Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Energy efficiency in mining: a review with emphasis on the role of

operators in loading and hauling operations
Kwame Awuah-Offei*
Mining & Nuclear Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science & Technology, 226 McNutt Hall, Rolla, MO, 65409, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a review of the literature on energy efficiency in mining with a specific emphasis on
Received 23 September 2015 the role of operators in energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations. The objectives are to: (i)
Received in revised form establish the current knowledge on energy efficiency in mining, in general; (ii) establish current
11 January 2016
knowledge on the role of the operator in energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations, specifically;
Accepted 15 January 2016
Available online 22 January 2016
and (iii) make recommendations for industrial best practice and future research directions to enhance
energy efficiency in mining. The papers included in the review were selected through searches in major
abstract databases using relevant keywords, with emphasis on recent peer-reviewed work. The review
Keywords:
Energy efficiency
identified gaps in the literature and made recommendations for future research and industry best
Mining practice.
Operator © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Material handling
Loading
Hauling

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3. Energy efficiency and mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4. Energy efficiency in loading and hauling operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5. Role of operators in efficient loading and hauling operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.1. Loading operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.2. Hauling operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.1. Recommendations for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2. Recommendations for industrial best practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

1. Introduction sustainable energy generation have received attention recently in

sustainability research. This trend is no different in the mining
The sustainability impacts of energy generation and use are well sector where research on how to improve energy efficiency and
understood. Hence, improving energy efficiency and more adoption of more sustainable energy sources appears to be on the
rise.
Mining is an energy intensive activity. In the United States (US),
* Tel.: þ1 573 341 6438; fax: þ1 573 341 6934. for example, mining is one of the few non-manufacturing industrial
E-mail address: kwamea@mst.edu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.035
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
90 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
sectors identified by the US Department of Energy as energy
intensive (Kaarsberg et al., 2007). It is also well established that the
mining sector could significantly improve its energy efficiency.
Again, using the US as an example, the US Department of Energy
(DOE) estimated that the US mining sector consumes about 1315 PJ
per annum and there is potential to reduce this annual energy
consumption to 610 PJ, which is about 46% of current annual energy
consumption (DOE, 2007). In South Africa, mining consumes 175 PJ
of energy per annum and is the highest consumer of electricity at
110.9 PJ per annum, based on 2003 data (Oladiran and Meyer,
2007). The impact of this energy intensity on mining operating
costs is evident in the correlation between increased interest in
energy efficiency and energy prices (Levesque et al., 2014;
Kecojevic et al., 2014). Such high energy intensive operations are
not acceptable from a sustainability or cost standpoint, given recent
policy initiatives by several governments to make industry pay for
the costs associated with carbon emissions (carbon taxes and
similar regulatory costs). Thus, all stakeholders have significant
interest in improving the energy efficiency of mines.
Energy efficiency improvement programs in mining are
widespread and target all aspects of mining. These include
capturing waste heat, managing electricity demand, mine drainage,
ventilation, and generating energy from by-products (Levesque
et al., 2014). However, comminution and material handling
(including loading and hauling) operations have been identified to
have the highest potential for energy efficiency improvements. For
instance, in the US DOE study, grinding and diesel equipment used
in material handling were identified as the operations presenting
the greatest energy savings potential (DOE, 2007). The sheer
number of studies dedicated to improving energy efficiency of
mineral processing (or coal preparation) plants and material
handling operations, compared to other processes, confirm this
assertion. Yet, 40 years after the initial emphasis on energy effi-
ciency in the 1970s, mines still struggle to control energy con-
sumption per unit of production for these two operations, as
evidenced by the US DOE study mentioned earlier.
Of the two processes (comminution and material handling),
material handling is, perhaps the most challenging to address
because of difficulty in automating these operations. Most mineral
processing and coal preparation plants today are highly monitored
(with sensors) and automated, which facilitates energy efficiency
programs. With minimal human input (often very complicated
processing plants are run by only a few highly skilled individuals), it
is easier to implement company-wide energy improvement pro-
grams since education programs to overcome the resistance to
change can focus on the few individuals involved in plant opera-
tions. On the contrary, most loading and hauling operations involve
significantly more employees (one operator per excavator or truck
is still the norm) and overcoming those barriers to change are more
challenging. And often, changing operator behavior (e.g. in cur-
tailing truck idling) is the whole energy efficiency program.
There is some evidence that operator practices in operating
loading and hauling equipment in mines is the source of significant
energy inefficiency. This evidence comes from both energy effi-
ciency and continuous improvement studies. To the best of the
author's knowledge, no one has critically reviewed all these studies
to evaluate the extent to which operator practices affect energy
consumption per unit of productivity. Such a review will be useful
for identifying what we know already, in this regard, and what new
research is necessary to facilitate more energy efficient loading and
hauling operations. The objectives of this review paper are to use a
comprehensive review of peer-reviewed literature to: (i) establish
the current knowledge on energy efficiency in mining, in general;
(ii) establish the current knowledge on the role of the operator in
energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations, specifically;
and (iii) make recommendations for industrial best practice and
future research directions. With respect to the second objective, the
paper explores two important questions: (i) what do we already
know about the effect of operator practices on energy efficiency of
loading and hauling operations?; and (ii) what gaps exist in the
literature that need to be addressed in order to facilitate better
understanding of this effect in order improve the overall energy
efficiency of mining?
The paper is organized into seven sections, including this
introductory section. The next section presents the methods used
to select the literature and the general approach to answering the
questions set forth. Following this are two sections that discuss the
literature review findings on energy efficiency research in mining,
in general, and loading and hauling operations, in particular. The
next section attempts to address the second objective while the
section after that addresses the third one. The paper concludes with
a summary of the discussions.
2. Methods
Peer-reviewed publications were identified through searches in
major abstract databases (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus, Compendex,
Google Scholar) using relevant keywords, which included “mining”,
“energy efficiency”, “energy consumption”, and “energy use.” The
author screened search results for relevance by reviewing titles and
abstracts. In particular, where possible, searches were made to
exclude items with the keyword “data mining.” The review mostly
focused on peer-reviewed journal publications since the intention
was to rely on rigorous research to address the stated objectives. In
a few cases, relevant papers in peer-reviewed conference pro-
ceedings were included in the list of reviewed papers. Also, some
technical reports from reputable government agencies were
included in the list of references for review. In all, the author
reviewed over 100 articles, mostly journal articles, for the general
review of energy efficiency in mining. After the general review, he
reviewed 75 articles (15 of which were contained in conference
proceedings) in further detail to address the research objectives.
Most of the discussions and analysis in this review is based on the
critical review of these 75 articles. Of these, 22 deal directly with
the impact of operators on energy (fuel) consumption or efficiency
in loading and hauling operations.
The review concentrated mainly on research in the last decade.
For example, of the 75 articles reviewed in detail, only two were
published before 2005 (one each in 1992 and 2000). There are two
reasons for this. First, the author intended to focus on the most
recent research in order to establish the state-of-the-art. Second,
the pressure on the mining sector to be more efficient due to sus-
tainability (climate change impacts in particular) concerns has
resulted in increased research effort over the last decade. For a
more comprehensive review of energy efficiency initiatives in
mining spanning earlier periods, the reader is referred to Levesque
et al. (2014).
