INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MINE CLEARANCE TECHNOLOGY 2-4 July 1996 Copenhagen, DENMARK TECHNOLOGY FOR MINE CLEARANCE OPERATIONS MECHANICAL MINE CLEARANCE George Focseaneau BACKGROUND 1. There are between 80 million and 100 million mines scattered over 69 countries world-wide. These mines are usually laid indiscriminately, that is, without pattern, unrecorded and unmarked. The impact of these mines is well recorded in terms of human misery, loss of limbs and death. Some mines have remained in the ground for up to 75 years and these and all other mines are perhaps the most significant barrier to development. 2. Apart from the human misery that mines create, they impact on all aspects vital to a country's growth and prosperity. This impact is felt on agriculture, infrastructure, development, tourism, industry and, in most cases, aggravate/block the limited governmental infrastructure in its attempt to address key issues following a conflict. The problems of mines will not go away and must be addressed. 3. To date millions of dollars have been spent with little impact on the scale of the issue. If the mine problem is to be resolved in the next few years, to a degree where people can go about their lives free from the threat of mines, a solution must be found that expedites the clearance process. The operational limitations imposed by mines are as severe as the humanitarian impact. 4. In United Nations deployment mines create casualties, deny movement required to carry out its mandate and reduce the effectiveness of contributing nations to assist in food relief and refugee support. Basic operational requirements of establishing resupply routes, staging areas and patrol routes result in unnecessary casualties due to the urgency of the moment and the lack of expedient means to demine. 5. Therefore any mechanical options must be considered in terms of applicability for the short-term, immediate solutions, allowing basic movement and in terms of applicability for long-term large-area mine clearance. OVERALL DEMINING REQUIREMENTS 6. Before looking into possible technologies, a clear understanding of demining is important. Demining is not so different from road construction in that a system is required in order to implement the project. First there must be a survey to find the optimum, lowest cost option which will meet the need, then the procedure to be used is defined and the equipment required is determined. No one piece of equipment can build a road effectively and the same holds true for demining operations. The overall approach must emphasize a "tool box" methodology, where specific equipment and procedures are combined to produce a faster, cost- effective solution. 7. The essential components required in a mine clearance operation are as follows: (a) Location/Detection. The need to know where the minefields are located and the ability to detect metal, minimum metal and non-metallic mines with a single piece of equipment. This equipment must be 100 per cent reliable. If this is not possible, procedures must be established and in place to produce this reliability. At present this is almost achieved, extremely slowly, with mine detectors and prodders. (b) Demining/Clearing. This is the process of removing/rendering harmless/neutralizing mines and making the land available for other uses. Presently the bulk of this requirement is done by manual clearance using mine detectors and prodding the ground. This process is slow and dangerous, but it is reliable achieving a certainty of clearance of over 99.6 per cent. The slow nature of this process requires an alternative mechanical option capable of quickly rendering harmless all mines buried or on the surface. If technology does not allow this full capability, then any mechanical option alternative that speeds up manual demining should be considered. Another alternative is the use of dogs, but their use is usually limited to reconnaissance to find the edge of the minefield and for route clearance. (c) Minefield marking. This involves marking mined areas which will not be cleared or will be cleared at a later date. This activity is normally carried out manually and it is a reasonably fast process once the edge of the minefield has been found. 8. Keeping in mind the remote locations involved and the lack of infrastructure usually available in the countries which have a mine problem, the need for simplicity, maintainability, ease of training and supportability, are major considerations that need to be assessed in the overall manual clearance process. These are particularly relevant factors when considering the value of using mechanical equipment. TECHNOLOGIES 9. New multi-sensor technologies in mine detection, with infrared (IR), ground penetrating radar (GPR), microwave, visible spectrum photography, photon backscatter, biosensors and thermo-neutron sensors, are emerging, but it is not likely that a breakthrough will occur or be fielded within the next three to five years. What appears to be a practical and feasible option, in the near term, is the development of a mechanical clearance alternative which may not solve the problem 100 per cent, but may definitely provide relief to what is a desperate situation which causes the death or maiming of over a thousand persons per month. A mechanical option complementing traditional clearance methods has the potential to provide an acceptable, interim, solution until proven mechanical solutions which provide the 100 per cent clearance are tested and field trial experience substantiates this confidence level. EXISTING MECHANICAL MINE CLEARANCE OPTIONS 10. There are a number of mechanical systems already fielded, but most of them have been designed for military use to breach a small gap in a minefield. These systems are generally not suitable to land/area clearance in a United Nations or peacetime environment. The following systems are in existence: (a) Ploughs/Rakes. Ploughs come in various forms and shapes and have been around for decades. They are bulky and simply move the mines to the sides of the plough. They have limited use in humanitarian/area clearance except for quick access routes through large minefields. Rakes have been used in operations, but they are generally only of use in desert conditions. This type of equipment can be categorized as follows: (i) Full-width mine plough. The prime mover of this plough is usually a tank, but can be an armoured dozer. It is V shaped and clears ground to a depth of 30 centimetres, pushing earth and mines to the side. It requires great horsepower to push the plough at the required depth. (ii) Scatterable mine clearance device. It is designed primarily for surface mines and therefore can be pushed by smaller prime movers. It is of little use for buried mines. (iii) Rake plough. This plough was specifically designed for the desert environment as the tines allow sand to pass through, but not the mines. The prime mover also tends to be smaller than for the full-width plough. (iv) Armoured dozers. The dozers usually are of the commercial type with extra protection for the operator. The dozer blade pushes earth and mines to one side by angling the blade. (v) Others. There are many other types of ploughs ranging from track-width to special designs for specific tasks. All ploughs, however, have limited use in humanitarian mine clearance. (b) Flails. A flail is a mechanically driven rotating drum, with chains attached, that beats/cuts into the ground, detonating or physically destroying the mines. Flails that physically destroy but do not detonate mines have an obvious advantage in reducing wear of the flail components. Flails are available now, but they are either very costly or poorly engineered. Use of flail technology, in the short term, in specific conditions is very promising. Small, remotely controlled mini-flails are also emerging as viable options. Large flails remove the top soil of agricultural ground and may impact on the ecology of the land for future uses. (c) Rollers. Rollers have been available for many years. They suffer from being terrain sensitive, but can be used for proofing minefields. Rollers can be defeated by certain types of mines or mine configurations. They are simple and can be made locally. (d) Explosive techniques. There are many explosive techniques, but they are expensive and generally not suitable for area clearance. (e) Explosive sniffer technology. The ability to proof non-mined areas versus mined areas is a capability which is extremely important to reduce the time and cost of mine clearance. A system using a Casspir, a mine proof vehicle with air sample collection tubes, is a valuable technology for the clearance of roads and specific mine environment conditions. The air samples collected are tested by dogs away from the mined areas. A system which would provide near real time analysis would be a significant improvement. (f) Minimum metal mine detection arrays. Minimum metal mine detection arrays, up to six metres in width, may prove to be invaluable for road clearance, detection for large area clearance and proofing/quality control. This system can be mounted on a vehicle to cover much larger areas than a mine detector and at speeds up to 10kms/hr. (g) Mine-proof vehicles. These mine-proof vehicles ensure personnel safety, which is essential in humanitarian mine clearance. Mechanical clearance attachments mounted on such vehicles significantly reduce the risk from potential improvised mines/missed mines, which can cause injuries to operators. Safety of operators is essential. The alternative is remote control. UNDERSTANDING THE MINE THREAT 11. Mines come in a variety of sizes and shapes, can be made with wood, plastic or metal, and contain from as little as a few grams of explosives to as much as 10 or more kilograms. Mines come in two basic types: (a) Anti-tank (AT) 12. AT mines are of the most concern when using mechanical clearance due to the large amount of explosive content. The fusing can be single impulse, double impulse, tilt, magnetic and possibly seismic. These can have anti-handling devices to hinder tampering. These mines can be blast or contain a shape charge to enable penetration. The diameter of the mines can vary in size from 18 centimetres to 33 centimetres or more with an explosive content from 2 to 10 or more kilograms. (b) Anti-personnel (APers) 13. APers mines are either blast or fragmentation and can be actuated by pressure, tripwire or by electric means. Like AT mines these mines can be booby trapped to prevent removal. Explosive charge varies from as little as 9 grams to as much as 700 grams or more. Size can vary as well from 3.9 centimetres to 13 centimetres (some such as the M18 A1 are larger). Fragmentation APers have in some cases a bounding mechanism to make the mine jump into the air approximately one metre prior to detonation. 