Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

    Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

    A Monash University environmental engineer has warned in a new report that mineral resources are running out, excavation costs are escalating and the environmental costs of mining are devastating.

    The world-first report, The Sustainability of Mining in Australia: Key Trends and Their
    Environmental Implications for the Future, was authored by Monash researcher and lecturer Dr Gavin Mudd in conjunction with the independent Mineral Policy Institute.

    Dr Mudd said the statistics were alarming. "On average, 27 tonnes of greenhouse emissions are created to mine a tonne of uranium. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of nine family cars. To mine one kilogram of gold it takes 691,000 litres of water, and it takes 141 kilograms of cyanide to produce a single kilogram of gold.

    "There is often talk about sustainable mining, but our latest body ofresearch shows that minerals are being mined at an alarming rate, mining companies have to work harder to source it, and as a result the environmental costs of the process and clean-up are rising exponentially.
    Dr Mudd's report is available from the Engineering faculty website

    Executive Summary

    The sustainability of mining is not a simple concept – at first glance it would appear to be an obvious oxymoron, a paradox. Yet in reality, most mineral production is sometimes two or three orders of magnitude higher than a century ago, commonly from mines which dwarf their previous generation. There are clearly numerous aspects and issues involved in assessing the sustainability of mining, and the emphasis will largely vary according to whether one is adopting a mining industry, government or independent civic perspective.

    In the past few decades the mining industry in Australia has moved to improve its environmental management, and in the past decade has been prominently involved in the global debate about sustainability and the need to incorporate sustainable development into mine operations as well as corporate policy.

    There remains, however, no previous study which has examined long-term trends in mining which are critical in understanding sustainability and mining. The principal issues include increasing production, declining ore grades (or quality), increased open cut mining and associated waste rock or overburden and remaining economic resources. Combined, these aspects are critical in quantifying the scale or footprint of mining, and also underpins the sustainability of mining.

    This report presents the first ever such study which has compiled master data sets on the above issues for almost all sectors of the Australian mining industry, namely black and brown coal, uranium, iron ore, bauxite, manganese, mineral sands, copper, gold, lead-zinc-silver, nickel and diamonds (tin and tungsten being excluded). The report contains data essentially from the start of each sector studied, sometimes back as far as 1829.

    The unique study illustrates a number of key aspects concerning mining and sustainability :

    * Production : gradually or exponentially increasing, which is likely to continue for some time;
    * Ore Grades : gradually declining, unlikely to ever increase in the future with some metals likely to decrease by about half in the near future (eg. gold);
    * Open Cut Mining : now widespread, likely to be sustained in the future though the long-term is hard to predict as new mineral deposits are likely to be deeper;
    * Waste Rock / Overburden : increasing rapidly, likely to be sustained in the future and closely linked to open cut mining (especially for coal and base metals);
    * Economic Resources : commonly increasing but some remain stable or gradually declining, future linked closely to exploration, technology and economics.

    From a sustainability perspective, these trends point to the scale of mines and the associated footprint gradually increasing in the future. This is due to the increased solid wastes (tailings and waste rock) per unit mineral / metal production caused by declining ore grades and increased waste rock and open cut mining.

    In terms of economic resources, this study demonstrates that for most minerals resources have actually increased over time despite increasing production (e.g copper, gold, nickel, mineral sands), but for some minerals rapidly increasing production is putting pressure on known economic resources (eg. iron ore).

    All of these combined trends have important social, environmental and economic implications for mining. They give hope to some but cause for concern for others.

    Ultimately, the sustainability of the mining industry continues to hang in the balance.


    Increasing Production





    Declining Ore Grades





    Increasing Waste Rock





    Economic Resources





    Some more understanding may be gleaned from the discussion here
    Last edited by Rajiv; November 04, 2007, 08:34 PM. Reason: Added The Oil Drum Australia New Zealand link

  • #2
    Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

    Rajiv -

    I've been watching this thread since you posted it. Seems there are few takers here regarding the whimsical resource depletion notion. :rolleyes:

    Expressing skepticism about the possibility of resource depletion (the boundless earth school of resource management) is like an instant shot of veneered credibility - all you need to do is say "frankly that sounds alarmist" and you have taken on the aura of a hard nosed Clint Eastwood type who's not taking any wooden nickels.
    Last edited by Contemptuous; November 05, 2007, 03:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

      I think it is the same with people who think that exponential growth can last for ever - or at least it is going to continue in my lifetime!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

        To the moon, Alice!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

          Rajiv,

          The data does make some sense; law of diminishing returns. First, we had peak oil now we have peak ore.

          One gloomy comment made by Dr. Mudd, I think is way off, though, that makes me a bit suspicious of his underlying motive: He says it takes 27 tons of greenhouse emission (equal to 9 family cars for a year) to mine one ton of uranium. That amount of carbon release seems miniscule compared to what a coal plant would emit to create the same power as one ton of uranium.
          Greg

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

            I think that was probably the reporter cueing in on something that was incidental to the overall thrust of the argument.

            On the overall viability of nuclear, here is an excerpt from "Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia"

            The results of the sensitivity analysis confirm the results of the multiple regression in Section 3.13. For the case of the light water reactor (Table 5.7 and Table 5.9) energy intensities are around 0.18 kWhth/kWhel, while greenhouse gas intensities are around 60 g CO2-e/kWhel. Energy payback times are around 6½ years. Both energy and greenhouse gas intensities show substantial scatter when parameters are varied. The ore grade and enrichment method are the most important influencing parameters. Moreover, the greenhouse gas intensity is significantly influenced by the greenhouse gas intensity of the background economy.

            The greenhouse gas intensities for the best-case scenario agree with those obtained for the low-carbon economies Switzerland (Dones et al [38]) and Japan (Hondo, Uchiyama and co-workers [51, 52]).

            For the case of the heavy water reactor (Table 5.8 and Table 5.10) energy intensities are around 0.20 kWhth/kWhel, while greenhouse gas intensities are around 65 g CO2-e /kWhel. Energy payback times are around 7 years. Once again, both energy and greenhouse gas intensities show substantial scatter when parameters are varied. The ore grade and enrichment does not play a role since the HWR is fuelled with natural uranium. The ore grade is the most important influencing parameter. Once again, the greenhouse gas intensity is significantly influenced by the greenhouse gas intensity of the background economy.
            Results for the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia

            The energy balance of the nuclear fuel cycle involves trade-offs between material throughput and fissile isotope concentration at various stages in the cycle. For example, there are trade-offs between
            • using less but enriched fuel in Light Water Reactors, versus more but natural fuel in Heavy Water or Gas-cooled Graphite Reactors,
            • applying more enrichment work to less fuel, versus less enrichment work to more fuel, and
            • investing more energy into uranium and plutonium recycling, versus higher volumes of fuel uranium mining, throughput, storage, and disposal.


            The overall energy intensity of nuclear energy depends critically on
            • the grade of the uranium ore mined,
            • the method for enrichment,
            • the conversion rate of the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e. fuel recycling).

            The energy intensity will increase
            • with decreasing uranium ore grades,
            • with increasing proportion of diffusion plants, and
            • with decreasing fuel recycling.


            Notwithstanding these variations, it can be stated that
            – accepting the qualifications and omissions stated,
            – for grades of average ore bodies mined today, and
            – for state-of-the-art reactors and uranium processing facilities,

            the energy intensity of nuclear power
            – is around 0.18 kWhth/kWhel for light water reactors, and around 0.20 kWhth/kWhel for heavy water reactors,
            Last edited by Rajiv; November 05, 2007, 10:02 PM. Reason: added emphasis

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

              Biscayne -

              Beware of Rajiv when he gets his wonky hat on.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

                It basically boils down to 3 tonnes of CO2 for every kg of uranium that produces 50,000 kwh of electricity So the number was 27 tonnes for a tonne of uranium ore!

                Therefore 27 tonnes CO2 for 450 Mwh of electricity -- equivalent electricity production using coal would produce 670 tonnes of CO2 -- 1 tonne of coal produces 2460 kwh of electricity (this of course assumes coal with no ash and no moisture content) in practice the amounts would be higher

                Also from Calculating the environmental cost of uranium mining

                Carbon dioxide emissions also varied from 10 to 50 t CO2/t U3O8 and there is a gradual increase of CO2 emissions over time. It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium to feed such a plant would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year.
                Last edited by Rajiv; December 28, 2009, 04:58 AM. Reason: put in equivalent figures for coal

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

                  Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                  It basically boils down to 3 tonnes of CO2 for every kg of uranium that produces 50,000 kwh of electricity So the number was 27 tonnes for a tonne of uranium ore!

                  Hey, do you guys buy the solar energy solution? :confused:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

                    Solar has a place Photovoltaics wiki has the following information

                    Crystalline silicon PV systems presently have energy pay-back times of 1.5-2 years for South-European locations and 2.7-3.5 years for Middle-European locations. For silicon technology clear prospects for a reduction of energy input exist, and an energy pay-back of 1 year may be possible within a few years. Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[61] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years, the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

                      Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                      Crystalline silicon PV systems presently have energy pay-back times of 1.5-2 years for South-European locations and 2.7-3.5 years for Middle-European locations. For silicon technology clear prospects for a reduction of energy input exist, and an energy pay-back of 1 year may be possible within a few years. Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[61] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years, the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30.

                      So this means the solar panel can pay back for itself within 1.5 to 3.5 years?

                      Hardly what i heard - solar panels are very expensive?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

                        Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                        Solar has a place Photovoltaics wiki has the following information
                        Rajiv good find, here is a briefing paper of the LCA report.
                        http://www.uic.com.au/nip100.htm As for solar, the efficiency percentage is not cost effective but coming. Spectrolabs http://www.spectrolab.com/prd/prd.asp holds the future for high efficiency panels. Companies like Soliant http://www.soliant-energy.com/ and Energy Innovations http://www.energyinnovations.com/ are up and coming but very expensive.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Warning: The mining boom is fading fast

                          Rajiv -

                          Found (what looks like) a decent reference paper on greenhouse gas emissions for all fuel sources, including construction and decomissioning, but you won't like it (hint - nuclear GHG emissions beats other fuel sources by a country mile). I must defer to wonks such as yourself who will certainly pick it apart.

                          I did not read through all six pages to determine if the quite large component of fuel mining is included in these estimates, and that is certainly a large factor. However the operating (including construction and decomissioning) comparisons seem startlingly clear for nuclear.

                          Link:

                          http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf


                          Screenshot of the summary table:

                          COMPARATIVE ENERGY SOURCES - GREENHOUSE GAS - CHART.jpg

                          And an explanation of the content :

                          EMISSION FACTORS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES

                          The range of GHG emission factors for different types of fuel have been analyzed through various studies. The results are expressed in grams of carbon-equivalent (including CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) per kilowatt-hour of electricity (gCeq/kWh). The graph on page 21 shows data from existing power plants (1990s technology) and emission factors for systems that are expected to be operative in the near to medium term (2005-2020 technologies).

                          The estimates reflect differences in assessment methodology, conversion efficiency, practices in fuel preparation and subsequent transport to the location of the power plant, and local issues, such as the fuel mix assumed for electricity requirements related to plant construction and manufacturing of equipment. Future rates include improvements in the fuel-to-energy service conversion process, reductions during fuel extraction and transport, and lower emissions during plant and equipment construction.

                          For the fossil fuels, the total rate of emission is the sum of stack emissions during fuel combustion and releases from up- and down-stream activities or chains. Typically, GHG emissions from power plant construction and decommissioning, and contributions from power lines connecting the plant to the grid are negligibly small. For instance, only 1% of the overall GHG emission can be attributed to plant construction and decommissioning.

                          For hydropower, solar and wind technologies, the size and type of the plant are key factors in the analysis. Considerations such as geographical siting and local construction regulations strongly influence the emission rate. The impact of these factors on the greenhouse gas rate or emission is shown in the graph.

                          Results of the IAEAsupported AGM meetings consistently show that fossil fuel technologies have the highest emission factors, with natural gas about half as much as coal or lignite and two thirds of the estimate for fuel oil. Nuclear and hydropower, on the other hand, have the lowest GHG releases, 50 to 100 times lower than coal (depending on technology). GHG emissions from solar power are in between, about an order of magnitude higher than nuclear.

                          _________________

                          And perhaps a more comprehensive summary is this short mention of the FENCH (Full Energy Chain) profile of principal major fuel sources. Here again Nuclear seems to maintain a strong lead:

                          http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=1520

                          Full-energy-chain greenhouse-gas emissions: a comparison between nuclear power, hydropower, solar power and wind power
                          by Joop F. van de Vate

                          International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management (IJRAM), Vol. 3, No. 1, 2002

                          ABSTRACT : Fair comparison of the climate impacts from different energy sources can be made only by accounting for the emissions of all relevant greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the full energy chain (FENCH) of the energy sources. FENCH-GHG emission factors of most of the non-fossil fuel energies are lower than those of the fossil fuels that are in the range of 500-1200 g CO2/kW h(e).

                          The improvement rates concerning their CO2-to-energy ratios of OECD countries and some developing countries are discussed, showing the low performance of the latter from 1965-1996. Detailed FENCH-GHG systems analyses are given for nuclear power, hydropower, and wind and solar power.

                          The FENCH-GHG emission factor of nuclear power is 8.9 g CO2-equiv./kW h(e) and applies to light-water nuclear power plants. The main contributions are from milling, conversion of lower-grade ore, enrichment, construction and operation of the power plant, and reprocessing (if relevant).

                          For hydropower an emission factor is reported of 16 g CO2-equiv./kW h(e) for the best investigated flat-area cold climate power plants. The main, biogenic, emission source is the water reservoir. The information on high-altitude alpine reservoir-type and run-of- river hydropower generation is limited.

                          These plants could probably have emission factors in the low range of 5-10 g CO2-equiv./kW h(e). The FENCH CO2-equivalent emission factors of wind power systems are in the order of 15 g CO2-equiv./kW h(e). The main source is associated with the materials for the turbine and for its foundation.

                          Solar PV and solar thermal power are in an intermediate range their current values are 100-200 and 50-80g CO2-equiv./kW h(e), respectively. GHG emissions are mainly from silicon, which dominates the PV market.


                          _________________
                          Last edited by Contemptuous; November 06, 2007, 12:13 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            mining - the next bubble?

                            this report is actually good reason to think more money will go into mining companies

                            If the world needs more mining to get the same amount of material

                            needs more technology companies specializing in finding ores

                            needs more technology companies making extraction more efficient.

                            All of That argues for mining to get preferential tax treatment. If not now, then when the prices of those metals gets quite high again.

                            Maybe enough money for mining and mining service companies to be the next bubble?

                            Quite the opposite of a mining boom fading, this is an argument for a rewnewed mining boom.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: mining - the next bubble?

                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              this report is actually good reason to think more money will go into mining companies

                              If the world needs more mining to get the same amount of material

                              needs more technology companies specializing in finding ores

                              needs more technology companies making extraction more efficient.

                              All of That argues for mining to get preferential tax treatment. If not now, then when the prices of those metals gets quite high again.

                              Maybe enough money for mining and mining service companies to be the next bubble?

                              Quite the opposite of a mining boom fading, this is an argument for a rewnewed mining boom.
                              If the shortage - pricing scenario becomes durable (lasts for a few years) then we'll see a replay of the petroleum situation going on now. More nationalization of assets in developing countries, more taxes and royalties in the jurisdictions with property rights protection. The large hard-rock mining companies currently have a MUCH bigger problem replacing the reserves they are producing out today than Big Oil. That's one of the reasons mining sector M&A (Inco, Falconbridge, Alcan, etc) has run ahead of anything similar in the oil sector (for now).

                              The services side may be the safer bet in the same way the offshore drillers and other oil services companies have outperformed Big Oil.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X