3. Energy efficiency and mining
Energy efficiency is defined as the ratio of useful work done
(energy output) to energy input. For mining, the amount of product
(e.g. tonnage of rock, grams of metal) is often used as a proxy for
useful work done. These proxies can include payload or the product
of payload and distance traveled (Odhams et al., 2010; Motlogelwa
and Minnitt, 2013; Oskouei and Awuah-Offei, 2014). In some in-
stances, proxies are used to describe the energy input as well. For
instance, it is common to use the volume of diesel fuel used in truck
haulage as a measure of energy input (Awuah-Offei et al., 2011;
Motlogelwa and Minnitt, 2013).
 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
Table 1
Highlights of mining energy efficiency research initiatives.
Class Sample research initiatives
Policy  Evaluate impact of government policy on the mining sector
Sources  Closed underground mines as low temperature geothermal sources
 Hybrid/renewable generation for powering active mines
Support  Managing electricity demand by optimizing ventilation and cooling
activities systems
 Optimizing mine drainage for energy efficiency or reduced energy
impacts
Processing  Towards energy efficient comminution
 Integrated systems (mine-to-mill) optimization
 Assessing climate change impacts of processinga
Mining  Initiatives focused on better mining equipment (e.g. drive systems etc.)
 Automation and control
 Better understanding of the effect of operating conditions
 Better understanding of the role of operators
 Energy (fuel) consumption modeling and assessment of climate change
impacts
a
Processing is used here to refer to mineral processing, extractive metallurgy and associated activities required to make saleable product out of run-of-mine material.
Energy efficiency gains can result from decreasing energy (fuel)
consumption per unit of output or increasing output per unit of
energy consumption. Energy efficiency initiatives in mining have
been documented in the literature from the early 1970s. These early
energy efficiency programs included waste heat recovery,
employee training, adequate and timely maintenance, and demand
management (Levesque et al., 2014). Today, energy management is
a key performance indicator for many mines and routinely reported
in annual sustainability reports for individual mines or entire cor-
porations. The particular strategies a mine's management employs
to achieve its energy management goals will depend on the mining
method and the mine's unique circumstances. The energy effi-
ciency of each mine also differs based on the mining method and
circumstances (Ditsele and Awuah-Offei, 2012).
A review of the literature shows that energy efficiency initiatives
have targeted all aspects of mining operations and the mining
sector, as a whole. In this work, these initiatives are classified into
mining, processing, and support activities as well as energy sources
and government policy analysis (Table 1).
Most of the research on the effect of government policies on
energy efficiency of mining focuses on electricity demand, although
some are more comprehensive. The published research indicates
that government policies, as a whole, often have contradictory ef-
fects on energy efficiency in mining (Henriksson et al., 2014; Hu
and Kavan, 2014). For example, one government policy may
expressly encourage industry to invest in energy efficiency projects
while another may be depriving industry of the needed financing to
carry out such investments (Hu and Kavan, 2014). In most cases,
government policies aimed at achieving national energy efficiency
goals are a combination of new taxes and tax incentives. Such
policies need to balance the need to discourage energy intensive
activities with the need for national or regional competitiveness in
an increasingly global economy. Otherwise, an unintended
outcome of such policies may be a weakening economy (resulting
from, for example, capital flight as mines close and the product is
mined elsewhere) and its attendant problems. Another key issue
that informs such government policy is whether electricity (or
energy) demand in the mining sector is sensitive to electricity
(energy) prices. (If mining energy demand is elastic with respect to
prices, then higher government taxes on electricity will reduce
91
References
 Bolt et al. (2014), Henriksson et al. (2014), Hu and Kavan (2014), and
Kohler (2014).
 Hall et al. (2011), Verhoeven et al. (2014), Watzlaf and Ackman (2006).
 Carvalho et al. (2014), Paraszczak and Fytas (2012), Paredes-S

anchez et al.
(2015).
 Chatterjee et al. (2015), Schoeman et al. (2014), Van Greunen et al. (2014),
van Niekerk et al. (2014).
 Paredes-Sa
nchez et al. (2015), Nguyen et al. (2014a,b), Sahoo et al.
(2014b), Gunson et al. (2010), van Niekerk et al. (2014).
 Nadolski et al. (2014), Napier-Munn (2015), Numbi et al. (2014),
Palaniandy et al. (2015), Pothina et al. (2007).
 Kojovic (2005), Kojovic et al. (2007), Powell and Bye (2009), Silva and
Casali (2015).
 Haque and Norgate (2014), Nimana et al. (2015), Norgate and Haque
(2010).
 Brown et al. (2000), Mazumdar (2013), Nessim et al. (2013).
 Choi and Nieto (2011), Nessim et al. (2013), Parreira and Meech (2011).
 Chang and Morlok (2005), Sahoo et al. (2014a).
 Oskouei and Awuah-Offei (2014, 2015), Vukotic and Kecojevic (2014),
Patnayak et al. (2008), Ahmed et al. (2012).
 Ditsele and Awuah-Offei (2012), LaClair and Truemner (2005), Liu et al.
(2015), Sahoo et al. (2014a).
consumption.) There appears to be some contradiction in the
literature, with regards to this question. Whereas Henriksson et al.
(2014) show that electricity demand in the Swedish mining sector
is price elastic, Kohler (2014) does not find statistically significant
elasticity in the South African sector. It appears this contradiction is
explained by whether the model allows for substitution or not.
A key policy tool that has not been used as frequently by gov-
ernments for the mining sector is public funding of energy effi-
ciency research. The literature shows that research and
development increases energy efficiency (Henriksson et al., 2014).
Yet research expenditures of mining companies are traditionally
very low compared to companies in other sectors. The fact that
mining companies cannot as easily protect energy efficiency tech-
nology developed through research expenditures discourages more
private research expenditures on energy efficiency. Thus, it will
appear this should be a perfect avenue for public research funding
to encourage research on energy efficiency initiatives. For instance,
in 2009, the US Department of Energy's (US DOE's) Industrial
Technologies Program reported cumulative energy savings of
12.9 PJ from three energy saving technologies for the mining sector
funded by the program (DOE, 2009).
Recent research on energy sources emphasizes renewable en-
ergy sources as a means to lower emissions and climate change
impacts of mining. Energy is needed in mining in the form of
electricity, thermal energy (heating or cooling) and liquid fuel for
mobile equipment. The literature shows that there is significant
potential to improve the impacts associated with energy use in
mining, if mines will use more energy from renewable sources
(McLellan et al., 2012). The two broad trends in the recent literature
are: (i) using flooded underground mines as low temperature
geothermal resources (Hall et al., 2011; Verhoeven et al., 2014;
Watzlaf and Ackman, 2006); and (ii) incorporating renewable en-
ergy, generated on-site, into the energy source mix (Carvalho et al.,
2014; Paraszczak and Fytas, 2012; Paredes-Sa
nchez et al., 2015).
