TASKS

Mine reviews typically are tasked with the following responsibilities:

---

Meetings

Meetings with the mine are the core activity of all review boards.

These meetings are usually scheduled one to two years in advance, given the competing demands on member availability. Some members teach and may have limited windows for meeting attendance. Staff at the mine are often on rotation, and some may be gone for weeks at a time. Climate and logistics also play a role. Because many mines have a limited window for field tours, summer meetings are often required but challenging given vacations.

In-person meetings are invaluable. They offer the review board and company representatives the chance to become better acquainted. They give everyone an opportunity to develop rapport and trust, discuss the workload, share stories on the mine’s performance, and address less-formal but significant topics. Casual discussions allow board members to clarify with mine leadership issues that arose up during formal presentations. They also open the door to mentorship and cross-pollination of technologies and experiences at other mines. Remote meeting by teleconference are often needed, but are less valuable.

Review board decorum is paramount to success. The board is at the mine for brief visits, and making reliability and predictable routines essential. Almost universally, board members respect presenters and appreciate that the relationship will be lengthy one that relies heavily on trust. Recommendations and advice are carefully framed. It is imperative that mine staff and consultants feel they are in a cooperative environment in which everyone works together to successfully manage risks at the mine.

Scheduling

Mines usually book the meetings one to two years in advance to lock in review board member’s time. Those who book first get the best dates. Simple probability equations illustrate the probability of a given number of busy people being able to attend a meeting in a certain week and explain why scheduling can be difficult.

Some mines meet annually, and this meeting includes the field tour. (Closed sites often have field tours only every two to three years if nothing is changing). Many meet twice per year: one meeting with a focus on field activities and construction (in the summer) and one with a focus on review of performance, mainly on instrumentation results (in the winter). Mines with multiple issues may meet more frequently.

The best way to book meetings is in the board room with everyone there with their calendars open. Doodle polls or collaborative availability spreadsheets are seldom effective.

Few board members will object if a planned five-day meeting is trimmed by a day or two but cancelling meetings or asking to shift the dates at the last minute is never appreciated. It is generally better to schedule regular meetings and review what is available rather than time the meetings to when a report or application is due. Sometimes special meetings are arranged for a special topic with only board members who are available attending.

Most review board meetings run for three to five days, with eight-hour days (with two coffee breaks and one hour for a catered lunch). Usually 40 to 120 minutes is allotted per topic (two-thirds of the time allotted for presentations, one-third for discussion). The breaks are important for a variety of reasons and are usually scheduled in.

The location, duration, timing of meetings, including field tours, how the draft agenda will be distributed for review and when, how to track and prioritize recommendations, the frequency of updates on the performance of each structure, and approach to decision-making (usually consensus or a second meeting) should also be set out in the board charter. How to record dissenting opinions may also be laid out, but this is not recommended as a lack of consensus on a major issue or decision can result in a board member leaving.

Review board members are usually prepared to travel on weekends.

Example of a typical meeting schedule:

• Monday: Mine update (30 minutes) and field tour
• Tuesday: Presentations
• Wednesday: Presentations and an evening dinner event
• Thursday: In-camera meeting of the board
• Friday morning: In camera meeting of the board, draft readout for accuracy to the responsible tailings facility engineer (RTFE) and EOR (over lunch), the RTFE may alert the accountable executive if the board is expected to raise any new or controversial issues
• Friday afternoon: Readout to management, in-camera management meeting, readout to communities

Rules of thumb for scheduling…

• 40 to 120 minutes presentation time per topic (15 to 40 slides)
• Presentations allow for 3 minutes per slide
• One 15-minute break every 90 to 120 minutes (enough time to brew a cup of tea and chat with one another)
• A stretch break for a few moments between presentations
• 60 minutes for lunch
• 60 minutes of buffer time and float time at the end of each day to be used in case the agenda runs long, or better yet, an in-camera meeting of the board to discuss the day’s learnings
• 30 minutes of in-camera time for the board for every 60 minutes of presentation time
• 60 minutes for the readout (15 slides)

EXAMPLE:

Agenda

Setting out an effective agenda is perhaps the most important ingredient for a successful meeting. The agenda is typically distributed four weeks before the meeting. This allows presenters to prepare their talks and ensures key items of interest are included. Board members review the agenda to confirm that adequate time has been allocated to review specified topics. These include design, construction, geotechnical performance, management structure, governance, competence and training of staff, and planning. Reviewing the agenda also allows the review board to check if any proposed topics are outside its mandate.

