Gap851 Final Report Main Body
Yüklə 2,78 Mb.
|
Mr Koos Bosmanb. 1966 Current position: Consulting Rock Engineer, Managing Director of Open House Management Solutions (OHMS) Qualifications: National Diploma in Mining - Witwatersrand Technikon National Higher Diploma in Rock Engineering - Witwatersrand Technikon Graduate Diploma in Engineering – Witwatersrand University M Eng – Witwatersrand University (hopes to complete the final subject in December 2004)
KB started work as rock engineering practitioner in April 1990. He spent 7 years at Avgold’s Hartebeestfontein Gold Mine (1993-2000), where he was head of the Rock Engineering Department. In 2002, KB became a consulting Rock Engineer and Managing Director of Open House Management Solutions (OHMS). OHMS has 38 staff members (15 certificated rock engineers, 2 administrators and 21 seismic technicians and processors). Regular clients include AngloGold Ashanti’s Vaal River Operations, Durban Roodepoort Deep’s NW Operations, Blyvooruitzicht and East Rand Proprietary Mines, and some eastern Bushveld Complex platinum mines (Modikwe, Two Rivers.) Date of interview: 28 September 2004 STATUS REPORT 1. FAMILIARITY WITH ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH WORK 1.1 How many reports have you read? Which have had the greatest impact on your work? KB said that the early seismological research, which involved the development of monitoring systems and analysis methods, has had the greatest impact on his work. He makes use of these products on a daily basis. KB has also found the work on rock mass behaviour to be very valuable, as he had gained important insights. He specifically mentioned studies of creep in off-reef excavations carried out by Francois Malan and Karsten Drescher. KB noted that creeping tunnels have had a severe impact on mining operations – in one instance an entire refrigeration complex had to be relocated. KB said that the focus of SIMRAC work had moved to topics that were not relevant to him. Many SIMRAC projects were focused on new and/or deep mines, rather than the problems encountered in a mine that is approaching the end of its life, when remnant and shaft pillar extraction predominates. KB has the sense the amount of SIMRAC research being done in the Klerksdorp region has been diminished. He suggested that this might be due to its distance from Johannesburg-based researchers. KB said that he has no knowledge of Coaltech 2020, FutureMine and Platmine programmes as none of his clients were involved. The single exception is a FutureMine project dealing with the mining of remnants that was subsequently taken over by SIMRAC. He commented that the project “seems to have fizzled out”. KB made the following comments when the interviewer showed him several recent SIMRAC publications: Guidelines for measuring and analyzing continuous stope closure behaviour in deep tabular excavations, by DF Malan, August 2003: “Never seen it” Strata control bridging course for illiterate mine team workers, by TO Hagan and AJ Banning, April 2004: “Saw it for the first time at the recent SANIRE Symposium”. Practical Rock Engineering Practice for Shallow and Opencast Mines, by TR Stacey and AH Swart, October 2001: “I have used it a lot” Rock Engineering Handbook and Textbook, both edited by AJ Jager and JA Ryder: “Two of the most useful projects. I have used both extensively as a reference guide and for communication. The explanation of ERR in the textbook is brilliant. I would like them to have been published in hardback. The syllabus for the Chamber of Mines Rock Mechanics certificate probably only requires these two book, plus Stacey and Swart”. The interviewer also noticed both the SIMRAC Numerical Modelling Guide and the Support Catalogue on the shelves in KB’s office. KB said that he feels that there is a severe lack of communication by SIMRAC, and that SIMRAC’s communication has changed for the worse. KB commented that he believed that the number of reports read and knowledge of projects would decrease with time. KB said that he does not use the SIMRAC web site much anymore as he has the CD’s. The contents of all the SIMRAC CDs are loaded on the OHMS server, though KB does not believe that they are used much. KB said that presentations are required to entice people to read the reports.