Carvalho et al. (2014) show that hybrid systems, which include
renewable energy sources, are optimal in cases where grid power
and other energy infrastructure (e.g. transportation routes for
diesel) are unavailable or cost prohibitive. It is no surprise then that
mines in remote locations have been the ones who have adopted
hybrid energy systems (Paraszczak and Fytas, 2012). The main
92 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
disadvantage of these systems is the high initial capital re-
quirements compared to conventional diesel generators, which are
much more expensive to operate. However, some mines that are
not so remote have adopted solar generation (e.g. using large
reclaimed tailings facilities) when the economics have been
favorable (Paraszczak and Fytas, 2012). It is obvious that economics
remains a driver in the decision to include renewable energy pro-
jects into mine development.
It is also important to note that biodiesel has become increas-
ingly popular in underground mines as a means to meet stricter
diesel particulate emission standards (Lutz et al., 2015). Although
this is not motivated by energy efficiency or a desire to reduce
climate change impacts, it could potentially lead to lower carbon
footprint and more sustainable mining.
Energy efficiency initiatives in the literature have been
comprehensive, touching on every aspect: mining, processing and
support activities. Most of these initiatives have focused on demand
management, by mines, to reduce electricity consumption and
costs. Managing electricity consumption for ventilation and cooling
systems has received a lot of attention lately (Chatterjee et al., 2015;
Van Greunen et al., 2014). Mine drainage systems have also
received attention (Sahoo et al., 2014b).
Energy research in processing is extensive and cannot be fully
reviewed in this work, given its scope. A summary list of some
important research initiatives is provided in Table 1. It has long
been known that comminution is energy inefficient (DOE, 2007;
Napier-Munn, 2015). Unsurprisingly, it has received a lot of
research attention with many researchers offering models to un-
derstand specific energy, conducting benchmark studies or pro-
posing more energy efficient alternatives (Nadolski et al., 2014;
Palaniandy et al., 2015; Pothina et al., 2007). However, not much
has changed in the industrial practice with respect to communition
and it still represents, perhaps, the single biggest potential for en-
ergy savings in mining (when compared to theoretical limits) (DOE,
2007; Napier-Munn, 2015). Further research is required to develop
more energy efficient technology that is reliable and cost effective.
However, industry needs to more aggressively incorporate already
existing research before it is forced to do so by regulatory pressure
and energy costs (Napier-Munn, 2015).
Achieving energy efficiency in size reduction by taking a sys-
tems level approach that includes ground fragmentation, material
handling and comminution is not a new idea. However, it still
continues to receive research attention as researchers seek to
extend its applications and enhance our understanding for further
gains (Kojovic et al., 2007; Powell and Bye, 2009; Silva and Casali,
2015). For example, by accounting for feed size distribution in
models that estimate SAG (semi-autogeneous grinding) mill spe-
cific energy, mine and power engineers can better predict energy
consumption, which is likely to result in more energy efficient
comminution circuits (Silva and Casali, 2015).
Some of the recent research has also focused on assessing the
climate change impacts of processing (Haque and Norgate, 2014;
Nimana et al., 2015; Norgate and Haque, 2010). For example, the
energy intensive nature of oil sands processing has received
attention even in society at large and is at the center of debates on
the role of oil sands in energy policy.
The next section provides an overview of recent research on
energy efficiency in loading and hauling operations, which are
considered the core energy intensive portions of mining activities.
4. Energy efficiency in loading and hauling operations
Energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations depend on
the efficiency of the equipment units, operating conditions
(including those imposed by mine planning and design) and
operator practices, which are affected by skill and training. Many
researchers have attempted to model energy consumption or effi-
ciency of one or multiple material handling operations by ac-
counting for some of these factors (Awuah-Offei and Frimpong,
2007; Awuah-Offei et al., 2011; Sahoo et al., 2014a; Zhang and
Xia, 2011). Due to the number and complexity of variables and the
fact that analytical models have to, out of necessity, use simplifying
assumptions, none of these models comprehensively address every
factor (Awuah-Offei and Frimpong, 2007; Zhang and Xia, 2011;
Sahoo et al., 2014a; Wei and Gao, 2012; Yin et al., 2008). Other
models use stochastic simulation, regression and other approaches
to capture the complex relationships instead of modeling these
relationships analytically (Acaroglu et al., 2008; Awuah-Offei et al.,
2011). Some researchers have also established these relationships
using empirical data from field studies (Bogunovic and Kecojevic,
2011; Patnayak et al., 2008; Vukotic and Kecojevic, 2014). Regard-
less of the approach or which factors are considered, it is obvious
that there are factors beyond the efficiency of the equipment units
used in loading and hauling that affect the overall energy
consumed per unit of production. However, the energy efficiency of
the equipment units is still very important in achieving overall
energy efficiency.
In order for mines to achieve energy efficiency targets, the
equipment units need to efficiently transform the energy input into
useful work. Research is required then to efficiently generate en-
ergy from the fuel source (for those units that generate their energy
onboard, primarily from diesel fuel), transmit the energy to the
working implements, or convert the energy into useful work by the
working implements. Perhaps, one of the most significant de-
velopments in this direction is the development and widespread
adoption of electric drive systems in both shovels and trucks
(Brown et al., 2000). Theoretically, the electric drive systems
eliminate some of the energy conversion, especially when com-
bined with trolley-assist, thus leading to more energy efficient
operations (Mazumdar, 2013). It is not clear, however, that the
electric drive system, by itself, represents more efficient technology
since the mechanical drives continue to perform well in several
applications.
There has been new automation and control algorithms for
various loading and hauling applications, which lead to improved
energy (or fuel) efficiency (Choi and Nieto, 2011; Middelberg et al.,
2009; Nessim et al., 2013; Parreira and Meech, 2011; Ristic et al.,
2012). These applications range from better dispatching systems,
electricity demand management for conveyor transport, to thermal
management, which all lead to lower energy consumption per unit
of production. The ultimate example of automation is autonomous
(driverless) dump trucks, which have the potential to increase en-
ergy efficiency significantly by removing the “human factor”
completely. Since most of the technology is proprietary, the author
is not aware of any empirical data that has been published on the
fuel efficiency of autonomous trucks. However, early research on
the subject suggests that control algorithms that ensure optimal
gear shifting will outperform human operators and ensure optimal
fuel efficiency (Parreira and Meech, 2011). More importantly, such
control algorithms can operate optimally almost all the time,
compared to human operators whose performance varies during an
operating shift. However, it is important to note that control algo-
rithms that lead to more energy efficiency are still useful, even if
they do not lead to complete autonomy. Computer-assisted oper-
ation can still provide significant energy savings.
