[clv101]

Peak Minerals
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3086
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Abstract: We examined the world production of 57 minerals reported in the database of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Of these, we found 11 cases where production has clearly peaked and is now declining. Several more may be peaking or be close to peaking. Fitting the production curve with a logistic function we see that, in most cases, the ultimate amount extrapolated from the fitting corresponds well to the amount obtained summing the cumulative production so far and the reserves estimated by the USGS. These results are a clear indication that the Hubbert model is valid for the worldwide production of minerals and not just for regional cases. It strongly supports the concept that “Peak oil” is just one of several cases of worldwide peaking and decline of a depletable resource. Many more mineral resources may peak worldwide and start their decline in the near future.

[IslandCrow]

The first two metals in the report could have shown a peak because of above ground factors. Both mercury and lead have been deemed "NOT GOOD FOR ONE'S HEALTH".

An interesting attempt to broaden the appeal of the concept "Peak", but more work will need to be done on the reasons for the decline.

[Tyler_JC]

More evidence that Peak has little to do with geology and everything to do with economics and politics.

I don't see a bell curve, I see a collection of world events that have lead to dramatic changes in mercury demand over the course of the 20th century.

1. Demand was fairly constant in the early part of the century but exploded in the post WWI economic boom.

2. Economic depression in the 1930s lead to a dramatic contraction in mercury demand and thus a decline in production.

3. War time demand for mercury in WWII caused production to expand again.

4. By the 1970s, the ill health effects of mercury combined with an increase in the availability of affordable substitutes lead to a decline in demand, lowering production.

And none of these things are related to Dr. Hubbert's theory.



Does that chart look anything like the production profile for the combined total of global mercury mines?

[bardi]

Tyler, the figure that you are showing is an old attempt at understanding the reasons for the peak. For some time, it was believed that the peak was caused by some specific characteristic of the yeld curve of single oil wells. But that interpretation is obsolete.

Peak oil (as any "peak resource") is due to a combination of economical and geological factors. The theory behind the peak is explained in the references given in the paper (Naill, Bardi, Reynolds and Holland). "Above the ground" factors are just as important as "below the ground" ones and the bell curve and the peak occurs for all kinds of resources, independently of the yeld curve of individual sites.

Then, each resource has its individual history and specific characteristics. At the beginning we, too, thought that mercury was a case of peak forced by legislation. But in the end we saw the good agreement of the curve with the geological estimates of the reserves. We believe now that people have extracted as much mercury as they could, given the prevalent economic conditions.


UB

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bardi', 'T')yler, the figure that you are showing is an old attempt at understanding the reasons for the peak. For some time, it was believed that the peak was caused by some specific characteristic of the yeld curve of single oil wells. But that interpretation is obsolete.

Peak oil (as any "peak resource") is due to a combination of economical and geological factors. The theory behind the peak is explained in the references given in the paper (Naill, Bardi, Reynolds and Holland). "Above the ground" factors are just as important as "below the ground" ones and the bell curve and the peak occurs for all kinds of resources, independently of the yeld curve of individual sites.

Then, each resource has its individual history and specific characteristics. At the beginning we, too, thought that mercury was a case of peak forced by legislation. But in the end we saw the good agreement of the curve with the geological estimates of the reserves. We believe now that people have extracted as much mercury as they could, given the prevalent economic conditions.


UB

[JPL]

Try it again for copper. From what I remember from my old geology notes, that's the next domino to go down after oil.

Not so much left of it as there used to be (oops)...

JP

[bardi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Exactly what does, "given the prevalent economic conditions" mean? This sounds like a drop in demand, reflected in lower prices, doesn't encourage mining. This has little to do with actual availability under ground.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', 'T')ry it again for copper. From what I remember from my old geology notes, that's the next domino to go down after oil.

Not so much left of it as there used to be (oops)...

JP

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout fossil energy, copper is gone. All the copper we will have is the one we have above ground in refined state. They mine copper ores down to 0.2% these days (20 kilo per ton stone).

[JPL]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', 'T')ry it again for copper. From what I remember from my old geology notes, that's the next domino to go down after oil.

Not so much left of it as there used to be (oops)...

JP

[DrBang]

I work in the mining industry in Australia. There has been a trend over the last couple of decades where all the easy deposits are now gone.

The deposits they are working on are getting harder to mine. They are all low grade system that can only be economical by making larger plants and shifting a lot of rock on a big scale. The costs of these operations also goes up. They need more power (on the Mega Watt scale) and more potable water. The rock is also getting harder. These deposits have been passed over before as uneconomic, but now are all that is left.

