Mining Energy Efficiency Best Practice Database


The intent of this register is to enhance transparency and facilitate dissemination of best practices with respect to energy matters in the mining industry. A standardized template has been developed to assist with the assessment and comparison of energy management measures. Submitted case studies will be reviewed and added to the database.

A copy of the most recent version of the database can be downloaded here:
Mining EE Best Practice V1-2.xlsm
(Last modified August 09 2013 13:28:51)

Questions can be sent to Dean Millar at info@mirarco.org.

Data Entry Form


To submit a case study for inclusion in the database, complete the form and click on the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. A copy of the case study will be sent to the database administrator and will be reviewed prior to uploading to the database.
An asterisk (*) denotes a required field.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Please enter your name and email address. Note that this information will not be stored in the database and is included to contact the user in the event that clarification regarding the case study is required.

ENERGY SAVINGS MEASURE PROFILE

Please indicate the year in which the project was completed. For projects in proposal stage enter study year, for projects in progress enter current year and for implemented projects enter completion year. Please indicate the company that owns the operation where the energy management measure was implemented.
Please indicate the site which corresponds to the energy management example. Please indicate location of operation corresponding to energy management example.
Please specify the type of operation which corresponds to the mine where the energy management example was implemented. Please indicate primary commodity extracted or processed at the operation corresponding to the energy management case study.
Indicates type of change corresponding to energy management measure. High:
Implementation cost is very high, and a detailed economic feasibility analysis (based on a detailed process design) is required to justify and estimate the cost.

Medium:
Cost is relatively average, and usually requires a first-order economic feasibility analysis to justify and estimate the cost.

Low:
Limited to no cost involved to implement the opportunity. Generally referred to as "low hanging fruit."
Please provide a title for the energy management case study. High:
Replacement of existing, large equipment / process units, or complex modification to the process, which requires external expertise to design and implement. Requires a detailed technical and economic feasibility assessment and detailed process design prior to implementation.

Medium:
Replacement of existing, small/medium size equipment / process units, or relative minor modification to the process, which can often be design and implemented by in-house expertise. Retrofit of equipment that require a moderate effort to implement. Generally requires only a first order technical and economic feasibility assessment and minor process design prior to implementation.

Low:
"Process modifications, equipment replacements and retrofits that are relatively easy to implement. Most oftern can be integrated with maintenance activities and include operational and behaviorual changes. A high level economic and technical feasibility analysis may be required in some instances."
Indicates region within the operation where energy management initiative was implemented. Indicates simple payback period in years for the corresponding energy management initiative.  If payback is immediate, enter 0 (zero).
Indicates area within the plant region where energy management initiative was implemented. Indicates annual greenhouse gas emission reduction associated with energy management initiative.
Indicates type of equipment within plant area where energy management was implemented. Indicates the status of the savings.
Please provide type of equipment if “Other” was selected from Level 3 – Equipment. Indicates whether the project corresponds to installation of new equipment, retrofit or replacement of existing equipment or no change in equipment.
Select the entry which best describes the energy management project. Indicates the current status of the energy management project.
Indicates possible industry sector for which energy management measure may be applicable. For example, a blasting case study corresponding to an open pit operation may also be applicable to underground mines therefore “Both (underground and open pit” would be the appropriate selection. Use to indicate energy source for renewable projects if “Renewable Energy” was selected for Group field.

ANNUAL SAVINGS

Please indicate the applicable annual savings resulting from the energy management initiative. The savings can be reported in terms of power, percentage, energy, cost or a combination of these options.
Energy Type Indicates annual power savings from demand reduction projects. Indicates percentage of power or energy savings depending on type of project and should be reported relative to consumption prior to energy management project. Indicates annual energy savings resulting from implementation of energy management project. Enter annual cost savings resulting from energy management initiative. Please indicate currency in “Other Notes” below.

Please provide details of the energy management project in this section. Include any pertinent information not captured by the pre-defined fields.
This area can be used to provide details when selecting “Other” in previous fields.
Web links can be entered to direct users to websites for additional information.
This area can be used to provide references to publications which highlight the energy saving measure.