Gap851 Final Report Main Body

3.5Assessment

3.5.1Stakeholder perceptions

The questionnaire and transcripts of the structured interviews are listed in Appendix D, and are summarised below. The perceptions of the interviewees varied widely, and many useful insights were gained. All persons responsible for formulating SIMRAC strategy are urged to read the interviews, as some valuable insights may have been glossed over in the attempt to compile a concise summary.

3.5.1.1Impact of research

• 
  Research work has provided the knowledge and technology that has made deep level mining for gold and platinum possible. Key technologies include backfill, rapid yielding hydraulic props, pre-stressed elongates, stress modelling and mine design software, mine design criteria, dip-pillar layouts, seismic monitoring instrumentation, seismic analysis methods and tools, preconditioning, and rockbolts.
  
• 
  The lead-time for developing and implementing new technology is generally long, and often many different agencies contribute to the process. While it is often difficult to apportion credit to the different sponsors and research agencies, SIMRAC has made a substantial contribution.
  
• 
  SIMRAC research has contributed significantly to the formulation of the mandatory codes of practice to combat rockfall and rockburst accidents, required by the Mine Health & Safety Act (Act 29 of 1996).
  
• 
  SIMRAC research provided a foundation for some of the research carried out by the DeepMine, FutureMine, Coaltech 2020, and PlatMine collaborative research programmes.
  
• 
  The relatively slow rate of improvement in rock-related safety statistics over the past decade, despite the effort and investment in research, was attributed to a range of factors:
  

• 
  mining conditions having become increasingly difficult;
  
• 
  shortcomings in other components of the mining cycle, e.g. cleaning;
  
• 
  failure to implement existing knowledge; and
  
• 
  shortcomings in training, supervision and enforcement.
  

The lack of progress cannot be blamed solely on the scope or quality of research work, though this may be a factor.

3.5.1.2Scope and quality of research

• 
  Research work has focused on basic science and engineering, applied to health and safety. Limited attention has been given to the human factor, risk assessment, and technology transfer and implementation issues.
  
• 
  It was generally agreed that research work should include both fundamental and applied aspects. Some interviewees advocated that a component of work should address mine-specific problems.
  
• 
  Research work has tended to be generic, with limited detailed investigation of mine-specific problems.
  
• 
  Research outputs have largely been reports, databases, guidelines and methodologies. Relatively few “hard products” (e.g. devices, machines) have been produced.
  
• 
  Research work has focused on the gold mines in the Far West Rand region. Gold mines in the Klerksdorp, Free State, and Evander regions have received far less attention. This is largely attributed to the distance from the researcher base, Johannesburg, and not to a lesser need for research. Platinum mines have received relatively little attention compared to the gold mines.
  
• 
  The quality of work ranges from “outstanding” to “poor”.
  
• 
  Most interviewees had provided SIMRAC researchers with information and / or hosted experiments on their mines. In most cases the interviewees reported that their interactions with researchers had been unsatisfactory and that they had derived little if any direct benefit from the work or their involvement.
  
• 
  Most interviewees thought that the levels of funding, the competence and capacity of researchers, and the quality of equipment and facilities was adequate.
  

3.5.1.3SIMRAC / SIMPROSS processes

• 
  The continued existence of SIMRAC was accepted. There was a general desire to derive as much benefit from the program as possible.
  
• 
  While an improvement in management processes in recent years was noted, most interviewees were of the opinion that there was room for improvement at all stages of the process: identifying needs, adjudicating proposals, executing research, monitoring progress, evaluating outputs and transferring knowledge.
  

3.5.1.4Knowledge / technology transfer and implementation

• 
  Most interviewees had read only the research reports that were directly relevant to them. Very few people had a comprehensive view of the body of work produced by SIMRAC.
  
• 
  Most interviewees had attended SIMRAC workshops, project and product launches, and conferences where papers describing SIMRAC research were presented. The effectiveness of these events was rated as mixed – some were regarded as worthwhile, and others as a waste of time.
  
• 
  Several interviewees urged SIMRAC to reinstate the annual symposium at which reports were delivered on currently active projects.
  
• 
  Rock engineering practitioners have been the targets of most knowledge and technology transfer efforts. Little effort has been made to communicate with top-level decision makers such as mine managers.
  
• 
  Most interviewees were of the opinion that there is substantial scope for improvement with regard to knowledge and technology transfer and implementation. All stakeholders should share the responsibility for transfer and implementation.
  

