_edited.jpg)
Just 2% of Mining Sites Account for 30% of Losses Despite Bears
“We knew the roof was a problem. We knew the equipment was overdue for maintenance. We did not know there would be a bear.” — Anonymous Mine Operator
A new analysis of two decades of mining losses has confirmed something the mining industry has suspected for years:
A very small number of sites are responsible for a very large amount of trouble.
According to an analysis reported by Mining Magazine, just 2% of mining sites account for 30% of total mine losses, representing roughly US$600 million of approximately US$2 billion in losses examined over the period.
The finding is significant.
It suggests that catastrophic mining losses are not evenly distributed across the industry. A relatively small number of sites generate a disproportionately large share of the financial pain.
The analysis also reinforces a less exciting but considerably more useful conclusion:
A lot of catastrophic damage is preventable.
Warning signs exist.
Maintenance matters.
Risk assessment matters.
Operational discipline matters.
And apparently, at least occasionally, someone should have dealt with the bear.
The bear is not mentioned in the analysis.
We are mentioning it anyway.
2% of Mining Sites Account for 30% of Losses: THE 2% PROBLEM
The math is difficult to argue with. Two percent of sites. Thirty percent of losses.
That's not a rounding error. That's the kind of statistic that makes an executive stop halfway through a PowerPoint presentation and quietly ask:
“Which two percent?”
Nobody wants to be in the two percent. The two percent is where things happen.
Equipment fails. Infrastructure deteriorates. Maintenance gets deferred. Warning signs become “something we'll monitor.”
Something that was supposed to be fixed in March becomes something that will be fixed “after the next production cycle.” The next production cycle becomes next quarter. Next quarter becomes next year.
And eventually someone is standing beside a very expensive piece of damaged equipment saying:
“Has anyone seen the bear?”
THE WARNING SIGNS WERE THERE
This is the uncomfortable part of the analysis. Major losses rarely arrive completely out of nowhere. There are often warning signs. Equipment condition. Maintenance history. Infrastructure age. Operational changes.
Known vulnerabilities. Risk assessments that nobody revisited because the last one was “still pretty current.”
The problem isn't always that nobody knew. Sometimes everybody knew.
They just knew separately. The maintenance department knew. Operations knew. Engineering knew. Safety knew. Management had heard something about it. Somebody probably sent an email.
Someone else probably replied:
“Thanks. Let's discuss.”
And then everyone went back to work. Three months later, something breaks.
Six months later, the investigation begins. Nine months later, somebody asks whether there were warning signs. The answer is yes.
There were approximately 46 warning signs. There was also a bear.
Nobody can explain the bear
.
THE BEAR INCIDENT
This is where the story becomes difficult. Because several people involved in mining have independently mentioned bear incidents while discussing operational risk.
We asked one mine manager to explain.
“Was this an actual bear?”
“Yes.”
“An animal?”
“Yes.”
“Specifically a bear?”
He paused.
“Yes.”
“Why did you pause?”
“I didn't.”
“You definitely paused.”
“I have a meeting.”
“About the bear?”
“No.”
Another pause.
“Probably.”
WHAT COUNTS AS A BEAR INCIDENT?
This is apparently a complicated question. A bear standing outside the perimeter? Bear incident.
A bear entering the parking lot? Probably.
A bear taking food from an unsecured break area? Definitely.
A bear entering an office? Management concern.
A bear sitting in a chair? Depends on the chair.
A bear attending a safety meeting? We're not sure.
A person described by three different employees as “a bear”? That's where legal gets involved.
We asked one safety manager where the company draws the line.
He said:
“We don't.”
“Because you don't have a definition?”
“Because we don't want to.”
“Why?”
“Because then we'd have to write it down.”
That seemed reasonable.
INCIDENT REPORT: BEAR
One Canadian operation reportedly logged an unusual wildlife incident.
The details were sparse.
The report contained four lines:
Time: 10:14 a.m.Location: Operations areaIncident: BearAction Taken: Bear left
That should have been the end of it. It was not. Someone from corporate requested clarification.
“Please provide additional detail.”
The operator responded:
“Bear entered area.”
Corporate:
“Please clarify the nature of the bear.”
Operator:
“Large.”
Corporate:
“Please clarify whether the bear posed a threat.”
Operator:
“It was a bear.”
Corporate:
“Please clarify whether this was an actual bear.”
There was a delay.
The operator eventually responded:
“Yes.”
Corporate closed the ticket. The operator reopened it.
THE INDUSTRY'S OTHER 98%
The good news is that 98% of sites are not responsible for 30% of losses.
The bad news is that this means 98% of sites are now wondering whether they're secretly in the 2%. It's the mining equivalent of reading your doctor's note:
“Good news: you're probably fine.”
Then spending six hours Googling symptoms. Operators are looking at their maintenance schedules differently. Managers are suddenly asking questions.
Executives are requesting reports. Risk teams are reviewing historical incidents.
Someone has discovered predictive analytics. Someone else has discovered a spreadsheet. Everyone is suddenly very interested in asset condition. And somewhere in British Columbia, a man is standing in a parking lot staring at something large. He has not reported it. We cannot explain why.
THE RANDOM INCIDENTS
Mining is an industry where completely unrelated things occasionally happen within approximately 40 feet of one another.
A tire fails.
A sensor stops working.
A door won't close.
A hydraulic leak appears.
Someone loses a radio.
A contractor shows up at the wrong entrance.
The backup generator doesn't start.
Someone discovers a ladder in a place nobody remembers putting it.
An employee says:
“Was that supposed to be making that noise?”
Nobody answers.
Then somebody sees a bear. The bear is not necessarily related to any of these events. We want to make that very clear. The bear has not been implicated in the losses. The bear has not been interviewed. The bear has not retained counsel. The bear is simply there. Often at extremely inconvenient times.
MANAGEMENT HAS A PLAN
Mining companies have become increasingly sophisticated about risk.
They have:
Risk registers.
Emergency plans.
Maintenance systems.
Inspection schedules.
Predictive analytics.
Condition monitoring.
Business continuity plans.
Contingency procedures.
Incident reporting.
And, increasingly, dashboards.
There are dashboards for everything.
Equipment health.
Production.
Downtime.
Fuel.
Maintenance.
Safety.
Weather.
Inventory.
Probably the emotional wellbeing of the conveyor belt. We asked one executive whether the company had a system for tracking wildlife incidents.
“Yes.”
“Does it specifically track bears?”
“Yes.”
“How many bear incidents have you had?”
He looked at the screen.
“I can't tell you.”
“Why?”
“The dashboard is down.”
“Why?”
“Maintenance.”
“Was that scheduled?”
“No.”
“Was it predictable?”
“Apparently.”
“Any bears?”
He looked at us.
“No comment.”
THE BEAR QUESTION
At this point, we should address the obvious question. Are these actually bears?
We asked. Repeatedly. Nobody would answer directly.
One mine manager said:
“Some are.”
This did not help.
Another said:
“That's a very broad question.”
We asked:
“Are you saying some bears aren't bears?”
He said:
“I have to go.”
A third executive responded:
“Look, if you see something unusual on site, report it.”
“Even if it's a bear?”
“Especially if it's a bear.”
“Why?”
“Because we have a process.”
“What process?”
“I'm not authorized to discuss the process.”
“Does the process involve bears?”
“I've answered your questions.”
“You haven't.”
“I know.”
WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY SAYS
Let's return to the important part. The analysis shows that mining losses are heavily concentrated. Just 2% of sites account for 30% of losses.
That matters because it suggests that companies should not treat risk as evenly distributed. Some operations have substantially greater exposure.
Some assets are older. Some infrastructure is more vulnerable. Some maintenance programs are stronger. Some organizations identify problems earlier. And some apparently have better bear policies.
The broader lesson is straightforward:
You cannot manage what you don't identify.
You cannot maintain what you don't monitor.
You cannot plan for a failure you refuse to acknowledge.
And if something unusual keeps appearing on your site, you should probably document it.
Even if that something is a bear. Especially if nobody can agree on what kind.
THE MOST CONCERNING INCIDENT
The strangest incident came from a site that will remain unnamed. An employee reported seeing a bear near an operational area. The employee was asked to complete an incident form. He did.
Incident Type: Wildlife
Species: Bear
Number of Animals: 1
Injuries: 0
Equipment Damage: 0
Production Impact: 0
Corrective Action: Bear departed
The form was submitted.
The system rejected it.
ERROR: PLEASE PROVIDE ROOT CAUSE.
The employee entered:
Bear.
Rejected.
PLEASE PROVIDE UNDERLYING CAUSE.
He entered:
Bear.
Rejected again.
PLEASE PROVIDE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS.
He stared at the screen.
Then entered:
It was there.
The system accepted it.
Nobody knows why.
The incident was closed.
Three weeks later, the same employee received an automated email:
FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED: ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OVERDUE
He has not responded.
The bear has not either.
WHY THIS MATTERS
It would be easy to make fun of the bear. And we are. But the underlying issue is serious. Mining operations involve enormous physical assets, complex systems and significant financial exposure. A relatively small failure can become a major loss if it interrupts production. That's why the boring stuff matters.
Maintenance.
Inspection.
Risk assessment.
Contingency planning.
Training.
Monitoring.
Data.
The things nobody wants to talk about at the annual leadership meeting because they're not exciting. Until they are. Then they're extremely exciting.
Usually at 2:17 a.m. Usually while someone is calling the CEO. Usually while someone else is trying to find a part that should have been ordered six months ago. And, occasionally, while a bear is learing nearby.
THE FINAL VERDICT
The mining industry's problem isn't bears. Probably. The real problem is predictable risk that isn't addressed until it becomes expensive. The analysis of two decades of losses makes that clear. A small percentage of sites can generate a disproportionately large percentage of the industry's financial pain. The solution isn't complicated. Find the risks. Understand them. Maintain the assets.
Monitor the warning signs. Plan for failure. Act before the problem becomes an incident.
And if you see a bear:
Report it.
Even if you're not entirely sure it's a bear. Especially if you're not entirely sure it's a bear. Because there are two kinds of mining incidents:
The ones you understand.
And the ones that become a 47-slide PowerPoint explaining why nobody could possibly have predicted what happened.
The bear is usually somewhere in the second category. As of press time, we have been advised that the term “bear incident” should not be interpreted too literally. We asked for clarification.
We were told:
“It's complicated.”
We asked whether there was an actual bear involved.
“No comment.”
We asked whether the bear was an employee.
“No comment.”
We asked whether the bear had caused any of the losses discussed in the report.
“Absolutely not.”
We asked whether the bear had been formally identified.
Silence.
Then, from somewhere outside the building, there was a noise. Everyone in the room stopped talking. Someone quietly closed the blinds.
We asked:
“Was that a bear?”
Nobody answered.
The meeting ended immediately. Which, statistically speaking, was probably the safest outcome.
The underlying mining-loss figures and findings referenced above come from the analysis reported by Mining Magazine. The bear commentary has not been independently verified, peer reviewed, insured, or approved by anyone who was present. FYI Go watch more Jordan Peterson Youtube videos and buy his books. - Canadian Joe.
#Mining #MiningSafety #RiskManagement #OperationalExcellence #HeavyEquipment #MiningIndustry #Leadership #Bear #ChaosManagement #CleanYourRoom
Comments