Why Your Mine's Drilling Costs Are Higher Than They Should Be

If you've ever had to explain a line item for 'drilling consumables' to a finance director who's never set foot underground, you know the feeling. They see the number and they don't see the value. I've been managing procurement for a mid-sized mining contractor for the past six years—roughly $3.5 million annually across drilling tools, explosives, and underground logistics. And honestly? The biggest money drain isn't the price of the steel. It's everything else.

The Surface Problem: 'Drill Bits Are Too Expensive'

Most people—my boss included, until I showed him the data—assume the problem is the unit cost of the tool. That we're being overcharged for the rock drill or the drill rod. And sure, prices have gone up. As of Q3 2025, tungsten carbide prices are about 18% higher than 2020 (per the International Tungsten Industry Association). So the raw material cost is real.

But here's the thing: when I compared our Q1 and Q2 consumables spend side by side—same operation, similar rock conditions—the difference wasn't in the price we paid per unit. It was in how many units we went through. The 'cheaper' bits from Vendor A lasted 40% fewer meters than the Epiroc bits from Vendor B. The savings on the unit price? Completely eaten by the extra changeouts and downtime.

The Deep Cause: It's Not the Tool, It's the Match

I only truly believed that after ignoring it and watching our costs balloon. Everyone told me to standardize the spec across our three main sites. I didn't listen. I thought, 'We're drilling the same rock, right?' Wrong. What I mean is: ground conditions look similar on paper—same geology report—but site-specific abrasiveness and fracture patterns are wildly different. We were running a medium-hard rock button bit on a site that needed a ballistic carbide insert. The mismatch wasn't obvious until we tracked meters per bit over a full quarter.

Let me rephrase that: we were buying the right brand but the wrong variant. The Epiroc dealer actually flagged it during a routine service visit. Their rep pulled up usage data from our fleet of Boomer S2 jumbos and showed me that Site A and Site B had different wear patterns. If I remember correctly, we were replacing bits on Site B about 30% more frequently because we'd ordered the default spec instead of the site-specific optimized variant. That was a $12,000 mistake over the year—give or take—though I might be misremembering the exact figure.

Granted, this requires more upfront work. But the savings from matching the tool to the actual conditions, rather than the 'standard' spec, was way bigger than I expected.

The Hidden Cost: Downtime You're Not Tracking

I get why people focus on unit price—budgets are real. But the hidden costs add up in ways most dashboards don't capture. Our maintenance team logged unscheduled downtime for drill rigs. The time spent swapping a worn-out bit on a Boomer S2 isn't just the cost of the bit. It's the rig being idle. It's the drill crew standing around. It's the shift that comes up short on meters.

I consolidated our downtime logs for 2024 across eight rigs. The rigs running optimized tooling from Epiroc (the right spec, not the default) had about 40% less unscheduled downtime related to consumable failures. The 'cheaper' bit option from another supplier? The cost per hour of operation—including the bit, the changeout time, and the lost production—was nearly 25% higher. The lowest quoted price often isn't the lowest total cost.

My experience is based on about 200 consumable orders for a contractor with 400 employees across three sites. If you're running a single-rig operation or a different brand of equipment, your experience might differ. But the principle holds: track the total cost per meter, not just the per-unit price.

Here's what the data actually showed us:

At Site A (hard, fractured granite): The Epiroc optimized bits averaged 1,450 meters per changeout. The 'budget' alternative averaged 870. The budget bit cost 12% less per unit. But factoring in two extra changeouts per shift and the downtime that caused, the Epiroc solution was 18% cheaper per meter drilled. So glad my lead mechanic pushed me to run that test. Almost went with the budget option across the board to hit a quarterly savings target, which would have meant eating a higher cost for the next 18 months.

The Solution (Surprisingly Short): Ask The Dealer To Prove It

Here's what you need to know: the best vendors will run a site trial. Epiroc, for example, did a two-week test of their optimized bit series on our Boomer S2 at Site A. They didn't just send a brochure. They brought a rig specialist, measured our actual penetration rates and bit wear, and recommended a specific variant. The test cost us nothing but the labor to log the data.

Trust me on this one: if a supplier can't or won't do a site-specific recommendation and a test run, they're selling a commodity. And commodities are fine for some things—but for drilling consumables in variable ground conditions? The wrong fit costs more than the premium for the right one.

Total cost of ownership includes the base price, the changeout frequency, the downtime cost, and the risk of a failed tool causing a jam in the drill string. The 'premium' bit that lasts longer and fails less often is usually the cheaper option by the end of the month.

So if you're looking at your drilling consumables budget and thinking the numbers are too high—don't start by asking for a discount. Start by asking: 'Are we using the right tool for this specific site?' The answer will save you a ton more than negotiating five percent off the list price.