spent just "getting on with it". While this posture is untenable and pure folly in the context of the huge investments involved, it sometimes prevails or leads to a reduction in the quality and integrity of this important development step. To help ensure minimum standards are maintained, the Stage-Gate (S-G) project management framework is frequently mandated. Although universally acknowledged as the best way to manage the risks of M&MP projects and maintain study-phase quality, S-G is not infallible straight out of the box and application experience is essential if the process is to be anything more than tokenism. The main weakness is not the S-G framework per-se, but it does occur in-process during the gating step(s). In the majority of application disappointments, researchers trace the primary failure point back to a deviation from intention due to Gatekeeper misjudgement. This common cause is independent of the country, company or seniority of the individual(s) involved and can be linked to a universal human trait; cognitive biases. As the extent and impact of these biases is related to project pressure, the risk profile is heightened during rushes. On the basis that a bias recognised, is a bias neutralised, this paper reveals the most common and impactful Gatekeeper biases associated with M&MP development projects. Each S-G judgement bias exposed is described in detail, illustrated in the context of personal anecdotes and accompanied by suggested counter measures. A worked example featuring a mega M&MP project failure due to Gatekeeper bias is also presented, with a view to putting the presented insights into a more familiar process context, aiding danger sign recognition and therefore avoidance in your own Class 1 nickel development project context.