REPLACEMENT OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT

AT SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATIONS IN

SOUTH AFRICA

Colin du Plessis

A research report submitted to the Gordon Institute of Business Science,

University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business Administration.

Johannesburg
November, 2007

© University of Pretoria
ABSTRACT

In order to mine coal, South African surface coal mining operations are heavily

dependent on their earthmoving equipment fleets. These equipment fleets

represent large capital investments by the companies. Mine management must

make complex decisions on their deployment, maintenance, and retirement. They

have finite physical and economic life and require replacement at some stage.

However, different methodologies are employed to determine the timing of

earthmoving equipment replacements. These vary from complex financial models

to an intuitive knowledge that a machine must be replaced at a particular time.

This study investigated the replacement of earthmoving equipment at coal mining

companies and contract earthmoving companies. It also explored the

recommendations of the equipment suppliers. This was done by conducting in-

depth interviews with five coal mining companies, four contractor companies and

three equipment suppliers.

The results showed that large companies do economic analysis, as recommended

by the equipment suppliers. They incorporate the quantifiable factors of increased

maintenance cost, decreased performance and technological improvements.

Smaller coal mining companies and contractor companies generally only consider

historical cost and performance trends and there is scope for improving the

replacement decision of their earthmoving equipment.

i
DECLARATION

I declare that this research project is my own, unaided work. It is submitted in

partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Business

Administration for the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria.

It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other

university.

……………………………………….

Colin du Plessis

14 November 2007

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following people:

• my supervisor, Mr. Max MacKenzie, for his time, guidance and insight given

during the duration of this research project;

• Jill Jacques, for her work in proofreading the report;

• the interviewees who agreed to sacrifice their time to discuss the research

topic with me;

• the participating companies, for giving permission to conduct the interviews;

• the staff at the GIBS Information Centre, for their effort in finding the

research articles;

• the management of Xstrata Coal, for the opportunity they have afforded me

in achieving this milestone; and

• my family, for their support, patience and encouragement during my MBA

journey.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................. i

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. ix

1. PROBLEM DEFINITION................................................................................ 1

1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1

1.2. Research Problem .......................................................................... 3
1.3. Relevance of topic to business in South Africa ........................... 4
1.4. Delimitation and Limitations .......................................................... 6
1.5. Research Motivation....................................................................... 6

2. THEORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 7

2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 7

2.2. Classic Equipment Replacement Theories................................... 8
2.3. Construction Equipment Replacement Models.......................... 12
2.4. Age-based equipment replacement ............................................ 15
2.5. Applying theory to practice.......................................................... 15
2.6. Conclusion .................................................................................... 16

3. PROPOSITIONS.......................................................................................... 18

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 19

4.1. Research Design........................................................................... 19

4.2. Population and Sampling ............................................................. 19
4.3. Unit of Analysis............................................................................. 23
4.4. Data Collection.............................................................................. 23

iv
 4.5. Data Analysis ................................................................................ 24
4.6. Confidentiality ............................................................................... 25
4.7. Limitations of the research .......................................................... 25

5. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 26

5.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 26

5.2. Economic analysis........................................................................ 26
5.3. Critical factors in making the replacement decisions ............... 28
5.4. Conclusion .................................................................................... 30

6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ....................................................................... 31

6.1. Characteristics of the stakeholders ............................................ 31

6.1.1. Coal mining companies................................................................ 31
6.1.2. Contracting companies ................................................................ 34
6.1.3. Equipment suppliers .................................................................... 35
6.2. Economic analysis........................................................................ 36
6.2.1. Cost minimisation models ........................................................... 37
6.2.2. Difficulties in economic analysis................................................. 39
6.3. Equipment replacement factors .................................................. 41

7. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 43

7.1. Main findings................................................................................. 43

7.2. Recommendations........................................................................ 46
7.3. Suggestions for future research.................................................. 49

8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 51

9. APPENDICES.............................................................................................. 58

9.1. Appendix 1 - An example of cover letter..................................... 58

9.2. Appendix 2 - Interview questions ................................................ 60

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Simplified Equipment Life Cycle (Tomlingson, 2000) .............................. 2

Figure 2: Cost Minimisation Model (Jardine and Tsang, 2006) .............................. 9

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Equipment professionals of coal mines interviewed ............................... 21

Table 2: Equipment professionals at contractor companies interviewed .............. 22

Table 3: Equipment professionals at equipment suppliers interviewed ................ 23

Table 4: Responses to Proposition 1.................................................................... 27

Table 5: Responses to Proposition 2.................................................................... 29

vii
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: An example of cover letter………………………………………..……….58

Appendix 2: Interview questions…………………………………………………….…..60

viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CCM Cumulative cost model

DCF Discounted cash flow

EAC Equivalent annual cost

EME Earthmoving equipment

ERA Equipment replacement analysis

ERP Enterprise resource planning

EUC Equivalent unit cost

FCP Failure cost profile

JSE Johannesburg Stock Exchange

LCC Life cycle costing

MARC Maintenance and repair contract

MAPI Machinery and Allied Products Institute

Mt Million tonnes

NPV Net present value

OEM Original equipment manufacturer

PM Plant maintenance

ROI Return on investment

ROM Run-of-mine

TOC Total cost of ownership

WACC Weighted average cost of capital

ix
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION

1.1. Introduction

Surface mining methods are extensively employed in South Africa to extract

a wide range of mineral deposits located at relatively shallow depths below

the earth’s surface. These include the mining of coal, diamonds, gold, iron

ore, platinum, nickel, phosphate rock, vermiculite, uranium and zinc. This

also covers the quarry mining of various raw materials for the construction

and building industries, like sand, gravel, limestone, gypsum and dimension

stone (Department of Minerals and Energy, 2006).

One of the most critical elements of surface mining operations is the

primary earthmoving equipment, such as shovels, loaders, haul trucks,

dozers, drill rigs, excavators and scrapers, which are directly employed in

the mining process. Ancillary mobile equipment such as graders, tyre

dozers, service trucks, cranes, tool carriers and skid loaders are also

required to provide other important services. Mine management is tasked

with the responsibility of making complex decisions on the purchase,

deployment, maintenance and replacement of the mining equipment.

Surface mining equipment has a finite life (Vorster, 2006). The equipment

life cycle (Figure 1) starts with the selection, purchase, commissioning and

testing, before entering its operating phase. This phase also includes the

maintenance and, possibly, the overhauling, rebuilding and modifying of the

1
machine. At various stages in the life of earthmoving equipment, decisions

are required on their retirement and replacement.

Figure 1: Simplified Equipment Life Cycle (Tomlingson, 2000)

Test Operate
Commission
Maintain
Purchase

Select Operate

Overhaul /
Replace /
Rebuilt
Retire

Operate
Operate Modify

Eschenbach (2003) identifies five reasons for the replacement of

equipment:

• reduced performance of the ageing equipment;

• altered requirements for using the equipment;

• obsolescence due to a new improved model;

• the risk of catastrophic failure or unplanned replacement; and

• shifts between renting, leasing and owning.

Surface earthmoving equipment is classified as a fixed asset and

replacements are funded from capital expenditure budgets. Therefore, the

Return on Investment (ROI) is maximised when replacement occurs at the

2
 optimal economic life of the equipment. The economic life is defined as the

age that minimises the average owning and operating costs (Mitchell, 1998).

This includes the purchase, operating and maintenance costs, less any

salvage values. However, determining this optimal age of equipment can be

a complex problem, as it is based on a high number of variables, intricate

interaction between the different costs involved, forecasting of costs with a

high degree of uncertainty and a large number of assumptions.

There is a trade-off between capital and operating costs. Extending the life of

equipment past its economic life will result in higher operating costs, while

replacing the equipment too soon destroys shareholder value as the capital

could have been used more effectively in another project.