Before the advent of explicit review board charters, members were only responsible for reviewing information presented to them. The presence of a facility on site that the mine didn’t want reviewed was not unusual. Nor would an event at the mine be discussed if the mine representatives left it off the agenda. In recent years, a fundamental shift has occurred. The formal charter indicates which facilities fall under the board’s purview, and it is understood the board will assess whether the mine is following international standards and good practice for all items the charter covers. This approach helps mines demonstrate due diligence and limits their liability.

Questions for the board

Some mines provide specific questions for the Board to answer. This can allow the mine to tackle problematic issues and help management understand where staff believes critical issues lie. Keeping the questions succinct is good practice. For example:

• Does the Board support the elimination of the filter drain in the North Dam and replacement with a long upstream beach?
• Does the Board agree that 4 m of freeboard for the closure condition of the South Dam is sufficient?
• Does the Board support the method of assigning liquefied strength to the West Dam BAW tailings sand?

Some questions may be unnecessary if the board’s role is detailed in the charter and its members generally know what the issues are from the presentations and similar experience. As such, generic questions are discouraged.

• Is the Mine adequately managing risks?
• Does the Board have any improvements to suggest for the dyke compaction specification?

Staff dry runs

Board members will readily attest that the quality of presentations spans the gamut. To improve presentations, good practice is for staff or consultants to present their draft presentations to senior staff a week before the review board meets. This allows mid-course corrections, coaching and mentoring, shows interest in the topic and personal development, reduces presenter stress, and makes more efficient use of the board’s time.

It is easy to forget that perhaps the most stressful time for a junior or intermediate professional is the presentation to a review board, which frequently comes at the end of a week of long days and nights getting the data ready and the presentation assembled. A dry run helps reduce anxiety. Most board members are familiar with the stress of presenting, and often do what they can to put presenters at ease. The dry run pairs nicely with a debrief after the board meeting (sometimes semi-formally in a board room on site, sometimes informally, after hours at a bar).

Pre-reads

In preparation for meetings with the review board, a mine typically sends board members electronic copies of draft presentations two weeks in advance. Board members allocate four to eight hours to review the slides, often while travelling to the mine. Sometimes mine staff provide detailed reports as background information. The board will usually indicate in its report if these documents were not reviewed in detail. The time for a pre-read for a new review board or a new member will be longer, and this time should be budgeted.

The range of depth of review during the pre-read varies from a general scan to know what is coming up and what are the major issues, to an in-depth review with a list of tough questions. Occasionally a board member will declare they didn’t have time for the pre-read, especially if the package is delivered too late to the Board.

Board members will also review the board’s most recent report to refresh themselves of the major issues.

At some sites, reports provided to the review board may be written in a language with which the board members are not familiar. But the general messaging will be understood thanks to board members’ experience in the field, common graphs, and the use of on-line translation. Ideally, at least one board member will be fluent in the report’s language. The time for a pre-read for a new review board or a new member will be longer, and this time should be budgeted.

Field tours

Field tours are an integral part of the review board’s work. They typically occur annually for each mine. For some sites, these tours take a few hours. For larger sites, an entire day or even longer is required. Some sites may use helicopters to shuttle board members around larger sites. The field tour usually requires staff to transport the board in pick-up trucks on a planned route. These tours are often supplemented by drone footage taken shortly before the visit. Mines provide hard hats and safety vests to board members, and some supply steel-toed boots.

Everyone piles out of the trucks or bus at every site, typically for about 10 to 20 minutes. Sometimes maps are held up, but more commonly there is just a general discussion. The board enjoys returning to some of the same lookouts every year and watching progress over the decades. Some members are keen photographers and develop a large collection of photographs, and some are shared with the mine or included as an appendix to the Board’s report.

