1004 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
• Deterioration of relationships with workers, stake-
holders, government, or public
• Greenhouse gas emissions and climate related
disasters
• Other issues that may impede day-to-day operations.
The standards referenced above provide insight into the
potential risks at mineral processing facilities however, they
lack a consistent and quantifiable performance metric to be
useful for ESG optimization. IRMA-STD-001 provides lit-
tle in terms of quantitative metrics but suggests “if there are
host country laws governing the reporting or reduction … the
company is required to abide by those laws” (IRMA 2018).
Issues arise when governments either do not have regula-
tion in place or do not adequately account for risks due
to the technical nature of mineral processing and the vari-
ance between sites. The ICMM standards provide rating
and ESG benchmarking performance of its members how-
ever, this too relies on either honest reporting or subjective
ratings. Other frameworks suggest using basic parameters
such as emissions, energy consumption, and waste dis-
charge but these do not capture the dynamics of an opera-
tion (Moynihan &Schwab 2020 RMI 2021).
An impactful performance metric must measure how
these risks present themselves in terms of incentivizing (or
disincentivizing) changes to an operation while accounting
for operations’ scale, efficiency, and time value. This way the
value created through operational change and optimization
can be assessed and quantified. The most effective method
of assessing risk is through monetary valuations because of
their easily quantifiable relationship to costs, cashflows, and
plant economics. The following subsections use environ-
mental examples to describe the relationship between risks,
how they impact operations, and how their impact can be
measured (Figure 2).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) include the release of
gases that contribute to the greenhouse gas effect and global
warming, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and
methane. These emissions are typically recorded in metric
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2eq) and catego-
rized by scope:
1. Scope 1—Direct emissions from operations (i.e.,
CO2 gas release)
2. Scope 2—Indirect emissions from the activity of
operations (i.e., emissions from electricity)
3. Scope 3—Indirect emissions from the supply chain
(i.e., shipping of consumables by the producer)
The impact of Scope 1 and 2 emissions is likely to be cap-
tured by future regulations through market-based policies,
in either the form of carbon taxing or emission caps. Both
methods act similarly, placing penalties that add direct
costs to the cash flow of an operation based on the amount
of CO2eq produced. Scope 3 emissions are not likely to
Figure 2. The environmental risks of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and waste management can be easily measured
on a monetary basis due to their direct costs through market-based policies or economic impacts
• Deterioration of relationships with workers, stake-
holders, government, or public
• Greenhouse gas emissions and climate related
disasters
• Other issues that may impede day-to-day operations.
The standards referenced above provide insight into the
potential risks at mineral processing facilities however, they
lack a consistent and quantifiable performance metric to be
useful for ESG optimization. IRMA-STD-001 provides lit-
tle in terms of quantitative metrics but suggests “if there are
host country laws governing the reporting or reduction … the
company is required to abide by those laws” (IRMA 2018).
Issues arise when governments either do not have regula-
tion in place or do not adequately account for risks due
to the technical nature of mineral processing and the vari-
ance between sites. The ICMM standards provide rating
and ESG benchmarking performance of its members how-
ever, this too relies on either honest reporting or subjective
ratings. Other frameworks suggest using basic parameters
such as emissions, energy consumption, and waste dis-
charge but these do not capture the dynamics of an opera-
tion (Moynihan &Schwab 2020 RMI 2021).
An impactful performance metric must measure how
these risks present themselves in terms of incentivizing (or
disincentivizing) changes to an operation while accounting
for operations’ scale, efficiency, and time value. This way the
value created through operational change and optimization
can be assessed and quantified. The most effective method
of assessing risk is through monetary valuations because of
their easily quantifiable relationship to costs, cashflows, and
plant economics. The following subsections use environ-
mental examples to describe the relationship between risks,
how they impact operations, and how their impact can be
measured (Figure 2).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) include the release of
gases that contribute to the greenhouse gas effect and global
warming, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and
methane. These emissions are typically recorded in metric
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2eq) and catego-
rized by scope:
1. Scope 1—Direct emissions from operations (i.e.,
CO2 gas release)
2. Scope 2—Indirect emissions from the activity of
operations (i.e., emissions from electricity)
3. Scope 3—Indirect emissions from the supply chain
(i.e., shipping of consumables by the producer)
The impact of Scope 1 and 2 emissions is likely to be cap-
tured by future regulations through market-based policies,
in either the form of carbon taxing or emission caps. Both
methods act similarly, placing penalties that add direct
costs to the cash flow of an operation based on the amount
of CO2eq produced. Scope 3 emissions are not likely to
Figure 2. The environmental risks of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and waste management can be easily measured
on a monetary basis due to their direct costs through market-based policies or economic impacts