The Stockholm workshop, held following the GMG forum on April 8-9, was the second in a global series aimed at developing a comprehensive Underground Time Usage Model. It followed on from foundational work completed in Toronto and focused on refining both the face utilization and equipment-based time usage components of the model. The session included representatives from regional mining companies and OEMs.

Key Outcomes

1. Model Refinement & Regional Input

• Built upon the Toronto workshop, which had laid the groundwork for the underground time usage model.
• Confirmed the need for two distinct models:
  • Equipment-based time usage model
  • Face utilization model (treating the face as an operational asset)
• Regional terminology differences were acknowledged and reframed (e.g., “lateral drilling” vs. “development drilling”).
• Participants provided unique operational context, influencing model evolution (e.g., routine seismic checks by LKAB, grouting at Agnico Eagle).

2. Operational Practices and New Activities

• Identified several face-level activities that should be included in productive time, not treated as delays:
  • Post-blast inspections after ventilation
  • Routine geotechnical mapping and scanning
  • Service campaigns (e.g., ventilation, comms, electrical)
  • Supporting equipment use (e.g., graders, shotcrete machines, scalers)
• Emphasis on “auxiliary” and “enabling” tasks being operational necessities, not non-productive events

3. Model Alignment and Clarifications

• Reconfirmed alignment with surface model structure: same time buckets, categories, and classification approach.
• Drilling activity discussion highlighted need to define “productive drilling” (e.g., penetration vs. travel between holes).
• Participants stressed the importance of local practices being recognized in any future best-practice document to ensure it doesn’t overly reflect one regional perspective (e.g., Australian influence).

4. Evolving View on KPIs

• Strong consensus emerged that production KPIs must go beyond tonnage.
• Scandinavian operators emphasized metrics that reflect safety, compliance, and operational quality—especially in deep mining environments.
• Led into a discussion on future incorporation of Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) and redefining what counts as “productive” in KPI reporting.

Next Steps

Document and integrate feedback from the Stockholm workshop into the underground time usage model draft.

Clarify and define key terms: productive, enabling, auxiliary, delay, non-productive.

Engage with steering committee to validate proposed classifications, especially around support equipment and auxiliary activities.

Prepare for Sudbury workshop, focusing on:

• • • Finalizing definitions
    • Reviewing edge cases (e.g., enabling vs. productive time)
    • Exploring KPI implications and standardization across regions

Initiate KPI framework discussions in parallel, particularly with Boliden and other interested participants, to reflect broader performance indicators.