Evaluation of rock burst in deep coal mining by using forensic engineering

Rock bursts remain an important problem in longwall coal mining. These bursts are due to a sudden and severe failure of rocks from a high stress concentration in deep underground excavations that occur with the instantaneous release of strain energy stored in the rocks. They can potentially cause irrecoverable damage to equipment and personnel, thus accurate rock burst prediction and control is expected to be carried out by the mine design engineer. As a result, this can constitute major challenges for said engineer. In this paper, forensic engineering has been used to evaluate the possibility and extent of rock bursts in deep coal mining. For this purpose, established mining engineering principles, including factors influencing the severity of rock bursts, have been incorporated in the forensic engineering technique. The analyses took place in five steps: • Assessment of regional and local conditions prior to the event • Assessment of conditions after the event • Hypothesize plausible ways in which pre-event conditions can become post-event ones • Search for evidence that either denies or supports various hypotheses • Apply engineering knowledge to relate the various facts and evidence into a cohesive scenario of how the event may have occurred. The paper concludes by demonstrating a method for predicting rock bursts and preventing their re-occurrence. The methodology used in this paper, together with the results obtained, can serve as useful tools for the coal mine design engineer in the primary evaluation of rock burst potential in underground coal mines

CCS Networks for the UK: Benefits, Impacts and Regulation

What benefits might be offered by developing well planned CCS networks? A review of the drivers for and barriers to the coherent development of CCS networks in the UK is used to synthesise a limited set of possible network topologies. The benefits offered by each topology for UK carbon dioxide and other atmospheric emissions are estimated. Other potential benefits are considered qualitatively, and a range of uncertainties identified. The complexity of CCS networks means that addressing these uncertainties is a challenging task, and the need for a whole systems approach is evaluated. Finally, implications for CCS regulation and policy are highlighted

Risk analysis and risk ranking in tunneling: A case study

Constructing tunnels underground is generally described as a high-risk activity owing to the fact that conditions in the surrounding area tend to be unpredictable. This would create unique dangers in every situation. It is important to gain a deep understanding of the risks associated with tunneling, in order to reduce the likelihood of their occurrence and severity of their consequences, should they occur. For this to be achieved, different risks should first be evaluated and ranked according to their relative importance and criticality. Amir Kabir tunnel is considered to be one of the most dangerous tunnels in Tehran, Iran in terms of the risks involved in its excavation and their potential consequences. In particular, part T4 of the tunnel passes through a zone of different strata and a compound of various soils. This paper studies part T4 of Amir Kabir tunnel from a risk analysis and risk management point of view. In doing so, factors increasing total cost of the project, causing delay in the project completion time, decreasing the operation rate and downgrading project quality were identified and ranked according to their importance, using the aggregate primary index risk method. For this purpose, a comprehensive questionnaire was designed and completed by experts within the field of tunneling. By responding to the questionnaires, the experts determined the relative likelihood of occurrence of the studied factors and their potential consequences. As a result, the experts suggested several alternatives to reduce the risks involved in this particular study. Moreover, the experts completed new questionnaires whilst taking into account different alternatives. In the next step, the risks before and after applying the alternatives were compared. As a result of performing the said analyses, it was concluded that firstly, the aggregate primary index risk is an effective tool in identifying the risks involved in such projects. Secondly, it was concluded that by taking into account different alternatives when analyzing and ranking the risks, severity of the said risks can potentially be reduced. By taking into account such matters when analyzing the risks of tunneling, the efficiency of tunneling projects can greatly increase as a result of reducing the risks that threaten all financial and human resources involved in tunneling project execution. The approach introduced in this paper, together with the methodology described, can be adopted by the mining design engineer in all similar situations. They will be of particular advantage in such methods as room and pillar where the number of similar tunnels required is high

Innovative regulatory and financial parameters for advancing carbon capture and storage technologies

In the post-industrial age, the realisation of inherent technical innovation potentials requires that stakeholders develop flexible, cooperation-based frameworks if first mover opportunities and advantages are to be realised. In this context, carbon capture and storage technologies have emerged as a complementary adjunct, to a diversified energy mix. However, developing the technology is not without technical and financial risks. The capacity of key stakeholders, primarily (but not exclusively) government and industry counterparts is to develop mutually reinforcing strategies and policies for testing and commercialising Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, as that will be determinative of their fate. The UK in particular has indicated a commitment to bold greenhouse gas reductions, and investment in CCS, as part of the ambitious emissions reductions targets set forth by the European Union, the deployment of which is meant to count for 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions captured by 2030. This has subsequently resulted in plans for several pilot CCS plants on UK soil. The up-scaling of CCS to the demonstration level, however, is dependent not only on the presence of sufficient interest and funding – an ongoing issue in the UK - but also on the existence of appropriate regulatory conditions and options for additional private financing by industrial stakeholders. Furthermore, it is important to note that the up-scaling of projects from pilot to demonstration, and further on to a commercial-scale, is materializing in the context of a global financial crisis and a dip in investment trust in high-risk ventures. The development of CCS projects, in individual states, is not only influenced by national regulatory regimes, policy developments, and fluctuations in the financial markets, but is also dependant on the legislative signals given from supra-national bodies and binding international agreements. In Europe, the CCS Directive’s approach to long term environmental and related financial risk has led to the current state of regulatory and financial uncertainty, thereby, giving rise to potentially uninsurable liabilities which dis-incentivise private sector investment in CCS technology. This is in contrast with legislation in competing states including the United States, Norway, Canada and Australia. There is every indication that the paramount issue standing in the way of CCS is uncertainty over regulated financial security requirements for site operators and the nature and attribution of liability arising from leakage. This uncertainty could be addressed by a combination of insurance for storage sites and a robust permitting process, which would minimize the likelihood of leakage to virtually zero. There are, therefore, excellent reasons for national and international law and policymakers to seriously consider a more careful and tailored legislative and policy mix, so that regulatory oversight is in balance with innovative finance, insurance and liability mechanisms. In addition to exploring this subject matter, the article offers a number of recommendations for flexible, partner-based advancement of CCS technology potentials in climate change and related environmental regulation

Carbon Capture and Storage Policy and Regulation Development – a Case for Learning by Doing?

Published versio

Innovative regulatory and financial parameters for advancing carbon capture and storage technologies

In the post-industrial age, the realisation of inherent technical innovation potentials requires that stakeholders develop flexible, cooperation-based frameworks if first mover opportunities and advantages are to be realised. In the Paris Agreement5 implementation context, carbon capture and storage technologies have emerged as a complementary adjunct to climate change mitigation and a diversified energy mix. However, developing the technology is not without technical and financial risks. The challenge for key stakeholders, primarily (but not exclusively) government and industry counterparts is to develop mutually reinforcing strategies, regulations and policies for testing and commercialising Carbon Capture and Storage (“CCS”)technologies and networks, as that will be determinative of their fate. In the Paris Agreement implementation period, the UK, for example, has indicated a commitment to bold greenhouse gas reductions(57% by 2030),and investment in CCS, as part of the ambitious emissions reductions targets set forth by the European Union, the deployment of which is meant to count for 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions captured by 2030. This has subsequently resulted in plans for several pilot CCS plants on UK soil. The up-scaling of CCS to the demonstration level, however, is dependent not only on the presence of sufficient interest and funding –an ongoing issue in the UK both pre-and post-Brexit-but also on the existence of appropriate regulatory conditions and options for additional private financing by industrial stakeholders. Furthermore, it is important to note that the up-scaling of projects from pilot to demonstration, and further on to a commercial-scale, is materializing in the context of a global financial crisis and a dip in investment trust in high-risk ventures. The development of CCS projects in individual states, is not only influenced by national regulatory regimes, policy developments, and fluctuations in financial markets, but is also dependent upon the legislative signals given from supra-national bodies and binding international agreements. In Europe, the CCS Directive’s approach to long term environmental and related financial risk has led to the current state of regulatory and financial uncertainty, thereby, giving rise to potentially uninsurable liabilities which dis-incentivise private sector investment in CCS technology. This is in contrast with legislation in competing states including the United States, Norway, Canada and Australia. There is every indication that the paramount issue standing in the way of CCS is uncertainty over regulated financial security requirements for site operators and the nature and attribution of liability arising from leakage. This uncertainty could be addressed by a combination of insurance for storage sites and a robust permitting process, which would minimize the likelihood of leakage to virtually zero. There are, therefore, excellent reasons for national and international law and policymakers to seriously consider a more careful and tailored legislative and policy mix, so that regulatory oversight is in balance with innovative financial, insurance and liability mechanisms. In addition to exploring this subject matter, the article offers a number of recommendations for flexible, stakeholder partner-based advancement of CCS technology potentials in climate change and related environmental regulation