Delivering end-to-end mineral processing, crushing, and infrastructure solutions across Africa
B&E International has built a reputation as a trusted provider of integrated mining, crushing, and mineral processing services.
From project design to full-scale plant operation, our multidisciplinary teams deliver safe, efficient, and sustainable solutions.
To deliver performance-based solutions that create long-term value for our clients, our people, and the communities we serve.
From mineral extraction to processing and commercial aggregates, we deliver complete, high-performance solutions for every stage of the mining value chain.
Site-specific components and engineered products improve operational efficiency and reliability.
Our portfolio showcases success stories across Africa, highlighting innovation, precision, and operational excellence.
Oranjemund, Namibia
B&E International performs beach accretion and overburden stripping and constructs and maintains seawalls at Namdeb operations in Oranjemund.
Mpumalanga, South Africa
Aggregate supply for the Kusile Power Station project, with Howard Quarry (then Kusile Quarry) delivering ±15 million tons of high-spec material.
Pemba, Mozambique
Expansion and upgrade of copper processing facilities, adding new flotation circuits, thickeners, and tailings management systems, resulting in a 40% increase in plant capacity.
We offer flexible project delivery models, tailored to your capital and operational needs. From service-driven O&M to full Mine Development and Operations (MDO), our models focus on risk management and a predictable cost-per-ton.
Capex-free operations
Fixed cost per ton production
Turnkey plant delivery
Performance-based contracts
Optimize costs and accelerate production with our tailored mineral processing, crushing, and contract mining solutions.
Plant ownership feels like operational control. In practice, for a significant number of South African mining and quarry operations, it becomes one of the most expensive decisions on the books.
Contract crushing offers a structured alternative. In the current capital environment across Gauteng and broader South Africa, it is the model that an increasing number of experienced operations managers are selecting. This post sets out the considerations you need to evaluate before committing either way.
Plant ownership means your operation purchases, commissions, staffs, and maintains the crushing and screening plant. The asset sits on your balance sheet. The operational risk sits with your team.
Contract crushing is a service arrangement in which a specialist contractor supplies a fully equipped crushing and screening plant, operates it with qualified personnel, and maintains it throughout the contract period. Your operation pays for tonnes produced. The contractor carries the equipment, the technical expertise, and the mechanical risk.
Both models produce crushed aggregate. The difference lies in who carries the cost, the risk, and the management burden of getting there.
The purchase price of a crushing plant is the most visible cost. It is rarely the largest one over a project lifetime.
Capital costs (CAPEX) to account for at the outset:
Ongoing operational costs (OPEX) that accumulate throughout the project:
For a mid-range crushing plant operating between 150 and 250 tph, the total cost of ownership over a five-year period, when downtime losses are properly accounted for, consistently exceeds the original CAPEX figure by a material margin. This is not a theoretical observation. It is what the operational data shows.
Under a properly structured contract crushing arrangement, the cost model changes fundamentally.
In place of unpredictable CAPEX and variable OPEX, the operation works to a structured cost-per-tonne or monthly operational rate. Within that rate, the following are covered by the contractor:
The result is a predictable, budgetable cost directly tied to tonnes produced. When the plant is not producing, the operation’s cost exposure is contained. When production requirements increase, the contractor scales accordingly.
| Factor | Plant Ownership | Contract Crushing |
|---|---|---|
| Initial capital outlay | High — significant CAPEX commitment | Low to zero upfront capital requirement |
| Operational cost predictability | Variable — subject to unplanned maintenance events | Fixed or structured rate against production |
| Downtime risk | Carried entirely by the operation | Carried by the contractor |
| Capacity flexibility | Limited by the fixed asset configuration | Adjustable — contractor scales to production requirements |
| Technical expertise | Requires qualified in-house recruitment | Included within the service arrangement |
| Wear parts management | Operation’s responsibility and procurement burden | Contractor’s responsibility |
| Balance sheet treatment | Asset recorded on the operation’s books | Treated as OPEX — capital remains available |
| Mobilisation for remote projects | Complex, costly, and time-consuming | Contractor manages full deployment logistics |
Ownership is not the wrong answer in every scenario. It is the appropriate choice when the following conditions are genuinely met:
Where any of those conditions are uncertain or subject to change, the ownership argument weakens considerably.
Contract crushing consistently delivers better value than ownership across the following scenarios.
Projects with a defined production timeline.
Construction and infrastructure projects, mining contracts, and quarry expansions operating over a two to five year window rarely justify the CAPEX of full plant ownership. A contract crushing arrangement delivers production from mobilisation without tying up capital in a depreciating asset.
Operations requiring rapid production ramp-up.
When a new mining contract is awarded or an infrastructure project demands immediate aggregate supply, an in-house plant that is not yet commissioned, or is undersized for the requirement, cannot respond. A contractor operating across the 50 to 500 tph range can match plant configuration to the production obligation from the outset.
Remote and cross-border project locations.
Deploying and maintaining owned crushing equipment at remote sites in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, or cross-border locations including Namibia, Botswana, or Mozambique introduces logistical and maintenance complexity that specialist contractors are specifically structured to manage.
Operations where capital preservation is a priority.
Releasing CAPEX from equipment ownership allows that capital to be directed towards the activities that generate the operation’s core margin: mining, processing, and project delivery.
Not all contract crushing services operate to the same standard. A procurement evaluation should examine the following before any contract is awarded.
B&E International, a member of the Raubex Group (JSE: RBX), delivers integrated crushing and screening solutions to mining, quarrying, and construction operations across Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, and throughout Southern Africa.
Operating from our Kempton Park base on the East Rand, our teams deploy crushing and screening plants across the 50 to 500 tph range, configured to your material specification, product requirement, and project timeline. Our operators are qualified, our maintenance programmes are structured, and our production reporting is transparent.
We carry the plant. We carry the technical expertise. Your operation carries the output.
If you are evaluating contract crushing against plant ownership for an upcoming project, the time to have that conversation is before capital decisions are made.
Our team will assess your throughput requirements, project timeline, and material specification, and provide an honest evaluation of what each model will cost your operation in practice.