Gap851 Final Report Main Body

Ms Shana Ebrahim-Trollope

Year of birth: 1959

Current position: Consulting Mine Seismologist and Technical Manager/Director GeoHydroSeis (GHS)

Qualifications:

1978-1983 BSc Honours Earth Sciences (Geology and Geophysics majors)

1994-1998 MSc Geohydrology (Geophysical Methods)

Experience:

SET completed her BSc Honours in 1983. She then spent two years (1984-85) as a junior researcher in crustal seismology at the University of the Witwatersrand. She then worked for Gencor as an exploration seismologist (1986–89), and for Toens & Associates as a groundwater geophysicist (1990-94). From 1995-98 she worked as a mine seismologist at Vaal Reefs Gold Mine. In 1998 Shana established (with her husband) the company GeoHydroSeis, which supplies mine seismology and groundwater services.

The mine seismology section of GHS employs 22 people (7 seismologists, including Shana Ebrahim-Trollip; 6 technicians, 7 data processors and 2 system administrators). GHS provides seismic monitoring services to 20 shafts, mostly in the Free State, Klerksdorp, Carletonville, Randfontein and Evander districts.

Date of interview: 9 December 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?

SET said that she had used the published literature extensively, especially the RaSiM symposium series, when writing her own papers.

She has read many of the SIMRAC reports dealing with mine seismology. Hardcopies of many of the reports had been printed and are available in the GHS offices. She has only read a few of the reports dealing with rock engineering.

The publication that has had the biggest impact on her work is the proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines (1982), in particular a benchmark paper by Dr Art McGarr that summarized techniques to quantify the seismic hazard (ppv, b-value, seismic efficiency, etc). SET commented that many of the techniques / concepts described in this paper are still not being applied on mines.

A second key publication was the SIMRAC project GAP017 (Seismology for rockburst prevention, control and prediction, Dr A Mendecki et al., ISSI), as all the mines GHS services use ISSI systems.

SET said that some of the SIMRAC reports were very bulky, and consequently she had not read the entire reports. Some were also written in a very cumbersome style, with the result that that had to be read several times in order to grasp the essence of the work. She mentioned GAP017 and GAP303 (Mine layout, geological features and geological hazard) as examples.

1.2 How many workshops and conferences have you attended?

SET commented on various meetings:

RaSiM and ISRM Symposia were quite useful, particularly for meeting people. She found that attending these meetings “brought her down to earth”, and reminded her that there “was a lot of knowledge out there”.

SANIRE meetings were too rock engineering focused, though this was the fault of mine seismologists for not contributing papers.

ISSI seminars were held in a great setting with good food, but were often disappointing from a technical point of view. They tended to be repetitive. Most presentations were case histories by rock engineers. The most recent seminar was, however, better with several new presentations on topics such as seismicity associated with opencast mines and a brilliant presentation on the tectonic controls of seismicity by Andy Froese of SRK.

SIMRAC was not effective in advertising events, especially technical workshops for industry. Often she would only learn of an event after it had happened. On occasions, she had phoned the SIMPROSS manager to find out if she could attend a technical workshop, and only received vague answers. SIMPROSS does not seem to maintain their email address list very well.

SET also said that there was no suitable forum for mine seismologists to discuss technical issues.

1.3 Have you supplied researchers with information?

SET said that she had played a number of roles with regard to SIMRAC research. In some instances she had been contracted to collect data. In other instances, she had supplied existing information to researchers in her capacity as the custodian of seismic data for client mines.

In the case of GAP303 (Mine layout, geological features and geological hazards) and GAP223/516 (Bracket pillar design methodology), she could probably be described as the “mine champion” for the projects, but had derived no benefit from them. The projects had failed to produce any new insights, and just reiterated conventional wisdom. SET said that there had initially been good communication with the GAP223/516 research team, but this had ceased when the leader, Debbie Selfe, left Miningtek.

SET had also assisted the researchers in the case of SIM 020302 (Proactive approaches to rockmass stability and control), but was of the opinion that the research had failed to produce anything of value. She believed that there were shortcomings with the methodology, and that the researchers had a limited understanding of mining practice. SET felt that the she could have offered advice that would have helped the research work produce useful results.

SET said that the Klerksdorp and Free State regions were often excluded from projects. There was a perception that researchers avoided working in these areas because they were too far from their home base.

