WorkflowProduction Operations & Oil Sands

Tailings Management Reporting

Tailings management report software that ties each published number to its survey, traces every gap to its cause, and reads the draft as an outsider would before filing.

See the demo Book a demo

Follow one pond from the draft to the signature gates ↓

The problem

A tailings management report is published exactly as filed

The annual fluid tailings report is built from survey contractors' pond reports, lab results, the water balance workbook and plant records. They arrive on their own schedules, and the coordinator pastes tables into last year's report while waiting. A planning number stands in for a late survey and quietly stays.

Nobody re-adds every number in the last two weeks. Once the report is filed it is public as it stands, and changing a filed number means writing a justification to the regulator. The first person to find the gap should be the tailings lead, not a reader.

Built forTailings leadsTailings engineersWater balance specialistsReporting coordinators

The Problem Today

The annual fluid tailings report goes public as filed, and its numbers rest on sources that arrive late.

As filed: the regulator publishes each year's report, unchanged published

Tied by hand today

Surveys
Lab data
Water sheet
Last filing

Placeholders stay inA planning sheet stands in until the survey comes
Old words carried forwardLast year's sentence no longer fits this year's data

The Solution

Built from the sourcesSurveys, lab reports, models and plant data become the report's tables
Each number tiedEach number is matched to its page, and each gap traced to its cause
Tested against the profileVolumes set against approved profiles and thresholds, with uncertainty
Read as an outsider wouldDraft set beside last year, the plan and other filings; a person decides

Built-in controls

Agents never change a value or the report
Nobody checks their own correction
The lead signs, and a second person files

What You Get

The tailings lead signs a report that ties to its sources, with problems found before a reader finds them.

184: hours to re-tie 1,840 numbers by hand, at 6 minutes each our estimate

Numbers that add upEach table tied to the page behind it
Fewer shocks in publicOutsider findings decided before filing
Evidence on handAudit trail and evidence pack, ready for an audit

One untied pond, three weeks out

One gap in the fluid tailings report, traced and corrected before filing

Draft 4 of the annual report is due in 22 days. Pond 2's volume in the draft does not match its year-end survey, and the gap moves the site toward its first trigger.

demoThe mine, its ponds, the people and all volumes shown are sample data.

01Draft 4
206.1 million m³ in the draft, 7.5 below the first trigger
Tailings lead
The profile chart sets new fluid tailings by year against the approved profile and the three threshold bands. Beside it, the report as a stack of 38 thin tables: 29 tied, 6 untied, 3 waiting. The draft reads 15.8% over the approved 178.0. A strip under the chart says where to start: Pond 2 reads 5.7 lower than its survey.
02Draft 4
Table 6 carries 126.5 where the survey page says 132.2
Tailings lead
Pond 2's table has four untied numbers, all in the same column. Clicking the new fluid tailings cell traces it: 126.5 in the draft, 132.2 in the source, with a link to page 14 of the year-end survey. Total fluid tailings for the pond reads 404.9, and the density row is flagged as well.
03Draft 4
The water balance sheet still divides by last cycle's density
Tailings lead
The tie-out agent shows each step. The draft number came from the water balance sheet, loaded as a placeholder before the survey arrived 18 days late. That sheet divides 525.16 million t by 1.297, a density measured three years ago. With the newer 1.279 it lands on 410.6, the survey value. The gap is larger than the survey's own ±3.7.
04Draft 4
The engineer opens page 14 of the survey before he may correct
Tailings engineer
The correction belongs to the engineer who owns Pond 2, and the correct button stays locked until he has opened the survey himself. Page 14 gives 410.6 million m³, ±3.7, from sonar mudline and drop soundings checked by cone tests. Opening is recorded under his name.
05Draft 4
Proposed 404.9 to 410.6, and it waits for someone else
Tailings engineer
He picks his reason, late survey replaces a placeholder, and sends it. The panel says plainly that it waits for the tailings lead, since nobody checks their own correction. Correcting the table fixes the report. The cause sits in the sheet behind it, which belongs to the water balance specialist, who still has to move it to 1.279.
06Draft 4
Tables 1, 2 and 4 follow once the lead opens the same page
Tailings lead
The tailings lead opens page 14 herself, then checks. Only then does Table 6 read 410.6. The site inventory, the new tailings table and the thresholds table depend on it, so they tie with it. The correction, its reason and both names sit in one green box, and the line can now move.
07Draft 4
Now 211.8: 1.8 below the trigger, and 215.7 at the top of the range
Tailings lead
The line moves to 19.0% over the approved profile. The reported value sits under the first trigger, but the top of the survey's ±3.9 range sits over it, so the report has to say so. Early warning turns on. Thirty-three tables tie now. Any decision on a threshold is the regulator's.
08Before signing
Another filing says a well changed, and this draft says all 12 were sampled
Tailings lead
Because the report goes public as filed, an agent reads the draft the way a tough reader would: against last year, the plan and other filings. Eight findings wait for the lead. One sets the draft's claim that every monitoring well was sampled each quarter beside a groundwater filing where one well ran dry and was replaced.
09Before signing
Six gates open, and the signature stays shut until each one closes
Tailings lead
All tables tied, the water balance sheet updated, each outsider finding decided, uncertainty statements checked, the restated number decided, and a sample of tied tables opened and agreed. Until then nothing can be signed. After the lead signs, the reporting coordinator reads the signed report and files it as the second person.