In some cases, mine staff will open test pits in advance of the board’s arrival. This allows the board to examine the foundation geology (or material placement) directly. The time spent examining test pits and observing earth-moving operations with the designers and staff is an enjoyable and invaluable activity, with longstanding benefits. Often, much of the value of the tour lies in chatting with the younger technical staff, equipment operators, and shift supervisors. A board can use this visit as a mentoring opportunity, sharing techniques and observations with junior staff.

Presentations

Presentations by mine staff are one of the most significant ways the review board gathers important information. A presentation can take just 40 minutes or an entire day. Two-thirds of the time is devoted to the presentation and one-third to questions and discussion. The presentations are typically accompanied by detailed slide decks and augmented with drawings or handouts. Usually, this information is provided digitally as PDFs, although a few board members also appreciate hard copies. Maps and cross-sections with sound geology may be posted on the wall.

The presentations are an ideal opportunity for cross-training of staff. The board asks questions as the presentation proceeds. Junior staff may feel intimidated when they present to the review board for the first time. Board members are almost always encouraging and kind, though meticulous, in their feedback.

The review board’s interaction with mine representatives, and among board members, can become a difficult balancing act. The board’s ambitions can be impeded by a mine’s varied objectives. A mine’s emphasis on production and budget can interfere with long-term successful performance. Mines entering the closure phase may consider shortcuts to extend production, introducing additional risks. These contrasting expectations often become apparent when a presentation transcends the board’s knowledge and expertise. It is imperative the review board establish a trusting and respectful relationship with the mine, while maintaining consensus and unanimity in its recommendations for improvement.

At some mines, only a few people are invited to attend the presentations, whereas at others, there is standing room only. Small numbers may be cheaper for the mine but diminish the training / educational opportunities. Larger numbers (especially if there are regulators or local community members in the room) may get in the way of intimate conversation or cause some presenters to withhold sensitive but important information and observations.

Guidance on how to make good presentations is presented under Resources.

Many mines provide a management update as introductory topic (sometimes even before the field tour). Done well, these can give the board a sense of the broader picture at the mine and how events are influencing decisions — for example, whether they are in a cost-cutting mode, whether there are issues hiring staff, or whether regulatory actions are being taken against the mine. The board can use this information to better understand the presentations and formulate its response.

The update is typically 20 minutes long, may or may not have a slide deck, and usually avoids promotional material or details like safety statistics that won’t influence the board’s advice.

Other activities

Mid-week dinner

Most mines host a mid-week dinner with the board and invite some of the presenters. It is a good chance to socialize and share experiences. The staff and consultants often look forward to being invited to the event.

Recommendations log review

In each meeting, the mine sits down with the board to go through the board’s recommendation log line by line. The status of outstanding recommendations is updated. Typical statuses include “Not started,” “In progress,” “Completed,” or “Deferred / superseded / not actioned.”

Typically, the mine proposes the status and the Board decides whether or not to agree. The main purpose is to allow the board to determine whether its recommendations are being addressed in a timely manner. It will highlight any that they consider overdue, and in some cases flag outstanding recommendations to management. Often the mines are slow to categorize recommendations as substantially complete (if, for example, the results are only available in a draft report), but the board may argue that the work is complete from their point of view.

In-camera time

The board needs about half hour of discussion time for every hour of presentations to discuss and debate and formulate a unanimous response. The sum is more than the whole of the parts.

Allowing for 30 to 60 minutes at the end of each day to discuss the days topics is helpful, and board members often discuss details at dinner. They often re-read presentation materials in the evening on their own. Typically a board will need a whole day to work together (Thursday and part of Friday morning).

This time is precious to a board — no spilling into the time with presentations. No new presentations. No interruptions except for the secretariat to ask if any clarifications are needed or to bring more coffee.

Flip charts were once preferred to capture members’ thoughts, but almost all board now use a shared screen on the wall and a PowerPoint slide deck. Usually the deck is recycled from previous meetings; one board member takes the initiative to set up the slides with the meeting topics beforehand to facilitate this review time.

It is easy for a board to get bogged down in wordsmithing, but the resulting pressure is usually easy to relieve. Sometimes this time is too rushed, and the board isn’t able to provide full value.

