DemonstrationofVENTGRAPHMineFireSimulator.pptVIP

AUSTRALIAN SEALING PRACTICE AND USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT CRITERIA - ACARP PROJECT C17015 Hsin Wei Wu and Stewart Gillies Gillies Wu Mining Technology Pty Ltd Jan Oberholzer and Ray Davis SIMTARS AIM Objective of the project to examine the new US approaches to sealing. The assessment will point out how Australian approaches and practices differs significantly from those in the US. The project is ACARP funded on a grant to SIMTARS and GWMT. A mine survey has been completed to understand current Australian attitudes to sealing and to allow the current normal standards to be maintained while ensuring safety standards equal to those being adopted in the US. Work ha been undertaken to determine the risk of explosions in the sealed off areas through tests conducted in a propagation tube. The work is focused to determine the nature of the explosion overpressures that a structure can be subjected to and the nature of the pressure pulses that will impact on the structure. Relevant US Differences with Australian Mines In US LW Gate road 3 Headings are customary (long explosion run up distances) In US lower take up of electronic monitoring In US no use of Tube bundles system In US little use of inertisation In US lack of ventilation network programs usage In US lack of trained VOs In US thinner seams, less coal in goaf In US Seals on Mains; generally not along chain pillars US longwall mining - normal district and panel sealing Australian LW with crosscut seals and bleeder roads Australian LW with crosscut seals but no bleeder roads Relevant US Differences with Australian Mines In US very many changes occurring now (like Australia in mid to late 1990s) In US lack of trust between managers and inspectors US Industry is diverse; lack of available data In US less sharing and industry forums In US many small operations In US prescriptive regulations In US lower acceptance of risk assessment approaches Mine Survey – General Info A total of 14 mines were visited and surveyed, sev