Technological Challenges in Mining · 2014-03-21 · • There are major differences between civil...
61
Technological Challenges in Mining William Hustrulid Hustrulid Mining Services Spokane, Washington USA
Transcript of Technological Challenges in Mining · 2014-03-21 · • There are major differences between civil...
Technological Challenges in Mining
William Hustrulid
Hustrulid Mining Services
Spokane, Washington USA
A Short Historical Perspective
Try to imagine what might have been discussed at some earlier Euro Mine Expo
conferences had they been held
Euro Mine Expo 3000 BC
Mining locations of flint and similar materials in Europe around 3000 BC
Flint mining tools
Method of mining at Obourg, Belgium.
C = chalk, D = flint beds, E = trenches, F = gallery
Commentary• The flint was of excellent quality and 3-4m deep
• It was worked by parallel trenches 5m long, 6m wide at the top and 4-5m wide at the bottom
• The chalk was weak
• Galleries were driven to connect the trenches, probably to obtain maximum flint extraction
• The galleries were normally only 60cm x 60cm in size
• A skeleton was discovered in a 1.55m high gallery apparently by a rock fall. An antler pick was still in his hand
• As suggested in the figure, he had probably broken out the chalk directly below an unidentified filled in pit and the roof caved in.
• Mining in chalk can be a very hazardous undertaking and the accident rate was probably very high. The chief danger arose from the working of flint at a shallow depth and the blocks would fall out between joint planes.
Pre-historic mining and allied industries – R. Shepherd
Euro Mine Expo 1550 AD
De Re Metallica/Agricola/Georg Bauer
A major silver producer
Heated veins and rock are giving forth a foul vapour. The shafts or tunnels are emitting fumes
Euro Mine Expo 1700 AD
Christopher Polhem (1661 – 1751)
The hoisting mechanism at Blankstoten, Polhem’s first machine at the Falun mine in 1694.
Polhem’s hoisting apparatus at the Karl XII shaft at the Falun mine built in 1701
Euro Mine Expo 1875
Drilling and Blasting
Alfred Nobel and Extra Dynamite
Euro Mine Expo 1960
Sublevel caving - 1957
Jackleg drilling
One of the first boom-mounted drills (1957)
Production drilling – two stoper drills and one operator (1958)
Charging of the production rings with ANFO (1960)
Scaling (1959)
An Atlas Copco 300 air-powered loader (1957)
A Joy-loader operating at the 275m level (1963)
A Scoopmobile (1963)
Euro Mine Expo 2010
The sublevel caving geometry at LKABs Kiruna mine at three points in time
Modern drill jumbos
Careful hole placement
Hole charging involving various combinations of explosives and coupling
Gassed 0.85g/cc75 % Coupling
Gassed 0.85g/cc50 % Coupling
Straight 1.20g/cc 100 % Coupling
Gassed 0.85g/cc100 % Coupling
Mechanical Scaler
High pressure water scaling and shotcreting
Automated loading
Smart Marker
Smart Marker
Activator
With this as background, what is our greatest technological
challenge today (June 2010)?
And the answer is:
• Bigger, better machines?
• More automation?
• New explosives/blasting technology?
• New reinforcement systems?
• All of the above?
• ???
My answer: The primary technological challenge is:
• The development, introduction and utilization of very Well-Engineered mining systems optimized with respect to the orebody and the extraction requirements
• This includes the smartest, most-effective use of current technology with the option for introducing new developments as they occur
Some Basic Design Conditions
Scale dependence of properties
Deep, high stress regimes
Complex Geology
DrusaDrusa
HW
-DR
HW
-DR
XC-ACCESO-3
FALL
A J
FALL
A M
AYO
R
45
80
72
85
68
87
6858
60
89
74
75
80
78 76
78
78
85
66
7479
73
72
70
7070 71
67
80
6781
70
80 838842 80
7174
78
66
7568
73
79
7060 67
80
78
78
78
75
75
7678
80
66 75
68
77
73
7080
50
72
56
78
60
63
70 70
85
70
79
72
60
66
68
40
76
7077
86
67
65
75
68
86
60
68
55
62
74
63
79
7732
70658160
60
747763
68
708060
85
63
79
60 80
80
81
60
80
6066
60
8779
60
80 75
78
70
65
68
5675
73
63
60
8867
65
65 6382
49
53
62
68
79
57
75
8071
83
76
70
63
67
7060
80
81
85
72
8758 63
7057
75
34
70
6868
82
87
80
84
84
70
7571
83
605682
80
82
86
62
81
80
80
52
65
65
70 73
65 32
65
70
45
65
75
52
78
52
68
81
6852
70
73
70
60
70
80
6975
60
76
52
65
4368
68 58
69
56
75
34
7355
8637
6865
38
68
3462
78
7260
66
72
6872
72
70
76
76
7680
75
4263
79
70
70
70
66
7272
76
50
72
38
627756
71
6269
68
76
7068
74
70
67
7381
79
2389
84
82
8060
65
61
77
6080
80
68
72
85
68
67
79
80
76
80
82
80
80
60
76
5376
85
85
8280
8573
80
65
70
70
71
8580
82
808280
80
8685
67
87
82
76
82
70
33
55
80
67
58
45
44
47
43
86
36
70
80
83
65
82
72
87
84
85
78
70
78
79
79
46
81
45
81
80
80
77
FALLA H
Can we meet the challenge?
