Mining projects don't fail at execution. They fail long before that.

This article introduces several key concepts in mining project development — widely established as international best practices, yet not always applied with the necessary rigor in practice: project phases, cost estimate orders of magnitude, risk evolution, and the role of the project manager from the earliest stages.

In mining, demanding certainty too early does not generate greater control — it generates greater risk. Risk that is poorly identified in early phases, poorly communicated to decision-makers, and almost invariably managed too late.

The evidence accumulated from large-scale projects is unambiguous: major cost overruns and schedule delays do not originate during construction. They originate in early-stage decisions made with incomplete information and an excess of optimism.

Project Phases Exist to Reduce Uncertainty — Not to Manufacture Certainty

The development of a mining project follows a well-established sequence: pre-feasibility, feasibility, and subsequently, engineering and execution. Each phase has a clearly defined purpose: to progressively reduce uncertainty before committing additional capital.

The problem arises when a phase is expected to deliver the level of certainty that only the next phase can provide.

Pre-Feasibility: Deciding Whether to Continue

The pre-feasibility study (or scoping study) addresses one specific question: Does it make sense to invest further time and capital in this project?

At this stage:

• the project is conceptual in nature,


• technical alternatives remain open,


• and geological and metallurgical data are still limited.

Cost estimates carry an order-of-magnitude accuracy of ±30–50%. These are not budgets. They are indicative ranges used to eliminate non-viable options and focus subsequent studies.

The greatest risk at this stage is not being wrong — it is communicating figures without adequately conveying their inherent uncertainty.

Pre-Feasibility: Where Many Projects Go Wrong

The pre-feasibility study is the most critical and sensitive phase of the project lifecycle.

At this stage:

• the mine concept and process route are selected,


• preliminary designs are developed,


• and the first "credible" schedules begin to emerge.

Uncertainty decreases, but remains significant: cost estimates typically fall within a ±10–30% range.

This is also the phase where many projects appear viable — only to prove otherwise at a later stage, typically due to:

• unresolved interface issues,


• costs extrapolated with insufficient supporting data,


• or a false sense of control.

Feasibility: Making the Investment Decision

The feasibility study (or bankable feasibility study) must provide the technical and economic basis for a formal investment decision.

By this stage, the project should have:

• advanced engineering,


• a clearly defined execution strategy,


• and an integrated project schedule.

Cost estimates reach an order-of-magnitude accuracy of ±10%, and only at the detailed engineering stage can precision of ±5–10% be reasonably expected.

Beyond this point, errors are no longer corrected through additional studies — they are paid for in CAPEX overruns, schedule delays, or loss of credibility.

Risk Does Not Disappear — It Changes Form

A mining project is, in essence, a process of staged risk reduction. However, that risk only diminishes if each phase is executed with the appropriate level of rigor.

Analysis of large capital projects in the mining sector reveals a consistent pattern: the majority of significant cost overruns and schedule delays are not attributable to construction failures, but to decisions made in early phases, when information was incomplete and uncertainty was high. In many cases, projects enter execution already conditioned by optimistic assumptions, poorly defined risks, or decisions that were never revisited with the necessary depth.

In practice, many of the most serious project failures can be traced back to:

• insufficient geological or metallurgical data,


• poorly defined feasibility objectives,


• estimates treated as firm commitments,


• and an inadequate transition between studies and execution.

In other words: risk is not created late — it is created early, even if it only materializes when correcting it has already become costly.

The Project Manager from the Start: The Project Management Contractor (PMC) Role

This brings us to a key figure that, in many mining projects, is brought on board too late: the project manager.

Engaging the project manager from the early phases of the project, in a Project Management Contractor (PMC) capacity, does not mean accelerating execution or "managing construction ahead of schedule." It means introducing, from the outset, a structured approach to risk, interfaces, and decision-making.

In this model, the PM:

• properly structures the project phases and decision gates,


• makes assumptions, dependencies, and trade-offs explicit,


• introduces discipline into risk identification and management,


• aligns scope, cost, and schedule from the earliest estimates,


• and protects the project owner against premature commitments.

The project manager in a PMC role does not replace the technical team or the project owner. The PM contributes coherence, realism, and continuity between the study phases and future execution.

In practice, the greatest value the PMC delivers is not "controlling" the project — it is preventing poor decisions from being made when they still appear inexpensive.

Closing Remarks

In mining projects, risk is primarily generated during the early phases, even though it materializes later. Engaging the project manager from the outset, in a Project Management Contractor capacity, contributes to more informed decision-making and a measurable reduction in future cost and schedule deviations.