1.2. Research Problem

The objective of the study was to investigate the replacement decision

of earthmoving equipment at surface coal mining operations in South

Africa.

3
1.3. Relevance of topic to business in South Africa

The relevance of this topic becomes evident once the following two important

aspects are explained:

• firstly, the importance the coal mining industry in the South African

economy, including the role of surface mining; and

• secondly, the costs involved in replacing earthmoving equipment on

surface coal mines.

A report on South Africa’s mineral industry (Department of Minerals and

Energy, 2006) places the role of the coal mining industry, and surface coal

mining, in the overall economy of South Africa, into perspective. In 2005,

South Africa produced 306 million tonnes (Mt) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal, of

which 245 Mt was of a saleable quality. Surface coal mines accounted for

53% of the total ROM production in 2005.

Approximately 173.4 Mt of the saleable coal produced was for domestic

consumption. The majority of this was consumed in the electricity sector (106

Mt) and the synthetic fuels sector (41 Mt). The remainder of the domestic

production was for other smaller consumers like the metallurgical and

industrial industries. The remaining 71.4 Mt of the total saleable coal

produced was exported and earned R21,4 billion in revenue. Lastly, the

South African coal mining industry also directly employs approximately

57,000 people. There can be no doubt about the importance of the coal

mining industry in South Africa.

4
The costs involved in purchasing the replacement surface mining equipment

are substantial. According to a pricing guide published by Western Mine

Engineering (2006), a 20m3 wheel loader will cost R23.2 million, a 170t off-

highway truck will be R13.5 million and a 570kW track dozer will cost R10.4

million (using an exchange rate of US$/ZAR 7.00 to convert figures into

Rand terms).

The equipment fleets of surface coal mines vary considerably in size, and

depend on a number of factors, such as the production volumes, mining

method and strip ratios. A large-size opencast mine could have a mining

equipment fleet of several dozen machines. Optimum Colliery, a BHP Billiton

owned mine in Mpumalanga that produces 13.5 million tonnes of saleable

coal per annum (BHP Billiton, 2007), operates a mining fleet that consists of

more than 50 Caterpillar machines (Kattowitz, 2006). A study by Stewart

(2006) estimated that the total replacement value of the surface mining

equipment of BHP Billiton is approximately $1.1 billion.

To place the financial impact of surface mining equipment replacement into

perspective, a report by Construction Equipment (2007) shows that mining

companies on average, replace approximately 10% of their surface

equipment annually. It is therefore understandable that South African mining

companies spend enormous amounts of capital annually in replacing their

surface mining equipment.

5
1.4. Delimitation and Limitations

This study focuses on the replacement decision of earthmoving equipment.

This type of equipment is mainly used in the civil engineering and surface

mining industries to move, or to assist in moving, large volumes of soil, rock

and ore. The study excludes the replacement of electrical-powered, mega

earthmoving equipment like draglines, bucket wheel excavators, dredges

and shovels. It focuses on the more mobile, diesel-powered, earthmoving

equipment types like wheel loaders, off-highway trucks, track dozers, wheel

dozers, graders, excavators and scrapers. These mobile machines are also

referred to as heavy construction equipment.

1.5. Research Motivation

Coal is a commodity and the only strategy available to coal mines for

gaining a competitive advantage is by producing coal at the lowest cost.

The lowest cost producer is the player that should have the highest profit

margins and be able to survive commodity price fluctuations best. There is

therefore a continual drive to shave off costs from every element of the value

chain, whilst at the same time aiming to maximise production.

This study helps to explore the replacement decision of surface mining

equipment. It is a complex issue with a high number of variables and

uncertainties. Shareholder value is destroyed by replacing earthmoving

equipment too soon or too late and coal mining companies will undoubtedly

benefit if the timing of equipment replacements is optimised.

6
2. THEORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

Before the relevant theory base and literature review is given, it is necessary

to explain the nature of the costs associated with earthmoving equipment.

There are two main cost categories. The first category is the owning costs,

which Vorster (2003, p.63) defines as the cost of “having a machine and

keeping it in your fleet”. It includes transactions such as the purchase,

finance, insurance, taxes and resale of the machine. The owning costs of a

machine are usually classified as fixed costs and they accrue regardless of

the utilisation of the machine. Another important characteristic of owning

costs per hour, is that it decreases as the machine works more hours.

The second cost category is the operating costs, which are the costs

required to perform work with a machine. It includes the costs for fuel,

maintenance and repairs, tyres and other consumables. Operating costs are

variable in nature and vary directly according to the amount of work

performed by the machine, which is usually measured in hours worked. In

contrast with owning costs, the operating costs per hour of a machine tend to

be low when it is still new, before increasing as the machine ages (Vorster

2003).

7
2.2. Classic Equipment Replacement Theories

In the literature review, the classical equipment replacement theories are

discussed. The second section focuses on replacement models developed

specifically for earthmoving equipment, before exploring the limitations of the

theories and models. Finally, the review elaborates on other relevant cost,

performance and revenue factors that might influence the replacement

decision.

Replacement theory seeks to answer the question: “What is the optimum

economic life of this piece of equipment?” (Mitchell, 1998, p.22). Four early

equipment replacement theories were proposed to answer this question for

industrial equipment in general and not specifically for earthmoving

equipment.

Firstly, Taylor’s cost minimisation model (1923) defines the economic life of

a piece of equipment as the period of time that minimises the unit cost of

production for the machine. His model is graphically represented in

Figure 2.

8
Figure 2: Cost Minimisation Model (Jardine and Tsang, 2006)

Economic Life

Total Costs
Cost Per Unit

Capital Costs

Operating and maintenance costs

Time

The owning costs of a piece of equipment decline with time, while the

average operating and maintenance costs of equipment increase non-

linearly with time. By combining these two costs, the total cost of ownership

for a piece of equipment can be obtained, which tends to have a u-shape.

The economic life, and thus the optimal replacement age, is at the point that

corresponds to the minimum unit cost value.

Taylor’s model, however, focuses on the existing machine only. It assumes

that the existing machine is replaced with an identical unit and it does not

allow for evaluations where replacement with a different machine occurs.

Therefore, the performance improvement due to technological advances is

ignored – this is termed machine obsolescence.

9
An alternative model is proposed by Hotelling (1925) where instead of

minimising the costs, an attempt is made to maximise the present value of

the equipment’s output by using discounted cash flow techniques. In addition

to the costs, this model also incorporates the revenues, and the average

profit is shown over the age of the piece of equipment. The optimum

economic life occurs at the apex of the average profit curve and maximises

all future revenues minus the costs associated with the production, plus the

expected salvage value of the equipment.

The model, however, does not recognise the existence of machine

obsolescence due to technological improvements. Another disadvantage of

this model is that the individual revenue generated per unit of equipment is

often difficult to insolate and in these instances, this model cannot be

applied. Lastly, Jaafari and Mateffy (1990) highlight the fact that revenue

estimation per unit for earthmoving equipment is generally very difficult and

that the application of Hotelling’s model to evaluate equipment replacements

is therefore impractical.

Preinrich (1940) developed and refined the earlier work by Taylor and

Hotelling. He recognised that replacement problems are not only one

machine being replaced by another of the same type. He identifies and

categorises five types of replacement decisions. Preinrich also addresses

the problem of how to account for technological improvements. However, he

does not provide a method for making the replacement decision.

10
Terborgh (1949) was the first person to define the concepts of the defender

(the existing machine) and the challenger (the proposed replacement

machine). He developed the Machinery and Allied Products Institute (MAPI)

model, which was an extension of the cost minimisation model. He redefines

obsolescence and introduces the concept of deterioration - a measurement

of the decreased performance of the defender over time compared to the

challenger.

