JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) – The South African mining sector is, generally, not yet in a position to willingly adopt and implement an array of digitalised and modernised mining methods, contrary to advisory and general industry views on the need to modernise mines to prepare them for the future, according to University of Pretoria (UP) Department of Mining Engineering head Professor Ronny Webber-Youngman.

He says, although a lot of “good work” is being done to procure and bring on line some modern equipment and systems, including updated techniques of extraction and processing, the supply chain is still largely stuck in the “old ways”.

During the 2015 edition of resource sector exhibition Joburg Indaba, a survey was conducted to unpack the topic of modernisation, with specific reference to how the South African mining industry measures up in the modernisation stakes and the level of readiness required to adopt the various modalities. The survey was conducted through an online platform, with input provided by more than 200 participants, including 20% at GM level, 30% at CEO level and 13% at company director level.

Webber-Youngman states that the results from the survey indicated that only 25% of respondents had confidence in the use of modern technology. However, contrary to this low level of confidence, it was indicated that 55% of respondents had used some sort of modern mining technology in their mines, thereby representing some willingness to try varying degrees of modernisation.

In addition, he notes, it is encouraging that, in terms of top-level mine management, there was a 70% willingness, with varying degrees of respondent preparedness, to implement modernisation strategies, while lower levels of management indicated a 20% willingness to implement such strategies.

A major stumbling block to fully implement modernisation strategies is that research results, which proffer varying levels and examples of potential modernisation, take about five years to fully implement, thereby creating uncertainties, Webber-Youngman says.

However, the average five-year delay in implementing research results is being reduced as a result of an increasing number of mining students conducting applied research, which has “immediate advantages in terms of its implementation”.

The problem, states Webber-Youngman, is that fundamental research results implementation takes even longer, thereby further delaying final implementation. “It is my vision that, through visualisation and immersive technology application, we would be able to make research results available much quicker for distribution in the general mining environment.”

Another significant topic that is frequently linked to discussions on modernisation, digitalisation and mechanisation in the mining environment is the potential for vast job loss associated with introducing machines, ultimately replacing the human element in mining. But, Webber-Youngman avers, considering the successful adoption of mechanisation in the South African coal mining industry as an example of the posi- tive aspects of incorporating new technology through modernisation “. . . we just need to be in a position to educate people about the value that can be added and the potential for job opportunities in the mechanisation space”.

Webber-Youngman tells Mining Weekly that mining, especially hard-rock mining, can no longer be performed using the outdated methods of the past. “It is no longer sustainable. South Africa is competing in an international mining space and needs to do things differently.”

FUTUREPROOFING
According to a report published in 2015 by management consulting firm McKinsey & Company on how digital innovation can improve mining productivity, worldwide mining and related operations were as much as 28% less productive than a decade ago. Webber-Youngman says this figure has been adjusted to accommodate declining ore grades.

Further, “a dismal comparison indeed” becomes evident when other figures of the McKinsey & Company report are reviewed, he notes. “Based on their benchmarking, McKinsey & Company observed a global average overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) performance of 27% for underground mining, 39% for openpit mining and 69% for crushing and grinding operations.” Other industries achieve far higher levels of OEE, including 88% for upstream oil and gas, 90% for steel and 92% for oil refining.

He points out that the key question to pose to the mining industry on its low OEE performance is: What are high OEE level performers doing differently?

According to the McKinsey & Company report, digital technologies have the potential to unlock new ways of managing variability and enhancing productivity. In addition, large-scale adoption of four different clusters of technologies – data, computational power and connectivity; analytics and intelligence; human-machine interaction; and digital-to-physical conversion – is accelerating.

Regarding the forms of digital and mechanised mining equipment which would most likely be sought after in the near future by local mines, Webber-Youngman says there is no clear indication in terms of interest in specific types of equipment, but that remote-controlled equipment has already been introduced into the local mining industry with great success and higher levels of safety.

REAL-TIME PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES VS ROBOTICS
Further, in research undertaken by UP mining engineering student Jonathan Jacobs, who is being mentored by Webber-Youngman for his thesis, titled ‘Creating a technology map to enhance operational risk strategies in the mining value chain’, it has been found that underground mines should strive to implement real-time production management systems by using the latest technologies available.

Some of these technologies include low-cost off-the-shelf WiFi networks and inexpensive wireless radio-frequency identification tagging for vehicle- and personnel-location tracking. Other nonphysical technologies include software systems for mapping, modelling, estimation, design, scheduling, simulation and mine production management reporting.

“Real-time monitoring in the underground mining environment has genuine potential to enhance safety- and production-related activities. Surface mines are already using real-time monitoring to enhance productivity through proper equipment scheduling and use,” says Webber-Youngman, adding that real-time monitoring data and related information need to be explored aggressively.

In the longer term, however, he points out, the implementation of robotics and remote- controlled systems in ultradeep underground mines might be impeded and take longer to implement, owing to the extreme depths – between 3 km and 5 km – of these mines.

In Webber-Youngman’s view, the mine of the future will be remotely managed, with reduced mine-machine interface risks. “Robotics and autonomous driverless vehicles will be the order of the day,” he says, adding that continuous three- dimensional (3D) printing of mine planning and mine design holograms will be employed on an ongoing basis. He posits that the medical fraternity in Germany has designed and implemented holograms in cardiology-related operations, “so why not in the mining industry?”

WHERE TO FROM HERE?
Research capacity in South Africa has diminished to “quite an extent”, Webber-Youngman states, adding that a lot of capacity has been lost since the early 1980s, when the Chamber of Mines (CoM) Research Organisation was still functioning. However, he suggests that mining universities, through a multidisciplinary approach to solving challenges, could be revitalised.

“All indications are that we are heading in the right direction,” says Webber-Youngman, referring to initiatives in the modernisation space being undertaken by the Mine Health and Safety Council, Mining Phakisa (driven by the CoM), the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the National Institute for Occupational Health, the recent establishment of a research institute at the University of the Witwatersrand and the Mining Resilience Research Centre at UP.

“It is imperative that multidisciplinary research activities be the [norm] so as to ensure that unintended consequences [are] avoided through the involvement of various mining- related disciplines in the process.”

UP has also introduced its Imagineers initia- tive to encourage mining students to pursue the development of new engineering solutions for the complex mining environment. “It also highlights the challenge we, as educators and researchers, have in enabling the mining industry to transition from being reactive and compliant to eventually being resilient in issues relating to safety, health, the environment, social responsibility and community management through well-structured and committed education and research initiatives.”

A challenge of the Imagineers concept is to educate students in such a manner that they are able to envisage their work environment in the next 10 to 20 years and develop strategies now that will be relevant in the future.

Webber-Youngman says the new generation of mining engineers is emerging from a “completely different environment” to that which existed around 10 to 20 years ago, which requires them to embrace the challenges currently being faced and incorporate digital technologies.

There are potentially three classifications of digital technologies that need to be embraced to the benefit of all in the mining industry, he concludes. These are disruptive technologies, for example, the Internet of Things, cloud-based solutions, advanced robotics, genomics and 3D printing; exponential technologies, for example, automation, machine learning and artificial intelligence; and energy technologies such as renewable-energy generation, energy storage and advanced materials.

“The efficient and effective application of these technologies will become more and more important in future. It is no longer possible to ignore or avoid this – it is here to stay and, to my mind, enhance our total approach to mining.”