1.4 Have you hosted projects on your mine(s)?

See 1.3 above.

1.5 N/A

1.6 Have you been a mine/industry champion for a project?

“Yes”. See 1.3 above.

1.7 Have you implemented research knowledge and technology?

SET described three implementations that she had been involved in:

The implementation of the Hazmap software (GAP 517). SET had been very involved in the project, though not in a paid capacity. The output of the SIMRAC project had been further developed by Tad Stankiewicz of Hamerkop software. GHS analysts use the software.

Seismic concepts and techniques (GAP 017) are used by GHS mine seismologists.

The Rock Engineering handbook (GAP 414) had also been very useful. GHS had purchased 8 copies. SET mentioned that the concept of seismic stiffness, advocated in the “Seismic Techniques” chapter, had not been subjected to peer review. Attempts by GHS to validate it using mine data had been very inconclusive.

1.8 Have you personally performed research work?

SET said that she had performed “development” rather than ”research”. Projects to which she had contributed included

GAP 517 (Quantification of seismic hazard from seismic events in mines – Hazmap),

020203 (Effective support for tabular stopes) ARE YOU SURE??. and

GAP 223/516 (Bracket pillar design methodology). She had participated in monthly meetings with Miningtek researchers.

SET expressed frustration that other researchers had failed to give her appropriate credit for ideas that she had first advanced. For example, SET had published a paper in 1997, where she had divided events into “fracturing” and “structural failure”. Other researchers had subsequently described A- and B-type events with similar characteristics, but without any reference to her earlier work.

SET said that she felt that papers by overseas researchers were valued more than highly than papers by locals.

1.9 Have you proposed research projects to SIMRAC?

SET said that she had participated in a few technical industry workshops. She had identified research needs within African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) and Harmony and communicated these to Dr Martin Pretorius (Consulting Rock Engineer), who is a member of the SIMRAC Rock Engineering Technical Advisory Committee (RETAC). One of these suggestions was subsequently advertised by SIMRAC (Quantifying seismicity in a remnant environment). SET said that she believes that SIMRAC should seek technical input from a wider circle than RETAC.

SET said that she had found SIMPROSS staff to be unprofessional in dealing with correspondence and phone calls. For example, no feedback was given when proposals were submitted, and answers to questions posed telephonically were sometimes vague or evasive.

1.10 Have you evaluated research proposals?

“No.”

1.11 Have you evaluated research progress and outputs?

“No, she had never been invited to do so.” SET said that she believes that she could have added value from her perspective as a practitioner rather than a researcher, and believes that other mine seismologists could do the same.

1.12 How could the SIMRAC research program be improved?

SET agreed that better review was required at all stages – proposal, progress, and final report.

SET said that in some instances it would be desirable to use independent international reviewers to deal with contentious issues.

SET said that it was desirable that project reviews are conducted at an earlier stage. The project launch is too late!

2. IMPACT OF ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH WORK

2.1 Has research work enabled you to do your work better?

SET said that the outputs of a few projects had enabled her to do her job better. She mentioned GAP 017 (Seismology for Rockburst Prevention, Control and Prediction), GAP 517 (Quantification of seismic hazard from seismic events in mines - HAZMAP).

Many other projects had failed to do produce knowledge and tools to enable her to do her job better, even though they were intended to address important issues. She mentioned GAP 303 (Mine layout, geological features and geological hazard), GAP 409 (Seismology for rockburst prediction), GAP 211 (Non-linear seismology), GAP 516 (Further Validation of Bracket Pillar Design Methodology), GAP 604 (Routine moment tensor inversion for design of stabilizing pillars), GAP 605 (Analysis of the processes which lead to potentially damaging seismic events associated with geological structures and highly stressed areas in extensively mined areas and old mines), GAP 714 (Software tool for managing rock related hazards in South African mines) and SIM 020302 (Proactive approaches to rockmass stability and control).

SET expressed concern that the outputs of some research projects are not adequately peer reviewed, for example parameters used to quantify seismicity.

2.2 Has research work produced knowledge and technology that have improved safety in the SA mining industry? / on your mines?

SET said that some research work had resulted in improvements in safety, but the majority had not.

SET mentioned the sequential grid mining method, preconditioning, and software tools such as MINSIM as examples of technologies that had contributed to improved safety.