He also proposes that the sum of the owning and operating costs be

converted into time-adjusted annual equivalents. His model then calculates

an after-tax return for two alternatives: the first is to replace the defender

machine immediately with the challenger, while the alternative is to retain the

defender and to postpone the replacement decision for one year.

Various criticisms have also been identified against the MAPI model. It does

not allow for comparison beyond the first year and it is therefore not an

optimisation model. Other criticism of the model is that it requires an

excessive amount of input information. Jaafari and Mateffy (1990, p. 514)

regard the MAPI model as “very academic and sophisticated” and not widely

used.

Hasting (1969) provides an alternative replacement model called the repair

limit replacement method. This method is only applicable when a machine

requires repair. In such a case, the first step is to estimate the required repair

11
 costs. If the estimated cost exceeds a certain limit, called the repair limit, then

the unit should not repaired but rather replaced. Dynamic programming

methods are utilised to determine the repair limits. However, since the

machine must require repair, this method has limited application in practice.

2.3. Construction Equipment Replacement Models

Replacement models of construction and mining equipment are largely

based on the work done by the authors mentioned in the previous section.

The most important replacement models and methods developed for

earthmoving equipment will be discussed below.

According to Mitchell (1989), Douglas was the first person to dedicate a

book to the management of construction equipment in 1975. In his book,

Construction Equipment Policy, he describes three methods of making the

replacement decision: intuition, cost minimisation, and profit maximisation.

Intuition or “gut feel” relies on the judgement of the individual making the

replacement decision. Douglas (1975) found that this is the most common

method for making replacement decisions in the construction industry.

However, he questions the use of this method, as it is not based on

economic principles. He suggests that the individual making the replacement

decision is often biased because of the high initial cost price of a new

machine, without taking the long-term benefits of reduced operating costs

12
and increased performance into account. Schexnayder (1980) states that

although intuition could provide good insight into the relationships

governing the replacement decision, but that it can be easily biased.

Douglas (1975, p.22) states: “decisions about heavy equipment replacement

should be based on sound economic principles”. He favours the profit

maximisation method above the cost minimisation method and recommends

that cost minimisation should only be used when revenue or profits cannot

be accurately determined.

The next model, called the geometric gradient-to-infinite-horizon model, was

developed by Collier and Jacques (1984). It describes how to perform

calculations for different cost categories, while also accounting for the time

value of money. The cost categories include acquisition costs, repair costs,

maintenance costs, tyre costs, downtime costs, obsolescence costs, taxes

and insurance costs. Using their model, these costs are defined in terms of

geometric gradients and the model is based on minimising the total cost of

existing equipment.

Collier and Jacques (1984) developed equations to find the net present value

of all the costs associated with the defender, the first replacement challenger

and all future replacement challengers. These net present costs are then

added to find the overall net present value and once this value is minimised,

13
it represents the optimal replacement age. This model is regarded as realistic

and flexible in application.

Vorster and Sears (1986) regard the cumulative costs due to breakdown and

downtime as the most important factor in the replacement decision in the

earthmoving industries. In their cumulative cost model (CCM), they define the

failure cost profile (FCP), which relates the total hourly cost of all resources in

the production team to the number of hours the equipment is unavailable. In

their model, the importance of realising the difference between frequency

and duration of equipment breakdowns is emphasised. According to Mitchell

(1998) the cumulative cost model is the only replacement model that

incorporates both classic economic replacement theory and repair limit

theory.

The geometric gradient-to-infinite-horizon model developed by Collier and

Jacques was further refined by Jaafari and Mateffy (1991). Their model is

called the equipment replacement analysis (ERA) model. They include

inflation and flexibility in inputs to suit a variety of field applications. A sample

problem was used to illustrate their valuation model and they developed a

computer program to implement it.

14
2.4. Age-based equipment replacement

Another equipment replacement strategy concerns age-based

replacements, where replacement occurs once a certain predetermined

fixed age is reached. An example of this replacement strategy is when a

particular dozer reaches 50,000 hours, the dozer should be replaced with a

new dozer. The replacement age can be determined by various means but

is mostly based on minimisation of the life cycle costing (Scarf and

Hashem, 2002).

Although this replacement strategy is straightforward and easy to apply,

age-based replacements have a potentially significant pitfall. The problem

lies in the replacement rule that is applied. A stable environment is required

to apply this rule optimally (Woodman, 1996). Changes in the operating and

maintenance environment occur regularly, which impacts on the equipment

life cycle. The validity of the adopted rule must therefore be continuously

reassessed by analysis of the inputs. This tends to negate the benefit of

adopting the rule in the first place and the adopted rule tends to be a

suboptimal solution, resulting in loss of shareholder value.

2.5. Applying theory to practice

Despite the numerous different replacement models developed to provide a

quantitative basis for the replacement analysis, various authors have stated

the difficulties of applying theory to practice.

15
 Preinrich (1940) emerges as the first critic by stating that he is not impressed

by the practical merits of the theory of economic life. Vorster (1987, p126)

says, “Existing methodologies fail because they ignore too many important

practical factors in order to satisfy a perceived need for quantitative pre-

cision”. Mitchell (1998) concludes that although extensive research has

focussed on bringing theory and practice closer together, the reality is that

this has not been achieved and that no one model has gained industry-wide

acceptance.

One of the main reasons for the difficulties in applying theory to practice is

the challenge of accurately forecasting maintenance and repair costs.

Replacement theory is highly data dependent and as maintenance and repair

costs represent a considerable amount in the total operating cost of a

machine, realistic forecasts of maintenance and repair costs are critical.

2.6. Conclusion

The literature review revealed that the owners of earthmoving equipment

could apply a variety of methodologies to determine the replacement timing

of their equipment. These methods include replacement done primarily on

intuition, age-based replacement and replacement after performing an

economic analysis.

16
It was further highlighted in the literature review that equipment replacement

should be based on sound economic principles (Douglas, 1975). This implies

that a financial valuation is required where the objective is to maximise profit

or minimise costs. However, it was further pointed out by a number of

authors that economic analysis is not always that easy to apply in practice.

The research study was done against this background.

17
3. PROPOSITIONS

The following two propositions flow from the literature review and are the

statements against which the research was conducted:

Proposition 1

All South African surface coal mines, large contract mining companies

working on South African surface coal mines and the equipment

manufacturers, employ economic analysis (profit maximisation or costs

minimisation) to determine the replacement timing of earthmoving

equipment.

Proposition 2

All three stakeholders rely on the following factors to determine the

replacement timing:

• costs – lower operating and maintenance costs of the existing machine;

• deterioration – decrease production performance of the existing

machine; and

• new technology – increased production performance of new machine.

18
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Research Design

A qualitative methodological approach was employed in this study. According

to Leedy and Ormrod (2001), qualitative research deals with the complex

nature of phenomena and is a way to discover the problems that exist within

the phenomena. The research design was descriptive in nature. The purpose

of descriptive research is to describe characteristics of a phenomenon

(Zikmund, 2003).

The above methodology was selected for this study for the following reasons:

• the research was aimed at investigating and describing the replacement

decision of earthmoving equipment;

• the factors used by the mining companies to determine the replacement

timing were unknown; and

• the research involved a small population (less than 30) and sample

size.

4.2. Population and Sampling

The population comprised the earthmoving equipment professionals

employed at the large South African surface coal mines, at the major

earthmoving contracting companies that operate at these surface mines and

at the original equipment manufacturer (OEMs) that suppliers the

earthmoving equipment to the mines and contractor companies. The

19
professionals included the mine managers, engineering managers, section

engineers, site managers, general managers, sales managers and other

persons involved in the replacement decision of earthmoving equipment.

These individuals are generally knowledgeable in the field of equipment

replacements.