KB said that he found the annual SIMRAC report back seminars (held at Mintek or Kloof Gold Mine) to be very useful, and he attended them all. These were events where he could find out what was going on, and where to get involved. But these have stopped. KB said that he had not received invitations to the recent SIMRAC Rockfall and Rockburst workshops, and neither had his OHMS colleagues (KB had checked this with Jurgens Hamman and Andy Brown). If they had been invited, OHMS would probably have decided to send a representative. There certainly was no decision to boycott the events. KB said that he thought that he might have been omitted from the invitation list, as he had been critical of a previous SIMRAC workshop aimed at developing future research thrusts. KB had expressed the view that people were only interested in pushing their own interests. With regard to Conferences, KB said that he is not aware that much SIMRAC material is presented. And when SIMRAC material is presented, it tends to be once the project is completed rather than progress reports inviting participation. With regard to SIMRAC technology transfer workshops; KB said that he had attended a workshop where the findings of a platinum pillar design project were presented. Many platinum rock engineers expressed the view that the study had neglected many important factors. KB said that he was always a big supporter of the “roadshows”, and would take all his staff along for a morning if one were offered in Klerksdorp. KB said that OHMS had sent 13 delegates to the recent SANIRE Symposium in Potchefstroom. KB said that OHMS writes into its contract with employees the requirement that they keep their knowledge current by regularly attend training courses.
KB said that in the past he had had a lot more time to become personally involved in research projects. He described his involvement in the following projects:
KB said that he thought researchers might be reluctant to ask consultants such as OHMS, rather than mining company employees, to participate in research projects as consultants might expect a “slice of the pie”. However, he felt that a company like OHMS could do some of the research work “a hell of a lot cheaper”, and felt that there could be a mutually beneficial relationship. 1.4 Have you hosted projects on your mine(s)? See 1.3 above and 1.6 below. 1.5 N/A 1.6 Have you been a mine/industry champion for a project? “No”. In reply to a question by the interviewer, KB said that mine specific projects could result in better technology transfer because of greater commitment. He mentioned the preconditioning work being done by Wikus Marnitz at Mponeng as an example. 1.7 Have you implemented research knowledge and technology? KB described two implementations that had been very successful:
1.8 Have you personally performed research work? “No, not in classic sense.” KB has written papers on operational issues, and been a co-author of papers on tunnel deformation with DF Malan. KB said that he had once carried out work under a SIMRAC contract, but did not see it as an attractive market for OHMS, as suppliers can only submit an invoice once SIMRAC invites them to do so! KB said that he is willing to give SIMRAC comment, but not work for them. 1.9 Have you proposed research projects to SIMRAC? KB said that he had tried, but he had been frustrated. He felt that he had “run into a wall”. He had tried to call for work on the human element and on remnants, but had not seen anything emerge (apart from work done on remnants by Trevor Rangasamy for FutureMine). KB said that he believed that one of the OHMS staff members, Jannie Taljaard, had an exceptional “gut feeling” for strategies to mine remnants. As remnant mining is here to stay, we need to find out how to capture this knowledge and experience, for example in an expert system, or an equation. KB said that he did not think that the industry spends enough time thinking about their research needs. The Group RE’s forum had been an effective in thrashing out ideas. DRD does not see participation in discussions to set research direction as contributing to their bottom line and thus is not prepared to pay him to do this. The interviewer mentioned to KB that Johan Laas and Michael Dunn (both of Anglogold Ashanti) had expressed the view that they thought that they could represent the views of consultants such as KB at SIMRAC forums. KB said that while it was probably true that he and Johan Laas have similar views about issues, he does not think that Laas has a full understanding of his needs, or would promote them as vigorously. KB supported the idea of detailed interviews with practitioners to determined research needs. In this context, the quality of thinking would carry more weight rather than the force of personality. Here KB mentioned a colleague, Danie Ras, who has done some hugely important work relating to wide reef mining (e.g. chamber stopes at Lorraine Gold Mine) that is applicable to Target and South Deep mines and a large part of the future of SA’s gold mining industry. Danie, however, has a reserved personality and refuses to attend workshops or SIMRAC meetings in Johannesburg.
“No.”
