Gap851 Final Report Main Body

G – Report: Prof. H. Wagner

Professor Wagner was taken gravely ill during May 2005, and was unable to deliver a written report.

Dr Durrheim and Prof. Wagner had a meeting in Johannesburg on 24 March 2005, during which Prof. Wagner gave detailed feedback on a draft version of the final report, and also discussed the content of his report on the state of rock engineering research in Europe. Dr Durrheim took notes during the meeting, and these are reproduced below. While these are incomplete, they provide some insight into Prof. Wagner’s thinking.

Little of the rock-related research currently being conducted in Europe has direct relevance to South Africa. The European rock engineering research community is presently in a dilemma: all research organizations similar to CSIR Miningtek have been closed, with the exception of the Polish mining research institute. The situation at universities is quite similar, with a large number of sub-critical groups.

Poland: There is still a strong mining culture, with four mining schools. Research on rockbursting in deep copper mines (1200 m) is relevant to South Africa.

Germany: The coal mining research laboratories have been commercialized, and now function as a consultancy. Karlsruhe University will not be replacing the rock engineering professor following his retirement. Clausthal University focuses on the mechnics of salt.

Britain: The national coal mining research laboratories have been closed.

France: Ecole du Mine (in Nancy and Paris) do not have substantial groups.

Austria: Graz University has quite a strong group focussing on tunnelling.

The South African industry cannot rely on outside help in quite a number of areas, especially with regard to shallowly-dipping tabular hard rock mining. There are virtually no other mines operating in this environment anywhere else in the world.

The major global mining companies have made a mistake by not investing in the training of mining engineers.

Prof. Wagner indicated that he would indicate how the South African gold mining companies should identify their major problems. He compared the gold mining industry to the German army in Russia, “trying to retreat with heavy losses”. The industry lacks a strong spokesman to articulate the needs. Black Economic Empowerment has aggravated the situation, as it has provided an opportunity for the well-structured companies to “hand over the problems to people not as well-equipped to deal with them”.

Prof. Wagner indicated that he had had a long discussion with Ms May Hermanus, the Chief Inspector, at a conference in India. One of her major concerns was small-scale mining. Prof. Wagner said that it is important to distinguish between the “one man and his wheelbarrow” operations, and opportunities to go into old mines to extract remaining reserves. Prof. Wagner said that there are still substantial reserves of high quality coal left in the Natal coal mines, but the conditions are very treacherous. A lot of stooping was carried out in the past. This causes fractures in roof strata, shear zones, seam displacements, and interaction between seams. No good mine plans are available, and it is difficult to figure out what was done in the past.

Prof. Wagner commented that the “coal in the Witbank area is not as unlimited as we thought”. It is necessary to look at the Waterberg coal field, which is unmineable with present methods. COMRO had conducted a study together with British Mining Consultants. The mining zone is 80 to 90 m thick, comprised of coal, sandstone, carbonaceous shale, etc.

Prof. Wagner emphasised that: “Safety starts with the design of the mine. If you start badly, you are always trying to correct.” The mining industry will be forced, more and more, to go into areas that are geologically disturbed. This will have an impact on safety in the future.

Prof. Wagner recommended that the report on the Coalbrook disaster should be read again: “It is a real eye-opener on how things go wrong!”

Prof. Wagner said that seismic research should focus on conditions of instability. He also commented with concern that the gap between management and the seismologist has grown. A situation where one side takes all the blame, and the other is exempt, is not tenable.

