| |
|
|
|
|||||
| |
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
 |
Who Will Use A Global Mineral Assessment? |
An Industry
Perspective
G. E. McKelvey
An assessment of the global mineral endowment, what is known and could
remain undiscovered, would be a valuable tool for mineral users, mineral
explorers, land planners, international governments and environmental protectors
alike. The mineral industry does not use mineral assessments directly to
discover new ore deposits, but an assessment can be a tool that, in concert
with other measures of Earth’s resources, might provide a logic-based forum
for long-term land use planning, coordinating environmental issues and
assisting in the legal issues. As a result, the assessment could help us
provide sustainable resource needs of the planet’s inhabitants. Perhaps
such a forum will find the common ground necessary to ensure that the needs
of all are equally addressed with logic, planning and facts.
A global mineral assessment, however, can only be useful if the planners,
governments, protectors and all minerals users clearly understand the potentially
serious limitations inherent in a mineral assessment.
The first danger we face is that we do not have the data necessary
to complete a global mineral assessment. Regardless of the explosion of
earth science data and sophistication of assessment techniques, the basic
data is incomplete. Large areas are poorly understood, some remain unstudied
because of political or social issues. I have yet to see a map or assessment
that clearly acknowledges regions and domains where the data are insufficient
to assess minerals potential. The recognition that real information is
lacking may well be the driver for acquiring meaningful data.
Statistical assessments might provide some measure of the likelihood
that we will find new deposits. But some land-use planners, government
lawmakers and other users may believe the specific numbers rather than
understand the concept of mineral discovery potential and the inherent
limitations of discovery. Cold statistics from incomplete data used by
people not personally familiar with a region result in an assessment, but
I prefer relying on the gut feelings of innovative people who have spent
time in the field thinking and mapping and questioning paradigms.
The second danger we face is that assessments are often expressed in
numbers of deposits or monetary units and then compared with other competing
uses on the basis of preserved value — a tradeoff approach. While we can
use and misuse mineral assessment reports from various sources, we should
not just accept the cold numbers. Instead, we should understand the limitations
of the data we use and, if that information is not enough, get better data.
It is the data, not the assessment, that is most valuable to the mineral
discovery industry.
A third perilous flaw in any assessment process are the existing deposit
models. By definition, ore deposit models, genetic models and the resulting
search models are based on what is known. The deposit is first known, and
then the model is developed. Even when a description is detailed in every
way, when we have a perfect understanding of how a deposit formed, and
when the unique geologic domain is globally well documented, a mineral
assessment can fall short.
The fewer types we know, the fewer deposits an assessment can estimate.
Any user of a mineral assessment should consider not only the numbers,
but also new deposit types, new products or commodities not yet considered
important, new technology that could render poor-quality deposits economically
feasible, and a possible lack of relevant data for identifying a permissive
domain. Mineral assessment is not a static process.
A paradigm worth breaking is the misconception that modern, well-managed
mineral production and the environment are mutually exclusive concepts.
The producing community is taking a proactive role to change this mindset.
A history of poor stewardship is not a valid indicator of the future stewardship
of Earth. Every year offers more examples of visionary, well-managed enterprises
for extracting minerals in ways that protect the environment. Mining companies
protect large areas of the Amazon, for example, from clear cutting, farming
and burning. Times have changed and the industry is eager to partner sustainable
environment practices with sustainable resource development.
The assessment process, like the discovery process, is dynamic. Today’s
estimates will change tomorrow. But a global mineral assessment is long
overdue. It may not lead directly to discoveries, but it can be a useful
forum to coordinate what are now fragmented, conflicting efforts to manage
sustainable growth and environmental stewardship. I urge that we are cautious
and that we remember that the process is not perfect and needs to change
as we learn more. But this inherent imperfection is no reason not to start.
McKelvey, an exploration geologist with Phelps
Dodge, has worked 37 years in the exploration and discovery business. E-mail:
gempress@qwest.net
An Environmental
Perspective
Penny Flick Langhammer
The loss of biological diversity is one of the most serious environmental
problems facing our planet. Species, genetic diversity within species and
biological communities are disappearing at a rate faster than at any time
in history. Environmental degradation, extinction, and the subsequent loss
of biological diversity, or biodiversity, has wide-ranging implications
for humans. The fact that we will leave our children with a biologically
impoverished planet may be the lesser of our concerns. Environmental degradation
has been linked to poverty, malnutrition and disease. While the root of
this degradation often lies in the consumptive behavior of developed countries,
the consequences are felt most strongly in developing countries, which
may not have the technology or capacity to cope with the problems.
Effective conservation depends on identifying potential threats to
biodiversity before they have irreversible impacts. An early warning system
that helps conservationists identify threats, and react quickly to address
them, requires accurate, up-to-date information from many different sources.
Scientific data from the fields of biology, taxonomy, behavioral ecology,
geology, economics and sociology are critically important to devising conservation
strategies that work. Identifying areas of potential resource development
is an important component of this early warning system.
Past mineral exploration and development has resulted in direct and
indirect damage to biodiversity, and current exploration and development
pose increasing threats in the hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas.
There is some concern that a global mineral assessment might highlight,
and consequently target, biologically sensitive areas for mineral exploration.
The reality is that mining companies probably have this information already,
whereas most conservation organizations do not. It is important to know
which areas are suitable for mineral development so that, when faced with
such development, conservation groups can propose areas of lesser biological
value or devise strategies to mitigate this development. Information resources
from the geosciences, such as the global mineral assessment initiated by
the U.S. Geological Survey, can level the playing field.
As conservation efforts increasingly aim to protect entire ecosystems,
biologists need earth science information to understand the habitat requirements
of organisms, including abiotic components such as water, soil, substrate
and nutrient cycles. The distribution of biodiversity is defined largely
by the physical structure of Earth: elevation, soils, river meander, even
continental drift over time.
Biologists need geological and topographical data to model species
distributions when expensive field survey data are not available. Information
on the distribution of species, especially those that are threatened and
endangered, is important for designing systems of protected areas and for
monitoring. In turn, biologists can help geoscientists to define a research
agenda that would enhance conservation efforts. They can also work together
to understand the effects of mineral exploration and development on biodiversity
and human cultures. Science underpins effective conservation, and boiologists
and physical scientists need to collaborate.
Langhammer manages the State of the Hotspots
program at the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation
International in Washington, D.C. E-mail: p.langhammer@conservation.org
 |
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers  |