Recent research confirms that operating conditions (whether
natural or imposed by mine planning and design) affect the oper-
ational efficiency and, thus, energy efficiency of loading and hauling
operations. For loading operations, factors like the resistance to
digging (whether natural or after ground fragmentation), bench
 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
profiles, and proper truck matching (both quantity and sizes) have
been found to influence energy efficiency (Awuah-Offei and
Frimpong, 2007; Awuah-Offei et al., 2011; Oskouei and Awuah-
Offei, 2015; Karpuz et al., 1992). For truck haulage, haul road pro-
files, haul road surface properties (affecting friction and rolling
resistances), mine geometry and topography, and proper truck
matching have been found to be influential (Awuah-Offei et al.,
2011; LaClair and Truemner, 2005; Sahoo et al., 2014a). Some of
these are relatively easy to control (e.g. good road surfaces are the
product of good road construction and maintenance practices)
whereas others are not. However, it is essential for research to
continue to elucidate the exact relationships between these factors
and energy efficiency, so management can properly prioritize its
efforts to control them. This is particularly challenging in a field
environment where many interacting factors are continually
changing. However, laboratory equipment have their limitations
due to issues with scaling.
Given the emphasis, in the last decade, on climate change im-
pacts, it is not surprising that some of the recent research on
loading and hauling activities focus on assessment of climate
change impacts (Ditsele and Awuah-Offei, 2012; Norgate and
Haque, 2010; Kecojevic and Komljenovic, 2010; Liu et al., 2015). The
literature shows that, as with all other aspects of mining, climate
change impacts are correlated to energy efficiency. Hence, more
efficient mining (and loading and hauling operations) will result in
lower climate change impacts (Ditsele and Awuah-Offei, 2012).1
There is a significant amount of literature that points to the
important effect of operators on loading and hauling energy effi-
ciency. This is discussed in the next section.
5. Role of operators in efficient loading and hauling
operations
Energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations depends on
the equipment, operating conditions, mine planning and design,
and the operator (Fig. 1). The equipment determines how efficiently
the machines convert energy into useful work under given condi-
tions. However, unfavorable operating conditions (e.g. ground
fragmentation, confinement, and road conditions) can result in
significantly higher energy input per unit of productivity. The mine
design and production plan (which determines how equipment is
deployed) affect the operating conditions, interactions between
equipment units, and efficient use of equipment. This combines to
either enhance or detract from energy efficiency. However, there is
ample evidence that operator skill and practices significantly affect
the energy efficiency even in the best of scenarios (Awuah-Offei
and Frimpong, 2007; Oskouei and Awuah-Offei, 2015; Lumley,
2005; Sahoo et al., 2014a).
The goal of this section is to establish what we know about the
effect of operators on energy efficiency of loading and hauling
operations. It is important to note that loading with excavators and
hauling with dump trucks do not represent all of material handling
in mines. However, this section focuses on these activities for two
reasons: (i) these activities are very widespread and significant in
mining; and (ii) the author's own research has mainly focused on
these activities.
1
Although, improving energy efficiency will reduce climate change impacts for
the same level of production under similar conditions, there is no guarantee that
improving energy efficiency alone will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions
from mining. Changing conditions (e.g. deeper mines, lower quality deposits, or
increased demand) may negate the gains in energy efficiency.
93
Fig. 1. Factors that affect energy efficiency of loading and hauling.
5.1. Loading operations
As discussed in Section 3, researchers often use proxies for en-
ergy input and useful work in describing energy efficiency in
mining. For loading operations (including digging), energy input is
estimated directly, if the loading tool is an electric machine (electric
shovel or dragline), or engineers use a proxy such as volume of
diesel consumed during loading. Often, the amount of material
moved is used as a proxy for useful work done. This author believes
the amount of material per unit time (production rate) is a better
metric for useful work done since mine engineers are concerned
with how quickly material is moved as well as how much is moved
(Awuah-Offei and Frimpong, 2007). Hence, to discuss the theoret-
ical basis of energy efficiency of loading, let us define energy effi-
ciency of loading as the ratio of production per unit time to energy
input (or volume of fuel, for non-electric excavators).
The production per unit time is a function of the excavator
specifications (e.g. bucket capacity and operating speeds), oper-
ating conditions (e.g. material diggability), and mine design and
plan (e.g. bench heights and fleet of trucks matched to excavator).
The energy input is determined by the weight of the material, the
resistance of the material to digging (diggability), and the trajectory
of the bucket throughout the cycle (Awuah-Offei and Frimpong,
2007; Wei and Gao, 2012; Yin et al., 2008). Some of these factors
interact to affect both the production rate and energy input. For
instance, the trajectory taken by the bucket affects cycle time, fill
factor, and energy consumption. Fill factor also affects the weight of
material in the bucket. Various researchers have presented kine-
matics and dynamics models for energy consumption of shovels,
excavators, and draglines as a function of these parameters
(Awuah-Offei and Frimpong, 2007; Demirel and Frimpong, 2009;
Frimpong et al., 2005 & 2008; Wei and Gao, 2012).
However, the operator affects key parameters that determine
the production rate and energy consumption, such as bucket fill
factor and cycle time. The literature shows significant energy in-
efficiency in loading operations due to operator practices (Table 2).
Table 2 suggests that the other operators use up to 40% more energy
per tonne of production when compared to the best operators. The
potential savings could be even more since there is no guarantee
that the best operator operates at the optimal energy efficiency.
Research shows that during the digging phase, the most important
factors are the trajectory of the bucket used by the operator and the
speed at which the operator executes the trajectory (Awuah-Offei
and Frimpong, 2007; Wei and Gao, 2012). The front-end of an
excavator or the ropes and bucket of a dragline are very heavy and
most of the energy is expended moving them through the loading
cycle. Trajectories that increase the moments about the base of the
excavator requires far more energy. Hence, operators that tend to
94 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97

Table 2
Examples of energy inefficiency due to operator practices.

Citation Energy efficiency metric Observed Comment

inefficiency

Oskouei and Awuah-Offei (2014),
Oskouei and Awuah-Offei (2015)
Vukotic and Kecojevic (2014).
Komljenovic et al. (2010).
Patnayak et al. (2008)
Overall dragline operation energy efficiency (t/kWh) 1.4e15.7% Observed difference between best operator and others
Overall shovel operation energy efficiency 5.3e15.0% Observed difference between best operator and others
Overall dragline operation energy efficiency (t/kWh) 16.2e44.1% Observed difference between best operator and others
Shovel hoist energy efficiency (t/kJ) during 1.6e28.6% Observed difference in monthly average between best
digging phase only operator team and others

go through the muckpile with greater depths of cut tend to have

higher energy consumptions (Awuah-Offei and Frimpong, 2007;
Karpuz et al., 1992; Patnayak et al., 2008). For draglines, this ef-
fect shows in the position and distance the bucket is dragged
through (Oskouei and Awuah-Offei, 2015). However, greater depths
of cut tend to increase bucket fill factor and, thus, productivity and
energy efficiency. Hence, the best practice is the shallowest depth
of cut that results in optimal fill factor.
