Monthly Meeting

November Evaluation & Plan For December 2018

Bakungan Office. …….., …….. ….. 2018

Presented By :
Stockpile Operation Team
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Review Performance Stockpile Operation

1 Review Production Performance periode November 2018

a. PC Performance

b. BLC Performance

c. HEMM Performance

d. Fuel Consumption

2 Plan Production For 2nd Stage Production 750 KMT as per 1st January 2019

2
Evaluation of November 2018

PC Performance

3
 Evaluation of November 2018

CRUSHER PRODUCTION ANALYSIS 1-30 November 2018

- 4,138
-
33,410 18,818
43,753
39,818 7,150
972

1,083
359357.142857143 356671
Shift change (hrs)

Rain (hrs)

Productivity

Wait material

Actual
Plan

Breakdown
Meal break (hrs)

Shifting Tripper

Friday prayer
4
 Plan Physical Availability
Evaluation of April 2018

Summary Down Time Crusher

50 120

HARMA 100 ALVARO

40

80
30
60
20
40

10
20

0 0
Jan Feb Mar Jan Feb Mar

SCM USM ICM SCM USM ICM

Achievement PA SCM : Scheduled Maintenanced

Monthly
Harma Alvaro USM : Unscheduled Maintenance
January 90% 81% ICM : Incident Maintenance
February 96% 96% *Scheduled Maintenance is 5 hours/week
March 95% 92%
5
 Unit Support Combination BLC (3 UNITS SUPPORT)
BLC Feeding Method

PLATFORM METHOD PRODUCTIVITY

1,000
900
800 713
700 648 671 633
Ton/hors

600
500
400
300
200
P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4

Metode Code Point Loading Productivity Remarks

P-1 DZ-02 (H), DZ-01 (H), WA-02 (AL) 648
P-2 DZ-02 (H), WA-02 (H), DZ-01 (AL) 713 Max Productivity
Platform
P-3 WA-02 (H), WA-01 (H), DZ-02 (AL), 671
P-4 WA-02 (H), WA-01 (H), DZ-01 (AL) 633

Notes :
DZ-01 : DZ-01 Angle Blade (3.4 m 3)
DZ-02 : DZ-02 Straight Tilt Blade (4.4 m 3)
WA-01 : WA-Z80 (2.8 m3) *Unit Combination based on existing unit
WA-02 : WA-500 (5 m3) *BLC Optimation need further improvisation
(H) : HARMA
(AL) : ALVARO
6
LAYOUT PLATFORM METHOD
Harma Crusher

Alvaro Crusher

01 Alvaro Stacker -02 Harma Stacker

DZ- DZ

WA-02

40 m

65 m

Remarks :

: On Ground Feeder
5.8 m
: Dozing/Load Direction
9m
*Unit support can be switched depend on combination type
7
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Unit Support Combination BLC (3 UNITS SUPPORT)

BLC Feeding Method

Tandem Method Productivity

1,000

794
800 761 732
689
Ton/hours

600

400

200
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4

Metode Code Point Loading Remarks

T-1 DZ-02 (H --> Assist), DZ-01 (H), WA-02 (AL)
T-2 DZ-02 (H), DZ-01 (H--> Assist), WA-02 (AL) Max Productivity
Tandem
T-3 DZ-02 (H --> Assist), DZ-01 (H), WA-01(AL)
T-4 DZ-02 (H), DZ-01 (H--> Assist), WA-01 (AL)
Notes :
DZ-01 : DZ-01 Angle Blade (3.4 m 3)
DZ-02 : DZ-02 Straight Tilt Blade (4.4 m 3)
WA-01 : WA-Z80 (2.8 m3) *Unit Combination based on existing unit
WA-02 : WA-500 (5 m3) *BLC Optimation need further improvisation
(H) : HARMA 8
(AL) : ALVARO
LAYOUT TANDEM METHOD
Harma Crusher

Alvaro Crusher

Alvaro Stacker Harma Stacker DZ-0

1

WA-02

40 m
02
DZ-
65 m

10 m
Remarks :