The population for this study was defined as 22, namely: 12 surface coal

mines, 6 contractor companies and 4 equipment suppliers. When dealing

with populations consisting of less than fifty, Henry (1990) recommends a

census whereby data should be collected from the entire population. An

attempt was therefore made to obtain the information on the replacement

methodologies data from all 22.

A letter was sent to the companies requesting permission to interview the

earthmoving equipment professionals within the company. An example of

one of the letters is given in Appendix 1.

The surface coal mines owned by the five largest coal producing mining

companies in South Africa, Anglo Coal, BHP Billiton, Exxaro Resources,

Sasol and Xstrata, were targeted. In 2005, they produced approximately 90%

of the total saleable coal in South Africa (Department of Minerals and

Energy, 2006). The smaller public and privately owned surface coal mines

were excluded from the study. A directory of operating mines (Department of

20
 Minerals and Energy, 2007) listed 12 surface mines owned by the five largest

coal-producing companies.

The equipment professionals associated with the South African coal mines

that were interviewed, are listed in Table 1. In total eight people that are

employed in various roles at five different mining companies were

interviewed.

Table 1: Equipment professionals of coal mines interviewed

INTERVIEWEE DESIGNATION MINE / DIVISION COMPANY

Field Engineer: BHP Billiton

Dereck White Middelburg Mine
Diesel Equipment Energy Coal
Group Investment BHP Billiton
Neil Atkins Head office
Manager Energy Coal
Assistant Mine
Dirk Muller Kleinkopje Colliery Anglo Coal
Manager
Engineering
Arthur Smart Landua Colliery Anglo Coal
Manager
Jakop du Engineering
Central Services Anglo Coal
Plessis Manager
Engineering
Don Wallace Group Services Xstrata Coal
Manager
Rico van Exxaro
Mine Manager Grootegeluk Mine
Staaden Resources
Japie Botes Mine Manager Head office Umcebo Mining

In addition to the operating surface coal mines, there are also a number of

major contracting companies with substantial earthmoving equipment fleets,

which are employed on a continuous basis on the operating coal mines.

These include Basil Read, Benicon Earthworks and Mining Services, Concor

21
 Mining (Murray & Roberts), Diesel Power, MCC Opencast Mining

Contractors (Imperial Group), Moolman Bros and Scharrighuisen Opencast

Mining. Equipment professionals from four of the seven contractor

companies were interviewed, as given in

Table 2.

Table 2: Equipment professionals at contractor companies

interviewed

INTERVIEWEE DESIGNATION DIVISION COMPANY

Managing Director Diesel Power Diesel Power

Mike Watson
/ Founder / Owner Opencast Mining Opencast Mining
Operations Scharrighuisen Scharrig Mining
Clint Moorcroft
Director Opencast Mining Limited
Benicon
Gideon van Scharrig Mining
Mining Director Earthworks &
Heerden Limited
Mining Services
MCC Opencast MCC Group -
Nick Claasen Technical Director
Mining Contractors Imperial Holdings

The study also aimed to incorporate the perspectives of the major equipment

manufacturers on equipment replacement. Four manufacturers, Caterpillar,

Hitachi, Komatsu and Liebherr, dominate the local surface mining equipment

scene with a combined market share of 85% (Lewis, 2007). Equipment

professionals from three earthmoving equipment suppliers were interviewed,

as per Table 3.

22
 Table 3: Equipment professionals at equipment suppliers interviewed

INTERVIEWEE DESIGNATION DIVISION COMPANY

Hugh Barloworld
Sales Manager Caterpillar Inc
Donaldson Equipment
Regional Sales Barloworld
Alex Caldwell Caterpillar Inc
Manager Equipment
Hitachi Hitachi
General Manager:
Kerry Hughes Construction Construction
MARC Contracts
Machinery Machinery
Manager: Life P&H MinePro P&H MinePro
Colin Oliver
Cycle Management Services Services

4.3. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis of the first part of the study was the earthmoving

equipment replacement decision at South African surface coal mines,

contractor companies and equipment suppliers.

4.4. Data Collection

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used for collecting the research

data. Leedy & Ormrod (2001, p159) state that the semi-structured interview

usually revolves “around a few central questions” and is “more likely to yield

information that the researcher hadn’t planned to ask for”.

23
 The central questions that were explored during the interviews cover the

replacement methodologies that are employed, factors that influence the

replacement decision and methods of cost forecasts. The objective of the

interviews was to gain an understanding of the replacement methodologies

and practices that are utilised at South African coal mining operations. The

full list of questions is given in Appendix 2.

The research study was conducted over a period of approximately four

months, from June 2007 through to mid-November 2007. Face-to-face

interviews were the preferred method of conducting the interviews. However,

two telephonic interviews were also conducted.

4.5. Data Analysis

The objective of data analysis is to “portray consistent patterns in the data so

the results may be studied and interpreted in a brief and meaningful way”

(Zikmund, 2003, p.473). It includes the activities of summarising,

categorising, rearranging, ordering, manipulating and separating out relevant

data from the whole data set.

24
 According to Leedy & Ormrod (2001, p.160) there is “no single right way to

analyse the data in a qualitative study”. They describe data analysis as a

process of boiling down a large body of information into a small set of

underlying themes through “inductive reasoning, sorting, categorising”

(p160).

4.6. Confidentiality

A number of the companies contacted for the interviews agreed to the

interviews on condition that the research report is anonymous. The names

of individuals and companies are therefore not revealed in this report.

4.7. Limitations of the research

This research study has a number of limitations. Participants were chosen

on the basis of access and only earthmoving equipment professionals from

companies who were willing to participate in the study, were included.

25
5. RESULTS

5.1. Introduction

This objective of this chapter is to present the results of the study. The

interviews were conducted with eight professionals from five different mining

companies, four professionals from four contracting mining companies and a

further four professionals from three equipment suppliers. The interview

questions revolved around the propositions as defined in Chapter 3.

5.2. Economic analysis

The primary aim of the study was to determine whether South African

surface coal mines, contract mining companies working on South African

surface coal mines and the equipment suppliers, employ economic analysis

to determine the optimal replacement timing of earthmoving equipment. This

was defined as Proposition 1.

For the purposes for this study, economic analysis is defined as a financial

valuation that incorporates profits or costs of both the existing machine (the

defender) and the proposed new replacement machine (the challenger).

Analysing historical maintenance costs, or forecasting of future maintenance

costs, of a piece of equipment in isolation, was not viewed as financial

analysis. The financial analysis must provide a quantitative valuation to

choose between two mutually exclusive options: either to retain the defender

or to replace it with the challenger.

26
 A summary of the interviewees’ responses to the role of economic analysis,

intuition and aged-based replacements, is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Responses to Proposition 1

replacements
Age-based
“Gut feel”
Economic
Analysis

Intuition
Company
Company
Type

Mining Company A Yes No No

Mining Company B Yes No No
Mining
Mining Company C No Yes Yes
Companies
Mining Company D No Yes Yes
Mining Company E Yes No No
Yes Some-
Contracting Company A No
times
Contracting Contracting Company B No Yes No
Companies
Contracting Company C No Yes Yes
Contracting Company D No Yes Yes
Equipment Supplier A Yes No No
Equipment
Equipment Supplier B Yes No No
Suppliers
Equipment Supplier C Yes No No

Three of the five mining companies confirmed that economic analysis is

carried out to determine the optimal timing of equipment replacements. The

equipment professionals of these three companies stated that intuition (“gut

feel”) does not play a role in determining replacements and that economic

analysis provides a better solution to the equipment replacement problem.

27
 The other two coal companies do not use economic analysis and rely to

varying degree on intuition, along with other factors to decide when to

replacement their earthmoving equipment. The age of the equipment is one

of the factors that are used by these two companies.

