Fundamentally, the development of a minerals processing project is a very risky enterprise. Most mining companies do not have sufficient financial resources to undertake significant projects and hence have to undertake external financing. Indeed, most resource companies understand the high risks associated in developing their projects and therefore, wish others to share in the risks. Most merchant banks, on the other hand, are searching to find suitable resource development projects in which they can share their risk and also share a large proportion of the reward'. To resolve this issue a Feasibility Study is completed by the project developer and assessed by the merchant bank often with the assistance of an Independent Engineer' (IE) who assesses the validity of the development proposal. Generally speaking, unless the Feasibility Study has been prepared improperly, the technical aspects of most mineral projects are reasonable. Some of the more recent so-called high tech' projects are exceptions but these still do not present major technical mistakes or misconceptions. p> In most cases, the major criticism the IE presents after discussing the validity of the ore reserves focuses on production plans, capital costs and operating costs. Of these three parameters the production plan is one in which owners tend to be far too optimistic and financiers, until recent years, have not taken a position._x000D_
The most critical part of the development plan is the ability of the project, as designed, to attain the required design performance and, even more critically, the ability of the owner to reach and sustain this level of production. In short, how long should the ramp-up' be planned to take? Financiers have become more circumspect and are now taking a more conservative view of new project performance by factoring into their project financial analysis longer periods of ramp-up, higher capital costs and higher operating costs. However, these financiers can also be part of the problem' if they become overly conservative._x000D_
This paper attempts, by way of case studies available from the public arena, to identify the pitfalls the project owners can meet and possible means of avoiding the disastrous financial conundrum whereby the second or third owner' is the company that reaps the rewards initially extrapolated. The paper briefly discusses this problem by referring to projects known to the author and including previous studies that looked at this very problem. It is emphasised that many of the opinions stated within the paper are strictly those of the author and could be subject of much debate.