Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 April 2019 | Story Valentino Ndaba | Photo Valentino Ndaba
Andrew Lane
Mining the fourth industrial revolution way is the future says industry expert, Andrew Lane.

Innovation is imperative for the future of mining in South Africa. Industry expert, Andrew Lane proposes that leveraging on new information, mining technologies and energy knowhow, which are the hallmarks of the fourth industrial revolution, should set the scene for success.

Lane who is Africa Energy and Resource Leader at Deloitte, engaged students at a recent guest lecture hosted by the University of the Free State’s Business School on the Bloemfontein Campus. “The future is intelligent mining. It’s not just about technology; it’s about changing the way you do business,” he said.

Transforming traditional to trailblazing
“What gives you sustainable competitive advantage is the rate at which you innovate,” said Lane. Design paradigm shifts in the South African mining industry may have resulted in about 100 000 job losses during the past four years. However, mining companies stand to achieve significant gains through applying innovation.

Despite most of South Africa’s mines nearing the end of their lives, mining remains a large employer and investor attractor which ensures that the country holds a competitive advantage in the global economy. Lane is adamant that, “even though we have declined from 20% to 5% in terms of GDP contributions, mining remains a large contributor to export earnings”.

Reaching resource-rich regions
While some physical resources are inaccessible using current technology, “new mineral-processing technologies help tap into previously uneconomical mineral deposits”, according to Lane. In addition to the environment, 3D visualisation cameras can track employees and equipment in the bowels of the earth.

More mining, less loss
Integrating mining, energy, and information technology will ensure that companies reduce people, capital and energy intensity, while increasing mining intensity. The impossible can be achieved if technology is used well for developmental outcomes, employment, and improving standards of living.



News Archive

UFS study shows playing time in Super Rugby matches decreasing
2016-12-19

Description: Super Rugby playing time Tags: Super Rugby playing time 

The study by Riaan Schoeman, (left), Prof Robert Schall,
and Prof Derik Coetzee from the University of the Free State
on variables in Super Rugby can provide coaches with
insight on how to approach the game.
Photo: Anja Aucamp

It is better for Super Rugby teams not to have the ball, which also leads to reduced overall playing time in matches.

This observation is from a study by the University of the Free State on the difference between winning and losing teams. Statistics between 2011 and 2015 show that Super Rugby winning teams kick more and their defence is better.

These statistics were applied by Riaan Schoeman, lecturer in Exercise and Sport Sciences, Prof Derik Coetzee, Head of Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences, and Prof Robert Schall, Department of Mathematics and Actuarial Sciences. The purpose of the study, Changes in match variables for winning and losing teams in Super Rugby from 2011 to 2015, was to observe changes. Data on 30 games (four from each team) per season, supplied by the Cheetahs via Verusco TryMaker Pro, were used.

About two minutes less action
“We found that the playing time has decreased. This is the time the ball is in play during 80 minutes,” says Schoeman. In 2011, the average playing time was 34.12 minutes and in 2015 it was 31.95.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball and doesn’t want it. They play more conservatively. They dominate with kicks and then they play,” says Prof Coetzee, who was the conditioning coach for the Springboks in 2007 when they won the World Cup.

Lineouts also more about kicking
As a result, the number of line-outs also increased (from 0.31 per minute in 2011 to 0.34 in 2015) and the winning teams are better in this regard.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball
and doesn’t want it. They play a more conservative
game. They dominate with kicks and then they play.”

Schoeman believes that rule changes could also have contributed to reduced playing time, since something like scrum work nowadays causes more problems. “When a scrum falls, the time thereafter is not playing time.”

According to Prof Coetzee, rucks and mauls have also increased, (rucks from 2.08 per minute in 2011 to 2.16 in 2015 and mauls from 0.07 per minute in 2011 to 0.10 in 2015). “The teams that win, dominate these areas,” he says.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept