1. INTRODUCTION Mineral concentrators have traditionally been optimised around throughput, cost, and energy. Energy intensity (kWh/t) is directly linked to grind targets (e.g., P80 in µm), circuit stability, product tonnage, recovery, and grade. Because comminution is often the largest energy consumer on site, reducing kWh/t has long supported both performance and environmental goals. This made energy an effective proxy for environmental impact when electricity-related emissions dominated the footprint. ¹ ² That proxy is weakening. As renewables expand and the CO₂ intensity of grid electricity decreases, the relative contribution of Scope 2 is declining in many regions, while Scope 1 (on-site fuels) and supply chain inputs – consumables, equipment, and services – account for a larger share in many operations. Recent power sector trends show record clean generation growth and a sustained drop in emissions intensity, reinforcing the need to look beyond energy alone when assessing carbon performance at concentrators. ³ ⁴ At the same time, regulatory transparency on value chain emissions is increasing. Europe now requires disclosure of gross Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and ESRS E1, with first reporting for FY 2024 in 2025, setting a benchmark that many miners and downstream customers are aligning with. Sector guidance from ICMM further standardises Scope 3 accounting for mining and metals.5,6,7 Recent literature highlights two complementary needs for plant-level decision support: integrating LCA with process simulation to address methodological inconsistencies and “black-box” limitations and operationalising the carbon footprint as a practical efficiency metric within standard workflows8. This paper presents a practical LCA application that incorporates a life cycle-based carbon metric – expressed as kg CO₂e per defined output unit – directly into standard mineral processing optimisation studies as an additional metric alongside cost and production KPIs. The framework integrates with standard plant workflows (mass balance, unit models, kWh/t, and recovery) and provides transparent accounting of emission sources relevant to concentrator studies: electricity and fuels, consumables (grinding media, liners, reagents), and maintenance or auxiliary services, parameterised by emission factors and usage rates consistent with ISO 14040/140449,10. Evidence from mining LCA shows that, beyond electricity, consumables and process choices can materially influence the footprint, supporting the inclusion of these sources in routine studies2,11. Rather than creating a separate assessment, the goal is to enhance existing option screening and debottlenecking with comparable carbon results, so evaluations of operational settings and configuration choices consider kg CO₂e with the same rigour as energy and cost. A concise example later in the paper demonstrates the application. Although this paper focuses on the concentrator, the framework is compatible with Mine-to-Mill integration¹² and mine-side options, such as blast design that conditions ROM size, in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC)¹³ that reduces diesel haulage, or bulk ore sorting that rejects mass prior to grinding¹⁴ – all of which can shift energy use and CO₂-e under the same metric.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2