Management and staff readout

When the week’s meeting is completed, the review board provides the mine management with a “readout” of findings. This usually occurs on the afternoon of the last meeting day and takes 60 minutes. Alternatively, the readout may take place virtually a week or so later, depending on management availability. The readout is dominated by the board discussing its finding. All members are available for questions. This process has been called “snapshot feedback” that allows the mine to prioritize time-sensitive recommendations from the board.

At most mines, only the senior staff and management are present at the readout. At other mines, the management readout takes place in conjunction with local communities. While there are advantages to this second approach, other methods to communicate the results to local communities are typically preferred. Before this meeting, the technical staff reviews the board’s presentation to check for misunderstandings or request clarity on certain issues.

Management debrief

Mines find it useful to have a standing 30-minute session at the end of week for a quiet meeting with just the mine executive: the accountable executive, mine manager, operations manager, and sometimes chief engineer. This provides an opportunity for frank discussion about critical risks, and any concerns about staff / staffing / consultants. Typically at least one of the managers will have a burning question for the board about new technologies, new strategies, or changes in the state of practice. Holding a meeting every time avoids creating anxiety among the technical staff that something is amiss.

Community readout

At some mines, the board presents its findings to local communities. There is power in using the same slide deck that was presented to management. It is generally by invitation and is scheduled for an hour. Sometimes only a few local community members will attend but other time 50 or more may show up. The board chairs the meeting and typically requests there only be questions of clarification (not debate).

The RTFE may present a few introductory slides to explain what tailings are and the geography of the mine, but most participants will already understand this. Participants can follow up with mine staff or mine managers or the mine liaison. A board member can be brought in for a special meeting if needed.

Reports

The review board’s report is addressed to the mine’s accountable executive. The 10- to 20-page report describes the meeting, summarizes the presentations, comments on the findings, and makes formal recommendations.

The review board usually submits a report within a few weeks of meeting with the mine representatives. This report is the major output from the meeting and part of the permanent record. Mines typically keep the report confidential but reserve the right to share it with others. (And board members write the report knowing it may become public someday.) The report provides a proper record of findings and recommendations. But it can also have tremendous historical value, especially when — possibly decades later — the completed structure or landform being considered for signoff from the regulator and local communities. 

The introduction often includes a list of attendees, a brief description of the role of the board and its limitations, and any significant events at the mine since the last meeting. The board typically recognizes the staff and consultants for their hard work presenting to the board. It also uses the opportunity to highlight the key issues to mine management.

The language and organization of the report are typically concise. Only a few paragraphs may be written for each topic covered, sometimes one paragraph on what was heard, one with a discussion, and the last with the Board’s suggestion or recommendation. Recently, some board members have begun inserting snapshots of specific slides that were presented by the mine to bring clarity to or highlight a particular point for the reader.

The draft report is provided within a few weeks of the meeting and is typically an expansion of the readout. It contains no new information that wasn’t discussed in the meeting.

The report usually has several appendices, including a copy of the final meeting agenda, the Board’s terms of reference (if it has been updated since the last meeting), a screen shot of the list / filenames of reports reviewed, a photographic record if the meeting included a field tour, and may contain a printout of the recommendations log with updated statuses.

There is an unfortunate trend toward wordier and longer reports. The reports and appendices can extend to a hundred pages, which is a lot to write, edit, and to read. Board reports from previous decades are often admirably brief (which, yes, can be carried to a fault). This need for brevity has recognized by a number of authors. Before the advent of fax machines and email, boards often worked to craft final reports, typed by the mine’s typing pool, and signed by each member before leaving the site on the last day. There may be merit in returning to this practice.

Recommendations

The Board provides feedback in several ways (informally during the meeting, in the readout, as observations and suggestions in the report, and as formal recommendations.

Most make specific, numbered recommendations and prioritize them based on directions from the mine (which are typically included in the charter). The board and mine work together to ensure the recommendations are clear, practical, and worded so they can be signed off once completed. The board does not provide direction, and the mine is not required to follow all the recommendations, but the board will insist that all recommendation at least be addressed and in a timely manner.