: On Ground Feeder

5.8 m
: Dozing/Load Direction
9m

9
Unit Support Combination BLC (2 UNITS SUPPORT)

PRODUCTIVITY
800
692
700
600
486 501
500 429 444
400
300
200
100
0
2D DW-1 DW-2 2W 2D U

Based on specification from Komatsu handbook, D-85 ESS2 can use

CODE POINT LOADING REMARKS
3 types of blade.
2D DZ-02 (H), DZ-02 (AL) 2 x DZ 4.4 m3 DNP suggested BISM to replace blade with Semi U Blade to
DW-1 DZ-02 (AL), WA-02 (H) 1 x DZ 4.4 m3 + 1 x WA 5m3 increase productivity of dozer.
DW-2 DZ-02 (H), WA-02 (AL) 1 x DZ 4.4 m3 + 1 x WA 5m3
2W WA-02 (H), WA-02 (AL) 2 x WA 5 m3 Reason :
• Semi U blade more suitable and efficient for loose material like
2D U DZ (H), DZ (AL) 2 DZ 6.8 m3 (Semi U Blade)
coal.
• Blade capacities is 6.8 m3. It is equivalent with loader type WA-
Notes : 600.
DZ-02 : DZ-02 Straight Tilt Blade (4.4 m 3) • Replacing blade is cheaper than buying new unit.
WA-02 : WA-500 (5 m3)
(H) : HARMA
(AL) : ALVARO

10
LAYOUT BLC Use 2 Units Support
Harma Crusher

Alvaro Crusher

Alvaro Stacker Harma Stacker DZ-0

2

WA-02

40 m

65 m

Remarks :

: On Ground Feeder

5.8 m
: Dozing/Load Direction
9m

11
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Unit Support Combination BLC

Loader Comparison

Target productivity BLC is 700 ton/hrs

(BLC served with combination unit support)
Wheel Loader Notes :
FROM HARMA Description
3m 3
5 m3 6 m3 - Unit specification based on
Performance Productivity (ton/hrs) 184 321 386 Komatsu brand
Bucket Width (m) 2.74 3.4 3.68 - Fuel burn simulation using
Overall length (m) 7.45 9.8 12 the Highest standard
Unit Dimension
Unit Width (m) 2.58 3.19 3.54 - Loader with 5 m3 and 6 m3
Hinge Pin height, Max Height 3.9 4.7 5.8 capacity are suitable for
Fuel burn (liter/hrs) 19.1 39.35 61.75 supporting BLC. DNP
Engine
FR (liter/ton) 0.10 0.12 0.16 suggested to choose 5m3
Load distance 40m loader because it have lower
fuel ratio rather than 6m3
Wheel Loader loader
FROM ALVARO Description
3m 3
5 m3 6 m3
Performance Productivity (ton/hrs) 106 180 216
Bucket Width (m) 2.74 3.4 3.68 :
Overall length (m) 7.45 9.8 12 Productivity achieved if
Dimensi Unit
Unit Width (m) 2.58 3.19 3.54 combined with support unit at
Hinge Pin height, Max Height 3.9 4.7 5.8 BLC simulation
Fuel burn (liter/hrs) 19.1 39.35 61.75
Engine
FR (liter/ton) 0.18 0.22 0.29
Load distance 60m Back to
Outline
12
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Benefit of Stockpile
Problem Identification and Corrective Action

Problem Identification Correction Action

Production Loss Caused by 1. Start and stop 1. Start and stop should 1. Propose
Wait Material 56,872 MT operation not on be marked by
(average for 2 crushers) schedule (meal break, alarm/siren
shift change)

2. Stockpile rehandle 2. Make option rehandle 2. Propose stockpile

system not yet from stockpile with management to BISM
implemented FIFO method

Pit operation stopped / 1. Preventive 1. Make schedule and 1. Implemented

disturbed when crusher maintenance not yet doing preventive
breakdown, working hour applied. maintenance
lost due to crusher
breakdown 119 hours 2. No alternative 2. Divert DT to dump at 2. Propose stockpile
(average for 2 crushers), dumping point stockpile management to BISM

13
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of April 2018

FUEL BURN
Analysis

14
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Evaluation of April 2018

Planning Fuel Ratio Flow Chart

Factors that affect to Fuel Burn :
 Typical Application Description
TARGET (relative to work application)
PRODUCTION  Load Factor Guide
(bcm) (average engine load factor based on
application description for each range)
 etc

 Equipment plan (production + support)

 Target productivity of production unit (bcm/hrs)
 Target working hours (hrs)
Fuel Burn
Standard
TARGET FUEL CONSUMPTION (liters)

Plan
Working Hour
TARGET FUEL RATIO (liters/BCM)