1.11 Have you evaluated research progress and outputs? “No, not formally.” 1.12 How could the SIMRAC research program be improved? KB said that while he did not believe more formal reviews were necessary, there was a need for more and better communication between researchers and practitioners. Researchers tend to follow their own minds rather than try to discover what the end-user would find useful. KB said that there is a mindset that research “must always produce an answer”. He does not believe that it is always possible to do so, though the people approving projects and granting money probably wouldn’t agree! KB said that he regarded a lot of the newer researchers as clever, but thought that they lacked the practical experience necessary to come up with implementable solutions. There was a need for closer work with practitioners. KB also said that projects were often attached to individuals, and “died” when the person left the research organization e.g. Gary York’s pillar design project, Trevor Rangasamy’s remnant project. KB again endorsed the need for greater personal involvement between researchers and practitioners rather than more formal review. He mentioned how his relationship with Francois Malan studying time-dependent rockmass behaviour had been very beneficial and productive. 2. IMPACT OF ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH WORK 2.1 Has research work enable you to do your work better? KB said that he thought that perhaps 20% of what SIMRAC produced had been useful to him (see section 1.1). He was not sure whether this should be regarded as good or bad. KB said that he has used the Support Design Analysis (SDA) tool for both deep and shallow applications. He has found it to be a useful tool, even though he has found some bugs in it, and believes that there are some shortcomings in the design criteria (e.g. the question whether the face itself can be considered to be a “support element”). KB said that he thought that the publications had been the most useful products. The Numerical Modelling Guides are great references for constitutive models. 2.2 Has research work improved safety in the SA mining industry? KB commented that there has been some improvement in safety statistics on gold mines, but attributes this to the scrutiny brought about by the listing of shares on international markets rather than to research. KB expressed some scepticism around the interpretation of the safety statistics for the SA mining industry. Presentations are made where dramatic improvements are claimed on some mines, yet there is little improvement for the industry as a whole. Does this mean that some mines are doing far worse? Is so, who are they?
See 2.1 above. 2.4 How would you describe the research work carried out by SIMRAC? (a) KB said that some work has been of a very academic nature, e.g. work by ISSI on “seismic viscosity” and ray tracing. (b) KB said that the he thought that the early SIMRAC work was more practice orientated that the later work. He emphasized that he did not believe that all work should be practice orientated, and that there should be some research work that produces knowledge and understanding rather than practical products. KB mentioned the work done by the team led by John Napier that had produced much understanding, which could be the foundation and building blocks that will ultimately help answer the question: “how fast can you mine a remnant?” (c) and (d) KB said that he believes the SIMRAC work has been safety-focused “to death”. He believes that this aspect has sometimes been driven too hard, and the importance of productivity has been neglected. (e) KB said that he thought that the work had ranged from very sophisticated to very ordinary, though perhaps it was the ordinary stuff that had made the biggest impact. He believed that a lot of the work had been world class. KB asked the question: “how much of the research work is done merely to ensure a continued flow of funding?” 2.5 Are research products effectively transferred to practitioners? KB mentioned the following barriers to effective knowledge transfer to practitioners: KB said that he thought that there had been shortcomings in communication as he was ignorant of projects, had been only marginally involved, and had received little feedback. With regard to workshops and seminars, KB commented that very often these are attended by the Head of Department, while “the chap who really needs it, gets left out”. KB commented that they had tried to make the recent SANIRE Symposium accessible to as many people as possible by keeping the registration fees low, but he had been very disappointed in the turnout. 2.6 Are practitioners able to effectively implement the research? KB mentioned the following examples of successful implementation:
KB noted with concern the conflict between ISSI and Miningtek. As a result, technologies develop by Miningtek (e.g. software for moment tensor inversion) are not available to users of ISSI systems. The interviewer asked KB whether he had any knowledge of the DeepMine Schools. He replied that the DRD staff that had attended the schools had given “very positive feedback”. 2.7 Have SIMRAC funds been well spent? KB agreed with the statement, saying: “Seismics has been a revelation. If we compare our practice today with 1991, there has been a hell of an improvement. Seismic data is being used on a day-to-day basis to improve layouts. Until 1993 it was necessary to phone the Klerksdorp Mine Managers Association to request a plot of seismicity, then drive to their offices to collect it. Now one can do just about anything with the click of a mouse.” KB said that a lot or work directed towards improving understanding (e.g. by Napier and Malan) had proven very useful. It had given the scientific framework for things that have been learned in experience. KB commented that just because a technology worked in one place, doesn’t imply that it will work everywhere. However, KB commented that a huge amount of work produced by SIMRAC has never been used, when it should have formed the foundation for further work.