3.5.2International review panel

In this section the views of the International Review Panel are summarised. Their full reports are appended (see Appendices E, F and G).

3.5.2.1Impact of research

• 
  The rock-related risks in Europe, North America, or Australia are far lower than in South African gold and platinum mines. Consequently, research work in these regions has focused on productivity issues rather than on safety.
  
• 
  Many improvements in safety, health, and productivity on Australian, Canadian, and European mines can be attributed to research work.
  
• 
  When comparing the safety statistics of different regions, it must be noted that the gold and platinum ore bodies mined in South Africa differ significantly from ore bodies mined elsewhere, which impacts on mine design and mining methods. Other important differences relate to labour intensivity, skill levels, training, supervision, enforcement, and culture. The difference in rock-related risks cannot be ascribed to the scope, quality, and implementation of research alone.
  
• 
  Similar difficulties with regard to technology transfer and implementation are experienced in Australia, Canada, and Europe. The lead-time is long, and substantial funding and commitment by industry is required.
  

3.5.2.2Research management and resources

• 
  SIMRAC makes a positive contribution in terms of funding, coordinating, and managing research. No centrally coordinated rock-related mine safety research programme with the scale and scope of the SIMRAC program exists in Canada and Australia, or any European country, with the exception of Poland. There are several programmes that address specific sectors, e.g. the European Research Fund for Coal and Steel.
  
• 
  Support for rock-related research work with a focus on safety varies between the regions. Funding for safety-focused rock-related research is derived from a diversity of sources. These include the European Union, federal and provincial governments, science councils, mining companies, and universities.
  
  • 
    In Australia, investment in mining rock-related research currently exceeds South African levels. There is a diversity of research sponsors (Australian Research Council, Australian Coal Association Research Programme, AMIRA, etc) and research suppliers (universities, CSIRO, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Cooperative Research Centres, etc). There is a steady throughput of postgraduate students.
    
  • 
    In Canada, rock-related research work with a safety-focus peaked between 1987 and 1997.The present research effort is about 10-15 person-years / year. Industry research laboratories (Noranda’s Mining Technology Centre and INCO’s Mining Research Centre) have closed, as well as the famous Underground Research Laboratory in Manitoba. However, Canada has succeeded in developing a new generation of researchers. There are energetic and competent research leaders at several universities, and a steady throughput of postgraduate students. This is driven by a demand in developed countries for practitioners with postgraduate qualifications.
    
  • 
    In Europe there has been a steady decline in rock-related research work with a focus on safety. Only Poland has maintained its research infrastructure.
    
• 
  South Africa appears to lag behind Australia, Europe, and Canada with regard to laboratory facilities. South African equipment is becoming dated.
  
• 
  The deep South African mines provide excellent opportunities for research, though it does not appear that full advantage is taken of this.
  
• 
  Unlike South Africa, no single research supplier dominates in Australia, Europe, and Canada. University-based researchers play a far greater role in the research endeavour.
  

3.5.2.3Scope and quality of research

• 
  SIMRAC has successfully identified the main research needs.
  
• 
  SIMRAC research has largely addressed generic problems, with the result that few tangible successes can be identified.
  
• 
  Some of the SIMRAC work is of a high quality. SIMRAC-funded researchers should be commended for winning four Rocha medals.
  
• 
  Very little SIMRAC work has been exposed to international peer review. While SIMRAC reports are in the public domain and can be downloaded via the Internet, they tend to be voluminous and many are only of local (South African) interest.
  

3.5.2.4Knowledge / technology transfer and implementation

• 
  SIMRAC’s efforts at knowledge and technology transfer and implementation are comparable to those efforts made in Australia, Europe, and Canada. However, this is no reason to be complacent as there are many opportunities for SIMRAC and the South African mining industry to do things better.
  
• 
  Numerous guidelines and methodologies have been produced by SIMRAC researchers, but very few implemented on South African mines.
  
• 
  Some knowledge and technology developed in Europe, North America, and Australia could be transferred fruitfully to the South African industry. Some examples are thin spray-on liners, robotic shotcrete applicators, machines to install roofbolts in coal mines, stress modelling codes, and a range of technologies for blasting, coal mining, open pit mining, and massive mining.
  
• 
  Little of the knowledge and technology developed in Europe, North America, and Australia is directly applicable to South African gold and platinum mines, where the greatest safety challenges reside. A notable exception is the techniques used to assist decision-making through the integration and visualization of complex data sets.