1. ACARP KEY FINDINGS - DECEMBER 2006 BENCHMARKING STUDY Gary Gibson, ACARP

2. ACARP Project C150052 DECEMBER 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY

3. ACARP Project C150053 DECEMBER 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY  Findings now to be separately reported to respondents and workshop participants, with close-off of responses 6 April 2007

4. ACARP Project C150054 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY  July 2006 Roadway Development Benchmarking Study  Only 15 mines responded of 26 mines surveyed  Data provided for 36 continuous miner units, with performance data provided for only 24 of those units  Data analysed by UOW undergraduate mining engineer as part of research thesis  Some interesting relationships were highlighted in the data, however broader participation required from industry to enable those relationships to be tested and quantified  Figures over show some of the relationships indicated by July 2006 survey

5. ACARP Project C150055 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY “Continuous Miner Units achieving more than 1,750 m” highlighted. Figure 1 shows that “Depth of Cover” has little affect on metres achieved

6. ACARP Project C150056 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 2 demonstrates that all units mining greater than 1,750 m in the period were mining two- heading gateroads

7. ACARP Project C150057 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 3 illustrates the benefit of having six bolting rigs mounted on the continuous miner (ie; 4 roof and 2 rib bolting rigs).

8. ACARP Project C150058 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Installing 1500 mm rib bolts also appears to limit development rates, with those continuous miners achieving higher production levels all installing 1200 mm rib bolts

9. ACARP Project C150059 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Installing 1500 mm rib bolts also appears to limit development rates, with those continuous miners achieving higher production levels all installing 1200 mm rib bolts

10. ACARP Project C1500510 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY “Continuous Miner Units that achieved less than 1,000 m”, Figure 6 shows that with the exception of one Eimco Dash 3, the continuous miner units that achieved less than 1,000 m were all Joy 12CM30

11. ACARP Project C1500511 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY However “mines producing less than 1,000 m” were all installing 2100 mm roof bolts.

12. ACARP Project C1500512 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY However “mines producing less than 1,000 m” were all installing 2100 mm roof bolts, and were only utilising 2 bolting rigs.

13. ACARP Project C1500513 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 10 illustrates that the mains development units driving five-heading mains achieved less metres overall during the 3 month period than those units that drove four- heading mains.

14. ACARP Project C1500514 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 11 suggests that narrower pillars may be a factor

15. ACARP Project C1500515 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 12 shows that longer pillars may also contribute to improved development rates, a factor which is at odds with current beliefs and perceptions

16. ACARP Project C1500516 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 13 again illustrates the potential effect of increasing the number of roof bolting rigs on the continuous miner

17. ACARP Project C1500517 JULY 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY Figure 14 illustrated that higher roof bolting densities didn’t necessarily slow development rates, which suggested a strong relationship between bolting density and the number of bolting rigs actually fitted

18. ACARP Project C1500518 DECEMBER 2006 BENCHMAKING STUDY