XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1003
to mitigate the risks induced by environmental change, social
unrest, and new policies that could affect the economic viabil-
ity of an operation. Drivers to incorporate ESG into mineral
processing plants will likely come from future reporting
regulations and costs (Bichet et al., 2022). As such, it is
essential for operations to identify, assess, and take correc-
tive actions to mitigate the risks associated with mineral
processing. Accounting for these risks allows mineral pro-
cessing plants to prepare for additional costs, mitigate gov-
ernment scrutiny, or avoid potential operational shutdown.
One of the most significant barriers to adopting ESG into
existing operations is the lack of standardized consistency
and overcomplexity. With over 600 ESG reporting frame-
works available, it is easy to see the confusion created at a
technical level (Kummer 2021).
A variety of organisations have attempted to develop
ESG frameworks specific to the mining and mineral pro-
cessing industries (ICMM 2023 IRMA 2018 RMI 2021).
These initial frameworks provide great insight into the
risks that mining companies could face but need a prac-
tical connection to the impacts on day-to-day economics.
Nonetheless, regulations are imminent and mining com-
panies will need to quickly transition their operations to
incorporate ESG into both their reporting and cashflow
statements. This paper aims to overcome the ambiguity of
existing frameworks by providing a streamlined approach
to measuring, implementing, and evaluating changes for
brownfield process optimization. Environmental risks are
used as examples due to their direct correlations social
and governance aspects are still important considerations
but need further discussion due to their case-by-case com-
plexity on operations. The proposed performance metrics
incorporate the practical market mechanism into simple
engineering assessments and tools. This paper aims to pro-
vide mineral processing operations with a useful point of
reference for measuring and assessing ESG risks without
adding another subjective framework to the growing list
(Figure 1).
DEFINING A QUANTITATIVE
PERFORMANCE METRIC
Understanding Risk and Impact
Before a framework for ESG optimization can be devel-
oped, the risks must first be identified and then the impact
quantified. Existing documentation from public sources
are a useful reference on where notable business risks pres-
ent themselves. For example, the Initiative for Responsible
Mining Assurance (IRMA) standard, IRMA-STD-001 lists
potential risks that a mine may experience as well as sugges-
tions for consideration, mitigation, and reporting. Another
example is the International Council on Mining and Metals
(ICMM) internal standards, which covers a variety of ESG
and mineral-related requirements over twenty-four (24)
organisational communications. These documents provide
broad guidance on ESG risks, reporting, and function as
a position statement for the organisation (ICMM 2024
IRMA 2018). Some common risks derived from these ref-
erences include:
• Physical and chemical risks to water and air quality
• Damage to personnel, equipment, communities, and
ecosystems
• Shutdown of operations due to internal or legal
reasons
• Downtime of assets or operations
Source: Urrutia 2017
Figure 1. The growth of ESG frameworks without definitive standardization and regulation
to mitigate the risks induced by environmental change, social
unrest, and new policies that could affect the economic viabil-
ity of an operation. Drivers to incorporate ESG into mineral
processing plants will likely come from future reporting
regulations and costs (Bichet et al., 2022). As such, it is
essential for operations to identify, assess, and take correc-
tive actions to mitigate the risks associated with mineral
processing. Accounting for these risks allows mineral pro-
cessing plants to prepare for additional costs, mitigate gov-
ernment scrutiny, or avoid potential operational shutdown.
One of the most significant barriers to adopting ESG into
existing operations is the lack of standardized consistency
and overcomplexity. With over 600 ESG reporting frame-
works available, it is easy to see the confusion created at a
technical level (Kummer 2021).
A variety of organisations have attempted to develop
ESG frameworks specific to the mining and mineral pro-
cessing industries (ICMM 2023 IRMA 2018 RMI 2021).
These initial frameworks provide great insight into the
risks that mining companies could face but need a prac-
tical connection to the impacts on day-to-day economics.
Nonetheless, regulations are imminent and mining com-
panies will need to quickly transition their operations to
incorporate ESG into both their reporting and cashflow
statements. This paper aims to overcome the ambiguity of
existing frameworks by providing a streamlined approach
to measuring, implementing, and evaluating changes for
brownfield process optimization. Environmental risks are
used as examples due to their direct correlations social
and governance aspects are still important considerations
but need further discussion due to their case-by-case com-
plexity on operations. The proposed performance metrics
incorporate the practical market mechanism into simple
engineering assessments and tools. This paper aims to pro-
vide mineral processing operations with a useful point of
reference for measuring and assessing ESG risks without
adding another subjective framework to the growing list
(Figure 1).
DEFINING A QUANTITATIVE
PERFORMANCE METRIC
Understanding Risk and Impact
Before a framework for ESG optimization can be devel-
oped, the risks must first be identified and then the impact
quantified. Existing documentation from public sources
are a useful reference on where notable business risks pres-
ent themselves. For example, the Initiative for Responsible
Mining Assurance (IRMA) standard, IRMA-STD-001 lists
potential risks that a mine may experience as well as sugges-
tions for consideration, mitigation, and reporting. Another
example is the International Council on Mining and Metals
(ICMM) internal standards, which covers a variety of ESG
and mineral-related requirements over twenty-four (24)
organisational communications. These documents provide
broad guidance on ESG risks, reporting, and function as
a position statement for the organisation (ICMM 2024
IRMA 2018). Some common risks derived from these ref-
erences include:
• Physical and chemical risks to water and air quality
• Damage to personnel, equipment, communities, and
ecosystems
• Shutdown of operations due to internal or legal
reasons
• Downtime of assets or operations
Source: Urrutia 2017
Figure 1. The growth of ESG frameworks without definitive standardization and regulation