14. Mines are usually buried or flush with the ground, but they can be surface laid or even planted in trees (such as the APers mine MON-100, which is tripwire or remote control detonated). Mines are normally not buried below 30 centimetres in the case of AT mines and much less for APers. Mines can be delivered by various means, but the end result remains the same. 15. The fact that mines vary in size significantly requires that any system designed needs to cover every centimetre of ground and up to a depth of 30 centimetres (50 cms is preferred). Also the personnel using the equipment must be protected for the worst case mine found in the theater. To protect personnel in mechanical clearance, mine proof vehicles/hardened operator's protective cupolas should be considered mandatory. UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE 16. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) are the munitions which have either been left behind by the combatants or munitions which have failed to detonate for some reason. UXOs are a hazard which must be dealt with, but which usually pose less of a danger than mines. It is important to note that some UXOs contain explosive amounts greater than mines so there will always be a need to carry out a thorough reconnaissance to be aware of all explosive materials in the area. The decision of whether mechanical means can be used will depend on that information. UNDERSTANDING THE MECHANICAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS 17. The main barriers to efficient manual demining operations can be summarized as follows: (a) Tripwires; (b) Vegetation; (c) Hard ground for prodding; (d) Mines/Booby traps; (e) Confidence levels and risk; (f) Metal fragments. 18. These barriers decrease productivity of mine clearance by a factor of 3 to 5. If mechanical clearance can address some or all of these barriers, this will be a significant improvement in mine clearance world-wide. 19. In assessing mechanical clearance requirements, the following areas need to be addressed separately and will require different mechanical solutions: (a) Roads and good tracks should not be destroyed by mechanical clearance. In many cases these areas have few mines, which are normally in clusters many kilometres apart; (b) Large areas of agricultural or open lands; (c) Small areas around installations, such as houses, wells, commercial facilities etc.; (d) Scenario specific areas such as orchards, tree farms etc., where mechanical mine clearance on a large scale is not feasible or economically advisable for the population. 20. Depending on the areas concerned, the mechanical option will vary in physical size and applicable techniques. For example, a small remote flail may be feasible in working around buildings or orchards, while large rotating rollers are ideal for agricultural areas. Explosive sensor technology mounted on a mine-proof vehicle with simple rollers is ideal for roads, good tracks and good terrain. THE ISSUE 21. The basic issue is that thousands of square kilometres of land are contaminated by mines and require clearance. The problem is that existing techniques are slow, dangerous and expensive. A solution must be found and quickly. Without a solution it will take decades to remedy the problem, and the associated human tragedy and costs will be in the billions of dollars. Operationally in United Nations-type operations there is a need for expediting access to mine areas for rehabilitation, repatriation, food supplies, patrol routes and resupply. THE QUESTION OF EFFECTIVENESS 22. Manual demining is presently considered to be the best available means of land clearance. The reason is that it provides the best effectiveness by providing in excess of 99.6 per cent assurance of mine removal. But to ensure this high percentage of effectiveness, a quality assurance check must be carried out, which is normally expensive and does not necessarily provide the assurance required. This is addressed in a separate paper. 23. Mechanical clearance alone will, at least in the near term, never meet the 99.6 per cent effectiveness criteria, but mechanical clearance supported by manual clearance will, and that approach may be cheaper and significantly faster than manual demining alone. At this initial stage humanitarian demining has no proved experience with the effectiveness of mechanical options. The effectiveness of the system will depend on terrain, types of mines, the ground and operator's capabilities. The introduction of mechanical options must be controlled and measured to allow experience and recorded data to determine the capability of various mechanical options as stand-alone systems. In the interim these mechanical systems should be viewed as aids to manual demining. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL DEMINING 24. Before an analysis can take place a number of factors need to be explained: (a) Manual demining rates will vary depending on the degree of vegetation, hardness of the ground, type of ground, type of mines, weather conditions and the degree of metal/fragmentation contamination in the ground. There is, of course, time spent in marking the minefield as it is being cleared, which is also time-consuming. These conditions can slow demining operations by a factor of 3 to 5 times. (b) Some terrain may not be suitable for mechanical clearance owing to the inability of the ground to support the equipment. Likewise some areas are extremely difficult for manual demining owing to significant vegetation/hard ground. Vegetation is, in fact, the single most significant factor in slowing down manual demining operations. Difficulty in prodding into hard ground is the second. Conductive soil in many cases renders mine detection difficult to impossible requiring that the whole area be prodded. (c) From experience in Afghanistan the main problem with mechanical clearance is maintainability, logistics, training and serviceability. These factors should be considered in identifying available/viable options. 25. The following demining rates will be used for analysis: (a) A demining team made up of 30 personnel and using 12 breaching teams can demine an average of 1,000 square metres per day/5,000 square metres per week. This data is based on a 7-hour work day and 5-day week. It is based on average ground conditions. (b) A mechanical clearance system such as a flail/rotating roller clearing a 3-metre path and travelling at an average speed of 3 kilometres per hour can clear 9,000 square metres per hour or 54,000 square metres per day. This is based on a six-hour day allowing for a two-hour maintenance schedule at the end of the day. (c) A demining team can check the mechanical clearance work to ensure 99.6 per cent clearance at an estimated rate of 600 square metres per hour (50 square metres per breaching team) or 4,200 square metres per day. This check will also act as a quality assurance check. The increased speed of manual demining is due to the fact that tripwires and vegetation have been removed, the ground is now easier to prod and, since some mines/booby traps have been removed, the risk is much lower for the deminer. COST COMPARISON OF DEMINING TECHNIQUES Manual Only Manual & Mechanical1 (40 demining teams) (40 demining teams + 4 mechanical systems) Clear in 1 year (48 weeks) 9,600,000 m2 51,840,000 m2 (Note 2) (Note 3) Time to clear 100 km2 10.4 years 1.9 years (mechanical) 2.5 (manual) (Note 4) (Note 5) Cost (US$) 83.2M 13M (mechanical) 20M (manual) 33M (total) (Note 6) * To assess economics/time advantages of a mechanical clearance system, a 100 square kilometre sample area (10 kilometres x 10 kilometres) is used for comparison between 40 demining teams and 40 demining teams assisted by 4 mechanical systems. Notes 1/ In terms of cost using approximate estimated costs, 4 roller systems, including spares, maintenance, operators and training, would cost a maximum of US$ 13 million (US$ 9 million capital and US$ 2 million operating costs per year). The supporting demining teams would cost US$ 8 million per year or US$ 20 million for 2.5 years. For the sample area the initial purchase cost would be US$ 9 million (one time cost), US$ 2 million operating cost per year x 2 years = US$ 4 million and for the demining teams US$ 20 million for a total cost of clearance of US$ 33 million. The initial equipment costs of the first years can be amortized over at least 10 years of demining operations. 2/ Forty demining teams can clear in one year (48 weeks) approximately 5,000 square metres per week x 48 weeks x 40 teams = 9,600,000 square metres per year. 3/ Four mechanical powered rollers can clear (estimated as a minimum) 54,000 square metres per day x 5 days x 48 weeks x 4 rollers = 51,840,000 square metres per year. 4/ To clean a sample area, which is 10 kilometres by 10 kilometres, it would take these teams approximately 10.4 years. 5/ It would take these systems 1.9 years to clear the sample area. The supporting demining teams could check 4,200 square metres per day x 5 days x 48 weeks x 40 teams = 40,320,000 square metres per year and would require 2.5 years to check completely the clearance of the mechanical systems. 6/ The cost, using Cambodia as a model, of 40 demining teams in approximately US$ 8 million per year. (8 million x 10.4 years = 83.2 million). 26. A comparison of the two options quickly shows that a mechanical option is at least three to four times as fast and more cost-effective by at least US$ 40 million to 50 million for the specified sample area. In fact it is even more effective, since quality control, which should be 5 to 10 per cent of the area cleared by manual means, has not been taken into account in the manual demining option. The cost for quality control/check would be about 10 per cent of the overall manual demining costs. Quality control is not necessary with the combination of manual and mechanical systems. In addition, owing to the ability to address the mine problem more quickly, human misery would be significantly decreased and economical growth/stability would start much sooner. Risk to deminers is significantly reduced. It is important to note that mechanical and manual demining can be carried out at different times. SUITABLE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE NOW OR IN SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT 27. Large rollers, ploughs, rakes and flails are manufactured or are in development by a wide range of countries. They represent mature technology and development is very capital intensive. Most of these pieces of equipment require heavy prime movers and are extremely expensive and hard to maintain in third world countries. The major concern with these technologies is that they do not guarantee, to an acceptable level, operator safety unless they are remotely operated, which complicates the overall problem, or they have specifically designed protective structures to protect the operator. Some technologies, however, are available or in final development and are applicable to humanitarian mine clearance. 