1616 And for urban footprints, the ability to build vertical living and activity spaces through high rise buildings, while concentrating associated infrastructure to roads, primary piped and cabled services and water supplies, a 25% footprint is reduced to around 15%. So, our 0.3% mining footprint looks pretty good in the context of reducing our combined 8 billion human footprint from 75% to 55% for food and shelter. That is, we use 0.3% for mining to reduce our global human footprint by ~30%. However, we need to remember we are talking about what it is today. When I talk about footprints, we also have legacy mining sites, and those mines that are operating today have finite lives, and new mines will be needed to support continuing life and lifestyles over the longer term. In addition to the larger scaled industrial sites, the smaller artisanal operations are growing, as demand and prices encourage smaller scale and unregulated operators into the market. It’s a simple story – the larger industrial establishments are generally subject to a range of environmental and administrative controls, where smaller scale artisanal operations are not. It is not meant to be a complaint, just an observation of what we see across the globe. So, if I make a few simple assumptions based on reasonable “rules of thumb”: • Average mine life is 20 years for the “formal and regulated mining sector”. • Effective rehabilitation and return to natural habitats are only 50% effective. • Our global population remains at around 8 billion people. In this case, our net footprint would increase over 100 years to around 0.75% (that is, 1.5% before 50% rehabilitation). Still a small number, but a number if left unchecked would become a lot more material over a much longer haul. Part of the current solution to this mathematical outcome is to use the 50% ineffective residual environment footprints as part of our developing urban landscapes, a concept that has been captured in the Eden Project experiences per the book, “101 things to do with a hole in the ground”. A great title that tells its own story about re-purposing land that has been materially transformed by centuries of mining activities. So, when we think about how we can do better, and create a more sustainable and net positive outcome for the long term, we see key actions that are both long-term environmentally sustainable and more likely value accretive in the short term. However, our reality is much more difficult and technically complex. Metal mines mining vertically orientated orebodies are increasing at an average depth of 40 meters each year. Ore grades for base and precious metals are decreasing at an average of 1.5% each year. In both cases, increasing demand for products is working against our physical extraction trends that will naturally increase our physical footprints over time. The countervailing trend will be the tendency to go for more underground operations as open pit waste movements constrain extraction economics. The key actions we believe are consistent with managing mining footprints include: • Maintaining focus on mining higher grade and more concentrated orebodies to keep our physical footprints focused on the best outcomes in terms of land use and long-term value creation. While economic imperatives will tend to push us there in any case – the discipline of economic rationalism is both profitable from both and economic and environmental perspective. • Pushing innovation to reduce footprints is generally consistent with sustainable cost reductions and so facilitating innovation remains a key focal point for future mining, both in economic and environmental terms. • Increase primary recovery and recycling of metals and minerals – making sure waste streams are managed for effective recovery of contained products. The concept of finding uses for “mined waste” is equally beneficial to society as we can help reduce other physical footprints
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2