Gap851 Final Report Main Body
Yüklə 2,78 Mb.
|
Prof. Dick StaceyYear of birth: 1943 Current position: Professor of Rock Engineering, Department of Mining Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand Qualifications: 1965 B Sc (mech eng) Natal U 1968 M Sc Natal U 1973 D Sc Pretoria U 1975 DIC Imperial College
Researcher, CSIR National Mechanical Engineering Laboratories Academic Visitor, Imperial College Geotechnical engineer, DL Webb & Associates Geotechnical engineer, SRK 2001-present Professor of Rock Engineering, Department of Mining Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand DS has given leadership to many scientific and professional organizations. He was president of the SA Institute of Mining and Metallurgy for 2003/4, Chairman of S A National Group of ISRM 1998-1992 and Vice-president for Africa of the International Society for Rock Mechanics from 1991-1995. Date of interview: 2 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? DS has read many SIMRAC projects relevant to rock engineering. 1.2 How many workshops and conferences have you attended? DS has attended many workshops and conference convened by SIMRAC and other organizations. DS has personally run workshops to disseminate the findings of SIMRAC projects, and particularly enjoyed running them in the outlying regions – Kimberley, Eastern Bushveld and Rustenburg. The interviewer asked DS whether he supported the reinstatement of the annual SIMRAC symposium. DS said that it had been originally organized by SAIMM, but SIMPROSS had taken over responsibility for it, after which it had fallen flat. He suggested that SIMPROSS should ask the SAIMM to take over responsibility for organizing it again. He thought that SAIMM would be prepared to do this as a service to industry. DS said that he believed that SIMRAC had a high international profile. DS said that he thought it should be a requirement that researchers present papers at local published conferences (i.e. it must be possible to access the proceedings, for example, seminars organized by SANIRE and SAIMM).
DS said that he had derived tremendous benefit from SIMRAC work. He joined Wits University shortly after completing the Booklet on Practical Rock Engineering Practice for Shallow and Opencast Mines. This formed the basis for lecture notes. Other SIMRAC material has been used for postgraduate courses. DS commented that quite a lot of SIMRAC material has been published in conference proceedings and refereed journals. He supported the idea of publishing the material in a “Reprints Volume”, as papers are usually more focused and succinct than the original reports.
N/A
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? No. DS commented that an industry champion is needed for a project to succeed and be implemented, but cautioned that a champion may be motivated by the desire to “get something for nothing”. He commented that industry perceives the SIMRAC fund as “their money”, though this is not the case. The reviewer asked what DS thought of SIMRAC sponsoring projects that sought to address specific mine issues rather than generic issues. DS questioned whether the government should be seen to support a single mine in this way.
DS said that he had implemented research knowledge through teaching. DS said that he had found A Handbook of Rock Engineering Practice for tabular hard rock mines (by Jager and Ryder) particularly useful. 1.8 Have you personally performed research work? Yes. DS said that SRK believed that it was important for consultants to be involved in research to maintain the edge, did not see involvement in research as moneymaking, and were open to “going over budget”. DS said that he found research work very interesting and valued his involvement enormously. It gave him an opportunity to interface with clients in a different way to normal consultancy work. He was able to visit mines and talk to people that he did not normally encounter. DS expressed the opinion that some consultants make too much money out of research work (this does not refer to work in the mining area, but in a civil engineering area). DS said that he does not look to SIMRAC to fund him, but rather to fund younger people to work under his guidance. DS said that it would be good to have more SIMRAC funding for postgraduate students. DS said that he is currently supervising four full time postgraduate students, including two black Zimbabwean mining engineers, both funded by SIMRAC. DS said that it is extremely difficult to get black South African’s as postgraduate students. DS said that it was sometimes a problem to identify suitable research project. He felt that the Rock Engineering Technical Advisory Committee was too concerned that the work be “useful” and did not place sufficient emphasis on capacity development. 1.9 Have you proposed research projects to SIMRAC? DS said that he had made presentations at SIMRAC workshops, commented on the scope of the research programme, etc. 1.10 Have you evaluated research proposals? No.