SET said that she found it more difficult to comment on the knowledge that had been produced, as it is difficult to define the source of the knowledge. However, SET commented that she believed that the level of knowledge had actually regressed over the past five years, as a “plug and play” blackbox mentality had emerged.

2.3 Has research work improved safety on your mines?

SET said that she had clearly seen the contribution of research work to safety on some mines, such as the African Rainbow Minerals #2 and #5 Shafts near Orkney. Efforts to quantify seismicity, be proactive, participate in monthly planning meetings and increase awareness had been fruitful.

2.4 How would you describe the research work carried out by SIMRAC?

(a) SET strongly agreed that research work was academic in nature.

(b) SET disagreed that the research work is practice-orientated. SET commented that outputs are seldom in the form of practically usable tools or devices. By way of example SET mentioned the RockRisk expert system developed by Dr Steve Webber. SET believed that it failed to win acceptance because RockRisk was “too expert” for the typical mine practitioner. SET also mentioned a damage report form devised by AngloGold that demanded detailed input and had failed to win acceptance. She had devised a far simpler form that had been accepted. SET said that she believes that researchers offer too many alternatives, tend to be arrogant (often comments are made about the large amount of brain power present in a room), and try to look intelligent by presenting mathematical formulae.

(c) SET said that project descriptions express the intent that the research work is safety-focused, but the defined and actual outputs do not always match the intention. SET expressed the view that a peer review system would have sorted this out years ago.

(d) No comment recorded.

(e) SET said that we are fooling ourselves if we think that our work is sophisticated and world-class. We [the South Africans] cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. She said that we should learn to speak Chinese as she believes that there is important work been carried out in China of which we are ignorant! The interviewer asked SET for her opinion on the merits of work done by South African researchers presented in the RaSiM series of symposia. SET said that she thought that the South Africans “held their own”, or might even be ahead. SET said that she believed that there should be better links with the earthquake seismology research community, and that we have a perfect research laboratory in our deep mines that we should be using far better.

2.5 Are research products effectively transferred to practitioners?

SET strongly disagreed with the statement that “research products are effectively transferred to practitioners”. She identified the following shortcomings:

• 
  lack of peer review,
  
• 
  doubtful value of outputs,
  
• 
  many outputs are “academic” without a usable product such as a handbook or software,
  
• 
  there is only a single presentation to launch the outputs, and
  
• 
  no person/organization is given responsibility to ensure knowledge/technology transfer.
  

SET said that it was a good idea to identify champion mines. She also supported the notion of using contractors to carry out fieldwork in the mining districts.

2.6 Are practitioners able to effectively implement the research?

SET strongly disagreed with the statement that “practitioners are able to effectively implement research results and products”, as products such as software still have to be bought from the research suppliers and are sometimes extremely expensive. SET said that she was aware of the argument that resources other than SIMRAC funds are used to develop these outputs, and that a commercial return was expected.

SET mentioned peak velocity detectors and closure meters as examples of useful hardware products, though adding that she did not have any direct experience of their application.

In terms of concepts, SET said that “Energy Index” had proved useful, while “Seismic Stiffness” had not, despite determined efforts to apply it.

In terms of theoretical solutions, SET said that she had been unable to implements outputs such as moment tensor and location algorithms because they were not issued in suitable formats.

SET mentioned preconditioning and backfill as other examples of useful technologies that had been successfully implemented.

SET identified two main barriers to implementation:

• 
  the format of the research output, and
  
• 
  the lack of funding for researchers to promote their outputs to industry.
  

2.7 Have SIMRAC funds been well spent?

SET identified the following topics where she felt that SIMRAC funds had been well spent:

• 
  statistical estimation of seismic hazard (e.g. GAP 714),
  
• 
  compilation of international seismic knowledge (e.g. GAP 017), and
  
• 
  equipment for active testing.
  

SET identified several areas where she felt that it had not been well spent:

• 
  hardware and software for seismic monitoring and analysis,
  
• 
  theoretical / developmental seismology, and
  
• 
  quantifying the effects of seismicity.
  

SET explained her reservations further:

SET strongly expressed the view that if the outputs of research are to be restricted by copyright or sold, the Industrial Development Corporation, not SIMRAC, should fund the work. SET believes that some persons / organizations have been unreasonably enriched by SIMRAC money. While some software (e.g. relative moment tensor inversion developed by Dr Linzer) is issued free, it has to be adapted to run on any platform other than Miningtek’s Aura.

