Mining geotechnical engineering around the world Part 1
Differences in practices, skills, language, regulatory requirements, norms, and technology – a fascinating subject for the industry.
Fernando Vieira is an accomplished Senior Principal Geotechnical-Rock Mechanics Engineer who holds a position in Cartledge Mining and Geotechnics, leading Innovation and Mass Mining functions. He was born and educated in Portugal, before embarking on a 14-year mining engineering and rock engineering stint in South Africa, then moving to Brazil for nine years to lead corporate geotechnical functions in the Americas, and finally settling in Australia in 2012, working in geomechanics of tunnel boring, mining technology innovation, sensor-based rock mass characterisation and analytics and geotechnical consultancy. His experiences in technically diverse and culturally rich environments have given him knowledge and expertise in a wide range of geo-scientific, geomechanics and ground engineering matters across a multitude of mine sites, each with unique geotechnical environments. Here, in Part 1 of a two-part read, he shares his insights, experiences and calls to action.
Having worked on mine sites across four continents, I discovered that each mine is unlike another, possessing exclusive ore bodies that necessitate a tailored engineering solution to their specific geomechanics characteristics and responses. Although the fundamental mechanics remain the same, geotechnical engineers must account for the varying actions and reactions that are likely occurring in the different rock formations and forecast and try to understand regional and local phenomena. This underscores the importance of adapting ground control strategies to the specific geotechnical requirements of each site, thereby optimising mining operations and ensuring optimal safety and efficiency under these conditions. In mining geotechnical engineering practice, one measure does not fit all.
Geotechnical risk management is critical for ensuring the safety of mining operations, protecting workers, and preventing environmental disasters. I found that regulatory differences across regions can significantly impact the ability of mining companies to manage these risks effectively. While prescriptive requirements in some South American countries may provide definite and clear guidelines, one finds that overregulation may inadvertently lead to inability to adapt to unique circumstances. Conversely, generalist guidelines that are typical in other regions I worked in may provide flexibility for geotechnical engineering practices but also leave room for biased interpretation and ambiguity.
I perceive that Australian regulators have struck some balance between prescriptive requirements and flexibility, allowing mining companies to adapt to unique circumstances while maintaining clear guidelines for managing geotechnical risks. Adopting similar approaches in other regions could benefit the industry by promoting consistency and best practices while still allowing for adaptation to local circumstances. This is especially important for companies that have associate operations in multiple regions. It is essential for regulators and mining companies to work together to establish effective geotechnical risk management practices that prioritise safety, environmental protection and sustainable mining. The industry must work together to develop and adopt global guidelines and standards that will drive further advancements in geotechnical engineering for mining.
In South America, the mining industry has traditionally focused on open-pit mining, resulting in mining engineers gaining most of their experience in this area. In many regions, large-scale underground mining is not common. However, the emergence of new and massive underground mines presents a challenge, as local engineers have little experience in this type of environment. For example, Brazil has no block cave mines to date, but there is one such project currently in study phase. Investing in the development of geotechnical engineering talent in the various segments of mining (and especially in underground mining), innovation, and collaboration is crucial for addressing this shortage of skilled practitioners and driving sustainable growth and prosperity for the industry.
During my professional life I experienced conditions in very deep South African mines, down to 3500m below surface, where frequent high levels of mining-induced seismicity were the norm. In this country, rock engineers face great responsibility to ensure ground stability and the safety of operations. They require specific understanding of hard rock geomechanics, of seismic energy release mechanisms, of sudden ground motion phenomena triggered by changes in high stress regimes and other causes, of rockbursts and strainbursts, etc, as well as specific knowledge of engineering solutions and practices that mitigate the critical ground hazards prevalent in these deep-level geotechnical environments.