15
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Evaluation of April 2018
Low Medium High
Unit
from to from to from to
Dynapac CA250 5.8 7.8 7.8 11.9 11.9 15.7
Caterpillar 740B 16.7 23.2 23.2 32.6 32.6 47.1
Cateripllar D7G 16.0 22.5 22.5 29.0 29.0 35.5
Cateripllar D6R 15.5 22.3 22.3 29.1 29.1 35.6
Hitachi Zaxis 470LC-5G 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2
Hitachi Zaxis 850 25.2 33.7 33.7 42.1 42.1 67.3
Hitachi Zaxix 870 CLH 25.2 33.7 33.7 42.1 42.1 67.3
Hitachi ZX210 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0
Hitachi ZX330 10.8 15.4 15.4 23.1 23.1 38.5
Kawasaki 80-Z5 11.4 16.0 16.0 20.1 20.1 26.5
Kobelco SK 480 LC-8 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2
Komatsu D85E-SS-2A 8.4 16.8 16.8 25.2 25.2 33.6
Komatsu GD550 8.8 14.0 14.0 19.3 19.3 24.6
Komatsu GD555-5 10.1 16.2 16.2 22.3 22.3 28.4
Komatsu PC800 25.2 33.7 33.7 42.1 42.1 67.3
Komatsu PC400 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2
Komatsu WA500 20.9 29.3 29.3 37.0 37.0 48.8
Liugong CLG 414 7.8 8.2 8.2 13.0 13.0 22.3
Volvo A40F 17.0 25.5 25.5 34.0 34.0 46.8
Volvo A40G 17.0 25.5 25.5 34.0 34.0 46.8
Volvo EC210B 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0
Volvo EC480DL 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2
Volvo EC700BLC 24.5 32.7 32.7 40.8 40.8 65.3
Sumitomo SH210 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0
Lovol FSD6N 6.4 12.9 12.9 19.3 19.3 25.7
Notes :
• Data sources from machinery handbook each brand and equipment with similar type
16
• This standard can be used for reviewing operating unit at BISM
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Excavator

Analytical data from BISM fuel history

Category PLAN Avg Act % variance from
No. Excavator Type
FB from to (from distributed higest standart
1 Hitachi 470H-01 Hitachi Zaxis 470LC- 5G L 19 26 18.5
2 Hitachi 470H-02 Hitachi Zaxis 470LC- 5G H 32 48 37.2
3 Hitachi 470H-474 Hitachi Zaxis 470LC- 5G H 32 48 38.6
4 Hitachi 470-478 Hitachi Zaxis 470LC- 5G H 32 48 39.1
5 Hitachi 470-09 Hitachi Zaxis 470LC- 5G H 32 48 39.5
6 Hitachi 470-10 Hitachi Zaxis 470LC- 5G H 32 48 39.0
7 Hitachi 870-712 Hitachi Zaxix 870 CLH H 42 67 69.3 3%
8 Hitachi 210-33 (SKM) Hitachi ZX210 H 11 19 17.9
9 Hitachi 210-713 Hitachi ZX210 H 11 19 12.1
10 Hitachi 210-01 Hitachi ZX210 H 11 19 21.0 11%
11 Kobelco-07 Kobelco SK 480 LC-8 H 32 48 39.2
12 Kobelco-08 Kobelco SK 480 LC-8 H 32 48 39.1
13 Kobelco-09 Kobelco SK 480 LC-8 H 32 48 42.0
14 PC400/07-JMB Komatsu PC400 H 32 48 35.3
15 PC400/10 Komatsu PC400 H 32 48 37.5
16 PC800 -01 Komatsu PC800 H 42 67 57.2
17 Sumitomo-04 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 16.0
18 Sumitomo-05 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 15.2
19 Sumitomo-06 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 18.9
20 Sumitomo-10 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 14.5
21 Sumitomo-11 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 20.0 5%
22 Sumitomo-12 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 14.1
23 Sumitomo-B-01 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 18.3
24 Sumitomo-B-02 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 16.0
25 Sumitomo-B-03 Sumitomo SH210 H 11 19 17.3
26 Volvo 210 Volvo EC210B H 11 19 20.7 9%
Category FB %
27 Volvo 480-02 Volvo EC480DL H 32 48 38.1
28 Volvo 480-711 Volvo EC480DL H 32 48 36.9 H 97%
29 Volvo 480-714 Volvo EC480DL H 32 48 36.3 M 0%
30 Volvo 700-04 Volvo EC700BLC H 41 65 46.6 L 3%

Notes :
Based on fuel consumption and HM BISM historical data, 97% excavator range on High Fuel Burn Standard 17
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Dozer

