Rock-related research in South Africa has produced a range of technologies (backfill, yielding support, preconditioning, seismic monitoring, etc) that has made deep-level gold and platinum mining possible. While SIMRAC-sponsored work has contributed to many of these developments, it is difficult to quantify SIMRAC’s contribution, as many different agencies and organisations have contributed to the development and implementation of these technologies.
Labour productivity in the gold and coal mines has improved markedly over the past few decades and the human toll, expressed in fatalities per tonne mined, has decreased correspondingly. Unfortunately, the risk to an individual, expressed in fatalities per million hours worked, has not decreased as significantly.
The improvement in injury and fatality rates was initially disappointing, but the coal sector has shown a marked improvement since 1999 and the gold sector since 2003.
The rock-related safety record on South African gold and platinum mines lags behind standards in Australia, Europe, and North America, and has shown only a small improvement since 1990. This cannot be blamed solely on shortcomings in SIMRAC research, as there are many other factors, such as the nature of the gold and platinum ore bodies, amenability to mechanisation, training, supervision, regulation, and enforcement.
The rock-related safety record on South African coal, base metal and diamond mines is comparable to first world standards. However, this is no reason for complacency, especially as the South African government is supporting the emergence of small-scale and junior mining sector that tend to have a higher risk. The South African mining industry must remain committed to a program of continuous improvement.
SIMRAC research formed the basis for, or complemented much applied research conducted by, the DeepMine, FutureMine, Coaltech 2020, and PlatMine research programmes.
SIMRAC research made a significant contribution to the formulation of the mandatory codes of practice to combat rockfall and rockburst accidents, required by the Mine Health & Safety Act of 1996.
SIMRAC’s efforts to transfer knowledge and technology are comparable in scope and success to efforts made in Australia, Europe, and North America.
3.6.1.2Scope and quality of research
Identification of research needs
SIMRAC has succeeded in identifying broadly and generically the major causes of death and injury and the danger areas in mines.
There is no other comparable centrally coordinated mine health and safety research programme in Australia or Canada. In Europe, Poland has a centrally coordinated programme, while the Research Fund for Coal and Steel coordinates activities in these sectors within the Eurpean Union, addressing issues such as strata control and coal pillar design. Research work in Australia, Canada, and Europe has tended to focus on productivity rather than safety issues, as the risks are lower than on South African gold and platinum mines.
The Witwatersrand Basin and Bushveld Complex differ substantially from any other major mining district in the world. Gold and platinum are mined from narrow, tabular ore bodies that dip shallowly and extend to great depths. Both the ore and country rocks are strong and brittle, and mining induces significant seismicity. Consequently, the scope to transfer knowledge and technology from elsewhere in the world is limited.
Platinum mines have been neglected in the past and should receive much more attention in future as the industry expands and mines deepen. Substantial opportunities exist to transfer knowledge gained in the Witwatersrand Basin, though there are also some important differences: rock types, geotechnical properties, stress fields, geothermal gradients, drive to mechanise, etc.
While every coal, diamond and base metal mine has peculiar features, these types of mines have much in common with operations elsewhere in the world. While there are some local issues that require research, considerable scope exists for the transfer of knowledge and technology. Coal research programmes in the USA, Germany, the UK, and Australia have identified similar priorities to those of the South African coal mining industry.
Mining regions remote from Johannesburg have tended to be neglected by researchers. It was suggested that more use could be made of local contractors to manage field sites.
A project intended to identify research priorities was not completed (SIMRISK 401) owing to a dispute between the research suppliers and the SIMRAC committee.
Basic science
The standard of some of the research work is world class. South African researchers are leaders in the field of mine seismology. The award by the ISRM of four Rocha medals to researchers working on SIMRAC-sponsored projects is testimony to the high standard.
Some of the SIMRAC outputs were described as obscure, unintelligible, of little value, unproven, lacking in novelty, and without scientific merit. The authors do not believe that it is fruitful to cite the offending reports without a proper review process having been set up.
SIMRAC is urged to use international reviewers where there are no independent local reviewers with the requisite level of competence.
There is considerable concern regarding the custodianship of products such as rock property databases, rock and support testing equipment, etc.
Research products in the field of mine seismology have been widely applied. Questions regarding the ownership and high price of products (e.g. software packages) have been raised.
Applied science and engineering
The applied research has produced mostly guidelines, methodologies, best practice, etc. Few hard products such as machines and devices have been produced. Relatively little attention has been given to human factors (causes of accidents, reasons for risk-taking behaviour, etc) and risk-assessment methods.
Much of the work has been generic in nature. Very few actual problems affecting specific mines have been solved.
Some issues concerning the ownership of IP and the commercialisation of products need to be resolved.