The speed with which an operator executes a particular trajec-
tory is directly proportional to the power draw (power is equal to
the product of force and velocity). However, higher speeds decrease
cycle times, which increase productivity and should increase en-
ergy efficiency. For example, Fig. 2, which is generated with data in
Tables 3 and 5 of Patnayak et al. (2008), seems to suggest higher
hoist power tends to lead to higher productivity. Since many of the Fig. 2. Productivity vs. hoist power using data from Patnayak et al. (2008).
research on energy efficiency of loading reported in the literature
do not include the rate of mining, it is difficult to tell what effect
digging speed has on energy efficiency. However, simulation ex- dumping times, waiting times at excavator, crusher or dump, traffic
periments by Awuah-Offei and Frimpong (2007) suggest this is a congestion on haul routes, etc.), and speed limits. Some of these
factor and one that also requires optimization. operating conditions are controlled, at least in part, by mine plan-
Also, there are other sources of inefficiency that result from how ning and design. These include rolling resistance (which is deter-
the operator interacts with other equipment units that cause delays mined by the type of road covering designed for the roads and road
and idle time. These inefficiencies can be due to the excavator or maintenance practices), haul road profile, allocated fleet and speed
hauler operator. The energy efficiency losses due to these operator limits (Odhams et al., 2010; LaClair and Truemner, 2005; Sahoo
practices have not been studied as much. However, anecdotal evi- et al., 2014a).
dence from hauler-loader matching optimization shows that Operators play a key role in determining the energy efficiency of
sub-optimal interaction between haulers and loader lead to sub- hauling operations because they impact key input parameters
optimal energy efficiency (Awuah-Offei et al., 2011). which include payload (which depends mainly on the loader
operator), travel speeds (the actual velocities as well as the accel-
eration and deceleration strategies), and gear shifting strategies2
5.2. Hauling operations
(Ahmed et al., 2012; Sahoo et al., 2014a). As shown in Equation
(1), the power, P, required by a truck traveling over a distance, D,
To estimate energy efficiency of hauling operations in mining,
depends on the velocity, V, weight of the truck (including the
researchers typically use proxies for both useful work and energy
payload if it is loaded), W, and D (Sahoo et al., 2014a). a is a constant
input. The most common proxy for useful work is payload (Awuah-
for the aerodynamic drag while b represents the rolling, friction
Offei et al., 2011; Motlogelwa and Minnitt, 2013). However, it is
and grade resistances.
obvious that to account for varying distances and haul profiles
other metrics such as the product of mass carried (payload) and
  0:5WV 3
distance or payload, distance and elevation may be more appro-
P ¼ V aV 2 þ bW þ (1)
priate. The most common proxy for useful work is fuel consump- D
tion, which is usually represented by the volume of diesel
Although increasing payloads will increase the volume of fuel
consumed during hauling. Hence, fuel efficiency for mine hauling
consumed, due to higher power requirements (Equation (1)),
operations is usually measured as payload per unit fuel consump-
increasing payloads will increase the productivity. The combined
tion or payload-distance per unit fuel consumption.
effect is that higher payloads will lead to improved fuel efficiency.
The energy consumed by a land transport vehicle moving a
For example, Motlogelwa and Minnitt (2013) observed that when
payload from one point to the other depends on the same factors
payload increased from 18 to 21.5 t (19% increase), the fuel effi-
described in Fig. 1: the equipment, operating conditions, mine
ciency increased from 0.595 to 0.637 t/L (7% increase). Odhams
planning and design, and the operator. The relevant equipment
et al. (2010) suggest that under-loaded trucks (lower than
characteristics are engine efficiency, aerodynamic resistance,
optimal payloads) can increase the energy required per unit of load
weight of the empty vehicle, efficiency of regenerative braking
(where applicable), maximum payload, and maximum engine po-
wer and speed. Relevant operating conditions include rolling 2
In modern trucks, gear shifting strategies are controlled by the truck itself with
resistance of the haul roads, haul distances, haul road profile, input from the driver mainly in the form of desired speeds, acceleration and
deployed fleet and dispatch system (this affects loading and deceleration.
 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
by as much as 65%. However, with further increases in payload,
travel speeds will decrease leading to lower productivities even
though the fuel consumption will continue to increase. This will
lead to lower fuel efficiency in addition to the mechanical damage
that can be done to the equipment for exceeding load limits.
Increasing travel speeds on haul roads will lead to higher fuel
consumption (Equation (1)). However, the increasing speed will
also result in higher productivity (more material delivered per unit
time). The combined effect is that initially, the energy efficiency
will increase until it reaches optimal and then drop with further
increases in travel speeds (Sahoo et al., 2014a). Hence, speed limits
at mines should be chosen, given the type and size of trucks, to be
close to optimal for energy efficiency.3 However, operators need to
operate at or near optimal speeds over the haul cycle to ensure
maximum energy efficiency. For example, it has been shown that,
on constant haul road slopes, operating at near constant speeds
maximizes energy efficiency (Chang and Morlok, 2005). Fu and
Bortolin (2014) also show that optimal gear shifting control stra-
tegies can be developed for varying haul slopes that reduce fuel
consumption and cycle times. To the extent that operator skill and
practices affect gear shifting strategies, operators can affect energy
efficiency. Ahmed et al. (2012) show that using optimal gear
shifting strategies for the same driving cycle characteristics can
lead to up to 6.5% in fuel consumption savings.
Finally, inefficiencies due to truck idling are a significant source
of inefficiency that has plagued the industry for years. Levesque
et al. (2014) catalogs various initiatives over the years that have
focused on reducing fuel consumed for no work. Situations will
always arise during operation (e.g. idling due to flawed operational
plans, unanticipated events, or scheduled breaks) that require
trucks to be idle or on stand-by. Many case studies in industry have
demonstrated that it is possible to significantly save on energy
consumption with proven policies to turn off engines during such
periods (see examples cited by Levesque et al. (2014)). This is,
perhaps, the most common energy efficiency initiative at mine
sites. And these initiatives recognize the impact of operators on a
mine's energy efficiency.
6. Recommendations
In order to achieve the third objective of this work, the author
makes recommendations for industrial best practice and future
research directions, based on the literature review presented in the
preceding discussions.
6.1. Recommendations for further research
This author identified gaps in the literature in the course of this
review. One of these is the limited public funding for mining energy
efficiency research. There appears to be relatively more public
funding for research to improve energy efficiency in other energy
intensive sectors. Typically, manufacturing and residential con-
sumers get the bulk of the attention. Given, the energy intensive
nature of mining and the difficulties discussed earlier (see Section
3), it seems mining is one of those sectors that could benefit from
public funding of energy efficiency research and development.
There is a need for research that clearly examines the costs and
benefits of public policy that will fund energy efficiency research in
mining. All stakeholders will benefit from knowing the return on
investment for such public funding.
3
The author recognizes that often safety concerns will be paramount in deter-
mining speed limits.
95
In spite of the amount of work already done, comminution and
material handling still remain the areas with the most potential to
reduce energy efficiency. The gap between the theoretical limits
and the practical limits achieved today is still wide and will require
disruptive technology on how mining is done to ensure removing
and reducing material to the sizes required to liberate the valuable
minerals is energy efficient. The current technologies are still
inefficient, relative to theoretical limits, in reducing the size of rock
or moving rock from one location to the other. These two areas
remain the main areas with the most potential for energy savings.
It is clear from the literature that operators can have a significant
effect on the energy efficiency of material handling operations.
