3 ms·

> So, while various companies have set out to automate the giant dump trucks, having a continuous chain of smaller, self-driving trucks using standard parts and

> So, while various companies have set out to automate the giant dump trucks, having a continuous chain of smaller, self-driving trucks using standard parts and without the need for a driver cabin would be much more efficient So, to anyone with dirt experience, hivekit just called themselves out as being the techies that don't get it. On-road trucks are fragile and require highly attentive drivers to run without destroying the trucks off-road. Everything breaks in the dirt, and almost all mining operations need very nuanced knowledge to conduct safely, for people or machines. > Areas, where traffic is highly structured and controlled. That isn't mining or the oil patch. You are dealing with mud, dropped rocks that will take out brake chambers, continually changing conditions etc... The Moravec Paradox hits all these attempts, because people without domain knowledge under estimate the skills required. While minimizing operator count is useful, this isn't Minecraft. It takes a lot of skill and being adaptive changing conditions to even different with an excavator. Some mines with consistent material properties and safe conditions do automate digging up a stope, but most mining requires expertise and informed judgement. Even in the oilfield, drilling is a high skilled job, were you have to adopt to changing conditions to avoid breaking the drill stem, which is expensive to fish and fix. Even robots in warehouses are a challenge and that is far closer to the authors claimed conditions.

atoav 3y ago
Playing the devils advocate here, beancounters would now say that wherever any true disruption happened there were domain experts that told them it couldn't be done. And they are not completely wrong. If you asked any decent professional whether their work could be replaced by automation, they would probably give you reasonable sounding arguments why it is not that simple. But as a techie that has on the ground experience with sensors, electronics, computer vision, programming and grew up close to mines I think it is key to realize that there are hard problems and there are hard problems. And mining automation is the latter.
- nyrikki 3y ago
  In mining, the bean counters would use child and forced labor if they still could. But truck shovel routing is a version of VRP, trucks and shovels need to be matched or the approximations rise into the double digits of inefficiency. If you look at the powder river area where they use the model they mentioned, truck shovel is for removing the spoil on top, and thus is a dynamic environment. The actual coal is moved by conveyer belts at the mines I have been to. VRP is nontrivial and the bean counters know this. Note this fairly readable paper and the complexity of 2VRP vs 3VRP vs kVRP. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X04002860 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X0... If they have some new method, it won't apply across surface, sub-surface, and oil at the same time unless P=NP.
  - airbreather 3y ago
    VRP is the least of their problems and won't be in any way a limiting factor out of the myriad of possible limiting factors in applying tech to mining and O+G. VRP is noise on the signal, and it is not even that relevant in a lot of cases, it makes little difference to where and when a truck needs to be whether it is driven by a human or machine. Additionally, the from-to endpoints are fairly well known, with very few options, and the state of the truck related to these (eg full, empty, healthy, faulted etc etc) and with very limited options for variability, unlike a travelling salesman problem which has far less constraints. The subset of this problem is already fairly well understood and applies to any kind of transport of goods with a few fixed options, and in mining materials handling is called Route Sequencing (RSS). Can be conveyors with shuttles, or trucks with roads/intersections. Similar concepts occur in Amazon warehouses, airport luggage handling, graineries (eg wheat), and so on. There are far greater immediate problems to solve beyond a few tweaks in efficiency relate to to VRP or RSS or whatever, first one being the "friction points" of human-machine interaction and how to manage safety in the context of already well established Functional Safety standards and regulations. These Functional Safety problems already consume a significant part of any mining automation. I know because I am a Functional Safety Engineer (TUV Registered) that works in this area in one of the biggest and highest intensity mining centres in the world. I have worked for over the last 30 years designing, engineering and delivering mining and O+G automation and safety systems. We already have autonomous dump trunks and autonomous road haulage (in some cases running up to 100km route lengths) in some mining operations, but have seen over 30 years of extensive de-manning in mining and materials handling operations. This has been primarily under the guise of safety by reduced exposure, party efficiency by removing human in loop ops, but also with the hidden under-current of de-unionisation - there used to be some very acrimonious and expensive strikes in the industry, unions were strong. Historically costing billions if not tens of billions of dollars, do not under estimate the company drive in this aspect. The biggest mining company in the world, and it's peers, is heavily involved in this. Offshore, there have been some manned oil/gas platforms de-manned, with daytime access for maintenance as required, going back 20 years now. It is already happening, it is just a matter of how fast, and to what degree, but it is constantly shifting equilibrium point (based on available tech, desire and available capital, motivation and opportunity etc etc). What could be done is counterpoised with inertia and stickiness driven by fear and greed, conservatism,anchoring and reaching and whole heap of human factors that often dominate over the technological capabilities. You have to remember the scale of some of the projects is mammoth, an LNG development might be 60+ billion dollars over near 10 years, apart from the change in available tech over this time, spending this type of money is usually accompanied with a desire for certainty of outcomes, some times new tech is only applied when mission essential as there have been some notable failures of application or scaling up of new tech in the past. I have only scraped the tip of the iceberg here and could develop whole rabbit warrens of discussion around all this, but I think I have made my initial point and then some. This is not a simple problem, it is harder than a hard problem, and VRP is not the deal breaker. VRP is not even close to being on the horizon of challenges that will impact the bigger picture outcomes.

atoav 3y ago

Playing the devils advocate here, beancounters would now say that wherever any true disruption happened there were domain experts that told them it couldn't be done. And they are not completely wrong. If you asked any decent professional whether their work could be replaced by automation, they would probably give you reasonable sounding arguments why it is not that simple. But as a techie that has on the ground experience with sensors, electronics, computer vision, programming and grew up close to mines I think it is key to realize that there are hard problems and there are hard problems. And mining automation is the latter.

nyrikki 3y ago
In mining, the bean counters would use child and forced labor if they still could. But truck shovel routing is a version of VRP, trucks and shovels need to be matched or the approximations rise into the double digits of inefficiency. If you look at the powder river area where they use the model they mentioned, truck shovel is for removing the spoil on top, and thus is a dynamic environment. The actual coal is moved by conveyer belts at the mines I have been to. VRP is nontrivial and the bean counters know this. Note this fairly readable paper and the complexity of 2VRP vs 3VRP vs kVRP. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X04002860 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X0... If they have some new method, it won't apply across surface, sub-surface, and oil at the same time unless P=NP.
- airbreather 3y ago
  VRP is the least of their problems and won't be in any way a limiting factor out of the myriad of possible limiting factors in applying tech to mining and O+G. VRP is noise on the signal, and it is not even that relevant in a lot of cases, it makes little difference to where and when a truck needs to be whether it is driven by a human or machine. Additionally, the from-to endpoints are fairly well known, with very few options, and the state of the truck related to these (eg full, empty, healthy, faulted etc etc) and with very limited options for variability, unlike a travelling salesman problem which has far less constraints. The subset of this problem is already fairly well understood and applies to any kind of transport of goods with a few fixed options, and in mining materials handling is called Route Sequencing (RSS). Can be conveyors with shuttles, or trucks with roads/intersections. Similar concepts occur in Amazon warehouses, airport luggage handling, graineries (eg wheat), and so on. There are far greater immediate problems to solve beyond a few tweaks in efficiency relate to to VRP or RSS or whatever, first one being the "friction points" of human-machine interaction and how to manage safety in the context of already well established Functional Safety standards and regulations. These Functional Safety problems already consume a significant part of any mining automation. I know because I am a Functional Safety Engineer (TUV Registered) that works in this area in one of the biggest and highest intensity mining centres in the world. I have worked for over the last 30 years designing, engineering and delivering mining and O+G automation and safety systems. We already have autonomous dump trunks and autonomous road haulage (in some cases running up to 100km route lengths) in some mining operations, but have seen over 30 years of extensive de-manning in mining and materials handling operations. This has been primarily under the guise of safety by reduced exposure, party efficiency by removing human in loop ops, but also with the hidden under-current of de-unionisation - there used to be some very acrimonious and expensive strikes in the industry, unions were strong. Historically costing billions if not tens of billions of dollars, do not under estimate the company drive in this aspect. The biggest mining company in the world, and it's peers, is heavily involved in this. Offshore, there have been some manned oil/gas platforms de-manned, with daytime access for maintenance as required, going back 20 years now. It is already happening, it is just a matter of how fast, and to what degree, but it is constantly shifting equilibrium point (based on available tech, desire and available capital, motivation and opportunity etc etc). What could be done is counterpoised with inertia and stickiness driven by fear and greed, conservatism,anchoring and reaching and whole heap of human factors that often dominate over the technological capabilities. You have to remember the scale of some of the projects is mammoth, an LNG development might be 60+ billion dollars over near 10 years, apart from the change in available tech over this time, spending this type of money is usually accompanied with a desire for certainty of outcomes, some times new tech is only applied when mission essential as there have been some notable failures of application or scaling up of new tech in the past. I have only scraped the tip of the iceberg here and could develop whole rabbit warrens of discussion around all this, but I think I have made my initial point and then some. This is not a simple problem, it is harder than a hard problem, and VRP is not the deal breaker. VRP is not even close to being on the horizon of challenges that will impact the bigger picture outcomes.