KB predicted the following changes:
4. What advances could significantly address the above-mentioned changes? KB identified the following advances:
5. What advances could significantly reduce rock-related safety risks? KB identified the following advances:
6. What factors could improve rock-related safety? KB elected to comment on each point rather than to rank them. The training of in-stope workers must be directed at fundamentally changing their behaviour. Up till now the concept of “knowing the why” as well as “knowing the what” has been applied, but has not worked very well. KB believes that the bonus system has a lot to do with it. Once production incentives are given, other things get lost. Perhaps the findings of research work directed at understanding worker behaviour will filter back to training. Simple methods to detect hazardous structures are needed, not just ahead of mining, but also in areas where you are already mining. Many workers have difficulty in picturing the rock mass in three dimensions and visualizing the hazard posed by joints, beams, and wedges. Greater mechanization could have an important impact, and not only because of debilitation owing to HIV/Aids. The use of low-profile LHDs for stope cleaning in platinum mines has proven to be very effective. There is no need for a quantum improvement in support systems, though perhaps some small improvements in yieldability would be beneficial. KB went on to say that he had not investigated a single fatality where he could have said, “if there had been a different support system, the guy would not have been killed”. KB said that he believes we make a mistake by trying to engineer out the human factor and environmental variability, because a greater factor of safety is then required. We must rather equip and train the humans to handle the variability better. Yes, good supervision goes hand-in-hand with training. Yes, seismic prediction is obviously the ultimate goal, though KB said that he has no idea of how this we can be achieved. KB said that, in his experience, very few rock-related accidents have been due to a breech of the standards or codes of practice (though he knows that this in not necessarily the case for the industry as a whole). What we need to do is to change the mindset and culture so that things are done correctly the first time. KB said that the attitudes of mine workers might be a reflection of our general culture and life in the high-risk African environment. KB said that he thought the inspectors sometimes “miss the boat” in their findings and actions following an investigation into a rock-related accident. For example, an inspector stopped all mining on up-dip panels, but the cause of the fatality had been the failure of the mineworker to release the Camlock prop remotely, rather than any fault in the layout. KB said that he thought improvements in stress modelling techniques to simulate rock degradation and failure could contribute significantly to understanding and predicting remnant failure. He suggested that this might be a precursory step to the prediction of rockbursts. KB said that that he believed that while there is plenty scope to implement what we already know, he is not sure to what extent this would reduce rock-related accidents. We should go out and discover why implementation has not taken place. Perhaps it is due to stubbornness, resistance to change, or the “not invented here” syndrome
KB strongly agrees that research work should continue, though perhaps with a different focus and practice. Knowledge and technology must improve if the industry is to be competitive. 7.2 Should research effort be increased significantly? KB says that the effort should be improved and focused, and we should realize that we can’t please everyone at the same time. 7.3 Do we have the research competency? KB said that he found it difficult to assess whether we have the required span of competencies, as many researchers have recently changed employers. KB said that he believes that researchers have knowledge, and many have research skills, but few have practical experience. KB does not believe that this is an insurmountable problem – it can be solved through secondments and coaching. 7.4 Do we have the research capacity? KB said that he was unable to comment, as he does not know what the volume of research work is 7.5 Do we have the research facilities? KB said that the thought that some facilities were under utilized e.g. the MTS at Wits University. 7.6 Should the focus be on implementation rather than on more research? KB said that he thought it would be important to find out why implementation was not very successful in the past so that we can try to do better in the future. It is pointless to strive to implement a new technology if there is no compelling reason to do so. 7.7 Should research work be abandoned? KB strongly disagreed with the statement that research should be abandoned. 7.8 Would stricter enforcement have a greater impact than more research work? KB said that he hates to compare research with the enforcement of regulations and codes of practice. “They serve different purposes, and we have to do both. If we only enforce, we might achieve some change and gain, but then we will stagnate again. What we are looking for is continued improvement!” Yüklə 2,78 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|