My global exposure to multiple mining sites around the world allowed me to notice that South African mining regulations stand out from other countries in requiring rock engineers to possess a specific qualification or licence to practice on any mine site. Unlike other jurisdictions I have been that may require geotechnical engineers to register as P.Geo., PE, CEng, or IEng, etc with a professional body, mining law and regulations in South Africa mandate that only professionals who hold a ‘CoC in Rock Engineering’ can manage geotechnical departments on mine sites, and thus the overall geotechnical risk of the site. I view this as a crucial measure to ensure only individuals with “proven” and necessary skills and competence deliver safe and effective geotechnical engineering solutions at mining operations.
Becoming a certified rock engineer in South Africa requires individuals to hold a degree in Mining Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, or in a related field of engineering, and have at least three years of practical experience in strata control related work. They must in addition pass a Government Certificate of Competency examination to obtain the Certificate of Competence (CoC) in Rock Engineering from the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA). The practicing rock engineers in this country must also be members of the South African National Institute of Rock Engineers (SANIRE), a professional body that fosters networking, professional development and knowledge sharing, and promotes the significance of rock engineering in the mining and construction industries. I have not seen this mining discipline-specific duty of care requirement being practiced elsewhere in the world.
The obligation to be a certified rock engineering professional to practice in mining could be seen as an indication the mining industry in that country is committed sufficiently to ensuring its mining practices are safe, efficient, and sustainable. Arguably, one can also acknowledge this regulatory provision exemplifies the importance of ensuring the geotechnical/rock engineering professionals involved in mining meet the highest standards of competency, which is critical to maintaining the industry's integrity and ensuring it remains a safe, sustainable and valuable contributor.
Through my extensive travels as a mining professional, I have also observed that in South America and Australasia, unlike in South Africa, there are no statutory requirements for geotechnical/rock engineering specialisation or certification to practice at a mine. In many cases, a general mining engineering degree or a geology degree is considered sufficient. I have worked with some incredibly talented geotechnical engineering practitioners in Brazil who were, in fact, geologists by training, only much later obtaining a post-graduation in geotechnical engineering from a local university.
Personally, I do believe geologists should be allowed to become geotechnical engineers, and the professional registration bodies should establish pathways to facilitate this transition. This is because almost all geotechnical phenomena on mine sites, invariably, cannot be explained solely by pure engineering principles and mechanics, and a background in geology (most times in structural geology) can provide a valuable, and at times critical, perspective of the occurrence or conditions of instability. In many cases, engineering contributions are only added during a solutions design phase. In my view, both engineers and geologists have an equal chance of becoming exceptional geotechnical engineers, with specialised training being the key factor. This is what happened, precisely, within a team I managed in South America and today these individuals (geologists) are deservedly considered thought-leaders in the geotechnical engineering practice. While this topic may warrant its own debate, I firmly believe allowing multiple pathways to become a geotechnical engineer is a crucial element of creating capacity, and enhancing skill and knowledge towards improving, and modernising, geotechnical engineering practices in mining.
As I noticed disparities in quality and applicability of processes, tools, and systems, I became convinced implementing a formal requirement for geotechnical engineers to be certified geotechnical/rock engineers would be a game-changer to the management of the geotechnical risk on mine sites. It would guarantee professionals possess the necessary skills and expertise to provide guidance to safe and effective geotechnical engineering solutions for mining. It would also be a means to develop the pathway for other discipline-skilled professionals to pursue geotechnical engineering in mining.
This brings me to the importance of developing geotechnical engineering talent in the mining industry. On passing through various mining jurisdictions around the world, I've observed the shortage of trained mining geotechnical practitioners is a serious global issue pervasively elsewhere, and that needs urgent attention.
Universities worldwide have fallen short in producing much-needed mining geotechnical practitioners. While some fault may be loaded to the universities themselves, the industry must take responsibility, absolutely. Most universities have closed their mining engineering degree programs and now only offer rock mechanics as a side lecture of another course. This is both concerning and outrageous. The solution is simple: mining companies must invest heavily in developing their geotechnical staff and, if they do so, as they should regularly, they could maintain a stream of continuous learning programs at least, even if the undergraduate students were lesser. Closing the universities means losing capacity to transfer knowledge. Full stop. That is not recoverable so easily. It really is time for the industry to take the issue of developing mining geotechnical engineers seriously.