28. A list of equipment which would enhance the mine clearance "Tool Kit" is as follows: (a) Rotating drum rotary tiller. This system concept is in final development/testing by the Germans and Norwegians and looks very promising. It has the advantage of not removing the soil and, in fact, prepares it for agricultural use. It can be mounted on an armoured dozer, a tank chassis or in a smaller version on a mine hardened vehicle such as the Casspir or OKAPIR. The German system is being tested in Mozambique. Basically this concept is a rotating drum on which hardened teeth from the mining industry are mounted. It can clear mines to a depth of 50 cms and may be useful for off-route clearance. (b) Explosive sniffing system. This concept has been in use in South Africa and Mozambique with good success. It is based on a Casspir taking air samples, which are later analysed by dogs. It is a quick, economical and effective system for roads and tracks in low contamination areas. Its prime purpose is to indicate no-mine areas as well as mined areas. Clearance of mined areas is followed up by dogs and manual clearance. In heavily mined areas it is not economically practical, unless supported by another system, such as rollers, owing to potential constant damage to the vehicle. New sniffer hardware is being developed which in time provide near real-time analysis and will replace dogs in this and other such systems. (c) Mine-proof vehicles with steel wheels. This concept has been used effectively in Mozambique in areas where there is no threat of anti-tank (AT) mines. It is a reasonably quick method which is reliable and safe for the operator. The concept works on criss-crossing the terrain to ensure that all mines are detonated or neutralized. (d) Flails. Numerous flails exist on the market and are effective in certain situations. While Sweden has a truck-mounted rear flail, the United Kingdom, Germany and Israel have large flail systems. There are many others, but of particular interest are the remote control mini flails, such as the Slovak and United States systems. Flails can be of varying sizes and can be mounted on a variety of vehicles. The main problem with large flails is that they are slow and they remove the top layer of soil, which in some countries destroys agriculture. Mini flails are attractive as they work mainly the surface and are extremely cost-effective as a mine clearance tool. (e) Ploughs. Ploughs come in many shapes and sizes. They can be useful in humanitarian demining to provide quick access through mined areas to minimize civilian casualties and allow quick access to critical resources such as food and water. An armoured dozer with a blade can provide similar capability. (f) Rollers. Single or double rollers are particularly effective for proofing roads which are suspected of mine contamination. Numerous roller systems exist, but they tend to be heavy and require a powerful prime mover. Rollers can be most effective in the early stages of humanitarian operations to allow the establishment of supply routes. Smaller rollers (commercial vice military) can easily be manufactured to achieve low costs and easy repairs. PROCEDURES 29. It is important to think of mechanical options as improved productivity tools. They all have limitations depending on the mine threat, the terrain and weather. But using mechanical options associated with sound procedures and manual demining, they can provide cost-effective increased productivity capabilities. Equipment procedures must be carefully developed to ensure safety and address equipment limitations. Technical and safety standards must always be enforced. TESTING OF EQUIPMENT 30. All mechanical equipment must be tested prior to deployment and must further be tested in specific theatres, with varying ground conditions and mine threats, to assess applicability. It must as a minimum have the following capabilities: (a) To provide complete protection/safety for the operator unless it is remote control. The degree of protection will be theatre dependent based on the mine threat; (b) To withstand nine mine blasts of nine kilograms of an explosive mine before requiring major repairs. Most of the mines in humanitarian demining contain less than nine kilograms of explosives. The system must not receive major damage from a single blast and must be repairable in the field in less than one hour; (c) To be capable of operating at two to three kilometres per hour clearing a 2- to 3- metre wide path. Smaller capabilities need to be reviewed prior to dismissal; (d) A daily maintenance routine of less than two hours; (e) To make sure that the system must be easily serviceable, maintainable, transportable and require minimum logistics back-up. The equipment needs to cater to existing local infrastructure and terrain. 