H – Research contract

DEPARTMENT OF MINERALS AND ENERGY

PROPOSAL FOR A PROJECT TO BE FUNDED IN TERMS OF THE MINERALS ACT


DME REFERENCE NUMBER

SIM 04 02 06b




(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)

TO BE SUBMITTED BY 12:00 NOON ON THE CLOSING DATE

1. PROJECT SUMMARY:

PROJECT TITLE: A holistic assessment of SIMRAC rock-related research to date



PROJECT LEADER: R. J. Durrheim




ORGANIZATION: CSIR : Division of Mining Technology (an equal opportunity employer )
ADDRESS: P O Box 91230, AUCKLAND PARK, 2006



TELEPHONE: [phone] TELEFAX: [phone] E-MAIL : [e-mail]

PRIMARY OUTPUT^1:	A succinct report giving an overview of the rock-related research work carried out by SIMRAC, as well as other agencies such as COMRO, DeepMine and FutureMine. The report will elucidate the relationship between projects, associate the accomplished work with the stated needs, and identify any gaps. This work will build on earlier reviews of SIMRAC research and recent work carried out by Miningtek to identify key questions in Rock Engineering. The report will make use of graphical techniques to communicate the findings effectively.
HOW USED?^2:	SIMRAC’s stakeholders will use the report to: Manage and evaluate the large body of research work carried out to date, Promote the dissemination and application of the research findings, and Ensure SIMRAC funds and existing research resources (high-level manpower, equipment, facilities) are effectively deployed in the future.
BY WHOM?^3:	Decision-makers in SIMRAC representing all stakeholders in the mining sector, viz. mining companies, government, labour, research and technology suppliers, providers of education and training.
CRITERIA FOR USE^4:	The output of this project is a tool for management and strategic planning. To be used effectively, it requires an understanding of the South African mining industry and the research process.
POTENTIAL IMPACT^5:	The report will: Enable stakeholders derive the maximum benefit from SIMRAC’s past investment in rock-related research by structuring, indexing and explicitly associating the previously identified needs and the completed work. Enable SIMRAC to ensure that funds and resources will be optimally deployed and developed by preventing duplication of past work, ensuring that any important gaps are filled, and focusing future research efforts.

FUNDING REQUIREMENTS (R 000s)	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3
TOTAL PROJECT COST (VAT exclusive)	865
TOTAL PROJECT COST (VAT inclusive)	986
TOTAL SUPPORT REQUESTED FROM SIMRAC (VAT inclusive)	986

DURATION (YY/MM) 2004/04 TO 2005/03

SIMRAC SUB-COMMITTEE:

AU/PT

X

COAL

X

OTHER

X

GENERIC

X

2. PROJECT DETAILS

1. 
   PRIMARY OUTPUT¹
   

The primary output is a succinct Status & Foresight Report giving an overview of the rock-related research work carried out since the inception of SIMRAC. The report will elucidate the relationship between projects, associate the accomplished work with the stated needs, and identify any gaps. The report will use graphics and charts to communicate the findings effectively.
The report will cover the following issues:

- Research needs identified by SIMRAC since its inception. A multi-dimensional classification scheme will be used to analyse the information e.g. hazard type (rockfall, rockburst, pillar stability), mining sector (open pit, underground, gold, platinum, coal), position on the fundamental-applied research continuum, type of output (device, guideline, data), etc.

- Research work accomplished by SIMRAC and other agencies. The numerous projects conducted by SIMRAC and other agencies (e.g. COMRO, DeepMine, FutureMine) will be associated with the research needs. The impact of the projects will be described e.g. status of commercialization, technology transfer, or implementation. For example, a survey of rock engineering practitioners could be conducted to establish the extent to which SIMRAC outputs such as the Support Design Analysis tool are being used. Simple metrics will be developed to quantify impact.
- Research management process i.e. the chain involving the identification of needs, call for proposals, selection as research suppliers, monitoring and evaluation of outputs, communication of findings, funding, recommendation for additional work, etc. The SIMRAC process will be compared to other rock engineering research programs
- Any unfilled gaps. The reason why these gaps remain unfilled must be documented.
- Future research needs. A short- and long-term analysis of research needs will be made using a risk-based approach. An attempt will be made to describe the resources (expertise, equipment, man years) required to carry out the various research projects, to quantify the impact of the research, should it prove successful, and to estimate the likelihood of success. Provisional ‘Details of Proposals’ will be compiled according to SIMRAC format.

