Gap851 Final Report Main Body
Yüklə 2,78 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 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
- 1.2 How many workshops and conferences have you attended
- 1.3 Have you supplied researchers with information and derived benefit
- 1.4 Have you hosted projects on your mine(s)
- 1.5 Have you worked as a consultant on a mine that has hosted research projects
- 1.7 Have you implemented research knowledge and technology
- 1.8 Have you personally performed research work
- 1.9 Have you proposed research projects to SIMRAC
- 1.10 Have you evaluated research proposals
- 1.12 How could the SIMRAC research program be improved
- 2.2 / 2.3 Has research work produced knowledge and technology that have improved safety in the SA mining industry / on your mines
- 2.4 How would you describe the research work carried out by SIMRAC
- 2.5 Are research products effectively transferred to practitioners and 2.6 Are practitioners able to effectively implement the research
- 2.7 Have SIMRAC funds been well spent
- 4. What advances could significantly address the above-mentioned changes
- 7. NEED FOR ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH 7.1 Should research work continue in SA
- 7.3 Do we have the research competency
- 7.6 Should the focus be on implementation rather than on more research
Mr Dave MinneyYear of birth: 1948 Current position: Regional Head: Anglo Coal Rock Engineering Services Qualifications: BSc Honours (Engineering Geology) University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Graduate Diploma in Engineering University of the Witwatersrand M Eng University of the Witwatersrand Work Experience: DM has had 30 years experience as a rock engineering practitioner. He has worked in various mining sectors: diamonds (2 years), gold (17 years), and coal (10 years). He is currently the Head of Rock Engineering for Anglo Coal, which produces 68 million tones per annum, split equally between underground and surface operations. Anglo Coal employs about 7000 underground workers. His staff complement consists of 2 qualified rock engineers (graduates with Chamber of Mines rock engineering certificates), a mine captain who conducts QC audits, a strata control officer and two trainees. DM says that his department is adequately staffed for the current reactionary paradigm, but hugely understaffed for the new proactive paradigm that he is vigorously promoting (see sections 5 and 6 of interview) Date of interview: 21 February 2005 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? DM has read all of the SIMRAC and Coaltech 2020 project reports relevant to coal rock engineering, and some of the hard rock reports that have relevance. All completed SIMRAC COL reports were briefly reviewed. DM made the following comments.
On completing the review, DM commented that more good work had been done than he remembered. DM said that he had the impression that the best projects tended to be the lower cost projects carried out by research suppliers other than CSIR Miningtek (e.g. Rock Mechanics Technologies, Strata Engineering, Itasca), but asked the interviewer to check this out. DM said that while Miningtek might have had the brains and the hands, they lacked the passion. DM said that the work on pillar design (by both SIMRAC and Coaltech 2020) had generally been disappointing. Anglo Coal is currently negotiating with Prof Peter Lilly (University of Western Australia) to present a 2-day course on open pit design. They hoped to be able to apply the concepts to the underground situation. 1.2 How many workshops and conferences have you attended? DM said that the launch of the book Rock Engineering for Underground Coal Mining (a handbook on strata control practices in South African coal mines) by JN van der Merwe and BJ Madden stood out as a particularly good event. DM said that there was room for improvement in SIMRAC meetings and workshops. “Nerds”, not the production people, attended them. SIMRAC should make use of organizations such as SACMA (SA Coal Managers Association). The industry often sends the wrong people to SIMRAC meetings i.e. someone whose absence from the mine will not be missed, who cannot think ahead, and who is out of his depth in technical discussions. It is very important that the person presenting research findings and recommendations has credibility and has made an impact on people in the industry. “We need researchers with balls”. 1.3 Have you supplied researchers with information and derived benefit? DM said that he had been closely involved with numerous projects. Anglo Coal believes that it is important to participate so that the can affect the scope and outcome. “It’s no use moaning later!” 1.4 Have you hosted projects on your mine(s)? DM said that many projects had been hosted on Anglo Coal mines e.g. survey of roofbolting machines. The managers had been impressed by the work and could see its usefulness. This gives projects visibility, which is very important to the implementation. 1.5 Have you worked as a consultant on a mine that has hosted research projects? N/A
1.6 Have you been a mine/industry champion for a project? DM has been a champion for projects, and believes that it is obvious that a project will be more successful if there is a min / industry champion. 1.7 Have you implemented research knowledge and technology? DM gave several examples of knowledge / technology that he had been instrumental in implementing:
DM said applied the 80:20 principle. The 20% effort needed to solve 80% of the problems had been done. The remaining 20% of the problem would require a lot more work, as a lot more detailed work was required. DM said that he would like to see the DME eventually issue a specification for roofbolting based on the current research. DM said that Anglo Coal and Sasol often pioneer new technologies, and then motivate SIMRAC to carry out further work to confirm their findings and get the methods / technologies established as Best Practice. DM said that he had never been surprised by the outcome of a research project. Research work by SIMRAC and Coaltech 2020 tended to be the transfer and adaptation of work in Australia, Europe or North America to local conditions. Virtually no novel work had been done. DM said that Anglo Coal had seen a clear improvement in safety. There were 11 fatal accidents in 1998, some of the victims dying due to falls of ground under supported roof. In the three years 2002-2004 there had only been a total of three fatalities, all due to human behaviour, where the worker had deliberately gone under unsupported roof. DM gave the example of a worker who had received training on this topic, signed that he had been trained, had been fined R50 for going under unsupported roof, and then had been killed two days later. DM said that he believed that conditions under supported roof in Anglo Coal mines is as good as in any mine in world, while the conditions under unsupported roof are as dangerous as any mine in the world. What is needed to improve further are top quality people who can communicate well in a common language. Safety will not improve as long as people who do not have an appreciation for the environment in which they are working operate machines. The face may advance by 80 metres in a shift, with conditions changing rapidly. 1.8 Have you personally performed research work? DM said that he had been involved in a lot of applied research. Many of the SIMRAC / Coaltech 2020 projects had been motivated by Anglo Coal based on work they had already carried out. DM had personally installed equipment and collected data for projects such as the Acoustic Energy Meter, Goafwarn and Open Pit Radar. DM said that he believed that Miningtek placed for too much emphasis on computer modeling, without confirming its relevance to the underground situation.
DM said that Anglo Coal had proposed many projects to SIMRAC and many had been carried out. DM said that SIMRAC is a very politicized environment. “We want an Arabian race horse, but by trying to please everyone we end up with a camel”. Coaltech 2020 had the advantage of a far greater degree of consensus regarding objectives. DM said that he had the impression that the Australian system for funding coal-mining research was superior. The companies pay voluntary levy and a competent mining engineer manages the programme, on a rotating basis. DM predicted that the South African coal mining companies would try to reduce the SIMRAC budget. He is grilled by Anglo Coal management to justify SIMRAC expenditure. DM said that there was a perception that SIMRAC kept “moving the goal posts to keep everyone in a job”. DM said that the safety record in SA coalmines in 2003 was on a par with Australia and the USA, but this had nothing to do with SIMRAC research. Rather, it was due to in-house initiatives. Anglo Coal had made use of Rock Mechanics Technologies (UK) to get in line with world Best Practice. The safety record in 2004 had deteriorated somewhat as a boom in coal prices had led to increased production accompanied by some risky practices. 1.10 Have you evaluated research proposals? Yes.
1.11 Have you evaluated research progress and outputs? Yes. DM emphasized the need for continual interaction between researchers and practitioners. The personal qualities of researchers are important: they must be passionate about their work, need to be confident, able to listen to other viewes, not intimidated when challenged, less sensitive when things don’t work out. DM said that he felt that the review of final reports was generally OK. On occasions he had sat together with the SIMRAC programme manager and the researchers to discuss shortcomings in reports. DM did concede that some reviews could be more rigorous, and as there was a reluctance to criticize other members of the community too harshly – a “bless me club”. 1.12 How could the SIMRAC research program be improved? DM said that “first prize” would be for SIMRAC to be abolished and replaced by an industry-driven research program along the lines of the ACARP model. (DM asked if Prof. Ted Brown would comment on this point – does it really work as well as he imagines?). DM said that SIMRAC is hobbled by the tripartite quorum. Labour frequently does not attend meetings, delaying decision-making. DM said that it is a farce, and commented “labour has never made a positive contribution at any meeting that he has attended”. Should SIMRAC continue, it should change the way research needs are identified. If there is to be any improvement, leading rather than lagging indicators of risk must be identified and used.