In contrast to the mining companies, where the majority of the companies

apply economic analysis, none of the four contracting mining companies

uses this methodology to assist in the replacement decision. All four

contracting companies stated that intuition plays a role, while two of the

companies stated that intuition plays a critical role. Two of the contracting

companies indicated that the age of the equipment is used to determine the

replacement timing, while the third company uses the age with certain

equipment types only.

All three of the earthmoving equipment suppliers stressed the importance of

economic analysis to determine the optimal economic life of equipment. The

suppliers recommend that a life cycle costing valuation of each individual

piece of equipment be done to assist in the replacement decision.

5.3. Critical factors in making the replacement decisions

The second objective of the study was to determine the factors that the

mining companies, contracting companies and equipment suppliers regard

as critical factors to be considered during the replacement decision process.

28
 These factors could be also be used as part of the economic analysis or in it

could be used in isolation.

The literature review suggested that the three most important factors in the

replacement decision are increased maintenance costs and deteriorating

performance of the existing machine, and improved technology, which

results in an increased productivity of the new machine. The three groups of

stakeholders were asked to clarify the importance of each three factors in the

replacement decision. Table 5 shows the responses of the companies with

respect to the important replacement factors.

Table 5: Responses to Proposition 2 Maintenance

Deterioration

Technology
Costs

Company
Company
Type

Mining Company A Yes Yes Yes

Mining Company B Yes Yes Yes
Mining Companies
Mining Company C Yes Yes No
Mining Company D Yes Yes No
Mining Company E Yes Yes No
Contracting Company A Yes Yes No
Contracting Contracting Company B Yes Yes No
Companies
Contracting Company C Yes Yes No
Contracting Company D Yes Yes No

29
 Maintenance

Deterioration

Technology
Costs
Company
Company
Type

Equipment Equipment Supplier A Yes Yes No

Manufacturers Equipment Supplier B Yes Yes No
Equipment Supplier C Yes Yes No

From the table it is clear that all companies in the three stakeholder groups

recognise that both increased maintenance costs and deterioration

production performance are important factors. However, the importance of

improved productivity of a new machine owing to technological

improvements is only viewed as important by two mining companies.

5.4. Conclusion

From the responses of the interviewees, it was evident that there is not a

universal methodology in use for the replacement of earthmoving equipment

in the South African coal mining industry. Three of the mining companies

follow a similar approach in emphasising the importance of economic

analysis, while the other two mining companies and the contracting

companies follow a less quantifiable approach by using intuition, together

with analysis of factors like increase maintenance costs, deteriorating

performance and technological improvements. All three equipment suppliers

advocate a life cycle costing valuation that is aimed at minimising the

maintenance costs of the existing machine.

30
6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This first section of this chapter highlights relevant characteristics of the

three main stakeholders in equipment replacements in the South African

coal mining industry. It then evaluates the replacement methodologies of

these three stakeholders by interpreting their responses during the

interviews held, with respect to economic analysis and factors that are

considered in the replacement decision process.

6.1. Characteristics of the stakeholders

It is appropriate to first describe pertinent characteristics of the nature of the

business of the three stakeholders, as these characteristics will assist to

explain the replacement methodologies and strategies of the three parties.

These characteristics were highlighted by the equipment professionals

during the interviews.

6.1.1. Coal mining companies

With the exception of one company, all the coal mining companies included

in the study are part of large multi-national resource companies listed on

global stock exchanges. Three of the companies also have secondary

listings locally on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. These companies

own the large coal mines in South Africa that have long operating lives.

31
Three of the surface coal mines of the large mining companies are Eskom

dedicated mines on a “cost plus” basis, whereby Eskom covers all the

operating costs of the mines, plus a management fee. Eskom also provides

for all the capital-funding requirements, including earthmoving equipment

replacements. The above-mentioned factors imply that the South African

surface coal mines generally have easier access to capital funds to

purchase assets and replace earthmoving equipment, in comparison with

contracting companies.

The South Africa surface coal mines also generally perform the primary

earthmoving activities in-house. These activities comprise the large volume

activities of moving dirt and coal by the earthmoving equipment fleets.

Typically, the smaller volume earthmoving activities are outsourced to

contract mining companies. This, together with the greater certainty owing

to the long mine lives and the easier access to capital, enables the mines to

invest in the largest earthmoving equipment available on the market. These

earthmoving machines are more expensive than the small and medium

sized machines and have longer lives.

Typically, only mining companies invest in this size of earthmoving

equipment. The market for this large sized equipment is considerably

smaller than the market for the small and medium sized machines. As the

demand for these machines is relatively limited, their second-hand resale

value is also low. Mining companies therefore tend not to sell retired

32
equipment into the second hand market, but rather “cannibalise” the retired

equipment. This means that the equipment’s spares are stripped off and

used to repair similar equipment that is still in operation on the mine.

It was further highlighted by all five of the mining companies that their new

equipment is purchased outright by them through internal capital funding

retained earnings and not financed over a term through a financial

institution. South African mining companies also enjoy a tax incentive to

encourage capital investments. The provisions of the Income Tax Act [No.

28 of 1997] provide for the immediate deduction of capital expenditure by

mining companies. The contracting companies do not enjoy the same tax

benefit.

The last characteristic of mining companies is the quality of maintenance

management of their earthmoving equipment fleets. Three of the mining

companies have either implemented or are in the process of implementing

SAP, as their Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. The Plant

Maintenance (PM) module of SAP provides benefits in terms of

maintenance planning and execution to mining companies. The quality of

maintenance also influences the replacement methodologies of the mining

companies.

33
6.1.2. Contracting companies

Although three of the four contracting earthmoving companies included in

the study are listed on the JSE stock exchange, they are much smaller than

the mining companies. These contracting companies typically perform the

smaller volume mining activities like topsoil and parting removal, which

require smaller earthmoving equipment.

Earthmoving mining contracts are generally awarded to the contractors for

a relatively short period of two to three years. After the contact expires,

mining companies usually request a number of different contractors to

tender for the new contract. This results in more uncertainty for the

contracting companies and they therefore tend to operate with smaller size

earthmoving equipment, as this size equipment is less costly.

In comparison to the demand for the second-hand large earthmoving

equipment, the demand for second-hand small and medium sized

machines is much greater. This is a result of the larger quantity of

equipment as, in addition to the mining industry, the construction industries

also utilise these machines extensively. They therefore retain their value

better once they become second-hand and there is a larger market to buy

and sell second-hand small and medium sized earthmoving equipment.

This characteristic influences the replacement strategies of mining and

contract companies.

34
 Another important distinguishing aspect of the contracting industry is the

way the new replacement equipment is financed. Contracting companies

are more capital constrained than the mining companies. All four

contracting companies confirmed that new earthmoving equipment is

financed by a financial institution, generally over a 36-month period.

The last important characteristic of contracting companies concerns the

way that they are managed. The original founders of two of the contracting

companies are still actively involved in running the businesses as managing

directors. It was stated by the companies that they believe they are less

bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial. Decisions to replace earthmoving

equipment are therefore made more quickly by the contractors.

6.1.3. Equipment suppliers

The equipment manufacturers and suppliers do not operate earthmoving

equipment, although some of the suppliers have equipment rental divisions.

Their main function is to manufacture and imported the earthmoving

equipment and spare parts needed in the South African surface mining

industry. More than 95% of the South African surface mining equipment is

imported (Lewis, 2007).

In addition, the equipment suppliers also fulfil an advisory role to the owners

of earthmoving equipment concerning the life cycle management of the

equipment. However, three equipment professionals interviewed questioned

35
 whether replacement advice from the equipment suppliers is completely

unbiased.

They believed that the suppliers have a financial incentive to recommend

equipment replacement prematurely, as this will improve their new

equipment sales. When this perception was posed to the suppliers, the

suppliers responded that the opposite is true. The profit contributions from

the sales of spare parts of equipment greatly exceed the contributions from

the new equipment sales.