SET expressed the view that SA mine seismologists have not even reached consensus on something as basic as the calculation of magnitude. There has also been a tendency to promote a “black box” approach, where the techniques employed (to estimate seismic hazard, for example) are not disclosed. Peer review has been avoided.

Findings regarding source and damage mechanisms should be compiled into handbooks and better disseminated.

SET said that she believed that SIMRAC was perceived simply as a source of funds and basically used that way. “It is a feeding frenzy”. SET expressed the view that some research suppliers charge SIMRAC at a higher rate than they charge other clients.

SET commented that the intense competition for SIMRAC work between research suppliers has given rise to professional jealousy and mischief making. SET said that she believes the SIMRAC has contributed to this unproductive conflict by failing to appreciate the different roles and constraints of commercial consulting companies and research organizations such as CSIR Miningtek.

SET said that SIMRAC should take the role and structure of research suppliers into account when evaluating tenders. SIMRAC should also take capacity building into account.

SET expressed the view that Miningtek should be given full support to do research and not do any consulting. Miningtek should have a 20-year strategy that would ensure continuity.

FORESIGHT REPORT

3. What changes do you predict will affect the SA mining industry during the next decade?

SET predicted the following changes:

1. 
   Increase in remnant mining and “ore resource mining” (i.e. mining that is flexible enough to accommodate changes in grade and gold price).
   
2. 
   The tolerance for hazardous working environments will decrease, giving rise to labour issues.
   
3. 
   There will be an increase in the mining of base metals and other minerals as a result of the Mining Charter and the increase in demand from countries such as China.
   
4. 
   Efficiency will increase as individuals become more knowledgeable and assume greater responsibility. There will be a change from the attitude of “that’s not my job”, to one where individuals will take responsibility for all aspects of the operation.
   
5. 
   Skilled rock engineers and mine seismologists will become scarce.
   
6. 
   The monopoly in the supply of seismic monitoring systems will become an issue.
   

4. What advances could significantly address the above-mentioned changes?

SET identified the following advances:

1. 
   Clearer understanding of consequences of actions and interventions. Better statistics to quantify the effect of interventions are needed. Better knowledge and understanding would improve mining discipline. SET commented that millions of Rands are typically spent on seismic monitoring, but very little is spent on the intelligent interpretation of the data. In recent years even this little has been cut.
   
2. 
   A whole new range of potentially hazardous, environmentally damaging issues will have to be addressed e.g. slope failure
   
3. 
   More professional end-user handbooks that have been properly peer reviewed.
   
4. 
   Skills development through universities, bursaries, and SIMRAC-funded courses. SET said that the best academic background for mine seismologists was a hotly debated topic. Dr Mendicki (ISSI) maintained that physics and mining engineering were ideal. SET believed that a background in geophysics and rock engineering was preferable. She had reached this conclusion through observations of the competence with which various seismic networks were operated. SET said that she believed that SIMRAC should actively support capacity development, but had been made to feel like a “gold digger” when she sought SIMRAC bursaries for GHS staff doing post-graduate degrees.
   
5. 
   Proper promotion of the relevant professions (rock engineering, mine seismology) by adherence to international standards, not local certificates.
   

5. What advances could significantly reduce rock-related safety risks?

SET identified the following advances:

1. 
   Better discipline is not sufficient to reduce rock-related risks. What is needed is accurate and correct quantification of the rockburst phenomenon. Issues such as source mechanisms, support performance, effect of ground conditions, dynamic ejection versus gravity-driven falls of ground, must be better understood. SET said that mine seismology (unlike rock engineering) does not have validated criteria / guidelines to use in the management of the rockburst risk.
   
2. 
   SIMRAC should employ or support a decent statistician. For example, there is no consistency in the way in which information is reported by industry. Thus it is difficult to identify trends and make comparisons. It is important to have a consistent scheme to classify accidents. SET is aware of omissions in the mine accident database managed by the Department of Minerals and Energy.
   
3. 
   Analyse much more seismic data and in greater detail e.g. refractions, reflections, complex waveforms, large events. Develop other geophysical techniques, e.g. passive tomography.
   
4. 
   Improve technology transfer through training courses and the development of training materials e.g. videos, posters. SET suggested that practitioners spend time at Miningtek for training.
   