1. 
   OTHER OUTPUTS (deliverables)¹
   

• 
  An annotated Electronic Presentation (Powerpoint format) that can be used to make the findings of this assessment explicit to high-level decision-makers or stakeholders lacking a technical knowledge of rock mechanics and rock engineering.
  

2.3 ENABLING OUTPUTS⁷

NO.	ENABLING OUTPUT	MILESTONE DATE	MAN DAYS	TOTAL OUTPUT COST (R000's) (excl VAT)
1	Techniques/tools to analyse and structure a large body of technical information and to communicate the findings effectively.	2004/06	8	70
2	Review and classify research needs previously identified by SIMRAC.	2004/06	8	60
3	Review, classify and evaluate the actual research work accomplished by SIMRAC and other agencies.	2004/10	53	430
4	Associate research needs with actual outputs and identify gaps	2004/10	12	70
5	Present a view of future research needs and the required resources.	2004/10	15	116
6	Draft final report.	2004/12	5	37
7	Review by international experts	2004/09	6	60
8	Final report	2004/09	3	22
	TOTAL		120	865

2.4 METHODOLOGY³

NO. OF ENABLING OUTPUT	STEP NO.	METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO ACCOMPLISH THE ENABLING OUTPUT (INDICATE STEPS/ACTIVITIES)
1		Assessment by panel of international experts
	1.1	Identify, in consultation with SIMRAC, a 3-person panel of international experts
	1.2	Arrange contract with experts
	1.3	Facilitate involvement by experts by providing them with all necessary information and documentation, seeking their input into all aspects of this assessment
2		Techniques/tools to analyse and structure a large body of technical information and to communicate the findings effectively
	2.1	Consult with specialists in the fields of knowledge and research management.
	2.2	Conduct on-line information searches
	2.3	Perusal of the outputs of any similar exercise.
3		Review and classify research needs previously identified by SIMRAC
	3.1	Study reports, minutes of committee meetings, calls for research proposals
	3.2	Interview members of SIMRAC committees and research suppliers
4		Review and classify the actual research work accomplished by SIMRAC and other agencies
	4.1	Study SIMRAC and other research reports.
	4.2	Conduct structured interviews and surveys of practitioners, researchers, manufacturers, SIMPROSS staff and SIMRAC committee members.
5		Associate research needs and actual outputs and identify gaps
	5.1	Use techniques identified in step 1 to structure and analyse the information gathered in steps 2 and 3.
6		Present a view of future research needs and the required resources
	6.1	Conduct structured interviews and surveys of persons involved in economic and technical forecasting relevant to the mining sector in general and rock-engineering in particular.
	6.2	Use web sites and on-line information searches to source relevant information
7		Draft final report
	7.1	Write draft report, synthesizing the findings of the surveys and assessments by the international panel of experts.
	7.2	Rigorous internal review by all contributors.
	7.3	Implement recommendations made by reviewers
8		Final report
	8.1	Distribute draft report to SIMRAC stakeholders for review.
	8.2	Implement recommendations made by reviewers
	8.3	Submit to SIMRAC in hard and electronic copy, together with an annotated electronic presentation.

Key Facilities and Procedures to be used in the Project Only a personal computer with a standard suite of office software and internet access is required. The participation of an independent panel of international experts will ensure that the assessment is unbiased and benchmarked against global best practice. It is proposed that the panel be comprised of three persons who are conversant with the South African mining industry and together have an in-depth knowledge of rock-related research activities in Australia, Europe and North America at the very least. The ability to source and distribute relevant published information rapidly is important. This will be expedited by prior knowledge of the research activities of SIMRAC and other agencies and access to on-line search facilities. Equally important is the ability to source tacit knowledge i.e. the perception and experience of stakeholders and specialists. A comprehensive and effective network of contacts across the mining and research community is needed.

2.5 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

The Status and Foresight Reports will be succinct yet comprehensive documents. They should support SIMRAC decision-makers for the next decade, at least. The Status and Foresight Report will be supported by simple graphics and charts that will make the findings explicit to high-level decision makers lacking a technical knowledge of rock mechanics and rock engineering. These will also be delivered as a Powerpoint slide show. The project leader (or an alternate) will present the findings at any occasion nominated by SIMRAC.