6.2. Economic analysis

Three of the five coal mining companies stated that economic analysis is

done to determine the optimal timing of equipment replacements. The other

two mining companies and the four contracting mining companies do not

perform economic analysis to assist in the replacement decision. The three

earthmoving equipment suppliers recommend a life cycle costing valuation.

Replacement analysis comprises a choice between mutually exclusive

alternatives where one of four decisions can be made:

• null decision / status quo - operate as before (keep defender);

• overhaul to maintain or improve performance of the defender;

• replace existing asset with a new one (get challenger); or

• retire and dispose - no use for it in future.

36
 The next section explores economic analysis in more detail.

6.2.1. Cost minimisation models

Two of the three mining companies that do economic analysis to determine

the timing of equipment replacement have a written standard procedure that

describes the process to be followed in detail. All three companies use cost

minimisation models. It was also apparent that their models are similar in

nature and based on the standard discounted cash flow (DCF) model. These

models calculate the net present value (NPV) of owning, operating and

disposing of a single piece of equipment (the defender) and then compare it

with the NPV of purchasing, owning, operating and disposing of a new

equipment unit (the challenger).

To account for different lives of the challenger and defenders, two of the

three mining companies use an equivalent annual cost (EAC) model. This

involves calculating an annuity, which is called the EAC of the NPV over the

life of the each of the different life durations. An annuity is an equal payment

made once a year over a set number of years to give the specified value with

a given discount rate. The discount rate used reflects the two companies’

weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

Two different scenarios for replacement can be expected. The first scenario

is when the challenger is identical to the defender with respect to its

37
productivity. This is often termed like-for-like replacements. With these types

of replacements the EAC of the defender and challenger are compared.

If the EAC of the defender is less than that of the challenger, the decision

should be to keep the defender. Conversely, if the EAC of the defender is

more than the EAC of the challenger, the decision should be to acquire the

challenger immediately. Any alternative equipment replacement decision

would result in a higher cost and a loss of value to the operation.

The second scenario occurs if the challenger and defender have different

productivities. This occurs frequently in the mining industry where

improvements in technology have allowed for bigger, more productive

earthmoving equipment. Mining and contracting companies, seeking the

benefits of economies of scale, often replace old ageing equipment with the

new larger equipment.

To compare equipment with different productivities, the two mining

companies use an Equivalent Unit Cost (EUC) model. The EUC model is

similar to EAC model, except that the cost is related to units of production

(e.g. R/tonne or R/m3 moved) rather than time (R/hr operated). Although this

model introduces a slightly greater degree of complexity, the principles

remain the same and the same replacement decision rules are applied.

The EAC methodology at the two mining companies is regarded as best

practice for economic replacement decisions. The two companies that utilise

38
 this methodology are part of large multi-national resource companies that

dedicate large resources in practices like benchmarking and continuous

improvement. The third mining company, which uses economic analysis for

replacement decisions, is slightly behind the two leading companies in terms

of the quality of their equipment replacement methodology.

6.2.2. Difficulties in economic analysis

A number of difficulties were also identified by the interviewees regarding

the application of cost minimisation models to determine the replacement

timing.

As with any DCF analysis, the usefulness of results is highly dependent on

the quality of the inputs. Forecasting the equipment’s operating costs of

labour, diesel, tyres and other consumables, is relatively simple. The

difficulty lies in forecasting the maintenance costs, especially towards the

end of the economic life of the equipment, as the maintenance cost usually

escalates dramatically during this period (Vorster 2003).

The three equipment suppliers recommend, and four of the mining

companies follow, a life cycle costing methodology to forecast future

maintenance costs of earthmoving equipment. This methodology focuses

on the sub-assemblies and smaller components within a piece of

equipment. The life of each sub-assembly and component is tracked and

recorded when replaced. With time, a database of component lives is

39
created. As the costs of the components are known, along with the

frequency of replacements, the future maintenance costs can be forecast in

this way.

This maintenance cost forecasting methodology has a major drawback in

that it is resource intensive. It requires additional maintenance planning

personnel, maintenance planning software and a mature overall

maintenance management approach by the owner of the earthmoving

equipment. Using industry averages for the component lives is not

recommended, as the component lives are dependent on site-specific

factors such as quality of maintenance, operating conditions and quality of

operators. It is suspected that the cost of an accurate life cycle costing

system is an obstacle for smaller mining companies against introducing

economic replacement analysis for earthmoving equipment.

In addition to the maintenance costs, the residual value of the equipment is

also used in the financial analysis. The residual value is the value of the

equipment if sold. As there is a limited market for large second-hand

earthmoving equipment, the residual value of equipment is difficult to

quantify and a “thumb-suck” value is often used.

Another difficulty that one of the mining companies highlighted is the

justification of like-for-like replacements using economic analysis. Because

the production capacities of the defender and the challenger are identical,

40
 the replacement is largely based on a saving in maintenance costs that the

new machine will yield.

In practice, the financial model usually suggests the replace decision only

when the equipment is close to the end of its physical life and when a large

investment is required to keep the machine in operation. Equipment

professionals at two companies admitted that they know of instances where

the inputs in the models were manipulated to achieve a predetermined

result.

6.3. Equipment replacement factors

The next section explains the factors that influences the replacement of

earthmoving equipment in more detail.

All owners of earthmoving equipment recognise that increased maintenance

costs and deterioration production performance of the existing machine are

important factors in determining the replacement timing. The importance of

improved productivity of a new machine, owing to technological

improvements, is only viewed as important by two mining companies. The

other three mining companies and contracting companies generally do not

evaluate the productivity gains of new equipment models.

41
Age was mentioned as an important factor by three contracting companies

and one mining companies when replacement decisions are made. These

companies often follow a strategy of selling their earthmoving equipment

prior to the first major overhaul when large sub-assembly components are

replaced. This strategy requires a good market for second-hand earthmoving

equipment. To optimise the resale value, the companies stated that they

prefer to purchase the leading equipment brand names that have a higher

demand in the second-hand market.

Although other companies do not make replacement decisions purely on

age, they do recognise the importance of managing the average age of their

equipment fleets. They are conscious that the age of equipment must be

balanced, as this will reduce the risk of operating with an old, unreliable

equipment fleet. A balance age distribution of the equipment will also result

in a steady replacement capital budget from year to year.

All the companies interviewed also mentioned the importance of the

equipment’s application in making the replacement decision. If a machine is

utilised in the bottleneck process on the operation, it will receive preferential

treatment when replacement decisions are taken. Companies do not want

to risk prolonging the replacement of these machines, as any production

delays due to deterioration of these machines, will result in lost revenue for

the company.

42
7. CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, the importance of optimal earthmoving equipment

replacements and the main findings of the study are summarised. A

number of recommendations are then proposed that is aimed at improving

the replacement decision-making process of the equipment. The chapter

concludes with suggestions for further research.

7.1. Main findings

An important aspect of sustaining production at large surface coal mining

operations is the replacement of their earthmoving equipment. Some

equipment managers are of the opinion that, as long as the equipment is

repairable, it should be repaired, regardless of the costs involved. These

individuals are often biased by the high capital cost of a new machine, and

they do not take the long-term benefits of reduced operating costs and

increased performance into account.

Surface mining equipment has a finite economic life that occurs prior to the

end of the equipment’s physical life. At the end of its economic life, the unit

cost of production for the machine is minimised and this is the point at

which replacement with a new unit should occur. It was highlighted that

there is a trade-off between capital and operating costs. When the life of

equipment is extended past its economic life, it will result in higher operating

costs. Conversely, if the equipment is replaced too soon, shareholder value

43
is destroyed, as the capital could have been used more effectively on other

projects.

Poor replacement decisions can significantly affect the equipment’s

performance and its operating costs. This in turn could determine whether

the operation’s production outputs and budgeted costs are achieved.