However, researchers report a wide range of impacts and it is not
yet clear why this disparity exists. Even for the same type of
operation (e.g. shovel loading), there are often differences in the
reported impacts (see Table 2). It is not clear what the underlying
causes of this disparity are. Further research that either develops
fundamental models of the machines or provides data from
controlled experiments on operator effects is required to shed more
light on this disparity. Such research is necessary to clarify the
relationship between specific operator practices and energy effi-
ciency to inform performance. Also, this can better quantify the
potential gains in energy efficiency that can be achieved with
improved operator performance.
Also, research is needed to further facilitate the adoption of
hybrid energy systems in mining. The inclusion of renewable and
non-traditional energy sources into the energy mix at mine sites
has great potential for powering mining in the coming years given
the remote locations of the new deposits being discovered to
replace current reserves (Carvalho et al., 2014; Paraszczak and
Fytas, 2012). However, given that the initial capital costs of alter-
native energy sources are higher, further work is required to pro-
vide models for comparing the full life cycle costs of such hybrid
systems to diesel generators, which are often the default option in
remote locations. These models are not trivial since they have to
account for the many risks (e.g. commodity prices, government
regulations, and opposition from local communities) that can end
or interrupt a mining project prior to its scheduled life. For
example, real options valuation can be used to develop models that
could evaluate how the decision to use particular generating
sources (the many variations of hybrid systems and the traditional
generator set option) in the presence of the available strategic
options affects the value of the entire project (Slade, 2001). Also,
renewable technology research can further reduce the capital ex-
penditures for deploying renewable systems at remote mine sites
so such systems can become more competitive, relative to diesel
generators. (The capital costs for renewable technologies have
already dropped significantly in recent years.)
Finally, research is needed to rigorously evaluate the effec-
tiveness of training programs in delivering the intended out-
comes. The literature lacks work that evaluates whether operator
training programs have an impact on energy efficiency (and
other productivity measures), how long any gains in improve-
ment last, and what individual operator attributes best explain
differences in outcomes. This author was able to find only one
paper that evaluated the efficacy of a training program in
improving outcomes (Dorey and Knights, 2015). And even then,
the number (four operators participated in the training and three
operators were used as a control group) of participants is too
limited to draw any broad inferences about the particular
training program. However, the study shows what needs to be
done to evaluate the many operator training programs in order to
establish whether operator training really impacts key perfor-
mance indicators like energy efficiency.
96 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
6.2. Recommendations for industrial best practice
Today's mining sector uses many management strategies and
enabling technology to achieve its energy efficiency goals. Perhaps,
more than ever, energy efficiency is on the agenda of the mining
sector as shown by the energy efficiency measures in the sustain-
ability reports of many of the sector's largest companies. Given the
diverse nature of the mining sector (in mining methods, com-
modities, and energy infrastructure), it is difficult to recommend a
particular set of best practices that are applicable in all circum-
stances. Again, the author refers the interested reader to Levesque
et al. (2014), which presents a good review of energy efficiency
strategies in mining. However, three recommendations seem apt in
the light of the literature review presented in this work.
First, mine engineers and managers should choose energy ef-
ficiency programs based on good estimates of the return on in-
vestment. There are many options to choose from in any attempt
to improve on a mine's energy efficiency. For the mine's particular
circumstances, some of these might yield better return on in-
vestment than others. In order to ensure energy efficiency does
not lose its attraction as a viable business strategy, it is imperative
that rigorous analysis is used to estimate the return on investment
for each program before adoption. In some regards, it is easier to
estimate the return on investment today than it was a few years
ago. The advent of telemetry in mining equipment means there is
abundant data on energy consumption that, taken together with
other enterprise data, can provide very reliable estimates of the
impact of most energy efficiency programs on a mining operation.
Mine engineers and managers should take advantage of this
abundance of data to carefully evaluate the options before
selecting a particular energy efficiency option. For example, many
of the papers reviewed that used data from on-board monitors
(e.g. Komljenovic et al., 2010; Oskouei and Awuah-Offei, 2014 &
2015) estimated actual operator performance which can be used
to estimate the disparity between the most and least efficient
operators. In such a case, the exact energy savings from getting all
operators to operate as efficiently as the most efficient operator
can be estimated quite reliably to estimate the return on
investment.
Second, in recognition of the effect of operators on energy effi-
ciency, operator training should be seen as a viable energy effi-
ciency strategy. There is enough research to help mine managers to
understand what operator practices have a significant effect on
energy efficiency (Ahmed et al., 2012; Oskouei and Awuah-Offei,
2014 & 2015; Patnayak et al., 2008). This knowledge should be
incorporated into operator training (both initial and periodic) to
ensure operators operate efficiently. The training should be sup-
ported with good monitoring and feedback to the operator in a
nurturing environment, if it is to be successful. Such training could
be simulator-based or based on crew training so long as there is
evidence that the training successfully inculcates into operators the
habits and practices that are known to result in more energy effi-
cient operations.
Third, mine managers should consider technologies that guide
operators to make energy efficient decisions in their work. As
shown in the discussions above, there is research that demon-
strates that optimal control algorithms can be developed for many
of these operator functions (Chang and Morlok, 2005; Fu and
Bortolin, 2014). Some of these control algorithms have been
incorporated into guidance systems that are used to guide opera-
tors to more efficiently perform certain tasks. To the extent that
some of this technology can assist operators to operate in an energy
efficient manner, they may be viable strategies to achieve man-
agement's energy efficiency objectives.
7. Summary
This review paper aimed to establish the current knowledge on
energy efficiency in mining, in general, and the role of the operator
in the energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations, specif-
ically. In addition, the paper sought to make recommendations for
industrial best practice and future research directions to enhance
energy efficiency in mining.
With regards to energy efficiency in mining as a whole, the
author classified the research into those that deal with energy ef-
ficiency initiatives in mining, processing, and support activities,
and research on energy sources and government policy analysis.
The literature shows work that develops approaches and technol-
ogies to improve energy efficiency for all mining processes and
work that analyzes government policy that could enable energy
efficient mining. With regards to the effect of operators on the
energy efficiency of loading and hauling operations, the literature
clearly explains the relationship between operator skill and prac-
tices and energy efficiency. Both theoretical (modeling) and
experimental evidence exists that shows how an operator could
have a significant effect on the energy efficiency of loading and
hauling operations.
However, there are some significant gaps in the literature that
require further research. This includes a need for (i) disruptive
technology that takes us closer to the theoretical efficiency limits in
material handling; (ii) better understanding of the nature and
extent of the influence of operators on the energy efficiency of
loading and hauling operations; (iii) models for evaluating full life
cycle costs of hybrid systems that account for the many risks and
strategic options over the mine's life; and (iv) research that rigor-
ously evaluates the effectiveness of training programs in delivering
the energy efficiency goals.
References
Acaroglu, O., Ozdemir, L., Asbury, B., 2008. A fuzzy logic model to predict specific
energy requirement for TBM performance prediction. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 23 (5), 600e608.
