1. CONTEXT AND PROBLEM STATEMENT In 1998, Terry McNulty presented a seminal paper surveying 41 metallurgical and chemical processing plant case histories of newly operating plants, identifying dominant causes of success and failure [1, 2]. That survey resulted in the creation of four curves, graphically portraying the average rates of achievement of design capacity over time for projects that ranged from very successful to unsuccessful. Identifiable characteristics of those projects were then tabulated, establishing guidelines that could be used in project planning or for prioritization of projects competing for capital. Although slow project ramp-ups had been documented in earlier studies, for instance by Agarwal [3], the 1998 paper by McNulty presented the first clear ranking of project success according to specific criteria. For the first time, the industry had a solid basis to evaluate plant ramp-up by characterizing the maturity of the technology involved as well as the phronesis of the project team. Updates were given by McNulty at SME 2004 in Denver, CO, USA, COM 2014 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, COM 2024 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada and Copper 2025 in Phoenix, AZ, USA. Altogether, about 140 case histories have been examined and about half have exhibited Series 1 performance, while the other half have fallen short of reaching design capacity within a reasonable time [4]. Series 1 projects are generally characterized by use of mature technology (although some had new technology), equipment similar in size and duty to that used in earlier successful projects, and thorough pilot-scale testing of any new or potentially risky unit operations. On the other extreme, Series 4 represents projects with incomplete pilot testing, prototype equipment, and poor commissioning procedures. These empirically based “McNulty Curves”, refer to Figure 1, have been widely adopted by operating companies and project financing firms for use as a checklist for risk assessment and to aid financial decisions regarding a project [5]. Figure 1 – The original “McNulty Curves” [1, 2] 196
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2