1. ACARP Australian Roadway Development Improvement Project OPERATORS’ WORKSHOPS September 2006

2. ACARP Project C150052 OBJECTIVE AND FORMAT Provide a forum for roadway development operators to:  Learn of emerging best practice and roadway development initiatives  Learn of developments in equipment and technology  Network with peers, and share their experience and learnings (and not just their successes)  Identify areas for targeted research

3. ACARP Project C150053 FORMAT  Four workshop subjects presented by best practice operators  Each workshop comprises a 20-25 presentation and a 20-25 minute open forum for discussion and sharing of experiences and learnings  Poster board presentations by OEMs and researchers  Plenary session to:  Capture key findings  Identify opportunities to improve the workshop process  Identify other issues for future workshops  Identify areas for targeted research  Workshop report with copies of presentations to be provided to all participants

4. ACARP Project C150054 INTRODUCTION Prerequisites for attendance:  A passion for roadway development, and  A willingness to participate in discussions and share experiences

5. ACARP ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT TASK GROUP Guy Mitchell, BMA Glen Lewis, Xstrata Coal Bob Miller, Centennial Coal

6. ACARP Project C150056 2005 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE – Why?  Marked increase in demand for export coal.  Significant increase in capital and production costs.  Substantial improvements in longwall production and productivity are continuing to be achieved.  Improvements in roadway development are generally failing to keep abreast of longwall improvements.  Higher capacity, new generation mines are being planned.  Older mines are still struggling to survive as it becomes more difficult to find solutions and successfully apply them.  Unlikely that both will be realised if current roadway development activities and trends are remain unchanged.

7. ACARP Project C150057 2005 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE  RDTG formed design a roadmap or strategy for targeted R&D to improve roadway development.  Previous attempts as ‘one off ‘ Company initiatives have failed:  Poor problem scope, planning & organisation  Lack of Mine involvement and commitment  Poor execution and patience  Absence of information sharing (competitive edge)  Industry wide problem where common sense suggest joint problem solving approach where we share successes and failures!  Initial members were Anglo, BHPB, BMA, Centennial, Rio Tinto, Thiess, and Xstrata.  References to July 2005 ACARP report identifying what incremental and step changes can and must be made in roadway technology and systems:  Development of new generation longwall mines  Older mines to remain competitive

8. ACARP Project C150058 2005 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE Report Recommendations –What operators/mine managers should do –What mine owners should do to address key constraints –What incremental/step change initiatives should be pursued by ACARP Focus on Key Elements –Coal cutting and loading –Roadway support –Coal clearance –Logistics (services & supplies) Operators Workshop –Industry practitioners with broad range of conditions –Detailing sub elements of the development process –Providing insight into where their gains have been made” Process control/continuous improvement Roof/rib support practices and equipment Best practice maintenance Panel advances Opportunity for questions and discussions

9. ACARP REVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT – CURRENT STATUS Gary Gibson, ACARP

10. ACARP Project C1500510 2005 REVIEW  Identify where past wins have been achieved and the lessons learnt.  Identify incremental and step changes in roadway development technology and systems necessary to: Enable new generation, high capacity longwall mines to be developed; Provide productivity gains to enable existing mines to compete with the new generation mines.  Identify specific R&D opportunities for new technologies, equipment and associated systems.  Build support and commitment for a targeted 7 year R&D program.

11. ACARP Project C1500511 INDUSTRY REVIEW PROCESS  Reviews conducted with representatives from: All longwall mines Bolting hardware suppliers – Hilti, Jenmar, and One Steel Corporate offices - Anglo, BHP Billiton, BMA, Centennial, and Xstrata Geotechnical consultants - SCT, Seedsman, and Strata Engineering Mining contractors - HWE, Roche, Thiess, UGM, and Walters Mining equipment OEMs - DBT, Joy, and Sandvik Other OEMs – Alminco, Continental, Hydramatic, and PJ Berriman R&D organisations – CET, Eikon CoalStream, GSS, and QCAT Regulators and service providers– DNRM, DPINR, and Coal Services TBM OEM/developers – IHI and Pacific Tunnelling  In all, some 160 persons participated.  Structured review process at mine sites, 1 on 1 interviews elsewhere.

12. ACARP Project C1500512 BEST PRACTICE MINES  A wide range of performance levels were reported across a wide variety of mining conditions and equipment.  Factors other than mining conditions, and equipment must be at play – significant differences with similar equipment and similar mining conditions!

13. ACARP Project C1500513 BEST PRACTICE MINES  Key factors differentiating best practice mines and others: “Driven” culture, desire to succeed, focus on getting things right, accountability. Understanding of roadway development as a process, and the application of short interval process control. Degree of involvement of employees. Focus on utilisation of personnel through provision of adequate “fit for purpose” equipment. High levels of reliability and availability engineered into equipment, with focus on maintaining equipment fit for purpose. Awareness of and aggressive application of new technology, equipment and systems to improve safety, productivity and costs.

14. ACARP Project C1500514 HIGH PERFORMANCE MINES  High performers in poor conditions were typically achieving similar or better development rates than poor performers in good conditions.  Factors typically evident at high performing mines: Major focus on and prioritisation of roadway development. Incentive schemes strongly linked to development performance. Likely utilisation of 12CM/12/30/32 continuous miners in a balanced, sequential cutting and bolting process. Ability to complete panel advances in 12 – 15 hours. Effective mine planning.

15. ACARP Project C1500515 MAIN FINDINGS  Later generation mines with good conditions are likely to establish 15Mtpa mines without major developments in mining equipment and systems.

16. ACARP Project C1500516 MAIN FINDINGS  Infrastructure limitations likely to constrain older mines from making major improvements in mine capacity.  Adverse conditions associated with depth (eg; stress and gas) will pose additional productivity challenges to older mines, and to later generation mines as they mature.

17. ACARP Project C1500517 MAIN FINDINGS  Technology developments are currently underway which will address some key process constraints in the short to medium term, providing potential to improve system capability across all mines.

18. ACARP Project C1500518 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY  Five self drilling bolting (SDB) systems are currently in various stages of development, with a variety of civil sector SDB also available (but expensive).  Sandvik releasing an upgraded ABM25(S) designed for difficult mining conditions and 4.8m wide roadways. Likely to incorporate Aro semi- automated bolting system.  Joy mooted to be developing a new generation continuous miner for global roadway development market.  DBT established a global roadway development group.  Both IHI and Pacific Tunnelling have developed concepts and detailed engineering designs for TBMs, and project that they could be on site in 18 – 24 months.

19. ACARP Project C1500519 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY  Joy had 2 floor mounted 4FCT systems in operation in US mines, with 2 other systems then under manufacture for US mines.  Sandvik were due to shortly release a roof mounted continuous haulage system.  Continental anticipated releasing a roof mounted monorail based extensible and retractable development/longwall conveyor.  Cutting Edge Technologies had reportedly completed designs for an extensible conveyor system.  Eikon had completed design for a 250m 3 /hour coal slurry transportation system.  Finalisation of the ACBM was reportedly stalled by a failure to complete contracted development of an automated bolting system.

20. ACARP Project C1500520 ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS  Roof and rib bolting, and installation of roof and rib mesh  Cyclic nature of coal haulers, particularly beyond 70m from boot end  Advancement of conveyor and panel services, particularly with dual CM units  Routine installation of ventilation ducting  The logistics of supply, transport, distribution and handling - particularly at older mines.  Installation of long tendons as primary support becoming more widespread - installation equipment still fairly rudimentary  The physical demands of the work environment, the extent of manual handling, an ageing workforce  Coal cutting was not seen as a constraint at any mine, however the ability of machines to cut breakaways for cut throughs was considered to be a major failure of all machine configurations.

21. ACARP Project C1500521 NEW MINING SYSTEM  The key attributes of a new roadway development mining system were identified as: Integrated, continuous cutting, bolting and coal clearance system – continuous mining. Automated bolting, with self drilling bolts. Integrated materials supply and logistics with components stored in magazines or cassettes allowing minimal manual intervention. Extensible (monorail mounted) face services (eg; ventilation, power, water, compressed air, pump out). Extensible, self advancing panel conveyor. High capacity, automated installation of long tendon secondary supports.

22. ACARP Project C1500522 INDUSTRY CONSTRAINTS  Real or perceived constraints to successful RD&D of new technology and mining systems: Industry’s ability and willingness to fund and sustain the RD&D of new mining systems, particularly through tight economic conditions. Few mines have sufficient development float to allow critical resources and mine real estate to be deployed to developing new technology. Scarcity of managers, engineers, supervisors, operators and trades. Limited size of Australian market, and OEMs propensity to develop new technology as global products, and for development to be done” in- house”. Lead time from concept to successful demonstration is too long; loss of project champions (eg; promotion or turnover) and; diminution of corporate energy and critical mass. Overly restrictive legislation limiting the development and application of new technologies and the use of light weight materials. Over zealous pursuit of absolute safety first by Inspectorate, with prosecutions in the event of less than absolute safety.

23. ACARP Project C1500523 RECOMMENDATIONS  What mine operators and mine managers should do to improve development performance.  What mine owners should do to address key constraints.  What incremental change initiatives should be pursued by ACARP.  What step change initiatives should be pursued by ACARP.

24. ACARP Project C1500524 MINE OPERATORS AND MINE MANGERS  Pursue industry best practice roadway development.  Fully embrace concepts of process control, continuous improvement, and involvement of all personnel in those pursuits.  Commit to conduct of a routine roadway development benchmarking process across the industry.  Commit and contribute to a regular “best practice” roadway development forum and enable development practitioners to share successes and failures, and learn of new practices, developments in R&D, and emerging issues.  Through publication of Proceedings from the forums, support the development of a “body of knowledge” of best practice roadway development.  Give due recognition to development in the mine’s operation  Adequately resource development to enable it to be properly accountable for its performance.

25. ACARP Project C1500525 MINE OWNERS  Develop and commit to a long term investment strategy to support and sustain the research, development and demonstration of new mining systems and technology.  Develop and commit to a long term strategy to develop the industry’s skills base and overcome the scarcity of experienced mining professionals, engineers, supervisors, operators and trades personnel.  Challenge the restrictive legislative framework being imposed on the industry, and the regulators resort to prosecution in the event of less than absolute safety.  Fund, support and sustain: routine roadway development benchmarking studies conduct of regular “best practice” roadway development forums, and development of a best practice “body of knowledge”.  Challenge mine operators and mine managers if they fail to pursue industry best practice roadway development practices.

26. ACARP ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES Guy Mitchell, BMA Glen Lewis, Xstrata Coal Bob Miller, Centennial Coal

27. ACARP Project C1500527 BRAINSTORM TIME A quick exercise –Your thoughts & ideas –Your opinions What’s good? What’s bad?

28. ACARP Project C1500528 WORKSHOP RESPONSES - MACKAY GOOD –Clean separation of development from longwall – equal focus individual business units –Involvement of operators and others in all facets of the development process and activities –Companies using data to identify opportunities –Ownership of process and involvement is high at high-performing mines –Focus on workforce and community –Parallel-pathing of activities

29. ACARP Project C1500529 WORKSHOP RESPONSES - MACKAY BAD –Lack of commitment by all stakeholders –Right people lack control –Industry becoming ‘closed’ to new inexperienced people –Operators don’t have enough input into standardising processes –Non-standardisation of processes –Coal haulage – continued use of shuttle cars –Old technology used too long –Failure of develop continuous haulage systems –Unrealistic budgets –Lack of investment in process –People not able to be accountable –People – lack of work ethic –Unrealistic expectations of machinery and people’s performance –Fear of failure – development behind budgets - reluctance to try new things –Fear of prosecution –Rosters affect effective communication –Lack of knowledge and management focus –Shift duration - operators become unproductive later in shift

30. ACARP Project C1500530 WORKSHOP RESPONSES - POKOLBIN SUCCESSES OF LAST 5 YEARS –Hydraulic bolters in lieu of hand held bolters –Focus on process, and integration of systems –Set standards, with all shifts doing the same thing –Achievements in primary and secondary support systems and products (installation systems require further R&D) –Machine monitoring improvements, almost to longwall standards –Use of fit for purpose materials and equipment handling attachments - $ spent on ancillary equipment to improve materials handling and logistics systems –Attitude of personnel – harnessing power of people – pride in their job maintenance of standards –Senior management credibility – doing what they said they would do –Involvement of people in process –Change in leadership model and supervisors’ role – leader rather than lamp holder –Age of workforce – focus on ergonomics –Increased focus on safety and development of safety systems approach –Services handling systems – monorails –Increased KW installed in development equipment –Radio control of machines – success? – reliability? – exposure of people to pinch points?

31. ACARP Project C1500531 WORKSHOP RESPONSES - PENRITH R&D SUCCESSES OF LAST 5 YEARS –Geological and geotechnical developments for roof support determination –Application of monorail systems –Development of roof and rib support hardware by OEMs and suppliers –Technology developments from ACBM project –How do we wrap emerging technologies together as an integrated, cost effective system? R&D ISSUES FROM THE PAST 5 YEARS –R&D on the run (roof and rib support) – lack of industry support –Reactive application of geotechnical design to support systems –Failure to adopt “other industry” supply systems –Lack of predictability of geotechnical conditions –Pioneering development of equipment –Further improvements in monorail systems required –ACBM – getting OEMs and operators to take it forward

32. ACARP Project C1500532 ACARP - INCREMENTAL CHANGE Demonstrate a high capacity, integrated mining system that incorporates then available, best practice technology.  Pursue and expedite commercialisation of alternative self drilling bolt technologies and automated bolting systems, including potential retrofitting of automated bolting systems to existing CMs.  Facilitate and expedite completion of the ACBM and associated technologies.  Develop alternate skin reinforcement and confinement measures to eliminate use and handling of steel mesh.  Facilitate development of an extensible, self advancing panel conveyor.  Develop a high capacity, automated long tendon installation system for both primary and secondary support applications.

33. ACARP Project C1500533 ACARP - INCREMENTAL CHANGE  Develop a mine economics modelling system that enables mines to properly evaluate the full cost of alternate development systems.  Pursue other complementary technology developments including: automation and robotics machine guidance systems light weight materials face pumping systems roadway construction and consolidation gas drainage  Improve level of awareness and understanding of technologies being applied in other industry sectors: Metalliferous and tunnelling Coal industry assessment by a “technologist”

34. ACARP Project C1500534 ACARP - INCREMENTAL CHANGE  Improve level of awareness and understanding of roadway development technologies and systems being utilised in mines overseas. Desk top review Technology mission if warranted.  Develop software that will facilitate and enhance the adoption of the systems approach/ process control.

35. ACARP Project C1500535 ACARP - STEP CHANGE (We recognise the problem but can’t conceptualise the solution)  Develop a vision to demonstrate a high capacity, integrated mining system by end 2008.  Specification – capable of sustained, continuous production at a level of +10MPOH, >20 hours day (10/20).  Develop a strategy for development and demonstration of the high capacity, integrated mining system.  Develop a specification for the high capacity, integrated mining system  Commission the design of a number of alternative systems:  TBM concept could provide an integrated, continuous cutting, bolting and coal clearance system at a number of mines.  TBM provide good immediate ground support in difficult ground conditions.  Construction industry approach – simultaneous and parallel pathing of work activities

36. ACARP Project C1500536 ACARP - STEP CHANGE  Evaluate and select a design that best meets the industry specification and requirements, and  Commission an OEM (or OEMs) to develop the technology and manufacture the integrated system.  Establish a collaborative agreement to conduct demonstrations at appropriate mine site (eg; highwall), either:  by a project team internally funded by the mine owner, or  by an externally funded mining contractor (ACARP).  Project manage the technology and equipment development process through to the conclusion of the field trials and demonstrations through to end 2008.

37. ACARP Project C1500537 WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE  Report accepted by ACARP and key recommendations supported including:  Benchmarking studies on 6 monthly basis  Regional Operators’ Workshops on 6 monthly basis, culminating in Operators’ Conference early 2008  Review of civil and tunnelling sectors  Alternate skin reinforcement and web-based operators’ network/MIS invited to make second round submissions  Support for field trials of SDB project  High capacity mining systems workshop scheduled November 2006 (coupled with L15 project?)  Commitment to pursue opportunities identified in workshop processes

38. ACARP KEY FINDINGS – JULY 2006 BENCHMARKING STUDY Gary Gibson, ACARP

39. ACARP Project C1500539 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY  Contributions received from:  Mandalong  Metropolitan  Broadmeadow (BMA)  Tahmoor  Angus Place  Beltana  Austar  North Goonyella  Broadmeadow (HWE)  Springvale  Appin  Glennies Creek and Kestrel reportedly well advanced  Findings now to be separately reported to respondents and workshop participants, with close-off of responses 8 September 2006.

40. ACARP PROCESS CONTROL AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT David Gibson and Matt Bonnard, Beltana

41. ACARP Project C1500541 PROCESS CONTROL WORKSHOP - MACKAY  How do you involve people in the selection the equipment? –Form task groups to involve people from conception to completion. Benchmark other sites and consider all OEM’s. Beltana to supply guidelines for equipment performance and expectations. People that will be using the equipment pick the best of what is available and engineer in changes to suit our requirements  How much time per week you as Development Coordinator spending doing work for your process and not the rest of the mine? –Approx 70% attributable to the process  How do you get people to own the process? –Firstly, development operates as a business unit, and recruits its own personnel, with personnel be selected for what they are good at (majority of personnel were recruited from South Bulga and were each well known for their various strengths and capabilities) –We feed them with information and shift briefings are attended daily by each crew at the start of shift –We listen to suggestions and act where appropriate, and involve them in the selection of their equipment –We adopt sustainable manning levels  Can you outline the incentive scheme? –Two major components, 50% each for development metres and longwall tonnes –We conduct fortnightly audits of panel standards including roadway alignment and horizon control, safety equipment, etc –Safety performance is also factored into incentive scheme  What are the top 5 delays, and do you have any magic wands? –No magic wands – top 5 delays section advance, travelling to section, flitting, stone dusting, supplying the miner

42. ACARP Project C1500542 PROCESS CONTROL WORKSHOP - MACKAY  What material handling issues have been identified with the new CM? –Bolts handled by QDS pod system. Biggest issues are handling 1.7m mesh module and vent tubes. Mesh is stowed in the rib behind the miner and fetched as required, vent tubes are brought in when bolting and handled/installed from the miner platforms.  Are you going to transfer the learnings to the new Blakefield mine? –Yes, the process will be ‘picked’ up and taken to Blakefield South although there will be a need for a much larger work force  Face cycle? –Approx 3.2 – 3.5 days including 8 hour maintenance shift and 18-20 hours for section advance  Impact of say 30% increase in support density? –Reduce development rate by 0.5MPOH (from 5MPOH)  Shift roster? –Seven day, four panel roster, 8 week rotation –Rotate shifts each 2 weeks, that is, 2 weeks on night shift, 2 weeks on afternoon shift, 2 weeks on dayshift, two weekends, 1 week off –Undermanagers work same roster but the development process management team works normal 5 days  Do you intend to utilise dual CM unit at Blakefield? –Yes. The model has us running two twin miner panels at Blakefield  Back bye maintenance? –We are responsible for everything inbye of our portal. Done when we are cutting at the start of our cut sequence when there are no parallel tasks to do and also during our weekend maintenance windows.

43. ACARP Project C1500543 PROCESS CONTROL WORKSHOP - POKOLBIN  You mentioned panel auditing, what auditing do you do? –Fortnightly audits of panel standards are conducted as part of the mine’s incentive scheme –Typically audit alignment and width of roadways and compliance with other panel standards  Have you sought or do you have an exemption for stonedusting? –Yes, application currently being evaluated by Department  What have you found to be the optimum break away angle? –Have found 70 degrees to be optimum as it doesn’t add too much additional development over life of panel –Used to drive belt road and cut out a wedge for break away, now cut a 5.5m cut out in the cut through as the belt road is advanced. That enables CM to get a full head of coal when it commences cut through  Who starts the panel advance? –Whoever holes the cut through, no other fast rules, rotating shifts are employed –Now considering cutting B heading again while belt road is being cleaned up  What is the budget this year and how are you going against it? –Budget 17.446km roadway development for single unit –11.18km completed YTD, and we are 186m ahead of budget YTD  What are the major impediments to further improvement? –Continued use of shuttle cars, need to utilise continuous haulage systems (going overseas next week to benchmark their performance) –Panel advances are biggest delay, typically 20 hours to complete and over life of panel that is significant given that we are currently completing two panel advances per week –Face services an issue, but not convinced regarding monorail systems at this stage  What fundamental changes do you expect as you go into deeper areas of mine? –Blakefield Seam is lower height and will require 7 entry mains –Expect to utilise two super units and will require additional personnel to manage development business unit

44. ACARP Project C1500544 PROCESS CONTROL WORKSHOP - PENRITH  To get good scores you need equipment reliability. How do you achieve it? –Firstly, you need good equipment supported by a good maintenance program, with 100% compliance with that program –We use a 4-5 day window between panel change outs to give equipment a major work over –Utilise two maintenance windows, 2 x 12 hour shifts of a weekend and one 8 hour dayshift mid week. Major maintenance jobs done on weekends  How do you develop crew ownership of the development process? –Firstly, development operates as a business unit, and recruits its own personnel, with personnel be selected for what they are good at (majority of personnel were recruited from South Bulga and were each well known for their various strengths and capabilities) –We feed them with information and shift briefings are attended daily by all crews at start of their shift –We listen to suggestions and act where appropriate, and involve them in the selection of their equipment –We adopt sustainable manning levels  Who tracks the development cycle process time? –Crew supervisors report on a prepared shift report and are required to log performance in 15 minute rests –Development Maintenance Coordinator uses the mine’s PULSE system to record data –Performance is tracked on a daily basis on a whiteboard in the crew muster area, weekly performance is tracked, reported and trended by the planner. Graphs displayed in muster area updated weekly.  Are crew supervisors deputies, and how do you achieve sustainability if in fact they are deputies? –Yes, crew supervisors are deputies and we typically have at least two deputies in a crew, sometimes 3. They step-up from operator to Crew Supervisor as required –The step-up deputies/crew supervisors are paid at a rate higher than operators but slightly less than the nominated Crew Supervisor  You noted that at 170m depth rib support density increases. Do you experience a change in development rates with increased rib bolting? –Yes, we see a de-rating of development rates of some 15% with the increase in rib support and seam water make –The 170m depth of cover is nominal and the change in rib support is driven by conditions. We commenced increased rib support at 130m depth of cover in the current gateroad

45. ACARP Project C1500545 PROCESS CONTROL WORKSHOP - PENRITH  What do the 12 man development crews comprise? –Each crew comprises a crew supervisor plus an 11 man crew, with the crew comprising a maintenance supervisor, 2 fitters, 2 electricians and 6 operators one of which is a step up crew supervisor (deputy)  You noted that development crews comprised 12 personnel including the crew maintenance supervisor, how many people are used when cutting and loading? –We typically cut out for 10-12m at a time and then bolt the 10-12m increments in one campaign –We require that 5 people be on the CM when bolting up, and this will include whoever is available including SC drivers and trades personnel  What does the weekend maintenance crew consist of? –1 crew supervisor, 1 operator, 2 fitters and 1 electrician, plus supplementary contractor if required  What sort of incentive scheme do you have? –Two major components, 50% each for development metres and longwall tonnes –We conduct fortnightly audits of panel standards including roadway alignment and horizon control, safety equipment, etc –Safety performance is also factored into incentive scheme  Do you have a system for controlling the development process? –Don’t do it down to the minute, but crew supervisors report in 15 minute increments on report forms which are customised for each shift in accordance with work scheduled for shift –Debrief crew supervisors and crews at end of each shift  Do you maintain during belt moves? –No, not with the single CM unit. Maintenance is completed during the three scheduled maintenance windows  What rosters do you work? –Seven day, four panel roster, 8 week rotation –Rotate shifts each 2 weeks, that is, 2 weeks on night shift, 2 weeks on afternoon shift, 2 weeks on dayshift, two weekends, 1 week off –Undermanagers work same roster but the development process management team works normal 5 days

46. ACARP ROOF AND RIB SUPPORT PRACTICES AND EQUIPMENT John Vincze, Springvale

47. ACARP Project C1500547 ROOF & RIB SUPPORT WORKSHOP - MACKAY  With self drilling bolts is it important to pre-tension the bolt? –Yes, we believe it is important to tension the bolts as we go. At this stage we haven’t trialled any SDB but we will as soon as they are ready.  How does galvanising the long tendons (spin-bolts) affect the metallurgy of the tendon/bolt? –Don’t know, that’s a question for a metallurgist. Again we haven’t used them yet however we are considering them for use in the Mains where we have a high water content from adjacent old workings.  What benefit do you get out of the galvanised mesh as compared to the standard mesh? –Marked difference, they last a fair bit longer. It is more expensive and we only use it for reconstruction work in a light duty rib support role, and it is very easy to handle. Must note that we put a fair bit of support into it, with bolt spacing at 1 metre in accordance with the mines standard support rules. Also the large pizza plates give it a fair bit of support and provide good coverage over the mesh.  With all the primary and secondary roof support materials, belt structure and other materials being used has there been any increase in manual handling injuries? –Yes, but we try to minimise it. The PET delivers the pods to the panel and they are put onto the miner with a pod handler, and the operator only has to touch the 7’ bolts when he goes to install them, and he drags the 8m bolts off the monorail. –Trusses installed by contractors and they are delivered underground and unrolled on the job. –Main injuries at the mine are strains, to the back, shoulder and arms, and we do notice that as the workforce ages they are more susceptible to these injuries.  I noticed on one of the photographs that the miner appeared to have a slide arrangement to put the mesh onto the CM. Can you give us some more details of that? –Yes, we have a slide arrangement for when we put the mesh onto the CM, it minimises the incidence of the mesh catching on the CM.

48. ACARP Project C1500548 ROOF & RIB SUPPORT WORKSHOP - MACKAY  You mentioned light weight tensioners, can you give us more detail? –They are lighter than previous ones used, but I am not certain how heavy they actually are. It certainly is an issue working at 3m height when lifting the tensioner overhead. We do get injuries, and we don’t have a solution yet. We would certainly like to hear of one if there are any solutions.  Do you post grout the 8m spin bolts? –Yes, they are post-grouted with a thixotropic mixture which is the consistency of toothpaste. Also post grout the tendons and trusses but we use a strata binder grout for that, with the strata binder penetrating the strata as well.  What else is suspended off the monorail system? –8m bolts, plastic (grout) tubing, maximum fifteen 20 litre drums of oil, maximum 20 bags of stonedust (20kg each), fitter’s and electrician’s tool boxes, first aid equipment  What is the make up of the production crews and what are they responsible for? –Similar to what was at Beltana with dual continuous miners in gateroads and 6 miners on each CM, with 1 fitter, 1 electrician and 1 deputy in the panel. –Deputy manages the crew’s annual leave roster, with one tradesmen and 3 miners allowed off at any one time. Sick leave does impact upon numbers although we have good support from outbye crew. –The three production crews cut coal, do belt extension and pipe extensions, with the dayshift outbye crew doing roadworks right up to the crib room, and doing the transformer moves, and transporting belt structure and supplies. –110m belt move is budgeted for 3 shifts, averages 17 hours with a best result of 11 hours. The belt move includes the belt and 6” air and water pipes, with a 4” fire main between the travel road and belt road every second pillar

49. ACARP Project C1500549 ROOF & RIB SUPPORT WORKSHOP - POKOLBIN  What is the standard panel manning and what are the crews responsible for? –A deputy, 12 operators, 1 fitter and 1 electrician –Dual CM unit in gateroads –Headings at 48m centres, cut throughs at 140m centres –Crew responsible for supplying panel, roadworks, pipework, belt structure –Best panel advance 11 hours, budget 3 shifts but typically achieve 18 hours –1200mm longwall conveyor installed in development –Transformer move every fourth pillar  You mentioned you hade problems with Megabolts and they were no longer used, can you expand upon that? –Had problems tensioning Megabolts off the CM, very heavy tensioning equipment –We found that Megabolts were not flexible enough in our operating environment –Also found them to be difficult to install and post-grout

50. ACARP Project C1500550 ROOF & RIB SUPPORT WORKSHOP - PENRITH  Water was reported to be a major issue at Springvale, can you outline what you use to manage the mine’s water make? –Have a number of Air 2000 pumps, 3.7KW and 37KW mono pumps –Typically have fish tanks every 3-4 pillars along the longwall gateroads –Water is pumped out to surface via a series of boreholes and in some instances we utilise a FBT (frigging big tanks) to transport water from the mine –We have also drilled a 1.2km long borehole in advance of the longwall bleeder roadways to pre-drain the installation face area of future longwalls  It was noted that you are awaiting the development of SDB. Hilti now have a self drilling bolt available now, why not utilise it ? –The Hilti SDB system does allow the bolt to be pre-tensioned –While Hilti have a SDB roof bolt, we have a greater need for a SDB rib bolt  What type of rib mesh do you use along the longwall block side of gateroads? –Steel rib mesh is now used although we were previously using Tensar mesh

51. ACARP DEVELOPMENT AND OPTIMISATION OF CONTINUOUS MINERS (Best Practice Maintenance and Engineering) Alan Bruce, Crinum

52. ACARP Project C1500552 CONTINUOUS MINER WORKSHOP - MACKAY  How much roof and rib support is installed at Crinum? –In good roof conditions there are 6 x 2100mm roof bolts installed per metre, with 2 x 1200mm steel rib bolts on the chain pillar side and 3 x cutables on the block side. When roof conditions deteriorate there are 8 x 2100mm bolts installed per metre.  Platforms on the ABM25(S), why do they raise and lower? –Our ergonomist recommended that operators only move their head through a 15 degree arc in order to minimise pinching of discs in the neck, and also required operators to be at a suitable height relative to the drills rigs –The preferred operating height was above the preferred maintenance height, and to lift the machine components up 200mm to be above the work platform would have increased the overall machine height –Then decided to install a moveable platform which was raised for operation and lowered for maintenance, thereby putting the operators at the correct height and avoiding increasing the machine height  Where are the control for raising and lowering the platforms? –There is another valve bank situated beside the rib bolter controls to operate the platforms and the mesh handler.  How far back from the face are the roof bolts installed? –The roof bolts will be installed at 2.6m from the face.  The Joy Sumps Shearer addressed many of the ergonomic issues raised in your presentation, is there any benefit in revisiting that machine as a work platform? –The Sumps Shearer is no longer being considered for development by Joy, but I definitely believe it had potential.  What sort of improvement do you expect from the new ABM25(S)? –The ABM25(S) is expected to give a 12% increase in development productivity  What other improvement initiatives are being considered with introduction of the ABM25(S)? –There are three different projects currently being undertaken. One is the ventilation-monorail system and its interface with the miner, the second is the supply cassette system, and the handling, carting and loading of supplies onto the miner, the third is the electrical requirements to run the machine, ie; cable sizing and handling.

53. ACARP Project C1500553 CONTINUOUS MINER WORKSHOP - POKOLBIN  You stated that the work platform raised and lowered some 200mm for maintenance, can you explain that some more? –Our ergonomist recommended that operators only move their head through a 15 degree arc in order to minimise pinching of discs in the neck, and also required operators to be at a suitable height relative to the drills rigs –The preferred operating height was above the preferred maintenance height, and to lift the machine components up 200mm to be above the work platform would have increased the overall machine height –Then decided to install a moveable platform which was raised for operation and lowered for maintenance, thereby putting the operators at the correct height and avoiding increasing the machine height  What level of productivity improvement is expected with the ABM25(s) at Crinum? –The ABM25(S) is expected to give a 12% increase in development productivity  What was the increase in cost for the ABM25(S) relative to a new CM? –I understand that VA spent some $6-7M to complete the development –It cost BMA $0.5M more than an “off the shelf” machine  Did it surprise you that you had to be so proactive with OEMs? –I know what OEMs are like, they don’t like making changes  You have highlighted a number of changes to the on-board ventilation system. Do you consider that the on-board systems are worthwhile as compared to a conventional ducting system? –Don’t know, we have always had the on-board system  Are any other changes to the roadway development system at Crinum being considered? –Yes, always working to improve the system –Looking at how to make the supply system work better, including QDS attachments, etc  A participant noted that Crinum had developed and fitted a simple device to the MBE that allowed belt structure stands to be inserted with minimal manual effort

54. ACARP Project C1500554 CONTINUOUS MINER WORKSHOP - PENRITH  How well does the ABM25(S) break away and complete cut throughs? –Same as the 12CM32, hasn’t been identified as an issue at this stage  With the electronic roof bolting controls is there any ability to monitor bolt torque and tension? –Yes, there is an ability to monitor all CM functions and to record data on the surface –In regard to the “specific drilling energy” function we monitor and record data for the two outside roof bolts  Why have you fitted hydraulic traction drives on the CM? –To create room on the machine, that is two motors that are not required –Development and fitment of self drilling bolting systems are likely to require on board chemical injection storage and pumps and the space created by fitting the hydraulic traction units will allow retrofitting of SDB systems  What factors were identified by OEMs when they did not submit tenders for development of the new “Crinum” CM? –No analysis of why OEMs didn’t submit tenders was completed  Is Crinum a wet or dry pit? –Dry now, although it was very wet initially  Have you done any comparison of the availability of the electronically controlled roof bolting rigs? –Still working on the comparison although it should be noted that we didn’t have to send a fitter into the panel for the first 6 weeks that the bolters were being used (Note: Crinum standard panel manning does not include trades personnel)  You seem to have had a fair budget available to undertake all the necessary modifications? –Small changes were taken at a time, with continual improvements being made over time

55. ACARP Project C1500555 CONTINUOUS MINER WORKSHOP - PENRITH  You reported that you have just had your best year of development at Crinum, what performance rates were achieved, MPOH and metres overall? –Typically achieving 3.5 – 3.75MPOH –Don’t have an exact overall figure but it was the most metres achieved in any one year and we only operated the 3 CMs on a part time basis, rather than on a full time basis as in previous years  Now that you have both upgraded 12CM32s and an ABM25(s) available, do you have any preference on how they will be deployed to mains and gateroad drivage? –No preference however should note that we are moving to a highwall operation at Crinum East and there will be no mains development  You noted that you changed from gear pumps to Rexroth pumps, were there any other changes necessary to accommodate that change? –No, nothing different  What did it cost for development of the ABM25(S)? –BMA committed $300,000 up front to commence the development process and I understand that VA spent some $6-7M to complete the development –The machine as delivered will cost $4.8M  What level of productivity improvement is expected with the ABM25(s) and what other improvements are contemplated in roadway development at Crinum? –The ABM25(S) is expected to give a 12% increase in development productivity –Other improvements include introduction of monorail mounted ventilation systems and improvements to handling and installation of roof mesh and support materials

56. ACARP PANEL ADVANCES Jim Richardson, United

57. ACARP Project C1500557 PANEL ADVANCES WORKSHOP - MACKAY  What improvements to the development services time? –Panel advance could be sped up by utilisation of Development monorail system. –Potential to get time down to 4.5 hours.  Is there a specific development maintenance window, and does maintenance get done during development time? –Maintenance for the belt road equipment is linked to a full shift (usually Thursday ) each week when “Stop Belt” maintenance is carried out. –The travel road equipment is carried out when services are being advanced after the travel road miner has mined to 130m chainage.  Why does the mine work a five day roster, why not seven day roster? –5 days are enough to maintain longwall continuity. –Rosters are simple. –Management are not burnt out. –We are not paying penalty rates.  Do you utilise detailed procedures to ensure that the belt extension process is consistently repeated? –We have procedures detailed within the panel folder however we tend to achieve repeatability by utilising the same people to do the same job each time, so there is not a need to constantly refer to these procedures. –With the introduction of the contractor based weekend production crews we have progressively involved them in the process to the point that this weekend they will complete their first solo panel advance.

58. ACARP Project C1500558 PANEL ADVANCES WORKSHOP - POKOLBIN  Can you go through the road clean up and cut through holing process? –The travel road CM is advanced to 132m to complete overdrive before being pulled back to clean up travel road from outbye cut through to face –Following clean up of travel road vent ducting is recovered and the extension of services is commenced –Belt road CM completes 20m overdrive in belt road before commencing cut through –When belt road CM holes it takes about 2 hours to complete bolt up, during which time a loader is used to doze up belt road into overdrive –Belt road CM then trammed into belt road and an LHD cleans up the cut through into belt road overdrive, before CM trammed to face and loads out stowage at face into shuttle car  Does the conduct of the panel advance on day shift and “out of cycle” require specialisation of day shift crew? –Yes, that is one of the keys to our success, with the day shift crew developing their specialisation and repeating it each 4 days, with the same people doing the same thing each time  What type of LTU drives are installed? –Eddy current winches which tension the belt to 7KN  What is the name of the day shift supervisor?

59. ACARP Project C1500559 PANEL ADVANCES WORKSHOP - PENRITH  When do surveyors install the grade line and do the belt bolt mark-up? –On the “stop belt” shift (typically Thursdays) although may have to do it during the panel advance if there is no “belt stop” shift between panel advances  When are belt hanging bolts installed? –On the “stop belt” shift (typically Thursdays) although may have to do it during the panel advance if there is no “belt stop” shift between panel advances  Why not pre-hang the belt hanging chains rather than hang them at the start of the belt move? –One fell down hit operator, and there have also been reports of then falling down and catching equipment –Doesn’t add too much time –We use fully encapsulated 2100mm belt hanging bolts which are part of our roadway support system –Participant reported that they pre-hung the chains and marked the grade line on the chains to expedite levelling of the conveyor structure  How long are the longwall blocks, and do you have any problems pulling the belt out of the LTU over that distance? –3.2km long –Problems are experienced at times due to soft floor conditions in inbye section of panel, however the utilise a second LHD to assist  Do you have any issues involving contractors in panel advances given the strong union culture at the mine? –Union role at mine not an issue, they have a position of Board and employees are kept fully informed on costs and profitability –Employees recognise that contractors are there to assist them and to make the mine viable –Contractors used on panel advances are drawn from other contract works being undertaken at the mine at the time (eg; secondary support, ventilation) and are not specifically employed for panel advances

60. ACARP Project C1500560 PANEL ADVANCES WORKSHOP - PENRITH  When do you put the belt into the LTU? –On the “stop belt” shift, approximately 2 hours to install  How do you doze up the belt road? –Use an LHD bucket to push up the floor material rather than use it as a conventional loader bucket. Then load it out with CM and shuttle cars  How do you install the belt structure when pulling the boot end back with the LHD? –We crowd the boot end back into the bucket and that separates the top and bottom belt and allows the idlers to be inserted between the belt  Do you use the weekends when there is no production scheduled to complete preparation works for panel advance? –Previously we used weekends to catch up on the belt hanging bolts, stone dusting and major component changes on the equipment, and maintenance of the travel road unit –Now are working a 7 day week with mine employees on a 4X9.5 hour roster 4 days per week, with Walters working other 3 days to catch up on a development shortfall created by extended equipment overhauls, geology and EA negotiations –Contractors trained to do belt advances and they are completed as they fall – being utilised on 3X12  What is the pillar cycle time? –Typically 4 days in middle 20 pillars of gateroad development, extending out to 5 days at start and finish of panel due to mining conditions  Do you use a second DCB? –Yes, use a second DCB to leapfrog belt road DCB each pillar, with travel road CM powered directly off transformer which is moved every 2 pillars as part of panel advance

61. ACARP Project C1500561 PANEL ADVANCES WORKSHOP - PENRITH  Do you have any views regarding roof and floor mounted structure? –1200mm belt operates at 5.2m/s and needs to be high standard, and we utilise roof mounted structure to provide a high standard “longwall ready” conveyor –Minimal works are undertaken on completion of gateroad development to get conveyor “longwall ready”  What improvements could be made to panel advances at United? –Considering use of monorail services management system in both headings to take the extension and relocation of panel services off the critical path –Expect panel advances could then be completed in 4.5 hours  Do you use a breaker feeder? –No, we load directly onto a grizzly style boot end –The overall system is currently in balance and do not require a breaker feeder for surge capacity  Do you mine any rock at all? –Yes, seam thins at inbye end of longwall blocks and we take up to 400mm of roof stone –Not a problem for conveyor system  Which miner completes the cut through? –Belt road CM completes the cut through –The travel road CM pulls up at 132m after completing overdrive and is then pulled back to clean up travel road from outbye cut through to face (while belt road CM completes hole through), before recovering vent ducting and commencing extension of services

62. ACARP PLENARY SESSION

63. ACARP Project C1500563 TARGETED RESEARCH  The 2005 Review identified a number of areas for targeted research, are they relevant?  What other research initiatives should be pursued by ACARP to improve roadway development?  What are the roadway development research priorities?

64. ACARP Project C1500564 TARGETED RESEARCH - MACKAY  R&D Priorities for Future –Development and application of forcing ventilation systems –Development of monorail mounted services management systems –Development of system components matched to individual mines rather than development of a “one size fits all integrated roadway development system

65. ACARP Project C1500565 TARGETED RESEARCH - POKOLBIN  R&D Successes and Failures –5 continuous miner systems –Sumps Shearer –Maintel Development Machine (Jack Wallace) –Kemcoal Beaver –In Seam Miner –ACBM –FCT and Chain Haulage Systems  R&D Priorities for Future –Integrated continuous mining system, from surface to face –Design of continuous miners to required roadway dimensions –Belt moves –Road construction and maintenance (roadway construction engineering standards) –Water management

66. ACARP Project C1500566 TARGETED RESEARCH - PENRITH  R&D Priorities for Future –Self drilling roof and rib bolts * –Ergonomics – due to ageing workforce * –Automation of bolting including associated materials handling systems * –Continuous coal clearance * –Diesel particulate (ventilation) * –Light weight materials –Logistics of materials handling –Bolting at the immediate face –Gas management and drainage –Water management –Skills development and training –Mobile boot ends, potentially incorporating auxiliary fans –Roadwork –Dust control –High capacity ventilation systems –Continuous miner cable spooling –Smaller diesels, improved visibility and control, good stability * Priority R&D issues

67. ACARP Project C1500567 WORKSHOP CRITIQUE  What improvements could we make to the structure and format of the Workshop:  No of key workshop presentations?  Presentation/open forum structure?  Focus on operators rather than OEMs and researchers?  Suitability of location, venue and facilities?  Cost  Timing (eg; day of week, and actual times)  How to communicate to industry in future  What issues should be the subject of future workshops?  Any volunteer presenters?

68. ACARP Project C1500568 WORKSHOP CRITIQUE - MACKAY  Timing (eg; day of week, and actual times) –9:00am to 3:30pm - better suit people on flights out of Mackay  No of key workshop presentations? –4-5 presentations enough  Focus on operators rather than OEMs and researchers? –Maintain operator focus but complement with presentations from researchers and OEMs where appropriate  What issues should be the subject of future workshops? –Developments in civil tunnelling and metalliferous sectors –Coal haulage systems –Benchmarking study –Overseas developments and report on mine visits –Introduction of process control software (Unimine) –People issues – availability/shortages, training and skills development

69. ACARP Project C1500569 WORKSHOP CRITIQUE - POKOLBIN  Timing (eg; day of week, and actual times) –10:00am preferred, Tuesdays - Wednesdays most suitable days  Presentation/open forum structure –Good mix of papers  Focus on operators rather than OEMs and researchers? –Selected OEMs to report on specific initiatives and trials –Potential to utilise 9:00-10:00am period as a technology update session with say five 10 minute presentations from OEMs?  What issues should be the subject of future workshops? –Ground support systems –Process control systems –Monorails –Overseas technology developments and report on mine visits –Developments in new technology

70. ACARP Project C1500570 WORKSHOP CRITIQUE - PENRITH  Timing (eg; day of week, and actual times) –10:00am preferred, Tuesdays - Wednesdays most suitable days  Presentation/open forum structure –Possibility of “break out” groups for workshopping key issues after presentations –Involvement of workforce in workshops (open to all sections of workforce from miner driver to GM) –Possible networking session on night before – help to break the ice –Involvement of Inspectorate  What issues should be the subject of future workshops? –Roadway development benchmarking report – mines should complete surveys asap –Maintenance best practice – is equipment becoming to over-engineered?  Other –Roadway development newsletter featuring in developments equipment, technology and systems, and reporting development performance (UoW proposing web based networking system and information management system for roadway development)

71. ACARP Project C1500571 OBSERVATIONS ON MANAGEMENT OF ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT The first of the presentations demonstrated the performance capability of a “current technology” roadway development system. Clearly, good ground conditions are experienced at the mine and the mine has minimal outbye infrastructure to constrain performance. In the context of the recent Roadway Development report and the key factors differentiating best practice operations identified therein, it is evident that leadership and management of the roadway development process is a significant factor underpinning the performance levels achieved at this mine. In reflection, I suspect that because mines haven’t achieved the full potential of the continuous mining system as applied to longwall gateroad development, most likely through failures to provide “fit for purpose” equipment and to effectively manage the roadway development process, additional development units have been employed to achieve longwall continuity. Management effectiveness is then further eroded as the number of development units increases, and is not matched by a corresponding increase in the level of management resources applied. Is this the law of diminishing returns? From a financial perspective it is estimated that the mine applies some $0.5-0.6M per annum in direct management costs to manage and optimize performance from a single development unit which has an annual labour cost of approximately $7.8M. Compare this with other mines that are probably applying similar or lower levels of management resources to manage MULTIPLE units, each with an annual labour cost of approximately $5.0-6.0M. It would appear to be good business sense to increase management resources to optimize development performance and reduce the number of units being applied. Following the presentation on development and optimization of continuous miners a number of participants asked what costs had been committed by the mine to make the identified improvements. Clearly, the perception was that they themselves would not be able to commit such costs to improve the performance of their equipment. From a leadership and business management perspective we need to improve the understanding of the economic relationship between people, equipment and processes, and the dynamics of effective utilisation. Mines typically undertake major overhauls of continuous miners on a four yearly basis consistent with Code D schedules. We therefore commit labour costs of $20-24M (ie; 4 X $5-6M pa) over the ensuing four years to operate continuous miners at potentially sub-optimum rates due to fundamental design, engineering and/or maintenance related issues (a lack of fitness for purpose).

72. ACARP Project C1500572 OBSERVATIONS ON MANAGEMENT OF ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT How much should we spend to address these issues in order to make a 10 or 20% improvement in development performance, and when should we expend that money? Should we leave the continuous miner in the mine until it has to come out for a Code D rather than getting it out, rectifying the problems, and removing the performance barriers? Or should we put up with it, man up another unit, and compound the problem even further! Both the first (process control) and last presentations (panel advances) also gave insights into the application of visioning, strategy development, and execution phases of the management process, with key learnings from the latter, panel advance presentation including: –the involvement of employees to develop the panel advance process, and to identify and remove barriers to the effective execution of the process; –the priority given to effectively resource the panel advance process; –utilizing the same people to do the same task each time to ensure repeatability, together with the clear definition of specific responsibilities and accountabilities; –supervision and employees taking ownership of and responsibility for the process. Management resources are leverage by the involvement of employees in the improvement process. This ultimately leads to a freeing up of management resources to develop better operating strategies and to focus on other improvement initiatives, thus developing a self-sustaining continuous improvement culture, rather than being dissipated in ongoing command, control and rectification issues. With capital cost for a development unit approaching $8-9M and annualized operating costs almost of a similar level, there appears to be significant upside from improved development performance, either by reducing the level of development assets employed in the event of stable longwall performance, or at least not increasing the level of development assets employed in the event of improved longwall performance. Management’s challenge is to visualize what improved development performance could mean in a specific environment, and to develop and execute change strategies that will lead to achievement of the vision. Gary Gibson Project Leader and Workshop Convenor

73. ACARP Project C1500573 END OF WORKSHOP Thank you! Look forward to seeing you again first week of March 2007