Opinions were divided as to whether SIMRAC should produce outputs that can be directly and immediately applied. Interviewees represented mining companies, labour, government and academia. Some interviewees supported the notion that SIMRAC should support research that generates basic knowledge, while others were of the opinion that the production of practical solutions to mining problems should be paramount.
Some of the outputs and recommendations of SIMRAC projects were seen as controversial, e.g. the support design analysis tool, and the guidelines for the design of bracket pillars and for the implementation of backfill. Several reasons were suggested for these views:
Findings have been generalised to the entire mining sector (e.g. Witwatersrand Basin, Bushveld Complex) without an adequate appreciation of the differences between reefs, mines, and regions.
Knowledge and technology transfer
SIMRAC’s efforts to transfer knowledge and technology are on a par to those efforts made in Australia, Europe, and Canada.
A project intended to provide guidelines for technology transfer was not completed (SIMGEN 604) owing to a dispute between the research suppliers and the SIMRAC committee.
There is a need for road shows in mining districts, as well as an annual SIMRAC seminar where current and completed research is reported.
It is proposed that a series of SIMRAC Schools be held with the specific aim of transferring research findings.
A programme of focused research on mine-specific problems is proposed, perhaps based on a cost-sharing formula.
Relationships between researchers and practitioners must be nurtured. Industry champions can play a key role in doing this.
Some reports were poorly written, unnecessarily lengthy, or unnecessarily complex. This reduces the chances of successfully transferring any useful findings contained in these reports.
Implementation and impact assessment
Only a very limited effort has been made to assess the extent to which SIMRAC outputs (knowledge, technologies, guidelines, procedures, devices, etc) are being applied, or to measure the impact in lives saved, improved revenue and jobs created. Comprehensive follow-up surveys are required.
3.6.1.3SIMRAC, SIMPROSS & research supplier issues
The continued existence as SIMRAC is accepted, and there is a general desire to maximise the benefit derived from the research programme.
While tripartism is accepted, the needs and priorities expressed by employers, labour, and government are not always in accord, reflecting the different interests and priorities of the parties. Many of the mining company representatives do not see tripartism to be very effective. It appears that labour has lacked the resources to make a meaningful contribution to discussions on technical issues.
The SIMRAC committee system is regarded as cumbersome, with slow decision-making, although this is probably the penalty of a democratic process.
Some interviewees expressed unhappiness with the processes used by SIMRAC to identify needs and evaluate and adjudicate research proposals. For example:
SIMRAC was accused of failing to formulate a long-term research strategy, with the result that suppliers of research were unable to build and maintain capacity.
SIMRAC was also accused of failing to recognise the role and obligations of different research suppliers, awarding projects to consultants who could undercut research organisations because their overhead costs were lower as they did not seek to build capacity or maintain research facilities. The long-term consequence of preferring the lowest cost is the erosion of research facilities and capacity.
The dominance of one research supplier (CSIR Miningtek) was contentious. Most interviewees strongly supported the notion that a national mine safety research institute should be nurtured. Other interviewees believed that cost and competence should be the overriding criterion in awarding research contracts.
The contribution by universities has been relatively small. This is seen as a weak link in the South African system.
Many researchers lack practical experience and have limited understanding of mining issues. Many seem reluctant to go underground. The interaction between researchers and practitioners must be improved.
Greater engagement with practitioners during the execution of research project was urged e.g. identification of industry champions, but with the onus on the research leader to ensure communication occurs.
The collaborative research programs benefited by having clear focus, intense industry involvement, tight monitoring of progress and aggressive knowledge transfer.
There must be dispute resolution mechanisms to compel research suppliers to complete work, except in the most extreme situations. The failure to complete the SIMRISK 401 and SIMGEN 604 projects is unacceptable; as these projects should have helped create SIMRAC’s research and technology transfer strategies.
3.6.1.4Research resources
In real terms, SIMRAC funding for rock-related research has declined to about one-quarter of the 1995 level.
The South African research capacity has diminished by at least half and perhaps as much as two-thirds since 1995, mirroring the decline in SIMRAC funding for rock-related research. Researchers have joined consulting or mining companies, left the mining sector, emigrated, retired, or died. Very few young graduates have sought to make a career in rock-related research.
University-based research in rock engineering and mine seismology is relatively weak.
The South African safety-focused rock-related research capacity lags behind Australia, is possibly on a par with Canada, and probably leads the European effort.
The facilities for rock-related research in South Africa have generally deteriorated. A new facility to simulate the dynamic response of a stope to rockbursts has been created at Savuka. However, the rock, support, and backfill testing facilities at universities and CSIR Miningtek are outdated and are in need of refurbishment.
