Search

Global resource extraction raises concerns about environmental pressures and the security of mineral supply. Strategies to address these concerns depend on robust information on natural resource endowments, and on suitable methods to monitor and model their changes over time. However, current mineral resources and reserves reporting and accounting workflows are poorly suited for addressing mineral depletion or answering questions about the long-term sustainable supply. Our integrative review finds that the lack of a robust theoretical concept and framework for mass-balance (MB)-consistent geological stock accounting hinders systematic industry-government data integration, resource governance, and strategy development. We evaluate the existing literature on geological stock accounting, identify shortcomings of current monitoring of mine production, and outline a conceptual framework for MB-consistent system integration based on material flow analysis (MFA). Our synthesis shows that recent developments in Earth observation, geoinformation management, and sustainability reporting act as catalysts that make MB-consistent geological stock accounting increasingly feasible. We propose first steps for its implementation and anticipate that our perspective as “resource realists” will facilitate the integration of geological and anthropogenic material systems, help secure future mineral supply, and support the global sustainability transition., Validerad;2024;Nivå 2;2024-01-16 (hanlid);Funder: Norwegian University of Science and Technology;Full text license: CC BY

Environmental dissipation is a novel approach to account for impacts from mineral resources. In contrast to all other resource-related life cycle impact assessment methods, which use data on extractions as input to calculation of indicator scores, environmental dissipation is characterized solely through emissions to the environment. Making environmental dissipation work as a viable resource use impact category in life cycle assessment requires, however, that truly dissipative emissions are differentiated from those anthropogenic releases which do not contribute to loss of accessibility of a given resource over the time frame considered. We present a new method that allows for this differentiation to be made for 65 metals and metalloids in a consistent way. It determines (1) whether an emission flow reported in a life cycle inventory actually contributes to loss of accessibility of a given element when environmental fate mechanisms are considered, and (2) whether the element comes from a source that would be considered as a mineral resource for any generation living between the present and the time frame of assessment. We apply the new method to four different emission inventories, and characterize the resulting list of truly dissipative emissions using recently proposed long-term environmental dissipation potentials (EDP). This highlights the need to differentiate dissipative emissions from other anthropogenic, potentially nondissipative emission flows of elements in metal resource impact assessment.

This paper captures some of the emerging consensus points that came out of the workshop "Mineral Resources in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Mapping the path forward", held at the Natural History Museum London on 14 October 2015: that current practices rely in many instances on obsolete data, often confuse resource depletion with impacts on resource availability, which can therefore provide inconsistent decision support and lead to misguided claims about environmental performance. Participants agreed it would be helpful to clarify which models estimate depletion and which estimate availability, so that results can be correctly reported in the most appropriate framework. Most participants suggested that resource availability will be more meaningfully addressed within a comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework rather than limited to an environmental Life Cycle Assessment or Footprint. Presentations from each of the authors are available for download [1]., License fulltext: CC BY

Godkänd; 2015; 20151207 (andbra)

Purpose: Despite 20 years of research, there remains no robust, globally agreed upon method—or even problem statement—for assessing mineral resource inputs in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). As a result, inclusion of commonly used methods such as abiotic depletion potential (ADP) in life cycle assessment (LCA)-related evaluation schemes could lead to incorrect decisions being made in many applications. In this paper, we explore in detail how to improve the way that life cycle thinking is applied to the acquisition of mineral resources and their metal counterparts. Methods: This paper evaluates the current body of work in LCIA with regard to “depletion potential” of mineral resources. Viewpoints from which models are developed are described and analyzed. The assumptions, data sources, and calculations that underlie currently used methods are examined. A generic metal-containing product is analyzed to demonstrate the vulnerability of results to the denominator utilized in calculating ADP. The adherence to the concept of the area of protection (AOP) is evaluated for current models. The use of ore grades, prices, and economic availability in LCIA is reviewed. Results and discussion: Results demonstrate that any work on resource depletion in a life cycle context needs to have a very clear objective or LCIA will not accurately characterize mineral resource use from any perspective and decision-making will continue to suffer. New, harmonized terminology is proposed so that LCA practitioners can build better mutual understanding with the mineral industry and recommendations regarding more promising tools for use in life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) are given. Conclusions: The economic issue of resource availability should be evaluated in parallel with traditional LCA, not within. LCIA developers should look to economists, the market, and society in general, for broader assessments that consider shorter-time horizons than the traditional LCIA methods. To do so, Correction in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 21, Issue 1, page 133DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-1006-4

Mining waste and what to do about it is a common challenge facing companies, local authorities, environmental organizations, policymakers and increasingly other stakeholders in several countries of the Baltic Sea Region. From 2011 to 2013, a network of scientific and regional expertise brought together in the Min-Novation project has put this topic in the spotlight. The importance of the management of waste from extractive industries is due to the substantial share this waste has in the overall stream of waste generated in the EU. In 2010, 672 Mt or 28.3% of the total waste generated in the EU was attributable to the mining and quarrying industry, second only to construction (34.4%) and ahead of manufacturing (11.0%) and households (8.7%)1. Apart from this, mining waste is the raw material for one of the more visible man-made landmarks that surround us, with waste heaps of various shapes and sizes dotting the landscape up and down the Baltic Sea Region. Despite this dual prominence, mining waste is most often seen only as an environmental problem and in no way a resource. To move away from a one-sided view of mining waste, a life-cycle approach, which recognises that value can be recovered from waste and re-introduced into the product cycle is of the essence. It cannot be stressed enough that mining waste is a source of secondary raw materials, the use of which helps to protect the natural mineral deposits for future generations. Equally important is an appreciation of how the waste can be re-cycled in the excavation process (preventionand recovery) and adapted to create value for local communities (reclamation and revitalisation). However, for there to be effective mining waste management, both in the prevention stage, as well as in the recovery stage, and finally during land reclamation many conditions must be fulfilled. Of these the most important are access to appropriate technologies and methods and common sense legislation. Another condition not without import