Giurco, et al., of the so-called Institute for Sustainable Futures: University of Technology (Monash University), Sydney, reported in 2010 that the benefits and impacts of mineral resource extraction and processing in Australia are changing. As Australia’s largest export industry, mining brings financial benefits to the nation and while our vast endowment of minerals will not be exhausted soon, extraction and production are becoming more challenging. Declining ore grades are indicative of a shift from ‘easier and cheaper’ to more ‘complex and expensive’ processing – in social and environmental terms as well as economic. Declining resource quality [This claim was exaggerated and not necessarily true today] has also lead to declining productivity and the energy intensity of processing has subsequently risen by 50% over the last decade.[These claims are also without basis and intentionally misleading while hiding anti-mining agenda].
Global demand for Australian minerals and metals continues to rise. However, as a mineral dependent economy facing the challenges of adapting to carbon constraints and a new tax structure, a comprehensive assessment of the industry’s current and future role in the Australian economy is imperative. The following questions are relevant in such an assessment:
- What minerals and metals will be needed in the future? [There are no planned goals in a marketing-driven society]
- What role will Australia play in the supply and reuse of metals? [This depends on the local and world markets]
- How do we ensure benefits outweigh costs? [Again, Australia does not have or want a planed society. Markets will determine the benefits and costs]
- What will we do with the proceeds of mining to sustain longâ€term benefit? [The proceeds belong to the mining companies, shareholders, and stakeholders, and only reasonable taxes are earned by the state or federal governments].
- Where are the opportunities for innovation and transition in technology and policy? [Innovation and transition in technology belong to the universities of Australia. Policy issues are handled by the elected and appointed state and federal personnel].
While peak oil will directly affect the minerals industry through rising fuel costs [although with the new shale gas basins in Australia, the gas costs has decreased], it also offers a useful conceptual model for understanding the impact of going from ‘easier and cheaper’ to ‘complex and expensive’ resource processing, and critically, to planning a transition to new ways of providing energy services [These transitions are gross over simplifications of market conditions] There are fundamental differences between oil and many minerals (e.g. the recyclability of metals). Notwithstanding, this paper establishes a conceptual model of ‘peak minerals’ as a powerful tool for communicating the cross scale impacts (i.e. local, national, global) of ‘complex and expensive’ processing with respect to economic, social and environmental issues. As with energy services provided by oil, the peak minerals model helps to open the discussion regarding the ultimate use of minerals and metals. [Applying the "Peak Model" has never been successful, and will also not likely be applicable to minerals and commodities either. Why? Because new, previously unknown deposits, uses, etc. always seem to evolve over time. Off-world resources will one day provide much of the metals needed, and at competitive or lower cost than Earth-bound deposits, e.g., nickel, lead, copper, etc. as well as gold, silver, platinum and rare earths], but transitioning my be difficult, see: Chapter 9: http://www.i2mconsultants.com/downloads/corp/Memoir101-T0fC2016.pdf ].
With an understanding of when processing becomes ‘very complex and expensive’, it then focuses on what transitions can deliver the same useful functions that minerals and metals perform (e.g. sea floorâ€based resources, greater recycling or reprocessing, materialization, substitution with other materials, and off world resources); and which market, enabling technologies and policies can support these transitions.
- The key findings of this report were:
- Mining represented approximately 7.7% of Australia’s GDP in 2008â€09 and combined mineral and energy exports of AUS$160 billion represented nearly 56% of the total in that year.
- Minerals processing faces higher energy costs and is becoming more energy intensive despite technological improvements, as a result of processing lower grade more complex ores in more challenging locations (i.e. refractory, more remote, deeper).
- Peak minerals offers a useful model for representing the ‘easier and cheaper’ then ‘more complex and expensive’ impacts associated with processing declining resource qualities.[Clearly not true today !]
- As an example, copper fits the peak curve well and is approaching a peak in Australia. Gold reflects multiple peaks in production due to technological transitions that have occurred in the industry.[Not true today]
- This presents opportunities for innovative technologies, policies and business models along the production, consumption and reuse cycle for minerals and metals to underpin future prosperity [Only partially true].
2. Australia is heavily dependent on mining exports and should develop strategies to ensure longâ€term national benefits from minerals – social, economic and environmental – while acting decisively to avoid the resource curse. [This is an irrelevant statement. The Australian mining industry is well under way to developing new deposits and more efficient technology.]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