My answer is a qualified YES!
What are the qualifiers?
Qualifier 1. A Paradigm Shift is Required
• Mining Past: - “Operations” is the profit center- “Engineering” is a cost center
• Mining Present and Particularly the Future:
- “Engineering” is the profit center
- “Operations” is a cost center
Some of the engineering challenges• Definition/description/ of rock mass structural features on
various scales in a way appropriate for engineering analysis• Prediction of the interaction effects of mine structures and
geologic structures on various scales• The “Best” choice of mining system• Optimizing design/layouts/extraction
sequences/reinforcement systems with respect to the geologic structures and rock mass conditions to safely achieve maximum extraction
• Selection of the appropriate mechanization and automation level
• Real-time monitoring/analysis of actual mine behavior so that appropriate adaptive/corrective actions can be taken at the appropriate time.
Some related challenges
• Low specific development – use of largest appropriate mining scale
• High system productivity• Appropriate utilization of man and machine power• High resource recovery with minimum dilution• High level of QA/QC• Environmentally friendly• Energy friendly• Profitable• SAFE
Popular Catch Phrases
• Design to the “limit”
• As-built = as-designed
• Plan the mine: Mine the plan
• Mine to the limit
Requirements
• Determining the “limit”
• Factor of safety/Probability of failure
• Risk analysis approach
All are highly dependent on MINE ENGINEERING
For some companies, at least, the switch from an operations – based to an
engineering – based way of mining will require making some significant
changes.
Qualifier 2. Greatly improved educational opportunities for future mine engineers
• As mining companies place increased emphasis on Mine Engineering, the mining schools and mining programs will have to respond by producing the needed engineers with the appropriate background level and skills set. This will present a welcome but very significant challenge to the teachers.
Current mining school characteristics
• Are poorly funded
• Are understaffed
• Lack professors with hands-on mining experience
• Often focus on graduate rather than undergraduate education
• Have problems attracting engineering students
• Have trouble attracting outstanding students
• Poor teaching materials
• Poor laboratory and teaching facilities
Future Requirements
• To produce mining engineers with a strong background in structural geology, mine design, mine planning, and applied rock mechanics.
• New curricula required – a mine design sub-specialty in the undergraduate program.
• Requires new, specialized teaching materials which combine geology, geomechanics and mine design.
• Introduce a “Case Method” approach to mine design
• Heavy input from industry to provide money, teachers, scholarships, summer jobs/cooperative education experience.
Qualifier 3. Introduction of the Case Method Approach
• According to Harvard University, the Case Method Educational Experience forces students to grapple with exactly the kinds of decisions and dilemmas managers confront every day. In doing so, it redefines the traditional educational dynamic in which the professor dispenses knowledge and students passively receive it.
• The case method creates a classroom in which students succeed not by simply absorbing facts and theories, but also by exercising the skills of leadership and teamwork in the face of real problems.
• Under the skillful guidance of a faculty member, they work together to analyze and synthesize conflicting data and points of view, to define and prioritize goals, to persuade and inspire others who think differently, to make tough decisions with uncertain information, and to seize opportunity in the face of doubt.
• The success of this approach in the education of MBAs has been demonstrated over the years at Harvard and many other schools. This approach begins with the availability of good case studies.
Contention
• Engineering progresses by analyzing and learning from successes and from failures, in particular.
• The availability of good case studies has been a major reason why civil engineering has progressed at a much more rapid rate than mine engineering
• To improve, the mining engineering field must begin producing good cases which can be studied and the lessons learned by current and future generations of engineers.
Why the Case Method approach will not work
• There are major differences between civil construction and mining projects regarding the availability of information.
• Civil construction data are largely in the public domain. For example, the levee failures at New Orleans.
• In the private domain, failure data are generally not very public unless they resulted in deaths/injuries. Failures are, at the very least, embarrassing and often financial disasters. These are normally buried deep within the mining company.
• Sometimes failures become the matter for insurance companies, and seldom does the information get out
• Or the case studies are considered a significant part of the intellectual property of the consulting companies and/or mining companies
• No one is willing to pay the costs involved in preparing the case studies
• No one is prepared to expend the time and effort to do the job even given the funding
Why the Case Method approach not only can work but must work
• Begin by recognizing the importance of case studies to the future development of mining rock mechanics and mine design.
• Develop a case study “template.”
• Identify a practical mechanism for “Banking” the case studies, for example on a dedicated website. In this form, the page limit becomes a non-factor and very comprehensive case studies can be included.
• Develop an annual award recognizing the best mining case study.
• Include a mining case study design competition as part of annual mining meetings
• Involve undergraduate and graduate students in assembling case studies as part of a Special Projects course
• Have mining students work on collecting/assembling the basic information as part of summer mine work experience
• Encourage consulting companies to involve both undergraduate and graduate students in preparing their case studies
• Encourage various governmental agencies to fund the case study collection
• Convince mining consulting companies that the preparation of these case studies fits into their business plan – good advertising
In Conclusion: Can the Described Technological Challenge Be Met?
• Not without the mining industry recognizing and accepting the key role mine engineering plays in the success of their operations
• Not without the mining schools and the industry recognizing their mutual inter-dependence and moving together hand-in-hand to create outstanding educational facilities and producing outstanding mining engineers.
• Not without turning mining experience into mining knowledge through the development and use of the well-recognized Case Method approach.
Tack så mycket!
Glück Auf!