Earthmoving equipment professionals of the mining and contracting

companies therefore need to identify which equipment should be replaced,

what new equipment type should be purchased and when to replace the

identified equipment.

The literature review showed that equipment replacements should be

based on sound financial principles. Three of five coal mining companies

use economic analysis that are aimed to minimise costs when evaluating

replacement options. These three mining companies form part of large

multinational companies with well-established procedures for asset and

maintenance management.

These companies also mentioned a number of difficulties encountered in

the economic modelling. These included forecasting maintenance costs

and determining residual values. In practice, it is difficult to justify like-for-

like replacements using the cost minimisation model. Equipment

professionals at two companies admitted that they know of instances where

the inputs in the models were manipulated to achieve a predetermined

44
result. If assumptions, that are more aggressive, are used in the model, it is

possible to change an answer from keeping the defender, to purchasing the

challenger. This is a corporate governance concern that should be

addressed by the companies.

The other two mining companies and the four contracting companies follow

a more informal and less quantifiable approach to earthmoving equipment

replacements. Generally, a review of historical cost and production

performance trends are carried out. In addition, other factors such as

technological improvements of the new equipment, the rand dollar

exchange rate and resale values of second-hand equipment will also be

reviewed.

These companies believe that experienced equipment professionals can

make a replacement decision based on intuition after reviewing the factors

that influence the replacement decision. Even though experience is an

important attribute of equipment managers, and their intuition could be

accurate at times, this is not a scientific method that can be consistently

applied with a high degree of confidence.

Age-based replacement of earthmoving equipment is also a sub-optimal

solution to the replacement problem. A stable environment is required to

successfully apply a replacement rule. However, the operating conditions

and the maintenance environment are generally not constant. These

45
 changes can affect the equipment’s life cycle and cause the adopted rule to

become sub-optimal.

It is therefore concluded that the optimal replacement decision-making

process is not employed at two of the mining companies and at the four

contracting companies.

Adopting and implementing an effective equipment replacement strategy,

will result in an improvement in the bottom-line figures of both mining and

contracting companies. Although the optimal replacement of earthmoving is

generally not applied at the South African coal mining operations, it is firmly

believe that the knowledge to do so, is in the industry and that a transfer of

knowledge should occur.

7.2. Recommendations

A number of recommendations are proposed that could potentially improve

the decision-making process for the replacement of earthmoving equipment

at both mining and contracting companies.

One of the most important recommendations is for all mining and

contracting companies to draft and introduce a formal policy for the

replacement of their earthmoving equipment. The policy should advocate

that the replacement decision should be based upon on costs and

46
performance considerations and that detailed economic analysis is critical

in the decision making process.

The equivalent annual cost (EAC) model is the most suitable model for the

replacement of earthmoving equipment and is the recommended

methodology. Appropriate discount rates, that reflect the companies’

WACC, should be used in the evaluation. The replacement policy should

further be communicated and entrenched as standard practice in the

companies.

It is also important to educate and train the relevant operational,

engineering and finance staff to understand the complex nature of

equipment replacements in the mining industry. This should include the

theory of equipment replacements, life cycle costing, discount cash flow

analysis and equivalent annual cost models. It should also explain the

impact of factors such as deterioration, obsolescence and technological

improvements. Working examples of equipment replacements and financial

model templates could also be incorporated in training programmes.

Forecasting of maintenance costs should be based on life cycle costing

principles and through detailed analysis of real maintenance data. The

methods and systems for capture, reporting and analysis of sub-assembly

and component performance data are important. It does not require a

sophisticated maintenance planning system such as SAP’s Plant

47
Maintenance (PM) module. A relatively simple database will be sufficient to

capture the required maintenance data and to build a statistical database

on sub-assembly and other components.

Caution is also required to prevent manipulation of input data, mostly

maintenance costs, in the financial models, to achieve a predetermined

result. This is a corporate governance concern as capital funds are used to

purchase new equipment. To prevent this from occurring, there should be a

clear audit trail of key assumptions used in the financial models and these

should be documented in the capital motivation that the board of directors

approves. Internal reviews and audits of the capital motivation could also

play a role in preventing unnecessary capital expenditures.

It is also recommended to follow the replacement strategy once it has been

implemented. There is often a temptation to postpone the purchase of new

earthmoving equipment after capital budget cuts are imposed. This is a

dangerous tactic, as all earthmoving equipment experiences deterioration

and obsolescence. Systematic and continuous replacement is required to

ensure that the fleet retains its production capacity.

Earthmoving equipment must be available and reliable to achieve the

operation’s production targets. It is important to manage the average age of

the equipment fleet carefully. If not, increasing cost and decreasing

48
 reliability will significantly influence a company’s productivity and profitability

and could threaten the survival of company.

It is hoped that this study is one of the first steps in the process of

improving earthmoving equipment replacements on South African coal

mining operations. The research report aimed to describe the current

replacement methodologies that are in use at these operations. An attempt

was made to link the current replacement methodologies to the literature

review and to highlight both good practices and areas for improvement.

7.3. Suggestions for future research

It is suggested to do a benchmarking study to determine average “optimal

replacement ages” for some of the popular earthmoving equipment models,

based on average operating conditions, utilisations and maintenance

practices. Some of the popular equipment models used on the South

African coal mining operations includes the CAT 777 off-highway truck, the

CAT 992 wheel loader, the Hitachi EX1200 excavator and the Komatsu

D375 dozer.

Data on the selected equipment’s prices, life cycles costs and other

relevant inputs required for the financial models can be obtained from the

equipment suppliers. A comparison can then be made between the average

optimal replacement ages and the actual equipment ages in operation on

49
coal mines. This comparison should give an indication to the question if

South Africa coal mining companies replace, on average, their surface

mining equipment on time, too late or too early.

50
8. REFERENCES

BHP Billiton Website (2007) BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa Limited.

http://bhpbilliton.com/bb/ourBusinesses/energyCoal/bhpBillitonEnergyCoal

SouthAfricaLimited.jsp (accessed 27/05/2007).

Collier, C.A. and Jacques, D.E. (1984) Optimum equipment life by minimum

life-cycle costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 110

(2), 248 - 265.

Construction Equipment (2007) Annual Report and Forecast. Supplement

to Construction Equipment, 108(9), 2.

Department of Minerals and Energy. (2007) Directory list of operating mines

and quarries in the Republic of South Africa.

http://www.dme.gov.za/minerals/minerals_information.stm (accessed

22/02/2007).

Department of Minerals and Energy. (2006) South Africa’s Mineral Industry

2005/2006. Directorate: Mineral Economics. 23, 42 - 51.

Douglas, J. (1975) Construction Equipment Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

In Mitchell, Z.W. (1998) A statistical analysis of construction equipment

repair costs using field data & the cumulative cost model. A Dissertation

51
submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University. Blacksburg.

Eschenbach, T.G. (2003) Engineering Economy: Applying theory to

practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hastings, N.A.J. (1969) The Repair Limit Replacement Method. Operational

Research Quarterly, 20(3), 337 - 349.

Henry, G.T. (1990) Practical Sampling. Newbury Park: Sage. In Neville, C.

(2005) Introduction to Research & Research Methods. University of

Bradford, School of Management. Effective Learning Service.

Hotelling, H. (1925) A general mathematical theory of depreciation. Journal

of the American Statistical Association, 151, 340 - 353. In Mitchell, Z.W.

(1998) A statistical analysis of construction equipment repair costs using

field data & the cumulative cost model. A Dissertation submitted to the

Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg.

Hsu, J.I.S. (1990) Equipment Replacement Policy: A Survey. Hospital

Material Management Quarterly, 12(1), 69 - 75.

Kattowitz, D (2006) CAT Technology products add value for Barloworld

Equipment customers. CAT Magazine. 1 (2006), 18 - 19.