3. FINANCIAL SUMMARY

3.1 Financial Summary

		R 000s
	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3
Project staff costs (from 3.2)	485
Other costs:
Operating costs (from 3.3)	20
Capital & plant costs (from 3.4)
Sub-contracted work (from 3.5)	360
Presentations and Papers (from 3.6)
Sub – Total	865
Value added tax*	121
TOTAL COST OF PROJECT	986
Less funding from other sources (from 3.6)
Support requested from SIMRAC	986

• 
  Only for VAT registered concerns
  

3.2 Project Staff Costs

Reflect Man Days and Costs separately

NAME AND DESIGNATION	YEAR 1		YEAR 2		YEAR 3
	MD	COSTS
RJ Durrheim	60	443
JAL Napier	2	15
SM Spottiswoode	2	12
MKC Roberts	2	15
TOTAL (R 000s)	66	485

3.3 OPERATING COSTS (Running)

		COST (R 000s)
ACTIVITY/EQUIPMENT (Items above R10 000)	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3
Travelling	15
Other miscellaneous items	5
TOTAL	20

3.4 CAPITAL AND PLANT COSTS¹⁰

		COSTS (R000s)
(i) ITEMS TO BE PURCHASED OR DEPRECIATED FOR MORE THAN R10 000 PER ITEM	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3
Other miscellaneous items
TOTAL		-
		COST (R000s)
(ii) ITEMS TO BE MANUFACTURED WITH ASSEMBLED COST OF MORE THAN R10 000 INCLUDING MATERIAL AND LABOUR	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3
Other miscellaneous items
TOTAL TOTAL (i) and (ii)

3.5 SUB-CONTRACTED WORK

				COST (R000s)
SUB-CONTRACTOR	ACTIVITY	YEAR 1		YEAR 2	YEAR 3
		MD	COST
Prof TR Stacey	Rock engineering input	3	20
Prof MF Handley	Rock engineering input	3	20
AJ Jager	Rock engineering input	3	20
BHG Brady (Australia) Y Potvin (Australia) EH Brown (Australia) H Wagner (Austria) J Hudson (UK) A Vervoort (Belgium) R Brummer (Canada) S McKinnon (Canada) MDG Salamon (USA) U Ozbay (USA) E Esterhuizen (USA)	The review panel will be selected from the adjacent list. The cost has been calculated using typical current international consulting rates of $CDN135/hour or $CDN5,400 per 5-day week. At current exchange rates, this equates to about R30,000 per 5-day week.	15 15 15	100 100 100
	TOTAL	54	360

3.6 PRESENTATION AND PAPERS

	COST (R000s)
Activity	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3
TOTAL	-

3.7 OTHER FUNDING

ORGANISATION	NATURE OF SUPPORT/ COMMITMENT	AMOUNT (R000s)

4. MOTIVATION

(Provide a clear and quantified motivation of justification for the proposal, as well as the main conclusions of a literature survey and the findings of related local and international research. The motivation should include a synthesis of previous work in the project area, both locally and overseas, why the project is proposed what the primary output will achieve and a cost benefit analysis, if applicable. Use continuation pages where necessary but in most cases it should be possible to clearly present the key data and arguments in the space provided.)

SIMRAC has invested many millions of Rands in rock-related research since the inception of the program more than decade ago. Yet the improvement in injury and fatality rates has been marginal. There may be many reasons for this. Perhaps improvements in knowledge and technology have emboldened miners to tackle more difficult ground. Perhaps the transfer of knowledge to practitioners has been inadequate, or perhaps the practitioners have been under too much pressure to meet production targets to attempt implementation. Or maybe there has been a decline in the effectiveness of inspection and enforcement. The answer is probably a complex one involving all participants in the mining industry in one way or another: researchers, practitioners, trainers, workers, managers, and inspectors.