Ahmed, A., Zhao, C.L., Han, K., Zhang, F.J., Wu, F., 2012, November. Using design of
experiment and genetic algorithm to obtain the optimum gear shifting strategy
for a real driving cycles. Appl. Mech. Mater. 224, 497e503.
Awuah-Offei, K., Frimpong, S., 2007. Cable shovel digging optimization for energy
efficiency. Mech. Mach. theory 42 (8), 995e1006.
Awuah-Offei, K., Osei, B., Askari-Nasab, H., 2011. Modeling truck/shovel energy ef-
ficiency under uncertainty. Trans. Soc. Min. Metall. Explor. 330, 573e584.
Bogunovic, D., Kecojevic, V., 2011. Impact of bucket fill factor on dragline production
rate and energy consumption. Min. Eng. 63 (8), 48e53.
Bolt, G.D., Vosloo, J.C., Pelzer, R., 2014, August. Strategies for energy efficiency
funding in the absence of industrial Eskom-IDM support. In: Industrial and
Commercial Use of Energy (ICUE), 2014 International Conference on the. IEEE,
pp. 1e7.
Brown, G.M., Elbacher, B.J., Koellner, W.G., 2000. Increased productivity with AC
drives for mining excavators and haul trucks. In: Industry Applications Con-
ference, 2000. Conference Record of the 2000 IEEE, vol. 1. IEEE, pp. P28eP37.
Carvalho, M., Romero, A., Shields, G., Millar, D.L., 2014. Optimal synthesis of energy
supply systems for remote open pit mines. Appl. Therm. Eng. 64 (1), 315e330.
Chang, D.J., Morlok, E.K., 2005. Vehicle speed profiles to minimize work and fuel
consumption. J. Transp. Eng. 131 (3), 173e182.
Chatterjee, A., Zhang, L., Xia, X., 2015. Optimization of mine ventilation fan speeds
according to ventilation on demand and time of use tariff. Appl. Energy 146,
65e73.
Choi, Y., Nieto, A., 2011. Optimal haulage routing of off-road dump trucks in con-
struction and mining sites using Google earth and a modified least-cost path
algorithm. Autom. Constr. 20 (7), 982e997.
Demirel, N., Frimpong, S., 2009. Dragline dynamic modelling for efficient excava-
tion. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 23 (1), 4e20.
Ditsele, O., Awuah-Offei, K., 2012. Effect of mine characteristics on life cycle impacts
of US surface coal mining. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (3), 287e294.
Dorey, F., Knights, P.F., 2015. Quantifying the benefits of simulator training for
dragline operators. Min. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/
1743286315Y.0000000007.
Frimpong, S., Hu, Y., Awuah-Offei, K., 2005. Mechanics of cable shovel-formation
interactions in surface mining excavations. J. Terramech. 42 (1), 15e33.
 K. Awuah-Offei / Journal of Cleaner Production 117 (2016) 89e97
Frimpong, S., Hu, Y., Inyang, H., 2008. Dynamic modeling of hydraulic shovel ex-
cavators for geomaterials. Int. J. Geomech. 8 (1), 20e29.
Fu, J., Bortolin, G., 2014. Gear shift optimization for off-road construction vehicles.
EJTIR 14 (3), 214e228.
Gunson, A.J., Klein, B., Veiga, M., Dunbar, S., 2010. Reducing mine water network
energy requirements. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (13), 1328e1338.
Hall, A., Scott, J.A., Shang, H., 2011. Geothermal energy recovery from underground
mines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2), 916e924.
Haque, N., Norgate, T., 2014. The greenhouse gas footprint of in-situ leaching of
uranium, gold and copper in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 382e390.
Henriksson, E., So € derholm, P., Wårell, L., 2014. Industrial electricity demand and
energy efficiency policy: the case of the Swedish mining industry. Energy Effic.
7 (3), 477e491.
Hu, H., Kavan, P., 2014. Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions of
China's non-metallic mineral products industry: present state, prospects and
policy analysis. Sustainability 6 (11), 8012e8028.
Kaarsberg, T.M., HuangFu, E.P., Roop, J.M., 2007. Extreme energy efficiency in the
U.S.: industrial, economic and environmental impacts. In: 2007 ACEEE Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry, 4-24-4-35. Available at: http://aceee.
org/files/proceedings/2007/start.htm (accessed 04.04.15.).
Karpuz, C., Ceylanog lu, A., Paşamehmetog lu, A.G., 1992. An investigation on the
influence of depth of cut and blasting on shovel digging performance. Int. J.
Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 6 (4), 161e167.
Kecojevic, V., Komljenovic, D., 2010. Haul truck fuel consumption and CO2 emission
under various engine load conditions. Min. Eng. 62 (12), 44e48.
Kecojevic, V., Vukotic, I., Komljenovic, D., 2014. Production, consumption and cost of
energy for surface mining of bituminous coal. SME Min. Eng. 66 (1), 51e57.
Kohler, M., 2014. Differential electricity pricing and energy efficiency in South Af-
rica. Energy 64, 524e532.
Kojovic, T., 2005. Influence of aggregate stemming in blasting on the SAG mill
performance. Miner. Eng. 18 (15), 1398e1404.
Kojovic, T., Thornton, D.M., Adel, G., Demeyer, S., 2007. Can mine to mill optimi-
sation succeed under complex constraints?. In: Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 105e118 (AusIMM).
Komljenovic, D., Bogunovic, D., Kecojevic, V., 2010. Dragline operator performance
indicator. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 24 (1), 34e43.
LaClair, T.J., Truemner, R., 2005. Modeling of Fuel Consumption for Heavy-duty
Trucks and the Impact of Tire Rolling Resistance (No. 2005-01-3550) (SAE
Technical Paper).
Levesque, M., Millar, D., Paraszczak, J., 2014. “Energy and MiningeThe Home
Truths”. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 233e255.
Liu, F., Cai, Q., Chen, S., Zhou, W., 2015. A comparison of the energy consumption
and carbon emissions for different modes of transportation in open-cut coal
mines. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 25 (2), 261e266.
Lumley, G., 2005. Reducing the variability in dragline operator performance. In:
Coal Operators' Conference. Wollongong, Australia, pp. 97e106.
Lutz, E.A., Reed, R.J., Lee, V.S., Burgess, J.L., 2015. Occupational exposures to emis-
sions from combustion of diesel and alternative fuels in underground min-
ingdA simulated pilot study. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12 (3), 18e25.
Mazumdar, J., 2013, October. All electric operation of ultraclass mining haul trucks.
In: Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, 2013 IEEE. IEEE, pp. 1e5.
McLellan, B.C., Corder, G.D., Giurco, D.P., Ishihara, K.N., 2012. Renewable energy
in the minerals industry: a review of global potential. J. Clean. Prod. 32,
32e44.
Middelberg, A., Zhang, J., Xia, X., 2009. An optimal control model for load shif-
tingewith application in the energy management of a colliery. Appl. Energy 86
(7), 1266e1273.
Motlogelwa, O.G., Minnitt, R.C.A., 2013. Optimization of diesel usage at uitvlugt
mine. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 113 (4), 345e349.
