At a glance
- Same mine, different world- no two sites operate under the same conditions
- Supply chains define the plan - a bearing from Manila vs. a call to Mackay
- Risk isn't equal everywhere - a hydrogen leak changes everything about asset integrity
- Reactive vs. proactive isn't one fix - it's leadership, tools, data, and people together
Featuring Ben Prior
Capability Leader - Advisory
Ben Prior, a Capability Leader – Advisory at COSOL, still vividly remembers arriving in the Philippines for the first time. The journey itself set the tone. A flight into Cebu, a three-hour ferry to Leyte, and then a drive through Ormoc that came to a standstill behind a man casually riding a buffalo down the road. It was a moment that captured exactly what he was stepping into: an operating environment shaped as much by context as by capability.
Earlier in his career at Rio Tinto in Queensland, Ben had worked in an environment where maintenance was planned, equipment was reliable, and systems functioned as expected. He assumed that was how mining operations were run. In the Philippines, that assumption didn’t hold. The focus shifted immediately to what needed to be fixed that day, working around constraints in infrastructure, supply chains, and available skills. It was a different mine, operating under a completely different set of conditions.
Operating conditions are never neutral
It’s one of the most consistent lessons from Ben’s career, which now spans multiple continents, including Asia, Africa, North and South America, and Australasia. In a nutshell, no two sites operate under the same conditions, even when they appear comparable on paper. Geography, supply chains, workforce capability, infrastructure, and risk exposure all shape how a site functions in practice.
“Overall, I’ve learned not to carry too many expectations,” he explains. “It’s more effective to take each environment as it comes and work with what’s in front of you.”
That mindset has been shaped by experiences across the globe. In Zambia, the risks extended beyond the plant itself. “We had to be really careful at dawn and dusk because there are impala antelope and guinea fowl all over the roads,” he says. In Madagascar, environmental conditions introduced a different layer of complexity, with health risks linked to bacteria levels in the air during the rainy season. In Canada, operating conditions were defined by extreme weather, where driving in heavy snow before sunrise became part of the daily routine.
Operating conditions reach beyond equipment and processes into the way work is executed, how risk is handled in real time, and what gets prioritised on site.
From reactive to proactive is a systems shift
The difference between reactive and proactive operations is often described in terms of maintenance philosophy, but Ben’s experience shows that it runs deeper. It reflects the cumulative effect of design decisions, supply chain capability, leadership, and embedded processes.
“In Australia, we identified bearing wear through vibration analysis, scheduled the change, organised a crane, completed the swap in a day, repaired the motor, and reinstalled it,” he says. “Everything was planned and controlled.”
In the Philippines, the same task unfolded very differently. Equipment failures were often addressed only once they occurred, with limited warning or preparation. The work was shaped by what was available on site, what could be sourced, and how quickly teams could respond in the moment.
Supply chains define what is possible
On sites where parts are readily available, planned maintenance becomes part of the operating rhythm. Where lead times are extended, equipment is pushed further, repairs are deferred, and teams work within the limits of what can be sourced and when.
Spares strategies, inventory decisions, and supplier relationships sit alongside equipment and processes in determining how a site runs day to day. When these are aligned to actual supply chain conditions from the outset, the operating approach shifts with them.
Asset integrity is defined by risk
Ben’s time in Madagascar introduced a different dimension to operating conditions. The site included a power plant and on-site gas production, with systems handling hydrogen and hydrogen sulphide. The risk profile extended far beyond typical mining operations.
On that site, asset management was tied directly to the consequences of failure. Systems required tighter controls, processes were more rigorous, and asset integrity was treated with a level of discipline that reflected the potential impact of getting it wrong.
Across different operations, risk sits in different places. Some assets carry routine operational consequences, while others introduce exposure that shapes how work is planned, prioritised, and executed.
After moving between sites with different constraints, risks, and operating rhythms, a pattern starts to form. What works in one environment doesn’t transfer cleanly into another. The starting point is always the conditions on site.
Turning operating conditions into performance gains
Experience across different environments shows up in how quickly a site can be understood and how precisely improvements are targeted. Patterns are recognised early, but they are always tested against the realities of the operation. What matters is not what has worked elsewhere, but what will work here.
That understanding starts with how the site actually functions day to day. Physical conditions, supply chain constraints, workforce capability, and risk exposure sit alongside each other, shaping what is possible and what is not. Looking at any one of these in isolation misses how they interact.
On some sites, equipment availability is high but supply chains are slow, shifting the balance toward holding more critical spares. On others, experienced teams compensate for limited systems, maintaining output through workarounds that carry their own risks over time. In higher-risk environments, asset integrity requirements tighten, and the tolerance for failure narrows significantly. Each of these conditions changes how work is planned and executed.
Asset management approaches follow those conditions. Maintenance strategies, spares decisions, and system design need to reflect how the operation runs in practice. Where those elements are aligned, work becomes more predictable. Where they are not, variability increases and performance becomes harder to sustain.
Improvements are then shaped by what the site can support. Priorities shift based on where the biggest constraints sit, and sequencing reflects how change can be absorbed without disrupting production. In some environments, that means stabilising reactive work before introducing more structured planning. In others, it involves tightening existing processes to improve consistency and control.
Across different operations, the impact shows up in how decisions are made, how risk is managed, and how reliably outcomes are delivered.