Presentation by Ferenc Madai, University of Miskolc, Hungary. Presentation was held at the EMAP training seminar in Prague, Czech Republic for future Erasmus Mundus Master Courses consortia( 4-7 February 2010).

1. “Best practice” EMMC example
Sustainability of projects:
Links with the labour market and enterprises
Ferenc Madai
University of Miskolc, Hungary
Faculty of Earth Science and Engineering
Representing the EMMEP consortia
(European Mining, Minerals and Environmental
Programme)

2. Outline
• Issues in mining industry in the 1980-90s
• Its influence on mining training
programmes
• Cooperation: FEMP (1999)
• Development to EMMEP

3. Issues in mining industry in the
1980s and 1990s
• Technology development to lower costs
– Shift to large-scale open pit mining
– Cheap transport: ocean tankers
– New processing technologies (e.g. leaching)
• Arising environmental concerns
– Large volume earth moved
– Long-term geochemical and geotchnical
stability (large accidents)
• Merges and acquisitions

4. Technology development

5. Metal prices

6. One of the most globalized industry
of the world

9. Supply / HR demand / education
• During 80’s and 90’s
– low commodity prices
– low industry hiring
– low enrollment in universities
– programs closed (USA from 30 to 14)
• During 2003-2007
– high prices
– baby boom retirement on the horizon
– new deposits needed
– Graduates needed: shortage and poaching
• 2008
– Sudden stop

10. SHORTAGE HUNDREDS OF ENGINEERS/YEAR FOR NEXT 10 YEARS!

11. Special role of Europe
• Homeland mining activity compared to GDP is marginal
(1-2%)
• Homeland of important TNC-s (Rio Tinto, Omya, RWE
etc.)
• A major world processor and fabricator of minerals
• Still strong in scientific background
– Research
– Education
– Before 1990: financing of education was less dependent on
student numbers
– Last 20 years: emphasis shifts from education to research

12. TU Delft (The Netherlands)
Students Mining / Metallurgy / Petroleum / Geology
120
100
Minimum
80
requirement
Number
60
40
20
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

13. Graduates per year
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
76
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Mining engineer Mechanical engineering for mining Oil- gas enginner

14. NUMBER OF PROGRAMS
0
5
10
15
20
25
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
programs USA
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
MiningEngr
MineralEngr
Mining and mineral engineering

15. Initiatives for cooperation in Europe
• Late 80’s: TU Delft combined mining, processing,
metallurgy and recycling
• Low number of mining students: TU Delft, RSM London
• 1995 / 1996: Delft investigates possible joint curriculum,
with RSM London, TU Helsinki and TU Aachen
• September 1996: European Mining Course (EMC)
• September 1998: European Mineral Engineering Course (EMEC)
• September 2003: European Geotechnical and Environmental
Course (EGEC)
• 2005 merged: European Mining, Minerals and Environmental
Program (EMMEP)

16. Federation of European Mineral
Programs (FEMP)
16 December 1999

17. COOPERATION !!!!
Delft, Freiberg
5 students 2 nationalities
0 Companies
2009
<1900
Delft, Aachen, Exeter, Helsinki,
Miskolc, Wroclaw
55 students, 24 nationalities
35 Companies

18. European Mining, Minerals and
Environmental Programme (EMMEP)
1996
1998
2003

19. Structure FEMP Industry
AKZO-Nobel
European Partner Anglo American Plc.
Areva
Universities Atlas Copco
Barrick Gold Corporation
Boart Longyear
BHP-Billiton
- EMC Caterpillar
Corus
- EMEC DSM-Energy
Euromines
- EGEC Freeport McRowan
Heidelberg Cement
IHC
Inmet
K+S
FEMP
KGHM
Lhoist
Metso
Nyrstar
Orica Mining Services
Outokumpu
RAG
Resource Capital Funds
RWE Power
Associated universities Shell
SRK Mining Services
Canada: Queen’s, McGill, UBC Surpac Minex
USA: Colorado School of Mines, Rio Tinto
Sandvik
Virginia Tech Talvivaara Mining Oy
Walter Beckers
Australia: Queensland Washington Group
Wirtschafstvereinigung Bergbau
Chile: Concepcion, Catholica Xstrata
Europe: France, Belgium, Sweden,
Austria, Estonia etc.

20. Boards
• FEMP Board
– EMC
– EMEC
– EGEC
– Industry (Alex Hathorn, Anglo American)
– Chairman (Wijnand Dalmijn)
• Industrial Advisory Board
– Euromines
– Companies
• Mining
• Metallurgical
• Supply, service
• Financial

21. Current industrial partners

22. Associated universities
Austria TU Leoben
Belgium KU Leuven
Estonia TU Tallinn
Germany TU Clausthal
Germany Bergakademie Freiberg
Germany TU Berlin
Poland AGH Krakow
Slovakia TU Kosice
Spain Universidad de Madrid
UK Imperial College
Sweden Lulea
Argentina Universidad de San Juan
Australia University of Queensland
Brasil Universidad Rio Grande
Canada Queen's University
Canada Mc Gill University
Chile Universidad de Concepcion
Chile Universidad de Chile
USA Virginia Tech.

23. Programs structure, FEMP
Degree
Industry / university
Thesis (home univ.) 1 year
Univ. 1 Univ. 2 Univ. 3 Univ. 4
M.Sc
European programs Univ. 1 Univ. 3 1 year
(EMC, EMEC, EGEC) Univ. 2 Univ. 4
Basic Level (home Univ. 1 Univ. 2 Univ. 3 Univ. 4 3 years
univ.) B.Sc

24. Student enrollment
Total enrollment European Mineral Programs 1996-2009
Continent EMC EMEC EGEC Total
Europe 212 135 64 411
N. America 29 1 30
S. America 4 27 1 32
Australia 3 3
Africa 2 3 4 9
Asia 9 6 12 27
Total 259 172 81 512

25. INTERNSHIPS

26. Internsips example: EGEC 2007/08
group
• Aleksei Kovtunenko (Ukraine) No internship
• Bartosz Jerzy Rys (Poland) Internship at Malta
• Ferenc Móricz (Hungary) Internship in Norway
• Johan Hawinkel (Belgium) Internship in Namibia
• Marcin Walkowski (Poland) Internship in Poland
• Pieter Devillé (Belgium) Travelling to Middle Africa
• Romboud Harskamp (Netherlands) Internship in Republic of South
Africa
• Tomasz Walica (Poland) Internship in India

27. Employment
A B N A m ro H a n s o n H o ld in g s R e s o u r c e C a p it a l F u n d s
A cce n tu re H a r r is o n W e s t e r n R io T in t o
A G H K ra k o w H e id e lb e r g C e m e n t R o c k p la n
A h o ld H e ls in k i U n iv e r s it y o f T e c h n o lo g y RW E Pow er
A llia n t T e c h s y s t e m s H e r h o f U m w e lt t e c h n ik R W TH Aachen
A n g lo A m e r ic a n IG & H S a n d v ik
B a lla s t H a m D r e d g in g IH C SecGo
B a r r ic k G o ld iid e s k SEGEM AR
BECi I M C M in in g S o lu t io n s S h e ll
B H P B illit o n I m p e r ia l C o lle g e S M S -D e m a g
B o lid e n M in e r a l I n t e r n e t V is io n SQM
B o o z A lle n H a m ilt o n K a li u n d S a lz S t a t e S u p e r v is io n o f M in e s
B O T M in in g & P o w e r K e n n e co tt E n e rg y SW ECO CM U
C a re s KGHM Synvase
CNRL K H D H u m b o ld t W e d a g T a lin n T e c h n ic a l U n iv e r s it y
C o d e lc o K r a k o w U n iv e r s it y o f T e c h n o lo g y T a m ro ck
C O G E M A -A R E V A K vaern er T a r g u s M a n a g e m e n t C o n s u lt in g
C o m p a ñ ia M in e r a D o ñ a I n é s L a s s e ls b e r g e r T e c h n ic a l U n iv e r s it y K o s ic e
H u a c h ip a t o L h o is t T e c h n ic a l U n iv e r s it y o f B e r lin
C r y s t a lle x I n t e r n a t io n a l L ie b h e r r T e c h n is c h e U n iv e r s it ä t C la u s t h a l
D B E P e in e L is h e e n M in e T h e r m p h o s I n t e r n a t io n a l
D B T M in in g E n g in e e r s LKAB T h ys se n K ru p p S ta h l
D e co m a D e c o te ch M a r t in M a r ie t t a M a t e r ia ls T o ta l
D e lf t U n iv e r s it y o f T e c h n o lo g y M CR T U B e r g a k a d e m ie F r e ib e r g
D e u t s c h e S t e in k o h le M e t s o M in e r a l U n iv e r s id a d d e C o n c e p c io n
Dyno Nobel M in a S o lu t io n s U n iv e r s it y o f C h ile
E .O N M in e V e n t ila t io n S e r v ic e s U n iv e r s it y o f E x e t e r
E lk e m M a t e r ia ls M o d u s lin k U n iv e r s it y o f G e o s c ie n c e s B e ij in g
ENCI M o n d o M in e r a ls O y U n iv e r s it y o f M is k o lc
E x x o n M o b il M T I H o lla n d U n iv e r s it y o f Q u e e n s la n d
F A G I n d u s t r ia l S e r v ic e s N ie d m e r s J a e g e r K ö s t e r U n iv e r s it y o f S a n J u a n
F a lc o n b r id g e N o b e l d r illin g V a n N o o rt
F K u R K u n ststo ff N o k ia V a t t e n f a ll E u r o p e M in in g
F lu o r C h e m ie Nuon V ir g in ia P o ly t e c h n ic
F ra u n h o fe r U M S IC H T O u to k u m p u W .C . H e r a e u s
GE O y F o r c it W a ll S t r e e t A n a ly t ic s
G e n iv a r P e r liy a - B r o k e n H ill W e a th e rfo rd
T e c h n o lo g y PW C T e c h n o lo g y
GTS Q u e e n ' s U n iv e r s it y

28. Alumni contacts
• 512 alumni and students per 2009
• Co-ordination by Aachen & Delft
• Maintain database (web-based)
th
• 8 reunion November 2008 hosted by Rio Tinto
– 55 students
– 50 alumni
– 50 industry + universities + guests
th
• 9 reunion November 2009 hosted by Barrick Gold
Corp.

29. Database alumni

30. Finances FEMP
• Tuition Fee at home university (Socrates or
exchange)
COST PAID BY
• Cost of teaching ~1M Universities
• Travel 50,000 Socrates
• Accommodation 150,000 FEMP (industry)
• Reunion 10,000 FEMP (industry)
• Misc. costs 10,000 FEMP (industry)
• Organization (TUD) 50,000 4 Mining Houses

31. Erasmus Mundus
• Special MSc. courses with EU seal
• Scholarships for non EU students
• EMMEP received 36 scholarships since 2008
• Opportunity for companies to apply for young
engineers

32. Structure
• EMMEP is combination of:
– existing EMC, EMEC and EGEC
– Erasmus Mundus
• First year: together with FEMP students visiting 4
universities
– EGEC: Wroclaw, Delft, Exeter, Miskolc
– EMC: Helsinki, Aachen, Exeter, Delft
– EMEC: Helsinki, Aachen, Exeter, Wroclaw
• Second year:
– one semester: courses at one of the 4 universities
– One semester: thesis writing

33. Benefits of the programs
• Multinational group
• 2008-2009: 55 students from 25
countries
• Intensive program
• English language
• Networking
• Industry contacts (jobs)
• Social skills
• Flexibility

34. New applicants (2010)
Bangladesh 1
Chile 2
China 1
Colombia 1
Ghana 7
India 1
Indonesia 4
Iran 1
Maleisia 1
Nigeria 5
Pakistan 5
Sierra Leone 1
Uganda 1
Vietnam 1
Austria 1

35. Conclusions
• If nothing is done, EXTINCTION
• Things don’t happen automatically
• Initiative has to come from universities
• Co-operation of universities is essential !!
• Many benefits for students
• Industry is willing but wants to see initiatives
first