1.11 Have you evaluated research progress and outputs? DS said that he had been asked to review A Textbook of Rock Mechanics for tabular hard rock mines (by Ryder and Jager), but that his comments had been largely disregarded. Amongst his comments: The authors refer to out-of-date literature in the section on Rock Mass Classification. Anyone versed in the topic would realize that they are not “up to speed”. The gold mining industry lags way behind in using RCF. The authors recommend that the extension strain criterion “should not be used”. DS said that this was a very biased opinion, as he believes that it does have applicability, provided the limitations described in the original publication are heeded. DS said that he had found the Textbook to be less useful that the Handbook of Rock Engineering Practice, and was not sure that this was a worthwhile use of SIMRAC funds. DS was also commissioned (together with Dave Arnold and John James) to review SIMRAC projects addressing stope and gully support (GAP 816a). In their findings they were critical of some aspects of previous work, and offered some suggestions. 1.12 How could the SIMRAC research program be improved? DS commented on various aspects of the program. Identification of research needs: DS said that he believed that SIMRAC had made a mistake by focusing on safety to the virtual exclusion of efficiency and profit. This was the reason that so little implementation of SIMRAC work had taken place. A mine manager is far more likely to implement a technology if the potential benefits are clearly identified. Preconditioning was an example where the pay-back in terms of better face advance was apparent. DS proposed that every SIMRAC project should seek to identify the cost-benefits of the work that is being proposed. By way of example, DS described two projects that had brought about substantial benefits: Anglo Coal commissioned an investigation of roof support systems following four rockfall fatalities by Rock Mechanics Technologies (UK). The outcome was the introduction of new rock bolting machines and extra support. Although this increased the basic cost of support, the benefits were huge: bolting was right up to the face, production was never delayed by rockfalls, and production was increased substantially. Riaan Carstens presented a paper at the SANIRE Symposium in September 2004 describing the use of TunnelGuard in gullies. The result was not only better safety, but also far fewer production delays. DS also criticized the narrow compartmentalization of the work, with the result that opportunities to transfer knowledge / technology to other sectors was missed. DS mentioned the work done on mud rushes (OTH 601) and rock tipping (OTH 303) as examples: the work had been carried out for “Other mines” sector, but was applicable to gold and platinum mines too. Similar comments applied to work carried out in coal and concrete pillar design. DS expressed the view that the process to identify needs was driven by the mining companies, with little effectual input from the state or labour. As a result, quite a lot of research was done that should not have had priority, but the mining companies had found a willing payer! By way of example, DS mentioned the large amount of money spent on seismic research. While the work was excellent, it was “window dressing from a safety point of view”. DS expressed the view that a substantial proportion of the budget should be devoted to fundamental research of the type carried out by John Napier’s group. There should not be an expectation that the work would produce a practical solution to a problem.
DS commented that there seemed to be all sorts of “under the table” agreements regarding the awarding of research contracts, during the early years of SIMRAC. This is not the case nowadays. Execution of research work: DS said that, in his experience, multi-agency collaborative projects are often not run as teams. There are no regular meetings. DS cited an instance where he was only given the final report to review, by which time it was too late for any suggestions that he made regarding the research methodology to be implemented. Monitoring of progress: DS said that he found the production of quarterly reports to be onerous. DS commented that the first time some industry reviewers applied their minds to a project was when reading the Final Report. They would then want to add additional work, leading to a quite a lot of unhappiness. The interviewer then asked DS what he thought about the idea of an industry practitioner(s) be appointed as a “monitor” for each project. DS’s initial reaction was that the monitors would probably battle to find time for this activity. When it was suggested that this could be done through an hour-long meeting once a month, with the onus on the research leader to organize it, DS said that this could be a good idea. Knowledge and technology transfer: DS said that this aspect of the SIMRAC programme had been very disappointing. Some excellent research had been done, and it is freely and easily available. Yet he suspected that foreign practitioners make more use of SIMRAC work than South Africans. DS said that practitioners from countries such as Australia, Canada and Chile had told him that they had accessed SIMRAC reports. DS commented that numerous SIMRAC CDs and booklets had been handed at the ISRM meeting in Johannesburg in 2003, many of these to overseas delegates. DS urged the reprinting of out-of-print guidelines and booklets, as this is a “fantastic way of distributing information”. DS said that there was considerable potential to resurrect value from past SIMRAC projects. Work tends to be forgotten after ten years! DS applauded the SIMRAC’s free dissemination of knowledge, in contrast with other collaborative research programs such as DeepMine and the Australian Block Caving Project. DS said that he believed secrecy was counterproductive to good research. In discussing the concept of SIMRAC Schools, DS said that his past experience of this mode of knowledge transfer was unsatisfactory, as the mines often sent the wrong people to the courses i.e. people in service positions that they could spare, not those with decision-making authority who could implement what they learned. DS said the situation was better with GDE courses, where successful completion of the course is often made a prerequisite for promotion. DS said that the introduction of continuing professional development courses by ECSA (Engineering Council of SA) might create an opportunity for SIMRAC to register as a training provider. However, ECSA’s progress in this area seems to be slow. DS said that SIMRAC “should not feel too bad. Knowledge / technology transfer is no better anywhere else in the world. Researchers don’t read very much, and tend to follow their own ideas.” DS said that the SAIMM had had greatest success in getting decision-makers to local colloquia when they were restricted to a single day; any longer, and registrations would be shared.
DS said that he sometimes gets depressed that so much work has been done with huge potential cost and saving benefit, yet has not been implemented. DS described a focused effort that the SAIMM had made about 10 years ago to communicate with decision-makers. A lunchtime colloquium had been organized at a venue convenient to company head offices. Five 10 minutes presentations were scheduled, each highlighting a technology that had a proven safety and financial benefit to the mining industry (backfill, yielding support, electronic delay detonators, recycling of ventilation air, lightweight blast-on props). The President of the SAIMM personally invited high-level decision-makers. Of the 40 attendees, only four were high-level decision makers, of which two were SAIMM committee members anyway. DS said that executives of mining companies were failing their shareholders by not being aware of or informed about technology trends and implementing them.
DS answered with a firm YES, especially the research work that he carried out himself. 2.2 / 2.3 Has research work produced knowledge and technology that have improved safety in the SA mining industry? / on your mines? DS said that he believed that the level of awareness had improved. The interviewer asked why DS thought there had been so little improvement in safety statistics. DS replied that he blamed prevailing attitudes in the mining industry. There has to be both a willingness to change and legal pressure. DS went on to describe the success that Du Pont (a chemical company) had achieved in entrenching a safety culture. Working safely is a condition of employment. It is a Du Pont principle is that everyone is responsible for their own safety and the safety of their colleagues. Another Du Pont principle is that there is a correlation between safety off the job and safety on the job. DS also described the stringent enforcement practised by Rio Tinto at their Palabora operations. Random tests of alcohol levels are conducted. Anyone who is found to be over the limit is banned from entering mine property forever. This policy has been applied to people in senior positions. An underground manager was fired for going under unsupported hanging. DS also said that there must be corporate level involvement. Corporates issue statements to the effect that “the face will not advance if support is not up to scratch”, but then the onus is put on the mine manager to maintain production targets. DS said that the Department of Minerals and Energy inspectors must prosecute offenders. However, the mining companies always succeed in getting off. At a time when the DME needs to be getting tougher, they seem to be losing competence. DS said that he believed that SIMRAC research provided a real basis for improving safety, but the technologies were not implemented. By way of example, DS mentioned cone bolts. There was a perception in industry that they were too expensive. DS said that industry failed to take the collateral cost savings into account that would be brought about by using a superior technology e.g. less rehabilitation costs. 2.4 How would you describe the research work carried out by SIMRAC? DS said that lots of the work was academic, a lot was safety-focused, a lot was practice-orientated, and some was sophisticated. 2.5 Are research products effectively transferred to practitioners? DS commented that a lot of mine rock engineering practitioners are not proactive, but continue to do things the way that they always have. DS said that this problem was not confined to SIMRAC. DS suggested that the rock engineering managers should send their subordinates to events and instruct them to read technical reports and papers, and require them to give feedback on what they have learned. 2.6 Are practitioners able to effectively implement the research? DS said that while some practitioners are very good, he was often horrified at the lack of fundamental understanding. Software: Some practitioners have a very poor understanding of the limitations of software packages that they use. Hardware: DS suggested that the reason that practitioners fail to do adequate in situ monitoring required to design support systems is budget restrictions. Concepts / theoretical solutions: DS said that he doubted the ability of many practitioners to implement concepts and theoretical solutions. However, DS said that he had great sympathy for practitioners working on the mines. It was a very demanding job. Frequent underground visits were required to do the job properly. 2.7 Have SIMRAC funds been well spent? DS said that this varied from project to project, but overall he felt that SIMRAC funds had been well spent. As examples of work that had delivered good “value for money”, he mentioned the review of in situ stress and the work done to determine panel stability. DS said that he believed that too much had been spent on seismic research. While he believed that the research work should have been done, it should not have been paid for by SIMRAC as it did not contribute directly to safety. FORESIGHT REPORT 3. What changes do you predict will affect the SA mining industry during the next decade? DS predicted the following changes:
4. What advances could significantly address the above-mentioned changes? DS made the following comments:
5. What advances could significantly reduce rock-related safety risks? See 6 below. 6. What factors could improve rock-related safety? DS highlighted the following factors: Attitude is very important.
DS strongly advocated the drafting of additional Codes of Practice (in addition to the Code of Practice to Combat the Rockfall and Rockburst Accidents). DS commented that the civil engineering industry has formulated numerous CoPs. He said that he believes that CoPs are very valuable documents as they provided a detailed set of rules, but mining practitioners tended to be opposed to them. CoPs have to be reviewed annually, which has a big benefit for mining operations because of the high staff-turnover and the consequent loss of organizational memory. DS said that he was sure that the benefit to mines far outweighed the cost of the exercise. The Department of Minerals & Energy must drive the process. DS is currently working on a committee that is drafting a CoP Guideline for the Design and Operation of Boxholes, Chutes, Tips, Rockpasses and Drawpoints, and a lot of SIMRAC information is being used. DS suggested a CoP to Combat Mudrush Accidents. 7. NEED FOR ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH 7.1 Should research work continue in SA Very definitely. As a major mining country, South Africa should be carrying out much mining related research work. It is sad that the industry has not recognized the long-term value of such research capability and the consequent research outputs. Major advances in the field of rock mechanics were made in South Africa as evidenced by the work of COMRO and CSIR. However, COMRO was “closed down” and the level of rock engineering research capability left in the CSIR as a whole is now a shadow of what it was. This is probably a reflection of lack of support from the industry and the government. Many of the research personnel that were part of these organizations are now resident in other countries. There must be a lot of potential for projects such as the International Caving Study to be carried out based in South Africa. We have the THRIP system, but maybe we need other attractive incentives that facilitate funding for such research projects.
Research activity is the basis of future success, and therefore it is essential that research effort should be increased. It is important that this activity focuses on both safety and economic benefit. Government as well as industry should fund fundamental research since it is for very long-term benefit. There is much research in the physics and applied mathematics areas that would be of great value in the mining and rock engineering fields - this could be done at low cost.
Yes, but as indicated above, it is diminished compared with the competency, in relative terms, that we had in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, it is considered that competency could be re-established relatively quickly. 7.4 Do we have the research capacity? The comments in 7.3 apply to capacity as well. 7.5 Do we have the research facilities? DS believes that South Africa has excellent facilities, many completely under-utilized. Some have sadly been lost/scrapped due to lack of interest/research funding, etc. Much, very valuable research can be carried out with available equipment and facilities, without the need to spend large sums of money. This could be focused on observational research rather than based on measurements with sophisticated instruments. 7.6 Should the focus be on implementation rather than on more research? Not one at the expense of the other. Both are important. 7.7 Should research work be abandoned? Definitely not. 7.8 Would stricter enforcement have a greater impact than more research work? Stricter enforcement would have greater impact on safety, but apart from that, the two are not connected. Research must focus both on safety and economic benefit. Yüklə 2,78 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|