Some boards attempt to ensure that their recommendations are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound). The recommendations are written to be clear enough for technical person to understand when they sit at a standalone table. They should be written in a way that makes it clear when a task has been accomplished and can be signed off.

Some recommendations may be superseded by changing circumstances, or the mine may decide to accept the risks that arise from not following the recommendations. Some of the recommendations are opportunities to improve efficiency, and some relate specifically to dam safety. The mine tracks the recommendations and reviews progress with the board. The table of recommendations is reviewed at each meeting, or at least annually.

There are many styles for writing recommendations, but a simple formula is favoured:

The Board recommends that the mine: [insert action item verb]…. For example, the Board recommends that ABC Mine replace SI 42 on the South Dam before the next dam raise. Or …develop standard operating procedures for dealing with erroneous piezometer data as part of the next OMS manual update.

The last sections of the report include a list of requests for topics for future meetings, a list of future dates, and a signature page. The draft report is not signed. Many boards avoid using their professional designations next to their names. 

Draft report

The last sections of the report include a list of requests for topics for future meetings, a list of future dates, and a signature page. The draft report is not signed. Many boards avoid using their professional designations next to their names.

The mine usually emails its draft report as pdf to the secretariat and the chief engineer with a request for comments. The mine compiles all comments into a single document and sends it back to the board.

The board has already received verbal feedback during the presentation and at breaks and meals. The draft readout slide deck provides another round of review. At most sites, the suggested changes to the draft report are minor, usually corrections to the name of a facility or a request for greater clarity. But a board can get concerned if the comments coming back are more of the mine staff arguing with each other, or more importantly, if there is a request to soften language or water down the recommendations.

The board takes care to preserve its independence. With respect to recommendations, the board may re-iterate that it is the mine’s decision on how to respond, and is careful to remind the staff and management that the recommendations are not directives, that the expectation is that they will be addressed (often 10% to 15% of the recommendations are not adopted and the rationale is explained). The annual review provides another opportunity to evaluate the mines responses.

Final report

After the mine reviews the draft report and provides a single document with feedback, the Board considers the feedback, edits and finalizes its report, and applies its signatures. This process typically takes an hour or two if the changes are minor.

The final report is generally not stamped. Some Boards use electronic signatures, but most simply get permission from each board member to include a copy of a previous signature. The final report is submitted in pdf format by email. Often an informal copy of the word file is also sent to the mine for its records and to ease cutting and pasting of material (such as recommendations or in preparation of a community report).

Between meetings

Review boards are generally inactive between meetings. Occasionally the mine may reach out to one or more members for informal guidance on a specific issue, sometimes as a precursor to bringing the issue to the entire board in the next meeting. This can be a useful activity, and members are typically careful to inform other members of such interactions and as a professional courtesy.

Special meetings

Sometimes a special additional meeting is held to address a single topic. This meeting is often just a half or full day, and may be a field tour, a remote teleconference, or sometimes as an in-person meeting. It is usually requested by the mine, but may be requested by the board, particularly if they have been asked to comment on a presentation that had insufficient information, or requirement more analysis, or is on a topic that is important and developing rapidly. After the meeting, the board will typically write a short letter to document the meeting outcomes.

External letters

A Board may be asked to provide the mine with an annual letter of assurance that can be widely shared. For example, the British Columbia provincial government requires an annual summary of the review meetings (number, topics, and attendees); whether the work meets the board’s expectations; any conditions may compromise tailings storage facility integrity; and a signed acknowledgement (1 to 2 pages) annual letter, often simply adapted from the previous year.

In some cases, the mine provides the local community with a letter that summarizes (or details) the review board meeting. They may request that one board member formally attest that the letter reflects the meeting and the board’s findings. The letter may be a high-level summary, or may be a detailed account largely copied from the board’s report, with some of the management, personal, or business information removed.

There is a recognized central tension in sharing board feedback widely. It has the benefit of allowing the mine to demonstrate transparency, but it may also affect what the mine decides to present to the board (topics or data or the language), and may also influence board feedback back to the mine. The potential risk is that crucial information is not communicated between the mine and the board, but it is unclear whether this presents a significant risk.