Keywords Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); mineral processing; Scope 3 emissions; carbon footprint analysis. 1. INTRODUCTION Meeting global demand for critical minerals under climate constraints requires a step change in how mineral processing systems are designed and operated. Substantial decarbonisation progress in Scope 1 and 2 (especially via renewable electricity) must be complemented by systematic reduction of Scope 3 emissions embedded in consumables, equipment, wear parts, reagents, and services [1]. The emerging regulatory landscape (e.g., corporate climate disclosures, border carbon adjustments) is accelerating expectations for traceable, science-based emissions accounting and mitigation across the value chain. Within this context, life cycle assessment (LCA) offers a systematic framework for evaluating environmental impacts across all stages of a product or process, providing a comprehensive view of environmental burdens and enabling informed decision-making [2]. These decisions are not just faster (deployable), but also smarter (system-optimised) and more responsible (aligned with societal expectations). Mineral processing plants are energy- and resource-intensive, generating significant emissions and waste. Applying LCA to these operations identifies critical impact sources and supports strategies to reduce their environmental footprint, improving overall sustainability. This study aimed to apply LCA to three mineral processing flowsheets (copper, iron ore, and lithium) with a focus on CO2e emissions, adhering to ISO Standards 14040 [2] and 14044 [3]. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW This section contextualizes the study within three questions raised during peer review: how companies currently calculate Scope 3 emissions, whether this LCA methodology has been applied to mineral processing before, and whether an established GWP baseline exists for these plants. 2.1 Scope 3 emissions accounting in industry Companies across extractive and manufacturing sectors increasingly use the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard [4] as the basis for Scope 3 reporting. In practice, most reporting relies on spend-based or average-data methods due to limited supplier-specific data, which can introduce significant uncertainty [5]. The IFRS S2 Climate-Related Disclosure Standard [6] and frameworks such as CBAM [7] are progressively tightening expectations, 207
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2