XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1005
be included due to their size, potential costs, and risk of
double counting (Vegenas 2023). It is still good practice to
delineate where these emissions stem from in case of future
regulatory reporting requirements.
Climate Change
Climate change refers to the mitigation and adaptation
strategies a mineral processing plant can take to avoid
impact from incidents related to natural disasters such
as droughts, stronger storms, and floods. The cost of cli-
mate change can be comparatively measured between the
potential loss of revenue versus the expenditure required
to reduce risks. For example, an operating site may experi-
ence longer water droughts, resulting in difficulty obtain-
ing the necessary processing water. Costs would be incurred
by freighting in water, reducing throughput, or spending
capital on emergency water storage. Another example is
an isolated site which relies upon solar power and lacks
grid integration. If it experiences longer storms and lack
of sunlight, limiting its access to electricity, it may not be
able to operate. Costs would appear through purchasing
energy from the grid, adding backup diesel generators or
reducing throughput. In some cases, the costs can appear
as an insurance premium on the plant’s insurance policy
(Hall 2020). Mineral processing facilities need to assess the
potential severity of future climate conditions and discern
if it is pragmatic to invest in contingency plans.
Waste Management
Waste management looks at waste streams from production
and the potential harm that they could cause the environ-
ment, individuals, or community at large. Governments
will apply penalties depending on the quantity, compo-
sition, and damage caused by the deleterious material
released into the environment. Furthermore, exceeding
regulations may result in plant shutdown and loss of rev-
enue. For example, Canada imposes a monthly mean limit
of 0.5 mg/L of cyanide released (Environment and Climate
Change Canada 2023). Exceeding this limit would impose
restitution fines and a potential shutdown for investigation.
Operations will need to consider prevention techniques
and mitigation strategies or face severe fines imposed by
government bodies. They will also need to look at future
ore sources to ensure their plant can economically process
and detoxify waste streams.
Simple Performance Metrics
The examples of environmental risks presented above share
a common point of measurement: monetary valuation. This
can be applied to all ESG considerations because their risks
are captured in the capital market mechanism either natu-
rally or through market-based policies, such as costs and
incentives. The benefit of monetary valuation and market-
based policies is that they effectively drive technical deci-
sions by directly affecting a plant’s cashflows and economics
(Walter 2019). Two simple yet effective performance met-
rics are provided below:
• Internal: Net Present Value (NPV)
• External: cost (or emissions) per tonne of product
Attempting to measure, quantify, and assess ESG at min-
eral processing plants does not need to be complicated. If
society considers ESG initiatives important, governments
will employ fiscal policies to drive change and the market
will adjust accordingly. For internal evaluations, companies
can utilise monetary valuation metrics, such as NPV, com-
bined with simple economic assessments to determine the
cost of ESG risks in the process. The value of mitigating a
risk can be measured through the marginal NPV change of
reducing the risk versus continuing operation with a laissez-
faire attitude. If public reporting is required and compiled
into a database, companies could utilise the external met-
rics for streamlined benchmarking against industry perfor-
mance. This would provide a strong indication whether
or not a company requires ESG optimization to achieve
industry-standard performance. As it exists, corporate value
is measured in quantifiable growth vs. risk and a company’s
approach to ESG optimization should not be any different
(Pucker 2021).
ESG OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK
Typical process optimization studies focus on maximizing
the value of an existing process while minimizing the need
for capital expenditure. Conventional value propositions
focus on asset utilisation, increasing throughput, or mini-
mizing product losses. A common misconception for ESG
optimization is that it requires a vastly different approach
to achieve the desired goals. ESG optimization is simply a
re-prioritization of plant targets given a proven optimization
methodology. The approaches, techniques, and tools used in
optimization can be modified to focus on environmental
targets such as emission reduction or waste removal while
weighing the costs to change. Utilizing existing method-
ologies is possible because the performance metrics are
consistent between optimization types both account for
the scale, market mechanism, and market-based policies
(i.e., costs and incentives) to quantify the value of poten-
tial opportunities. A good example of the methodology
behind optimization is Ausenco’s approach, which first
defines the opportunities to add value, understands the
be included due to their size, potential costs, and risk of
double counting (Vegenas 2023). It is still good practice to
delineate where these emissions stem from in case of future
regulatory reporting requirements.