DM said that the work carried out by SIMRAC has helped by confirming pioneering work by Anglo Coal and Sasol. This was important as it established industry Best Practice, and assisted the spread of the knowledge, technology, and practice to more mines. DM said that this would be further promoted by the publication of Guidelines. 2.2 / 2.3 Has research work produced knowledge and technology that have improved safety in the SA mining industry? / on your mines? DM said that it had, and was continuing to do so. DM said that most SIMRAC work had merely been transferring Best Practice from Australia and UK to South Africa. This catch-up was necessary, as SA had fallen behind during the years of apartheid isolation. The few items of novel applied research conducted in South Africa include Goafwarn and roofbolting specifications.
DM said that some work was academic, some was safety-focused and some practice-oriented. However, none was productivity-focused. He believed that this was a big shortcoming of the SIMRAC system. Often technology to improve productivity also improved safety. DM gave the example as the implementation of a mechanized roofbolter. Productivity had doubled, and safety improved too as there was no unsupported areas. DM said that he believed SIMRAC would have achieved a lot more if productivity and safety had been linked together. There would also have been greater industry support. DM said that mining problems associated with dolerite intrusions were unique to South Africa, and that there was scope to carry out research on this topic e.g. techniques to locate them
DM said that this question ignored the crucial role that mine management plays in adopting new technology. The power of the manager must be taken into account. DM emphasized the need for researchers to have credibility and communication skills for effective knowledge / technology transfer. It is a great advantage to have the research work conducted on the mine so that production people can see and experience the benefits. It must have visibility. DM described his experience with regard to roofbolting. The new system was more expensive (larger holes, thicker bolts, more expensive machinery), but it was demonstrated to deliver great benefits. DM mentioned the Acoustic Energy Meter and Guidelines for the design of Water Pillars as examples of research products that had been successfully transferred. DM commented that implementation in the SA mining industry is quite different to Australia, Eurpoe or North America. Language in particular, communication in general, and the generally low level of education present huge problems. Only a very small proportion of underground workers have a good understanding of why they are doing things. The problem is particularly severe in the labour intensive gold and platinum sectors. 2.7 Have SIMRAC funds been well spent? DM said that he believed that with the amount spent, we should no longer be hurting people underground. A new paradigm is needed (see section 3). FORESIGHT REPORT 3. What changes do you predict will affect the SA mining industry during the next decade?
4. What advances could significantly address the above-mentioned changes? Not discussed. 5. What advances could significantly reduce rock-related safety risks? and 6. What factors could improve rock-related safety? DM spoke at length and with great enthusiasm about the “Visible Felt Leadership Model” that Anglo Coal is introducing with the support of DuPont Safety Resources. DM believes that this approach holds enormous potential as a means to improve safety. However, it is a new paradigm. Several DuPont slides are appended to the interview. Some key points:
Kriel Coal Mine is the closest to the “Visible Felt Leadership Model” and will be the initial implementation site. DM noted that a single coalmine in the UK has more geotechnical staff than the entire Anglo Coal. To operate in the new paradigm, there Anglo Coal would probably need a geotechnical staff complement of 20 people. 7. NEED FOR ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH 7.1 Should research work continue in SA “Yes.”
7.2 Should research effort be increased significantly? “Yes, but we should get more bang for the buck. We need researchers with more enthusiasm and energy.” 7.3 Do we have the research competency? “Yes and no. We have to draw on foreign expertise too. We can’t do it all ourselves.” 7.4 Do we have the research capacity? “Yes, but CSIR Miningtek needs to be more energetic.” 7.5 Do we have the research facilities? “Yes, though a lot more work should be done on site in mines.” 7.6 Should the focus be on implementation rather than on more research? “If a product works, we grab it with both hands and implement it.” 7.7 Should research work be abandoned? “Strongly disagree.” 7.8 Would stricter enforcement have a greater impact than more research work? “Strongly disagree. This is the wrong paradigm.” 
Yüklə 2,78 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|