XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 51
research and development stages into application. Why is
that? If these are the technologies so desperately needed to
recover minerals, shouldn’t there be a ready path to move
into commercial applications?
If we take a closer look at this situation, there are a
couple of key limitations to our current approaches for
developing technologies. These approaches are tried and
true methodologies that are well established and used in
western civilization. First, we employ a first principles, bot-
tom-up technologies development approach (Figure 5). If
one estimates that each phase takes – on average – two to
three years, this process will take 16 to 24 years! Our need
for critical minerals is six years! Our traditional technology
development approaches will not get us there. So how do
we approach technological innovation from a more agile
approach allowing faster development and deployment?
Although hard sciences and engineering have long used
a sequential approach to technological innovation, indus-
tries built upon such technologies have recognized the limi-
tations in this approach and have been forced to rethink the
approach to innovation to accelerate development and gain
competitive advantage. Apple, Inc., and the automotive
industry exemplify agile approaches wherein the research
and development cycle is accelerated through rapid feed-
back from the end use and users (Figure 6). This tight cou-
pling between research, development, and implementation
exponentially accelerates the time needed to progress from
concept to implementation. Is this realistic for the mining
industry? Let us consider another current limitation to
answer this question.
We are all predisposed to look at problems through the
lens of our experience and knowledge. Technology devel-
opers view the solution to problems as developing new
technologies. Industry views the solutions to challenges as
providing the innovation needed to solve the problem. A
second limitation may be that the innovations we need, at
least in the near-term, may be more innovation in systems
and people than technology. When asking the question
what is needed to secure the supply chain, we see technol-
ogy developers developing new technologies. Whereas the
response from the mining industry is generally to provide
more minerals and metals, being agnostic of how to do
so. As a result, while industry is actively engaged with the
technology developers, the industry generally views those
technologies as the longer-term opportunities for how to
improve upon producing critical minerals, but not the
short-term solution of getting more minerals into the sup-
ply chain today.
As an example, in 2021 Rio Tinto recognized that there
was opportunity to begin producing tellurium as a co-prod-
uct of copper production. Rather than look to new technol-
ogy to do so, the innovation that was employed was viewing
what it meant for a mining entity to produce a new mate-
rial. Production of crude tellurium could be quite readily
accomplished through traditional cementation processes,
but it then required partnerships to refine the product to
the quality needed for the solar industry, and a willingness
Figure 5.Process for advancing scientific concept from discovery to technological development and implementation (https://
www.researchgate.net/figure/The-valley-of-death-in-innovation-and-the-context-of-the-simplified-BID-process-Based_
fig1_331105240)
research and development stages into application. Why is
that? If these are the technologies so desperately needed to
recover minerals, shouldn’t there be a ready path to move
into commercial applications?
If we take a closer look at this situation, there are a
couple of key limitations to our current approaches for
developing technologies. These approaches are tried and
true methodologies that are well established and used in
western civilization. First, we employ a first principles, bot-
tom-up technologies development approach (Figure 5). If
one estimates that each phase takes – on average – two to
three years, this process will take 16 to 24 years! Our need
for critical minerals is six years! Our traditional technology
development approaches will not get us there. So how do
we approach technological innovation from a more agile
approach allowing faster development and deployment?
Although hard sciences and engineering have long used
a sequential approach to technological innovation, indus-
tries built upon such technologies have recognized the limi-
tations in this approach and have been forced to rethink the
approach to innovation to accelerate development and gain
competitive advantage. Apple, Inc., and the automotive
industry exemplify agile approaches wherein the research
and development cycle is accelerated through rapid feed-
back from the end use and users (Figure 6). This tight cou-
pling between research, development, and implementation
exponentially accelerates the time needed to progress from
concept to implementation. Is this realistic for the mining
industry? Let us consider another current limitation to
answer this question.
We are all predisposed to look at problems through the
lens of our experience and knowledge. Technology devel-
opers view the solution to problems as developing new
technologies. Industry views the solutions to challenges as
providing the innovation needed to solve the problem. A
second limitation may be that the innovations we need, at
least in the near-term, may be more innovation in systems
and people than technology. When asking the question
what is needed to secure the supply chain, we see technol-
ogy developers developing new technologies. Whereas the
response from the mining industry is generally to provide
more minerals and metals, being agnostic of how to do
so. As a result, while industry is actively engaged with the
technology developers, the industry generally views those
technologies as the longer-term opportunities for how to
improve upon producing critical minerals, but not the
short-term solution of getting more minerals into the sup-
ply chain today.
As an example, in 2021 Rio Tinto recognized that there
was opportunity to begin producing tellurium as a co-prod-
uct of copper production. Rather than look to new technol-
ogy to do so, the innovation that was employed was viewing
what it meant for a mining entity to produce a new mate-
rial. Production of crude tellurium could be quite readily
accomplished through traditional cementation processes,
but it then required partnerships to refine the product to
the quality needed for the solar industry, and a willingness
Figure 5.Process for advancing scientific concept from discovery to technological development and implementation (https://
www.researchgate.net/figure/The-valley-of-death-in-innovation-and-the-context-of-the-simplified-BID-process-Based_
fig1_331105240)