52
Kesimal, A. and Bascetin, A. (2000) Replacement study of off-highway

trucks in an open-pit coal mine in Turkey. Mineral Resources Engineering,

9(2), 279 - 286.

Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2001) Practical Research: Planning and

Design. 7th edition, New Jersey: Merill Prentice Hall.

Lewis, D.H. (2007) Case No: 88/LM/Oct06. In the matter between: Imperial

Holdings Ltd and Terex Africa (Pty) Ltd. Competition Tribunal of South

Africa.

www.comptrib.co.za/%5Ccomptrib%5Ccomptribdocs%5C562%5C88LMOct

06.pdf (accessed 22/07/2007).

Jaafari, A. and Mateffy, V. K. (1990) Realistic Model for Equipment

Replacement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

116(3), 514 - 532.

Jardine, A.K.S, and Tsang, A.H.C. (2006) Maintenance, Replacement and

Reliability: Theory and Applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Mathew, S. and Kennedy, D. (2003) A strategy for optimal equipment

replacement. Production Planning & Control, 14(6), 571 - 577.

53
Mitchell, Z.W. (1998) A statistical analysis of construction equipment repair

costs using field data & the cumulative cost model. A dissertation submitted

to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Blacksburg.

Preinrich, G.A.D. (1940) The economic life of industrial equipment.

Econometrica, 8 (1), 12 - 43. In Mitchell, Z.W. (1998) A statistical analysis

of construction equipment repair costs using field data & the cumulative

cost model. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University. Blacksburg.

Regnier, E., Sharp, G. & Tovey, C. (2004) Optimal asset replacement under

ongoing technological progress. IIE Transactions, 36, 497 - 508.

Taylor, J. S. (1923) A Statistical Theory of Depreciation. Journal of the

American Statistical Association, 144, 1010 -1023. In Mitchell, Z.W. (1998)

A statistical analysis of construction equipment repair costs using field data

& the cumulative cost model. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg.

Terborgh, G.W. (1949). Dynamic Equipment Policy. New York: McGraw-

Hill. In Mitchell, Z.W. (1998) A statistical analysis of construction equipment

repair costs using field data & the cumulative cost model. A dissertation

54
submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University. Blacksburg.

Thuesen, G.J. and Fabrycky,W.J. (2001) Engineering Economy, 9th

edition., Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. In Hartman, J.C. and Murphy,

A. (2006) Finite-horizon equipment replacement analysis. IIE Transactions,

38, 409 - 419.

Tomlingson, P.D. (2000) Equipment Replacement Considerations. Mine

Planning & Equipment Selection 2000. Taylor & Francis, 691 - 695.

Scarf, P and Hashem, M. (2002) Characterization of optimal policy for

capital replacement models. Journal of Management Mathematics, 13, 261

- 271.

Schexnayder, C.J. (1980) Heavy construction equipment replacement

economics. A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Construction Engineering

and Management. Purdue University, West Lafayette.

Stewart, L. (2006) Giants 2006 Listings. Construction Equipment.

ABI/INFORM Global 108(9), 2.

55
Vorster, M.C. (1986) Evaluation of replacement techniques and

philosophies. The Planning and Operation of Open-Pit and Strip Mines.

SAIMM, Johannesburg 335 - 342.

Vorster, M.C. (2003) Four Keys to Control Owning and Operating Costs.

Construction Equipment. 63 – 65.

http://www.constructionequipment.com/article/CA469314.html?industryid=2

3397 (accessed 24/04/2007).

Vorster, M.C. (2006) Keep capacity in stock. Construction Equipment.

http://www.constructionequipment.com/article/CA6381099.html?industryid=

23397 (accessed 24/04/2007).

Vorster, M.C. and de la Garza, J.M. (1990) Consequential equipment costs

associated with lack of availability and downtime. Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, 116(4), 656 - 669.

Vorster, M.C. and Sears, G.A. (1987) Model for Retiring, Replacing, or

Reassigning Construction Equipment. Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management, 113(1), 125 - 137.

Western Mine Engineering (2006) Mine and Mill Equipment Costs: An

Estimator’s Guide. Washington: CostMine.

56
Woodman, R.C. (1996) Replacement Rules for Single and Multi-

Component Equipment. Applied Statistics, 18(1), 31 - 40.

Zikmund, W.G. (2003) Business research methods. 7th Edition. Fort Worth:

The Dryden Press.

57
9. APPENDICES

9.1. Appendix 1 - An example of cover letter

Mr B Magara
The Chief Executive Officer
Anglo Coal South Africa
PO Box 61587
MARSHALLTOWN
2107

03 July 2007

Dear Mr Magara

Permission to interview Anglo Coal engineering managers

I am a mining engineer at Xstrata Coal who is currently completing a MBA

degree at the Gordon Institute of Business Science - University of Pretoria.
As part of the requirements of the MBA, I need to complete and submit an
Integrative Research Project at the end of this year. My selected topic for
this research project is “the replacement of earthmoving equipment at
surface coal mines in South Africa”.

I became interested in this topic through my role as Investment Manager of

a opencast mine, where one of my primary responsibilities was to assist in
investment decisions through financial analysis, risk assessments and
value enhancing practices. In this role, I realised that the optimal
replacement timing of mining equipment can be a complex issue with high
amount of uncertainty and variables.

My aim with this project is to investigate what methodologies are employed

at South Africa surface coal mines for the replacement of earthmoving

58
equipment. I would also like to explore what factors are considered most
important when the replacement decision is made and what difficulties are
confronted by mine management in the replacement process.

With your permission, I would like to interview the Anglo Coal opencast
engineering managers or diesel section engineers to gather the required
information on the Anglo Coal mines’ replacement methodologies. The
research report will be anonymous and the names of individual mines or
mining companies will not be linked to practices or methodologies. The
objective of the study is to describe what the practices and general trends
are in the South African coal mining industry with respect to earthmoving
replacements. I would also like to stress that this research is undertaken in
my private capacity as a part-time MBA student. If required, I can provide
Anglo Coal with a copy of the research report once completed.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider my request to interview

the selected engineers. Should you grant the permission, I would contact
the particular people to arrange the interviews at a time convenient to them.

Yours sincerely

Colin du Plessis

59
9.2. Appendix 2 - Interview questions

Questions to be asked during the interviews:

1. Does your company have an official policy or operating procedure that

describes the process to be followed before replacement earthmoving

equipment can be purchase?

2. Are economic analysis done to help identify the timing of optimal

equipment replacement? (Probe - what method of analysis? NPV,

EAC, payback, MAPI, etc.)

3. What role does experience (“gut feel”) play when the replacement

decision is made.

4. Do the mining process where the earthmoving machine is utilised play

role in the replacement decision? Is the “bottle neck process”

identified and given preference during the replacement decision?

5. Is increased cost of maintenance of the existing machines considered

the most critical factor in the replacement decision? Are maintenance

and operating cost recorded for individual earthmoving machines?

6. What methods of maintenance & operating cost estimation are used in

replacement decisions (if economic analysis is done)? (Database of

historical costs, estimates from OEMs, etc)

7. What rate of inflation is used in the economic analysis? Are different

inflation rates used for the different cost components of spares,

labour, fuel and consumables?

60
8. What discount rate is used in the economic analysis? Does the

discount rate reflect the company’s weighted average cost of capital

(WACC)?

9. Is the net resale price or salvage value considered in the replacement

decision? How is the salvage values determined?

10. What role does obsolescence play in the replacement decision?

11. Are other earthmoving equipment models from other manufacturers

than the existing fleet also considered when the replacement

decisions are made? (Brand loyalty - strategic alliances or

partnerships with OEMs.)

12. What other factors are taken into consideration when the replacement

decisions are made?

61