Mining tech on this large scale is approaching an asymtote. A small scale approach is simply not vaiable. Once cheap power and water are on the way out, you watch the fuckers panic.

We are indeed running out of stuff to mine (economically). What do we do? Well gosh what about industrial scale recycling? I got burned at the stake for suggesting that. Do you ahve any idea how much that stings? *sigh*

[threadbear]

Dr. Bang, I've been quite bitchy about demanding proof of oil depletion. I keep beating this dead horse, simply because I'm tired of the "we're all going to freeze in the dark or die, starting tomorrow" talk. My cynical attitude has extended to other sectors, as well. *sigh*

It's quite obvious, from your posts and many others from industry insiders that peak everything is a real problem, whether the extremes of depletion unfold tomorrow, or a decade or two from now.

Industrial scale recycling sounds like an excellent idea.

[DrBang]

You would think that recycling is a no-brainer but no, industry culture kills us every time.

We go through some amazing troubles to dig up gold ore for example. For every tonne of ore we can get about 0.5g/t gold. 1g/t is now considered high grade, where 10 years ago we considered this waste rock. To get this tonne of rock, we have to remove the overburden, blast it, excavate and transport it, crush and grind it (40-60% of the cost) and then put it through flotation or a cyanide leaching pad. The concentrate is then smelted. Then we clean up the mess (and hope for the best).

or

We could recycle trash. For example electronic circuit boards. How many computers are tossed out each year? Some of them are sent to India for recycling but they do it really badly. As an average a tonne of circuitboards contains 1% gold (or there abouts), 1% silver, 2% cadmium, tin, copper, aluminum, etc. Basic electrostatic methods can separate the plastics out (96% recovery) which is much better than rock (about 70% recovery). Oh yes, each of these metals have already been refined to purity. The only real challenge is what to do with alloys and the like.

I put forward a plant design which you could run as a small operation at your local tip in any city/large town. Small is the key. Large operations chew too much power and potable water to be viable much longer.

You could make an economic case for this to work. Mining companies have centuries experience running plants with stockpiles, crushers, grinders, flotation cells, hydrocylones and they know all about getting metal elements out of slurry concentrate.

They also have the money and a history of spending $100's of millions on start up costs of mines/plants with no return for sometimes decades.

All the ingredients are there. Mining culture felt threatened by the idea and shut it down. Eventually I will wheel this idea out again when they are a bit more desperate.

Sorry for the rant but I got burned on this one.

Dr Bang

[threadbear]

It's wonderful that people like you are actually doing something to try to deal with the problem, Dr. Bang. It just seems the controlling forces in our society, need a promise of huge ongoing returns on capital, in vast projects, or they're not interested. Good luck with your venture. The future belongs to people like you.

[DrBang]

Threadbear,

I have a cunning plan.

I have several such plans which would be useful to all. If I get knocked around like that again, I will post the technical documents on what and how to do this stuff on this forum. Intellectual property laws and the like are only enforced if companies what the products. The R&D outfit I work for has got to have a change in paradigm. If what is going to happen even is half right the to hell with the rules.

Dr Bang

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DrBang', '
')We could recycle trash. For example electronic circuit boards. How many computers are tossed out each year? Some of them are sent to India for recycling but they do it really badly. As an average a tonne of circuitboards contains 1% gold (or there abouts), 1% silver, 2% cadmium, tin, copper, aluminum, etc. Basic electrostatic methods can separate the plastics out (96% recovery) which is much better than rock (about 70% recovery). Oh yes, each of these metals have already been refined to purity. The only real challenge is what to do with alloys and the like.

[DrBang]

This idea has been around for a while. The Europeans do it better than anyone else.

I tried to design a small plant which could do this efficiently. The idea was that every suburb has one. Instead of carting trash, we use it.

It required such a paradigm shift on the part of my colleges that it was discarded.

The mining community is not quite ready to be told it must change the way it does things.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Les Houches, March 2018. José Halloy of the Université Paris Diderot discusses mineral depletion in his presentation. Note how he utilizes Hubbert curves to estimate the trajectory of mineral extraction. He predicted that the dearth of very rare elements will negatively affect the electronics industry, perhaps killing it completely. José Halloy's presentation at the Les Houches school of physics was focused on the availability of rare minerals for electronics. This is a problem that's rarely discussed outside the specialized world of the "catastrophists", that is of those who think that mineral supply may be strongly restricted by depletion in a non-remote future. In this field, Halloy seemed to side with the "hard" catastrophists, that is expressing the option that depletion will make certain things, perhaps even the whole electronics industry, impossible. The problem, indeed, is there: modern electronics is based on the