What a tough reader of the published report would ask first

Three of the outsider reader's findings on this draft. The lead decides each, and that reader is sometimes mistaken.

The gap to the profile keeps widening

Over the profile by 8.9% five years ago, 19.0% now, widening five years running, and the draft does not say why.

Opening water is not last year's close

This year's table opens from a sheet built on an autumn survey, not from the close that was already filed.

Two totals for one quantity

The summary and the table give two different ready-to-reclaim totals.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Five ponds at year-end, as the fluid tailings report will state them

Million cubic meters of fluid tailings, legacy and new, with each survey's uncertainty.

Pond	Legacy	New	Total and survey range
Pond 1	38.7	0.0	38.7, ±0.6
Pond 2	278.4	132.2	410.6, ±3.7
Pond 3	31.6	34.1	65.7, ±1.0
Pond 4	0.0	39.2	39.2, ±0.7
Pond 5, in-pit	0.0	6.3	6.3, placeholder until its survey is read

demoSample data, from the working solution. The site range adds as the square root of the sum of the squares: ±3.9.

Around the report

Ponds, uncertainty and restated numbers in the annual report

Six more screens that the tailings team, the coordinator and the reviewer use before filing.

Five tailings ponds with section sketches, volumes, survey ranges, water caps and survey status, plus two treated deposits — **Five ponds and two deposits**Each pond drawn in section with legacy, new, total, survey range and water cap. Pond 5's survey is 36 days late, so its number is marked placeholder.

Uncertainty and adequacy statements for 14 monitoring datasets, with owners and three statements blocked — **Uncertainty and adequacy**One statement per dataset, drafted for its owner to confirm. A late survey or an old density blocks the statement instead of passing as adequate.

Proposed restatement of a filed pond volume from 33.0 to 32.2, with the growth it implies and who decides — **A filed number, proposed for change**Cone tests put Pond 4's hard bottom higher, moving last year's 33.0 to 32.2. The engineer proposes, the lead decides, and the regulator rules.

Tailings reporting work queue by person, with findings to decide, the sample check and the signature, each with a due date — **Work, by person**Eight findings, the sample check and the signature on the lead's list, each with a due date and a clock. Counts for each person sit on top.

Fluid tailings report table list with owner, number count, source and tied, untied or waiting status — **38 tables, 1,840 numbers**Each table with its owner, count of numbers, source and status. Search any number, pond, parameter or source across the whole report.