It is timely for SIMRAC to take stock to ensure that it is doing the best possible job given its role and resources. A rigorous and frank assessment of performance to date is necessary to enable it to do better in the future.

- Did SIMRAC ask the right questions? We need to assess the research needs that were identified in the past.

- Did the researchers succeed in filling the knowledge and technology gaps? We must look at the quality of the research work that was delivered. Did the researchers focus on the right issues or were they distracted by intellectual curiosity?

- Were the findings effectively transferred to the mining operation? If not, what are the bottlenecks?

While we can learn from the past, we can be sure that the future will be different. We need to be able to make informed forecasts so that we plan appropriately; taking a bi-focal view of the future that considers both the short- and long-term needs of the mining industry. In order to set short-term priorities, we would review hazards and risks, determine whether the required intervention is technical or social research, implementation of existing technology, training, management or regulatory, or some mix. In order to set long-term priorities, we need to forecast the likely evolution of our industry over the next 5, 10 and 20 years looking at issues such as the demand for commodities, mineral reserves and resources, level of mechanization, profile of mining-industry employees (age, education, gender, etc), environmental and social issues.

We must not only be introspective, but also look at the way in which rock-related research is conducted and directed elsewhere in the world. For example, the American Rock Mechanics Society sponsored a two-day forum entitled ‘New Directions for US Rock Mechanics’ in 1998 (see SD Glaser and DM Doolin, Int. J Rock Mech. Mining Sci., 2000; 37: 683-698). It was concluded that fundamental improvements in in situ rock mass characterization was of the utmost importance and should be the primary goal of future research. Then we should not only look at our discipline, but see what we can learn from other endeavours to improve health and safety e.g. crime prevention, public health, road safety, and manufacturing.

Rock stability continues to be a hazard to workers in the South African mining industry. This project can help us extract the maximum value from the work that has already been done, and to ensure that resources are optimally applied in the future.

5. CURRICULA VITAE OF PROJECT LEADER AND RESEARCH STAFF
5.1 SUMMARY INFORMATION
Project Leader

NAME & INITIALS: Durrheim, R J AGE: 47

QUALIFICATIONS (e.g. degree/diploma, issuing institution and date): B Sc (Geology, Physics) Cum Laude, Stellenbosch, 1977; BSc Hons (Geophysics), Wits, 1978; BA (Economics, Psychology), UNISA, 1984; MSc (Applied Geophysics), Pretoria, 1984; PhD (Seismology), Wits, 1990. SPECIAL AWARDS: MDG Salamon prize in Rock Mechanics 1998; CSIR Outstanding Achievers Award, 1999; SAIMM Silver medal, 2003

Principal Project Team Members

NAME & INITIALS: Napier J A L AGE: 57

QUALIFICATIONS (e.g. degree/diploma, issuing institution and date): BSc (Chem Eng-Wits) 1967, MSc (Chem Eng-Wits) 1971, PhD (Min Eng) (Wits) 1980 SPECIAL AWARDS: MDG Salamon award, 1990, 1997; SAIMM Silver medal 1992; Miningtek Innovation Award (Development of DIGS computer code), 1995. CSIR Outstanding Achiever: Team Award (Rockmass Behaviour team), 1998.

NAME & INITIALS: Roberts, M. K. C. AGE: 53

QUALIFICATIONS (e.g. degree/diploma, issuing institution and date): PhD (Eng), Wits, 1999.

MSc DIC, Royal School of Mines, Univ. of London 1977.

Chamber of Mines Rock Mechanics Certificate No.63, 1980.
SPECIAL AWARDS: SAIMM Silver medal, SAIMM gold medal

NAME & INITIALS: Spottiswoode S.M. AGE: 55 QUALIFICATIONS: (e.g. degree/diploma, issuing institution and date): BSc Stellenbosch, BSc Hons, PhD (Geophysics) WITS, 1980, Chamber of Mines Rock Mechanics Certificate. SPECIAL AWARDS: