Robots, red dust, and the future of mining towns

Karen McNab & Daniel Franks

The giants of mining are moving towards the unmanned extraction of the earth’s resources. AAP/EPA/Christian Sprogoe

Automation and remote operation are set to transform Australian mining. It makes sense: automation can address labour shortages as the industry expands, reduce costs and improve productivity, health and safety.

Yet with the looming prospect of major industry change there has been almost no public discussion about the implications of the transformational change for regional communities and society at large.

Recent attention has been triggered by Rio Tinto announcements, which include a half billion dollar investment in driverless iron ore trains in the Pilbara; new technologies in underground tunnelling and mineral recovery; a remote operations centre in Perth; and a fleet of 150 driverless haul trucks. Other mining companies have announced plans to implement autonomous haul truck fleets and underground loaders. Newcrest is developing a remote operations centre in the New South Wales regional centre of Orange.

The Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) at the University of Queensland has taken a broader view in investigating the potential societal implications of this transition.

Mine equipment will be remotely operated from far away capital cities AAP/EPA/RIO TINTO PLC

The implications are far reaching. They go well beyond a change in some jobs in the Australian mining sector (and that in itself warrants substantial attention). The industry has a strong regional presence. Its workforce management practices and how, where and with whom mining companies do business have significant implications for regional communities. These decisions affect their future population, the availability of services and regional infrastructure and economic opportunities.

In the past generation, mining communities have evolved from purpose-built mining towns with 100% residential workforces to hubs of largely commuter workforces who fly-in fly-out/drive-in drive-out to meet the growing labour need of the industry.

Industry and communities are already grappling with how best to manage this approach to workforce management and its implications for regional communities. And now industry stands on the verge of another major change to its workforce management approach. It is a change with major implications for the communities in which they operate.

Automation and remote operation centres will again redefine the “mining community” along with the employment, business development and investment opportunities that come with a mine.

Within a decade, automated mines are expected to have only skeletal on-site workforce. Semi-skilled functions such as truck driving and train driving will be conducted from remote operation centres in capital cities. Highly specialist teams will visit mines at scheduled periods to support otherwise remote maintenance and management.

An automated industry with an employment base concentrated in remote operations centres in capital cities offers a very different value proposition.

Automation will reshape the costs and benefits of mining for remote and regional communities, such as in WA's Hamersley Ranges. AAP/Rebecca Le May

There could be community benefits. Perhaps there is more potential for women and older workers to participate in mining. Mining “communities” may not be contingent on the life of a resource within one geographical area, but stabilised in areas where there is a diverse economy, more opportunities and a larger population to share the costs of social services and infrastructure.

On the flip side, jobs and business development opportunities available in remote and regional areas may be limited in number and scope. They will, at least, change.

Without the appropriate incentives and restrictions we cannot hope to capture the benefits for regions and guard against potential problems. The transition will go more smoothly if those who have a stake in the change are involved. There are too many examples of new technologies ultimately failing to deliver anticipated benefits because somewhere, someone is not aware or not prepared – the workforce, service providers and suppliers, traditional owners, education and training providers, government or mining communities.

The Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining has been applying a process called Social Licence in Design to the case of automation in the Australian mining industry. We are considering the broader societal issues of this technological transformation. Engaging wider groups in the transformation will be important in capturing the potential benefits for individuals, regional communities and broader society.

The most recent industry announcements have stimulated public discussion about automation in Australian mining. What is needed now is for the industry to open its plans to those that may be affected by, or who will need to prepare for, such a transition in a collaborative yet commercially-sensitive way.

We have worked with mining industry technical experts, social scientists, education and training specialists as well as community, regional development and sustainability professionals.

They send a clear message: industry needs broader engagement about workforce culture, education and training, participation in the mining sector by Indigenous people, women and older workers and the implications for business development and employment in regional communities.

The project is being funded as part of the CSIRO Mineral Futures Collaboration Cluster – a program of research aiming to enhance the future sustainability of Australia’s mining sector.

A discussion paper prepared for a roundtable on automation with industry, government and community participants is available here.

Comments welcome below.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Collaboration to address the cumulative impacts of resource developments

This post was originally published on the International Association for Impact Assessment Discussion Board. SIA Share - January 2012 - Collaboration.

In December I was involved in a ‘Mining and Communities Study Tour’, which was supported by the Australian Agency for International Development and led by Ana Maria Esteves and Frank Vanclay. As part of the tour, which included delegates from 9 countries throughout Africa, I led a session on collaborative approaches to address the cumulative impacts of resource developments.

The issues that the group identified in the exercise I thought would be great to share with other practitioners to see if they resonated.

The group workshopped a hypothetical example where multiple coal mines were undergoing expansion, thus also driving growth in nearby electricity generation and associated infrastructure. The participants identified a priority cumulative impact and discussed the key considerations for a collaborative response.

The main framing question was:

What are the possibilities to address cumulative impacts through collaboration or ‘whole of government’ approaches?

Specific questions included:

What is the cumulative impact issue to be addressed (single issue or multi-issue)? At what scale is the issue occurring? Who is it impacting most? What activities are leading to impacts? 

The group chose the issue of housing as it was thought to be the priority. In particular they were interested in the disproportionate impact of rental and housing affordability on non-mine employees and the mismatch between demand and supply in a growth context. Housing was mainly presenting as an issue at the local level but the drivers for in-migration were identified as influencing factors at the regional scale.

Who are the stakeholders who are best placed to be involved in a collaborative initiative?

After first listing a wide variety of stakeholders the group began to rationalize and become more creative about what would work in practice. They thought that a mix of technical capability, stakeholder representativeness, contributors to the problem/response, and the ability to drive change within institutions were important criteria to have within the group. Representatives from key impacted groups (workers unions, faith based organizations and NGO’s working in housing access) were thought to be important, in particular those that have a critical but constructive approach. They identified that campaigning based groups would be fundamental for change but that in a multi-stakeholder process with companies their approach may lead to tensions in working relationships. The legitimacy of stakeholders representing impacted groups was thought to be important particularly where advocacy focused community members were not participating in the initiative.  Representatives from government authorities (particularly housing departments), mining companies, housing providers and investors and others contributing to the problem were also identified with the ideal size of the group thought to be around 10-12 (multiple issue initiatives might develop sub-committees). Leadership was thought to most likely come from local government who might initially auspice the group. A balance of stakeholders would insure one group did not dominate.

What would be the purpose of a multi-stakeholder committee to address the issue? What program of activities would it undertake? How would a committee function?

It was thought the committee would need to integrate with existing planning processes to support and challenge current arrangements when necessary and drive a localized response. While housing affordability was identified as the main issue other issues were thought to be critical – especially economic diversity and service provision. The committee would not wish to duplicate other governance arrangements. It was thought that it could play a coordinating role where greater understanding of the problem, how it was playing out, what actions were leading to impacts by which players and how the impacts were being experienced would allow targeted solutions to be found by committee members to then modify their own behavior. The first key task of the group would be to get a better understanding of the problem. Companies could share information about growth plans (perhaps after collating and de-identifying data). Possible strategies could be identified and investigated. Companies may vary their work rosters and arrangements, or share infrastructure such as work camp facilities. Housing providers could discuss challenges with land releases with government, and priority house design with community representatives etc. 

Importantly the group believed that a key role for the committee would be to run a participatory community planning exercise to chart a preferred future for the town and try to propose solutions within those parameters. Communication and transparency were thought to be critical.

Committee meetings were thought to be ideally a mix between information provision from guest speakers and participants, tours of facilities etc and more focused program related work. The governance arrangements were thought to be very important to the success of the group.

What are the barriers to working together and how would these barriers be overcome?

Demonstrating early wins to build momentum was thought to be the key way to overcome what could be public cynicism about the initiative and wavering commitment to the group. Demonstrating to community that the problem was accepted by participants and that a solution was being sought, could be closely followed by the participatory planning process and identification of strategies.

The issues of relationships, personalities and governance arrangements were critical and thought to be often overlooked. Whether the group would operate under a terms of reference or a memorandum of understanding, how it would be funded, what team building activities would build trust (sharing food?), how minutes would be taken, and how decisions would be made?

Expectation management was also important as such initiatives take time to deliver and usually have come about only after a chronic issue has reached crisis. Longer term solutions such as identifying land release sites etc would need to back up early wins. Barriers to collaboration between competitor companies could preclude joint funding or delivery of programs. Alternatives such as to collectively coordinate and identify issues but deliver on them individually were thought to be necessary in some cases.