Nadolski, S., Klein, B., Kumar, A., Davaanyam, Z., 2014. An energy benchmarking
model for mineral comminution. Miner. Eng. 65, 178e186.
Napier-Munn, T., 2015. Is progress in energy-efficient comminution doomed?
Miner. Eng. 73, 1e6.
Nessim, W., Zhang, F.J., Zhao, C.L., Zhu, Z.X., 2013. Optimizing operational performance
of diesel mining truck using thermal management. Adv. Mater. Res. 813, 273e277.
Nguyen, M.T., Vink, S., Ziemski, M., Barrett, D.J., 2014a. Water and energy synergy and
trade-off potentials in mine water management. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 629e638.
Nguyen, M.T., Ziemski, M., Vink, S., 2014b. Application of an exergy approach to
understand energy demand of mine water management options. J. Clean. Prod.
84, 639e648.
Nimana, B., Canter, C., Kumar, A., 2015. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions in the recovery and extraction of crude bitumen from Canada's oil
sands. Appl. Energy 143, 189e199.
Norgate, T., Haque, N., 2010. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and
mineral processing operations. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (3), 266e274.
Numbi, B.P., Zhang, J., Xia, X., 2014. Optimal energy management for a jaw crushing
process in deep mines. Energy 68, 337e348.
Odhams, A.M.C., Roebuck, R.L., Lee, Y.J., Hunt, S.W., Cebon, D., 2010. Factors influ-
encing the energy consumption of road freight transport. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 224 (9), 1995e2010.
97
Oladiran, M.T., Meyer, J.P., 2007. Energy and exergy analyses of energy consump-
tions in the industrial sector in South Africa. Appl. Energy 84 (10), 1056e1067.
Oskouei, M.A., Awuah-Offei, K., 2014. Statistical methods for evaluating the effect of
operators on energy efficiency of mining machines. Min. Technol. 123 (4),
175e182.
Oskouei, M.A., Awuah-Offei, K., 2015. A method for data-driven evaluation of
operator impact on energy efficiency of digging machines. Energy Effic. 1e12.
Palaniandy, S., Powell, M., Hilden, M., Allen, J., Kermanshahi, K., Oats, B.,
Lollback, M., 2015. VertiMill®ePreparing the feed within floatable regime at
lower specific energy. Miner. Eng. 73, 44e52.
Paraszczak, J., Fytas, K., 2012. Renewable energy sourcesea promising opportunity
for remote mine sites?. In: Int Confer on Renewa Energy and Powe r Quality
(ICREPQ'12), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Paredes-S
anchez, J.P., Villican~ a-Ortíz, E., Xiberta-Bernat, J., 2015. Solar water
pumping system for water mining environmental control in a slate mine of
Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 501e504.
Parreira, J., Meech, J., 2011. Autonomous haulage systemsejustification and oppor-
tunity. In: Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
pp. 63e72.
Patnayak, S., Tannant, D.D., Parsons, I., Del Valle, V., Wong, J., 2008. Operator and
dipper tooth influence on electric shovel performance during oil sands mining.
Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 22 (2), 120e145.
Pothina, R., Kecojevic, V., Klima, M.S., Komljenovic, D., 2007. Gyratory crusher model
and impact parameters related to energy consumption. Miner. Metall. Process.
23 (3), 170e180.
Powell, M., Bye, A., 2009. Beyond mine-to-mill: circuit design for energy efficient
resource utilisation. In: Tenth Mill Operators Conference 2009, Proceedings, 11,
pp. 357e364 (AusIMM).
Ristic, L.B., Bebic, M.Z., Jevtic, D.S., Mihailovic, I.D., Statkic, S.Z., Rasic, N.T.,
Jeftenic, B.I., 2012, September. Fuzzy speed control of belt conveyor system to
improve energy efficiency. In: Power Electronics and Motion Control Confer-
ence (EPE/PEMC), 2012 15th International. IEEE. DS2ae9.
Sahoo, L.K., Bandyopadhyay, S., Banerjee, R., 2014a. Benchmarking energy con-
sumption for dump trucks in mines. Appl. Energy 113, 1382e1396.
Sahoo, L.K., Bandyopadhyay, S., Banerjee, R., 2014b. Water and energy assessment
for dewatering in opencast mines. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 736e745.
Schoeman, W., Schutte, A., Kleingeld, M., 2014, August. The impact of reducing mine
chilled water supply during periods of low production. In: Industrial and
Commercial Use of Energy (ICUE), 2014 International Conference on the. IEEE,
pp. 1e4.
Silva, M., Casali, A., 2015. Modelling SAG milling power and specific energy con-
sumption including the feed percentage of intermediate size particles. Miner.
Eng. 70, 156e161.
Slade, M.E., 2001. Valuing managerial flexibility: an application of real-option
theory to mining investments. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 41 (2), 193e233.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2007. Mining Industry Energy Bandwidth Study.
Available at: http://energy.gov/eere/amo/downloads/us-mining-industry-
energy-bandwidth-study (accessed 14.04.15.).
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2009. Industrial Technologies Program: Summary
of Program Results for CY 2009. US Department of Energy. http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/manufacturing/about/pdfs/impacts2009_full_report.pdf (accessed
29.05.15.).
Van Greunen, D., Schutte, A.J., Kleingeld, M., 2014, August. Energy efficiency
through variable speed drive control on a cascading mine cooling system. In:
Industrial and Commercial Use of Energy (ICUE), 2014 International Conference
on the. IEEE, pp. 1e6.
van Niekerk, A., Uys, D.C., van Rensburg, J.F., 2014, August. Implementing DSM in-
terventions on water reticulation systems of marginal deep level mines. In:
Industrial and Commercial Use of Energy (ICUE), 2014 International Conference
on the. IEEE, pp. 1e8.
Verhoeven, R., Willems, E., Harcoue €t-Menou, V., De Boever, E., Hiddes, L., Op’t
Veld, P., Demollin, E., 2014. Minewater 2.0 project in Heerlen the Netherlands:
transformation of a geothermal mine water pilot project into a full scale hybrid
sustainable energy infrastructure for heating and cooling. Energy Procedia 46,
58e67.
Vukotic, I., Kecojevic, V., 2014. Evaluation of rope shovel operators in surface coal
mining using a multi-attribute decision-making model. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol.
24 (2), 259e268.
Watzlaf, G.R., Ackman, T.E., 2006. Underground mine water for heating and cooling
using geothermal heat pump systems. Miner. Water Environ. 25 (1), 1e14.
Wei, B., Gao, F., 2012, August. Digging trajectory optimization for a new exca-
vating mechanism of electric mining shovel. In: ASME 2012 International
Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information
in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
pp. 1033e1039.
Yin, C., Hu, T., Li, W., Sun, R., 2008, October. A path-tracking intelligent optimizating
for the LHD units. In: Signal Processing, 2008. ICSP 2008. 9th International
Conference on. IEEE, pp. 2765e2768.
Zhang, S., Xia, X., 2011. Modeling and energy efficiency optimization of belt con-
veyors. Appl. Energy 88 (9), 3061e3071.