Audit trail for the tailings report: correction proposed and checked, re-tie and outsider reading, each with a hash — **Audit trail**Agent steps and people's decisions, newest first, each with a hash. The trail and an evidence pack download as files.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

The agents

Six agents assemble the report, and none may change a value in it

They read, build, tie, test and question. People correct.

Source reader

Reads surveys, lab reports, the workbook and plant extracts, and records where each value sits.

Leaves each source as it arrived
Does not guess at a late one

Report assembler

Builds the tables and the draft words.

Never papers over a missing number
Never concludes on a threshold

Tie-out agent

Ties each number to its source and traces each gap to its cause.

Never changes a value

Profile tester

Tests volumes against the approved profiles and thresholds.

Never says the regulator has decided
Always shows the uncertainty with the margin

Uncertainty writer

Drafts the uncertainty and adequacy statement for each dataset.

Never calls data adequate when its source is missing

Outsider reader

Reads the draft against last year, the plan and other filings.

Never changes the report
Can be wrong, and is overruled with a reason

Who corrects, who checks, who signs and who files

The largest action is a public filing, so it takes two people at the end as well.

Tailings engineer

Sees: Each untied number on his ponds, and the source page behind it
Signs: Proposes corrections and restatements, after opening the source

Water balance specialist

Sees: The sheet behind the tables, and what still uses an old value
Signs: Proposes changes to the water balance sheet

Tailings lead

Sees: The same source page, opened by her before any check
Signs: Each correction, each outsider finding and the report

Environmental reporting coordinator

Sees: Late sources, the signed report and its sample tables
Signs: Files as the second person, and countersigns a high finding kept as drafted

Compliance reviewer

Sees: Everything, with no control that writes
Signs: Nothing; downloads the trail and the evidence pack

What tailings leads ask about the annual tailings management report

What goes into a tailings management report?

The annual tailings management report states fluid tailings volumes against the approved profiles and thresholds, the water balance, fines, treated deposits and monitoring, with each dataset's uncertainty and adequacy. Here every number in it is tied to the survey, lab report or plant record it came from.

Is this tailings reporting software a replacement for our surveys or models?

No. It reads the survey contractors' reports, lab results, the water balance workbook and plant records you already have, and ties the report to them. It changes none of them.

What happens when a survey arrives late?

The tables that wait on it are marked waiting, the pond's figure is labeled placeholder, and its uncertainty says not stated. A waiting table keeps the signature locked, so a placeholder cannot be filed as a measurement.

Does the product decide whether a threshold is crossed?

No. It shows the reported value, the survey range and the room to each trigger. The regulator decides, and the report says so.

Can the outsider reader be wrong?

Yes. The tailings lead can keep a draft as written with a reason. A high finding kept as drafted needs the reporting coordinator's countersignature.

What if a number we already filed was wrong?

The engineer proposes a restatement with the evidence, and the lead decides. The filed value stays on record, and the report carries the justification for the regulator to rule on.

Production Operations & Oil Sands

Test a past filing
against its own sources.

We will tie your draft to its sources and show you each gap before the report goes public.

Book a demo Browse solutions

Tailings Management Reporting

A tailings management report is published exactly as filed

The Problem Today

The Solution

What You Get

One gap in the fluid tailings report, traced and corrected before filing

206.1 million m³ in the draft, 7.5 below the first trigger

Table 6 carries 126.5 where the survey page says 132.2

The water balance sheet still divides by last cycle's density

The engineer opens page 14 of the survey before he may correct

Proposed 404.9 to 410.6, and it waits for someone else

Tables 1, 2 and 4 follow once the lead opens the same page

Now 211.8: 1.8 below the trigger, and 215.7 at the top of the range

Another filing says a well changed, and this draft says all 12 were sampled

Six gates open, and the signature stays shut until each one closes