Mining geotechnical engineering around the world Part 2

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 2 of a two-part read, he shares his insights, experiences and calls to action. You can read Part 1 here.

In addition to the things I talked about in Part 1 of this blog, an interest of mine is to map how mining geotechnical/rock mechanics/rock engineering departments work on mines around the world. I found geotechnical functions in mining companies operate with varying reporting lines and interfaces with other technical disciplines. While some geotechnical functions are entirely separate and guided by technical governance principles, others report to the operational Mine Manager or a Technical Services Management line. However, I have observed many companies exhibit inconsistencies in responsibility assignments and multi-disciplinary design and sign-off processes, leading to poor accountability for geotechnical risks management. There is a lack of accountability for executing ground controls and verifying their effectiveness in some places. Australia appears to address these interdependences with more structure, but some mines in South America and Australia still struggle with appropriate structures and processes. There is a tremendous need out there to set out best practices for geotechnical functions to be structured, and their operating procedures developed, for given mining settings.

Language proficiency is also crucial for geotechnical excellence as effective communication is essential to successful engineering. Geotechnical engineers must be able to convey complex technical information to various stakeholders, including other engineers, mine planners, geologists, hydrogeologists, other technical services professionals, mine management, and external consultants and community and regulator representatives. Fluency in the language used on-site and in technical reporting allows geotechs to deliver high-quality work and build strong relationships. Strong communication skills are critical for negotiating, problem-solving, and decision-making. This requirement I found critical in my travelling in South America.

In today's globalised mining industry, language proficiency is increasingly important, particularly in multilingual environments. Many geotechs come from all over the world, yet English remains the dominant language in education and professional development. However, language barriers can hold back on-site technical discussions and problem-solving. For instance, some geotechs may be technically highly competent, but their English may be more conversational than required for detailed technical argumentation. Therefore, being fluent in multiple languages, such as Portuguese, Spanish, and English, has been invaluable when I work in South America in avoiding lost-in-translation situations.

The mining industry has adopted English as the dominant language for education, professional development, and staying up to date with the latest technological advancements. However, geotechnical professionals in South America, who mostly come from Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking backgrounds, can face challenges in keeping up with these updates. Despite the ease with which geotechs in Australia can understand and implement new developments in their field, their colleagues in South America can feel stuck due to their limited fluency in technical English. The language barrier often leads to communication gaps during technical delivery, causing difficulties in transferring benchmark work, new processes, or discussing analyses and recommendations presented in English. This situation is particularly problematic when it involves safety-related themes.

In one instance, I observed the local teams had very significant and valuable contributions to make when English-speaking collaborators showed up on site to deliver some smart conclusions, but their ability to engage in technical discussions and problem-solving in a foreign language was limited when the consultants only spoke English, and fast. The consultants, on the other hand, had absolutely zero knowledge of the local language and did not understand or appreciate the relevance of what the local professionals were contributing. The foreign consultants, therefore, on that day, signed off on a solution that was clearly unsuitable.

In another two examples, during technical meetings on mine sites in Brazil and Chile, the local colleagues could understand the overall gist of the matter under consideration, presented in English, but struggled to comprehend the technical details necessary for precise and effective execution of the solutions proposed. Additional meetings needed to be conducted in Portuguese or Spanish to clarify technically the final details, but some creative interpretation of the English terms ended up creeping in, requiring subsequent multiple iterations for clarification.

I have learned that geotechnical providers who are fluent in local languages can certainly help a great deal more to bridge the communication gap and ensure technical information is effectively conveyed to non-English speaking professionals in South America.

Indeed, I have had the opportunity to engage in technical discussions with skilled mining personnel on sites in their native language and observed they possessed a solid understanding of the practical geotechnical and ground control concepts and issues related to the matter under analysis, which they acknowledged was invaluable to the safety of work environments. However, in the presence of the English-speaking SME, the language barrier posed a challenge, as they were unable to fully articulate their ideas and engage in technical discussions at the same level as their English-speaking counterparts.

Another important observation I made during my travels is there is a shortage of skilled geotechnical professionals, even early-career geotechnical engineers, in the local markets, and also that a considerable number have switched jobs frequently in the recent past, moving from one mine operator or company to another. Some geotechnical engineers I interacted with last year have changed roles within the same company twice in a single year, each time receiving a promotion to the next level, without necessarily having acquired the required experience and wisdom for that level. While the ‘promotion’ approach is understandable as a retention tactic, it is not advisable.

I established that mining companies elsewhere do offer higher salaries and promotions to entice early-to-mid-career mining geotechnical engineers (and of other disciplines, too) to join or remain with them. While this may fill roles quickly, or retain the enticed, it can lead to a lack of, or sub-par, specialisation and expertise, ultimately weakening the company's technical governance responsibility. Simply having a technical role filled does not necessarily mean a company is duty-of-care compliant or doing the right thing, especially if they are burdening a professional with responsibilities they are not equipped to handle.

I feel that to acquire a comprehensive understanding and excel as a specialist, early-career geotechnical engineers should concentrate on one mine or geotechnical environment at a time for a reasonable period, sufficient to fully comprehend the behaviours, conditions, and engineering responses required for such an environment. For instance, dedicating a minimum of two years to the geomechanics of block caving, sublevel caving, sub-level open stoping, deep high-stress, hard rock, or soft rock open pit, and small or large operations, among other possibilities, would provide invaluable knowledge and expertise, and a foundation to progress further. In engineering, specialisation is critical, and rapidly switching between different mining settings, without capturing the essence, can restrict potential and expertise.

Based on my experience in South Africa, I have come to appreciate the value of spending several years working in deep-level, high-stress, seismically active mines, where I was responsible for managing the full range of rock engineering practices. This experience has provided me with a solid foundation to confidently resolve mining-induced seismic occurrences in other environments. Additionally, I have spent time managing geomechanical phenomena in other areas, in open pit and underground sites, carefully observing phenomena and designing engineering solutions for them over an extended period. One finds that skilled geotechnical engineers who have gained experience through hands-on work and practical problem-solving play a critical role in making mines safer and more efficient. Employers and the industry, in turn, benefit greatly from their expertise, which allows them to tackle complex geotechnical challenges and ensure the sustainable development of mining projects.

One striking observation I made during my travels is the lack of consistency in geotechnical methods, tools, and technology used by practitioners across different jurisdictions. It's concerning there are no universally-agreed-upon frameworks for conducting mine geotechnical design, given a specific geotechnical environment. Yes, there are many propositions and schemes. Each subject matter expert comes up with their own workflow process, based on their knowledge and understanding of phenomena and circumstances. Two experts may derive opposite solutions.

I noticed South African practitioners design ground control systems based on different considerations, design criteria and phenomena understanding than their Australian counterparts, for example. In some South American mines, geotechnical-based mine design heavily relies on empirical graphic methods, as rock mass characterisation campaigns are not prioritised. Meanwhile, Chilean and some Australian mines conduct sophisticated numerical modelling analyses of mine design scenarios for stability constraints, while three-dimensional modelling has only recently been adopted as a design tool by local practitioners in Brazil.

The lack of standardisation in geotechnical design processes across different jurisdictions may lead to suboptimal outcomes when appraised by different participants. Is this right? It becomes important for the industry to establish a common language and a shared understanding of best practices for geotechnical design. Standardisation of certain practices can facilitate technical assurance, minimise risk, improve communication and collaboration, and the adoption of new technologies.

A key finding in my travelling is the field of geotechnical engineering faces challenges in terms of the management and utilisation of geo-scientific data. Currently, there are no standardised protocols for the processes of geo-scientific data management and its utilisation for geotechnical design purposes. Each individual or company has their own system and process, and different tools, different within their own sites, resulting in a confusing and fragmented landscape. In no way can geotechnical data information value be derived with the current settings. Furthermore, there are a multitude of proprietary packages and platforms for geotechnical data information handling that do not interface or communicate with one another, making integration for deriving value in ground response situational awareness, real-time visualisation, mining efficiency reporting, ground control risk management and safety reporting a time-consuming and complex process.

I noted the instrumentation types used for monitoring rock mass response from various phenomena also vary from company to company, and from site to site within each company, in all jurisdictions I have been. This leads to difficulties in processing ground response monitoring data for the purposes of geotechnical risk management and mine design.

The lack of standardised protocols for setting up geotechnical monitoring systems, gathering data, transmitting data, processing data, visualising, and reporting it is a significant challenge for the mining industry. Additionally, the industry faces a huge difference in approaches to risk tolerance across different jurisdictions, which can also be a subject for another blog.

While the advent of AI technology presents opportunities for improvement in handling geoscientific data processes in mining geotechnical practice, it currently faces tremendous limitations in geotechnical engineering practice, at least. A reason for this, among many worth arguing in another blog, is that accurate and representative geotechnical models of a mining deposit, which would be needed to inform and training AI learning models, are not available due to the lack of a standardised approach to characterise a geotechnical rock mass environment in the three-dimensional space (forget about doing such using RMR, Q GSI, and others, and they are utterly inadequate and non-representative). Although mining generates large amounts of data, the degree of complexity in relating this data to cause-effect logic is enormous, making it obscure (more than difficult) to develop use-case models that can train AI systems. Thus, it may take a significant amount of time, decades still I believe, before AI can be effectively utilised in geotechnical engineering

In summary, having visited many mine sites around the world and interacted with geotechnical experts from various places, I can conclude mining companies need to prioritise the development of geotechnical engineering talent, innovate their processes and systems, and foster collaborations with knowledge providers and technology developers. It's not enough to remain stagnant and insular within their own systems; mining companies must come together to develop, adopt, and disseminate best geotechnical practices, global guidelines, and standards to drive further discipline advancements. Sponsoring a symposium here and there, or providing in-kind support to undertake a technology demonstration project on a mine site, though valuable, is insufficient.

Investing in advancing mining geotechnical practice is crucial, not only to address the shortage of skilled mining geotechnical practitioners but also to promote sustainable growth and prosperity for the industry. It's important to keep in mind that many mining-related issues are directly linked to geotechnical constraints and impacts. Therefore, it's high time for the industry to act and demonstrate significant efforts and investments in fostering the next generation of geotechnical engineers for mining!