Climate Change
Climate change refers to the mitigation and adaptation
strategies a mineral processing plant can take to avoid
impact from incidents related to natural disasters such
as droughts, stronger storms, and floods. The cost of cli-
mate change can be comparatively measured between the
potential loss of revenue versus the expenditure required
to reduce risks. For example, an operating site may experi-
ence longer water droughts, resulting in difficulty obtain-
ing the necessary processing water. Costs would be incurred
by freighting in water, reducing throughput, or spending
capital on emergency water storage. Another example is
an isolated site which relies upon solar power and lacks
grid integration. If it experiences longer storms and lack
of sunlight, limiting its access to electricity, it may not be
able to operate. Costs would appear through purchasing
energy from the grid, adding backup diesel generators or
reducing throughput. In some cases, the costs can appear
as an insurance premium on the plant’s insurance policy
(Hall 2020). Mineral processing facilities need to assess the
potential severity of future climate conditions and discern
if it is pragmatic to invest in contingency plans.
Waste Management
Waste management looks at waste streams from production
and the potential harm that they could cause the environ-
ment, individuals, or community at large. Governments
will apply penalties depending on the quantity, compo-
sition, and damage caused by the deleterious material
released into the environment. Furthermore, exceeding
regulations may result in plant shutdown and loss of rev-
enue. For example, Canada imposes a monthly mean limit
of 0.5 mg/L of cyanide released (Environment and Climate
Change Canada 2023). Exceeding this limit would impose
restitution fines and a potential shutdown for investigation.
Operations will need to consider prevention techniques
and mitigation strategies or face severe fines imposed by
government bodies. They will also need to look at future
ore sources to ensure their plant can economically process
and detoxify waste streams.
Simple Performance Metrics
The examples of environmental risks presented above share
a common point of measurement: monetary valuation. This
can be applied to all ESG considerations because their risks
are captured in the capital market mechanism either natu-
rally or through market-based policies, such as costs and
incentives. The benefit of monetary valuation and market-
based policies is that they effectively drive technical deci-
sions by directly affecting a plant’s cashflows and economics
(Walter 2019). Two simple yet effective performance met-
rics are provided below:
• Internal: Net Present Value (NPV)
• External: cost (or emissions) per tonne of product
Attempting to measure, quantify, and assess ESG at min-
eral processing plants does not need to be complicated. If
society considers ESG initiatives important, governments
will employ fiscal policies to drive change and the market
will adjust accordingly. For internal evaluations, companies
can utilise monetary valuation metrics, such as NPV, com-
bined with simple economic assessments to determine the
cost of ESG risks in the process. The value of mitigating a
risk can be measured through the marginal NPV change of
reducing the risk versus continuing operation with a laissez-
faire attitude. If public reporting is required and compiled
into a database, companies could utilise the external met-
rics for streamlined benchmarking against industry perfor-
mance. This would provide a strong indication whether
or not a company requires ESG optimization to achieve
industry-standard performance. As it exists, corporate value
is measured in quantifiable growth vs. risk and a company’s
approach to ESG optimization should not be any different
(Pucker 2021).
ESG OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK
Typical process optimization studies focus on maximizing
the value of an existing process while minimizing the need
for capital expenditure. Conventional value propositions
focus on asset utilisation, increasing throughput, or mini-
mizing product losses. A common misconception for ESG
optimization is that it requires a vastly different approach
to achieve the desired goals. ESG optimization is simply a
re-prioritization of plant targets given a proven optimization
methodology. The approaches, techniques, and tools used in
optimization can be modified to focus on environmental
targets such as emission reduction or waste removal while
weighing the costs to change. Utilizing existing method-
ologies is possible because the performance metrics are
consistent between optimization types both account for
the scale, market mechanism, and market-based policies
(i.e., costs and incentives) to quantify the value of poten-
tial opportunities. A good example of the methodology
behind optimization is Ausenco’s approach, which first
defines the opportunities to add value, understands the