Analytical data from BISM fuel history

Category PLAN Avg Act % variance from
No. Dozer Type
FB from to (from distributed data) higest standart
1 D6R- 714 Cateripllar D6R H 29 36 46.1 30%
2 D6R-715 Cateripllar D6R H 29 36 43.1 21%
3 D6R-716 Cateripllar D6R H 29 36 44.3 24%
4 D 85 SS / 02 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 33.8 1%
5 D 85 SS / 03 JMB Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 31.4
6 D 85 SS / 08 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 27.9
7 D 85 SS / 09 Hillcon Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 29.1
8 D 85 SS / 10 Hillcon Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A M 17 25 21.7
9 D 85 SS / 09 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 29.7
10 D 85 SS / 10 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 29.9
11 D 85 SS -854-11 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 39.2 17%
12 D 85 SS -855-01 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 33.6
13 D 85 SS / 14 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A M 17 25 22.2
14 D 85 SS / 15 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 33.7 0.3%
15 D 68 SS MKI 33 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A M 17 25 22.2
16 D85ESS-B-01 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 26.8
17 D85E-SS TITAN Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A M 17 25 19.2
18 D85E-SS B -01 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A L 8 17 4.2
19 D85E-SS B -02 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 33.8 0.5%
20 Lovol-07 Lovol FSD6N L 6 13 7.6 Category FB %
21 Lovol-08 Lovol FSD6N H 19 26 22.1 H 74%
22 Lovol-09 Lovol FSD6N H 19 26 26.3 2% M 17%
23 Lovol-10 Lovol FSD6N H 19 26 27.5 7% L 9%

Notes :
Based on fuel consumption and HM BISM historical data, 74% dozer range on High Fuel Burn Standard

18
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Data Deviation

PLAN
Category Avg Act % variance from
No. Equipment Type
FB from to (from distributed data) higest standart

1 D6R- 714 Cateripllar D6R H 29 36 46.1 30%

2 D6R-715 Cateripllar D6R H 29 36 43.1 21%
3 D6R-716 Cateripllar D6R H 29 36 44.3 24%
4 D 85 SS / 02 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 33.8 1%
5 D 85 SS -854-11 Komatsu D 85 E-SS-2A H 25 34 39.2 17%
6 lovel-09 Lovol FSD6N H 19 26 26.3 2%
7 lovel-10 Lovol FSD6N H 19 26 27.5 7%
8 ADT 166 Caterpillar 740B H 33 47 50.3 7%
9 VALVO ADT -905 Volvo A40F H 34 47 67.2 44%
10 VIBRO CA 250. 03 DYNAPAC CA 250 H 12 16 21.5 37%
11 HITACHI 870- 712 Hitachi Zaxix 870 CLH H 42 67 69.3 3%
12 HITACHI 210-01 Hitachi ZX210 H 11 19 21.0 11%
13 SUMITOMO - 11 SUMITOMO SH210 H 11 19 20.0 5%
14 VOLVO 210 Volvo EC210B H 11 19 20.7 9%
15 GD 550-(HILLCON) Komatsu GD550 H 19 25 30.9 26%

Several equipment fuel burn rate are overbudget.

We can validate the data by conducting several analysis:
1. Check historical breakdown equipment (maybe unit breakdown with fuel still in tank)
2. Collect actual data fuel consumption

19
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Data Deviation

Fuel Burn Comparison Table

Fuel Burn
OEM / Equivalent Class
No. Unit
Low Medium High By Report By Actual
From To From To From To
1 Hitachi 470H-01 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 35.0
2 Hitachi 470H-02 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 36.5
3 Hitachi 470H-474 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 38.6
4 Hitachi 470-478 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 39.1
5 Hitachi 470-09 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 38.4
6 Hitachi 470-10 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 37.9
7 Hitachi 870-712 25.2 33.7 33.7 42.1 42.1 67.3 45.1
8 Hitachi 210-33 (SKM) 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 17.9
9 Hitachi 210-713 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 12.1
10 Hitachi 210-01 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 21.0
11 Kobelco-07 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 39.2
12 Kobelco-08 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 38.5
13 Kobelco-09 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 40.5
14 PC400/07-JMB 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 35.3
15 PC400/10 19.3 25.7 25.7 32.1 32.1 48.2 37.5
16 PC800 -01 25.2 33.7 33.7 42.1 42.1 67.3 57.2
17 Sumitomo-04 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 16.0
18 Sumitomo-05 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 15.2
19 Sumitomo-06 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 18.9
20 Sumitomo-10 5.3 7.6 7.6 11.4 11.4 19.0 14.5
… … … … … … … … … …

Additional data is required for validating the fuel burn rate comparison.
Required Data :
1. OEM Fuel Burn
2. Fuel Burn from Reporting
3. Actual Fuel Burn  Missing
20
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

Fuel Burn Analysis

Data Deviation

PICA Fuel Burn Analysis

Problem Identification Corrective Action Status

Initial data presented Temporary fuel Collect actual fuel 1. Develop template 1. Done (Attached)
for valid fuel burn burn data available burn data each unit for data collecting
comparison is not are from OEM and
comprehensive yet Report 2. Develop data 2. Done (Attached)
collection method

3. Pick up actual data 3. Propose

at site

21
 Copyright @2018 by DNP Solutions Partner. All rights reserved.

THANK YOU

22