During my travels to sites around the world, I have observed another undesired trend among mining companies – the lack of geotechnical engineering knowledge and practices development or improvement programs in place within their own structures. It is not that these companies are disinterested or unable to support such programs, but rather they have failed to consider the critical role of geotechnical engineering in achieving mine safety, efficiency and sustainability objectives.
In my experience, I have come across situations where the departments responsible for overseeing technical excellence in a mining company seem to overlook the significance of the geotechnical engineering function. In three specific cases I can recall, there was a significant lack of understanding and acknowledgment about the effort and time required to achieve excellence in this field. Unfortunately, it often takes a catastrophic geotechnical event to occur (as in recent past) for these departments to realise the importance of investing in and prioritising mining geotechnical engineering competency, capacity and excellence.
Out of the dozens of companies I have worked with, some I worked for, I recall only two having sponsored in-house development programs to enhance their staff's rock engineering/geotechnical skills and knowledge, which unfortunately did not continue. Developing appropriate technical excellence programs in-house is not trivial, nor is it immediate, cheap or, matter of fact, a priority for many mining companies I know. Instead, today, mining companies resort to poaching experienced resources from the market by paying higher salaries, rather than investing in their own staff development. I also know of only a few mining companies having actively and continually provided support for the advancement of geotechnical discipline via long-term sponsoring of external academic programs, technology innovation initiatives, and on-site demonstrations of geotechnical-focused start-ups. I am sure I am mistaken here, and there will be more. Not sure.
I have observed that many mining companies tend to rely heavily on on-the-job learning programs as the primary means of developing the knowledge and skills of their geotechnical engineers. However, I have found these programs often lack the necessary structure and substance, leading to frustration among employees. The engineers are expected to learn and apply new concepts and techniques while simultaneously carrying out their assigned tasks. This approach can be particularly challenging for highly complex tasks that require specialised skills, such as interpreting three-dimensional finite difference discontinuous numerical modelling recommendations from consultants.
The limitations of on-the-job learning programs can have significant consequences for the development of geotechnical engineering talent in the mining industry. Without structured training and development programs, engineers may miss out on opportunities to acquire the specialised knowledge and skills needed to excel in their roles. As a result, they may struggle to keep up with advances in the field or fail to deliver the best possible outcomes for their employers.
To address this issue, mining companies need to invest in structured training and development programs that provide engineers with the skills and knowledge they need to excel in their roles. These programs should include a mix of classroom-based instruction and hands-on experience, with a focus on practical application and problem-solving. By providing the geotechnical practitioners with the resources they need to succeed, companies can help ensure they are well-equipped to tackle the challenges of geotechnical engineering in the mining industry.
The finding that structured and comprehensive mine geotechnical engineering training programs are needed came from at least three major clients in South America, as well as two in Australia (which I did not expect). They recommended these programs to include face-to-face classroom-style training (not yet AI-based stuff), mentoring, and hands-on demonstrative experience at running the required tools, and at following the design processes while guided by subject matter specialists. In addition, they suggested periodic knowledge alignment and updating events should be established as a feature development requirement within their companies, to keep geotechnical engineers up to date with the latest technology, tools proficiency, best-practice processes, risk policy requirements, systems, etc.
Yes, based on my observations around the world, geotechnical practitioners are consistently requesting support for discipline-specific training programs from their companies. Unfortunately, most of these practitioners are left frustrated by the lack of provision of necessary means and opportunities to develop competently. By providing employees with the necessary skills and knowledge, mining companies can enhance their geotechnical risk management practices. This not only improves the safety of mining operations and the protection of workers but also leads to more sustainable and profitable mining practices in the long run.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of Fernando Vieira’s insights into mining geotechnical engineering around the world.
