616 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
increasingly reliance on sea water supply. These goals sug-
gest that these companies have faced competition for their
existing water supply sources that have motivated them
to seek alternatives. Some companies also refer to efforts
to reduce overall water use or increase “water efficiency,”
however the latter term is not always clearly defined.
Nonetheless, the nature of these targets suggest that water
scarcity challenges have been a primary risk facing the min-
ing companies analyzed.
Only a handful of companies had targets related to
water quality or discharge. For example, Teck refers to the
establishment of short-, medium- and long-term water
quality targets around contaminants such as selenium,
nitrate, sulphate and cadmium, while Sumitomo focuses on
reducing emissions of hazardous substances to the atmo-
sphere and water. There were few companies that referred
to the establishment of “water stewardship,” “catchment-
based,” or “site-based” targets, acknowledging the need for
different targets tailored to local context. That said, many
companies had company-wide targets that acknowledged
that there were implicit contextual differences between
their sites – for example, Sibanye Stillwater had different
targets for “water-rich” vs. “water-poor” jurisdictions, while
Alcoa set goals around water use intensity for “water-scarce”
locations only.
DISCUSSION
The analysis in this paper finds that the targets set by major
mining companies are heavily focused on reducing water
withdrawals and/or improving overall water use efficiency.
Only a small handful of companies explicitly acknowledge
the different water-related risks faced across their assets,
while even fewer set a water target focused on water dis-
charge reduction or water quality improvements. This
conclusion has some parallels with Northey et al.’s (2019)
analysis of mining company water reporting data, which
found that companies generally reported less data about
their discharge volumes/quality in comparison with water
withdrawals.
The industry’s focus on water efficiency and withdraw-
als seems surprising given the many and diverse ways in
which mining companies interact with water systems.
While water withdrawals may be a legitimate concern in
water-scarce environments, mining sites operating in more
water abundant regions may rather be exposed to issues of
flooding and/or tailings dam failures (Kunz, 2020). For
communities living around mining projects, their con-
cerns are understandably diverse and context-specific, but
the longer-term closure liabilities associated with water
(e.g., water contamination) are often front-of-mind. For
example, even in the water-scarce country of Peru, a study
of water and mining conflicts found that many communi-
ties were concerned about the long-term adverse effects of
mining on water quality, particularly for mining conces-
sions located in headwaters where the downstream effects
of mining over space and time could persist for generations
(Bebbington and Williams, 2008). In a recent paper by
Gilsbach et al. (2022), the authors argued that corporate
miners were “losing sight of stakeholder interests” due to
a misalignment in what was reported publicly by 10 of the
world’s largest mining companies, compared with the pri-
mary concerns of academics, governments, and others. The
stakeholders whom they surveyed indicated primary con-
cerns around tailings and water quality, with water quantity
factors rated as least important. This was at odds with their
analysis of company reporting data which found that water
quantity metrics received the most attention.
While the mining sector has made great advances in
improving its water management over recent years, the
findings of this study suggest a need for a deeper dialogue
around what characterizes a “good water performer” within
the mining context. There is also a need for the industry to
double down on its commitment towards a “water stew-
ardship” approach, i.e., by recognizing the diverse ways in
which mine sites interact with other water users and the
environment beyond the boundary of the mine lease (Kunz
and Moran, 2021). Within its water stewardship position
statement (ICMM, 2017), to which all ICMM members
are required to comply, commitments are centered upon
three key pillars: (1) apply strong and transparent water
governance, (2) manage water at operations effectively, and
(3) collaborate to achieve responsible and sustainable water
use. Commitment 2.2 specifically commits ICMM mem-
bers to “set context-relevant water targets or objectives for
sites with material water-related risks” (ICMM, 2017 p. 3).
It is therefore surprising that there was limited discussion
about context-based targets within the set of water reports
analyzed.
This analysis also identified a need for attention to how
water metrics are calculated, and the ways in which terms
related to “water efficiency” are defined. Other authors
(e.g., Kunz, 2020 Northey et al., 2019) have drawn par-
ticular attention to inconsistencies around water reuse and
recycling calculations which make comparisons between
operations and companies challenging. The introduction
of industry-specific water reporting standards, such as the
ICMM’s Water Reporting guidelines (2017), have sought
to address such gaps. Nonetheless, readers should be mind-
ful that aspects relating to geography, climate and the con-
figuration of mining/processing/tailings circuits (and the
increasingly reliance on sea water supply. These goals sug-
gest that these companies have faced competition for their
existing water supply sources that have motivated them
to seek alternatives. Some companies also refer to efforts
to reduce overall water use or increase “water efficiency,”
however the latter term is not always clearly defined.