31. The system will require extensive testing to ensure durability and operator's safety against numerous mine threats. The concern is primarily anti-tank (AT) mines unless the area of use contains only anti-personnel (Apers) mines. Final testing must be carried out in the area of operation. CLEARANCE RATES AND MINE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 32. The system should be able to clear 50,000 to 80,000 square metres per day with a mine removal certainty of no less that 85 per cent clearance. Until a system can prove, under actual field conditions, a clearance rate of 99.6 per cent, the terrain covered must be checked by manual demining. If clearance is not 85 per cent, the system is still valuable provided it speeds up demining operations by a minimum factor of three. As the previous analysis shows, mechanical clearance remains a very effective option both in time and in cost reduction. 33. The question of what constitutes mine removal/rendering a mine safe will be an issue debated for some time. A practical perspective should be that the mine cannot be detonated by moving or stepping on it. A detonator with a partially destroyed mine filled with explosives is a mine. Detonators by themselves remain a hazard to the civilian population. Explosives alone do not constitute a threat. Manual demining will remove these residual threats. LIMITS TO MECHANICAL CLEARANCE 34. There will always be, in the near future, limitations to mechanical clearance. The limitations can be terrain, transportation around the developing country, specific mine threats, maintainability and theatre-specific limitations. None the less each requirement must be assessed to determine use, cost-effectiveness and practicality. In general, mechanical options will provide an expedient means to improve existing methods. APPLICABILITY TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 35. The problem of mines world-wide is staggering and presently cannot be managed. Mechanical clearance, though at first may seem expensive and not providing the "Silver Bullet", does provide a major step forward in better addressing the mine problem. What is needed is in theatre experience with mechanical options to allow a basis of experience for future developments. Without that experience, advances in demining solutions will never occur and the mine problem, which plagues numerous third world countries, will never be solved. Initial limited use of mechanical options will provide a basis for technology growth. There is no doubt that mechanical solutions are available and have applicability to third world countries. 36. Systems should be designed with the following in mind: (a) Maintainable by local personnel using local material if possible; (b) The system should be designed for maximum transportability and light weight; (c) Guaranteed operator safety; (d) Low costs and no frills; (e) Systems should be preferably wheeled to allow movement without support equipment; (f) The system should be capable of withstanding nine separate kilograms of explosive blast without major damage; (g) Only minimum on-site logistic support should be required; (h) Simplicity both mechanically and for use. INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVES 37. A clear understanding of problems facing manual clearance should lead to quickly developed innovative, simple and low-cost mechanical options which, when included in the tool box, greatly improve demining rates and lower risks. Such alternatives are as follows: (a) Mine-proof/mine-hardened vehicles with simple double rollers for proofing roads and good tracks; (b) Minimum metal mine detection arrays to locate quickly mine areas and proof roads; (c) Excavators with the bucket replaced by a mini flail for road verges, tripwires and vegetation. The vehicle can work from a mine-free surface; (d) Equivalent to a potato picker to sift ground after a mechanical clearance operation to assist further manual clearance rates; (e) Small vehicle signature magnetic duplicators for magnetic mines; (f) Mechanical replacement for tripwire feelers which project a hook 50 metres and retrieve it mechanically for areas where large mechanical options are not feasible; (g) New vibrating prodders which can differentiate between metal, rocks, plastics etc. 38. The list is not exhaustive and many such simple techniques can greatly enhance the mine clearance process and add viable options to expediting the process. Summary 39. An assessment of the above analysis clearly demonstrates that mechanical options are really not options, but an economically feasible necessity. Adding to the demining system, mechanical clearance will revolutionize world-wide demining. It will provide the much needed solution to addressing the problem of providing quick access routes for relief operations and allowing timely resettlement and rehabilitation. By speeding up the process fewer lives will be lost or maimed and countries can return to a state of normalcy quickly to allow the countries to grow and prosper. 40. It must be emphasized that demining requires a systems approach. This means that no one system can do it all. A demining system requires good detection equipment, trained personnel to demine manually, mechanical systems, mine dogs, a well developed mine database and good sound technical and safety procedures. 41. Mechanical options are available now and can be used to expedite existing mine clearance efforts. Their true efficiencies and full practicalities will never be known until they are fielded and on-the-ground experience provides input into new technology requirements. The long-term benefits are substantial and the financial risk, when compared to the existing manual demining costs and productivity, is low.