One Model. Four Mines.

The Problem Mining Leaders Keep Running Into

Multi-site mining operations make hard planning decisions every cycle. Fleet allocation across pits with different haul profiles. Throughput trade-offs that ripple from block sequencing through crusher feed. Capex commitments that need to survive board scrutiny under conditions that were never fully represented in the analysis that justified them.

The challenge isn't knowing that these decisions are complex.

It's that the tools available to make them weren't built to represent how a multi-site system actually behaves — across distinct operations, under seasonal constraints, with equipment that interacts with downstream bottlenecks in ways a spreadsheet can't see.

A deterministic model built on averaged assumptions produces an averaged answer. A board doesn't fund capital on averaged assumptions. And by the time the analysis is done, the operation may have already made the call without it.

What This Case Study Is About

A multi-site gold producer operating four mines in South America came to SimWell with a deadline and a familiar problem. A previous consultant had already tried. The model they delivered was harder to understand than the original question. The client's own statistician had built Excel workarounds to compensate. Those took a week to run — and still couldn't be defended in front of a board.

The architectural decision SimWell made before writing a line of code changed what was possible.

Read the case study to see:

• how a single parameterized model across four operationally distinct mines replaced four separate scopes — and why that decision mattered before delivery, not after
• what the model revealed about fleet assumptions, operator deviation, and downstream flow imbalances that spreadsheet planning couldn't see
• how a VP of Continuous Improvement walked into a board meeting with scenario-tested, probability-based answers on production risk instead of averages
• what it means for a client's own engineer to configure 90% of the final mine independently — and why that's the outcome, not the exception

Why the Architectural Decision Matters

Most simulation engagements scope each site as a separate problem. Clients don't usually present a portfolio problem — they present four mine problems, and consultants respond to the brief as given. The result is four models with four rule sets that diverge the moment the engagement ends.

The more useful question is whether multiple sites share enough logic to be treated as configurations of a single system. When they do, the model built to answer one question can be turned toward the next one without rebuilding from scratch — and the client owns something that compounds in value instead of going stale.

Read One Model. Four Mines. A Board Deadline. to see what that decision produces in practice, including how a capex question that had no defensible answer became one the team could stand behind.

Fill out the form to access the full case study.