Nonetheless, the nature of these targets suggest that water
scarcity challenges have been a primary risk facing the min-
ing companies analyzed.
Only a handful of companies had targets related to
water quality or discharge. For example, Teck refers to the
establishment of short-, medium- and long-term water
quality targets around contaminants such as selenium,
nitrate, sulphate and cadmium, while Sumitomo focuses on
reducing emissions of hazardous substances to the atmo-
sphere and water. There were few companies that referred
to the establishment of “water stewardship,” “catchment-
based,” or “site-based” targets, acknowledging the need for
different targets tailored to local context. That said, many
companies had company-wide targets that acknowledged
that there were implicit contextual differences between
their sites – for example, Sibanye Stillwater had different
targets for “water-rich” vs. “water-poor” jurisdictions, while
Alcoa set goals around water use intensity for “water-scarce”
locations only.
DISCUSSION
The analysis in this paper finds that the targets set by major
mining companies are heavily focused on reducing water
withdrawals and/or improving overall water use efficiency.
Only a small handful of companies explicitly acknowledge
the different water-related risks faced across their assets,
while even fewer set a water target focused on water dis-
charge reduction or water quality improvements. This
conclusion has some parallels with Northey et al.’s (2019)
analysis of mining company water reporting data, which
found that companies generally reported less data about
their discharge volumes/quality in comparison with water
withdrawals.
The industry’s focus on water efficiency and withdraw-
als seems surprising given the many and diverse ways in
which mining companies interact with water systems.
While water withdrawals may be a legitimate concern in
water-scarce environments, mining sites operating in more
water abundant regions may rather be exposed to issues of
flooding and/or tailings dam failures (Kunz, 2020). For
communities living around mining projects, their con-
cerns are understandably diverse and context-specific, but
the longer-term closure liabilities associated with water
(e.g., water contamination) are often front-of-mind. For
example, even in the water-scarce country of Peru, a study
of water and mining conflicts found that many communi-
ties were concerned about the long-term adverse effects of
mining on water quality, particularly for mining conces-
sions located in headwaters where the downstream effects
of mining over space and time could persist for generations
(Bebbington and Williams, 2008). In a recent paper by
Gilsbach et al. (2022), the authors argued that corporate
miners were “losing sight of stakeholder interests” due to
a misalignment in what was reported publicly by 10 of the
world’s largest mining companies, compared with the pri-
mary concerns of academics, governments, and others. The
stakeholders whom they surveyed indicated primary con-
cerns around tailings and water quality, with water quantity
factors rated as least important. This was at odds with their
analysis of company reporting data which found that water
quantity metrics received the most attention.
While the mining sector has made great advances in
improving its water management over recent years, the
findings of this study suggest a need for a deeper dialogue
around what characterizes a “good water performer” within
the mining context. There is also a need for the industry to
double down on its commitment towards a “water stew-
ardship” approach, i.e., by recognizing the diverse ways in
which mine sites interact with other water users and the
environment beyond the boundary of the mine lease (Kunz
and Moran, 2021). Within its water stewardship position
statement (ICMM, 2017), to which all ICMM members
are required to comply, commitments are centered upon
three key pillars: (1) apply strong and transparent water
governance, (2) manage water at operations effectively, and
(3) collaborate to achieve responsible and sustainable water
use. Commitment 2.2 specifically commits ICMM mem-
bers to “set context-relevant water targets or objectives for
sites with material water-related risks” (ICMM, 2017 p. 3).
It is therefore surprising that there was limited discussion
about context-based targets within the set of water reports
analyzed.
This analysis also identified a need for attention to how
water metrics are calculated, and the ways in which terms
related to “water efficiency” are defined. Other authors
(e.g., Kunz, 2020 Northey et al., 2019) have drawn par-
ticular attention to inconsistencies around water reuse and
recycling calculations which make comparisons between
operations and companies challenging. The introduction
of industry-specific water reporting standards, such as the
ICMM’s Water Reporting guidelines (2017), have sought
to address such gaps. Nonetheless, readers should be mind-
ful that aspects relating to geography, climate and the con-
figuration of mining/processing/tailings circuits (and the