5. 
   Improve the understanding of rock mass behaviour on a smaller scale e.g. localized stress concentrators. SET said that focused projects seeking to solve specific problems on a single mine were likely to be far more productive than the generic projects that SIMRAC has tended to support.
   
6. 
   Produce a seismological map of the country similar to geological maps. It would identify the different tectonic settings, geotechnical areas, and their associated rock-related hazards.
   

6. What factors could improve rock-related safety?

SET ranked the factors listed in the questionnaire as follows, adding three additional factors (ranked 1, 2 and 7):

1. 
   A quantum improvement in the quantification and classification of rockburst source mechanisms. Generally only the magnitude and location of an event is determined. Better insight into source mechanisms could yield dividends. Since changing from longwall to sequential grid mining, there has been a decrease in the number of events associated with geological structures. With the implementation of ore-resource management mining, there had been an increase in the number of abutment events with M_L>0.5, causing serious problems. SET said that GHS currently uses E_S/E_P ratios to characterize the source, but believes that a lot more could be done.
   
2. 
   Development of additional geophysical methods.
   
3. 
   Techniques to detect hazardous structures ahead of mining.
   
4. 
   Stress modeling techniques that accurately simulate rock degradation and failure.
   
5. 
   A quantum improvement in design of support systems and discipline in installation. SET said that she sees some rock engineers “taking chances” with support systems.
   
6. 
   Stricter enforcement of regulations and codes of practice. SET said that the capacity and capability of the DME should be dramatically improved.
   
7. 
   Useful handbooks, posters and videos. SET proposed that a rockburst case history handbook be published that describes forensic investigations in detail, identifying diagnostic features. SET said that she had photographs that could be included.
   
8. 
   Better training of in-stope workers.
   
9. 
   Implementation of existing knowledge and technology. However, SET said that she doubted the validity of some of the seismic outputs.
   
10. 
    Better supervision. However, SET noted that management structures are changing. There is a move away from the allocation of responsibility to particular persons (shift bosses, strata control officers, etc) to a system where people have to take greater responsibility for their own safety.
    
11. 
    Greater mechanization, thereby removing workers from hazardous areas. SET said that she did not believe that greater mechanization would realistically occur in a country with 40 per cent unemployment, as the result would be greater poverty.
    
12. 
    Ability to predict reliably the occurrence of rockbursts in space and time. SET said that she did not think that this factor should even be on the list!
    

7. NEED FOR ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH

7.1 Should research work continue in SA

SET strongly agreed that research work should continue in SA. SET believes that practitioners should be encouraged to “put problems on the table”. She appealed for mine seismology workshops where detailed technical discussions could take place. SET advocated an equal split between theoretical, developmental and practical research.

7.2 Should research effort be increased significantly?

SET agrees says that the effort should be increased. She expressed the opinion very strongly that research institutions such as Miningtek and the universities should be supported rather than commercial enterprises.

7.3 Do we have the research competency?

SET disagrees that SA has the required competence. “While there are a lot of good engineers, there is a lack of geophysicists, structural and other geologists”. SET also expressed the view that the general level of academic competence is low. SET said that the most important lack, in her opinion, is experience. While some researchers may be academically brilliant, they may have little or no understanding of the mining industry, methods or environment. They are based live far from the mines, and seldom visit. SET said that researchers frequently request data from mines and analyze it without a proper understanding of the mine. It is important that researchers spend time on the mine so that they understand the environment and context

7.4 Do we have the research capacity?

See comments under 7.3 above.

SET believes that there is a capacity crisis. SET emphasized the need to develop indigenous research capacity, as non-SA citizens are lost to the country more easily.

7.5 Do we have the research facilities?

SET said that he thought that South Africa had the best research facilities (institutions such as CSIR Miningtek, universities, and the mines as laboratories). However, private enterprise had hijacked research work. SET said that she thought that this was a BIG PITY.

7.6 Should the focus be on implementation rather than on more research?

SET both agreed and disagreed with the statement, as both aspects need attention. SET reiterated her concern that SIMRAC work is not subjected to thorough international peer review. She expressed the view that implementation is sometimes attempted before the work has been properly validated.

7.7 Should research work be abandoned?

SET strongly disagreed with the statement that research should be abandoned.

7.8 Would stricter enforcement have a greater impact than more research work?

SET marked her response as “neutral” as both factors could make important contributions to mine safety.