The mining sector is faced with the challenge of providing the copper and other critical minerals needed to achieve the demands of a low-carbon future. IMDEX Chief Geoscientist and Chief Technologist – Mining Solutions, Dr Dave Lawie, asks is it up to the job?
FINDING ENOUGH COPPER to meet future demand is a problem that needs the best minds on the planet to think through.
In fact, it’s a challenge for all of us. Living in a world where we need to talk to people about what the mining industry and geoscience must do to save the world is very difficult when surveys reveal that some kids think milk comes from a supermarket.
If they think that, try asking them where the copper comes from for their iPhone. They won't know; they just won't have thought of that as a concept. But that’s not their problem, that is our problem, and we are an incredibly bad industry at communicating with the general public.
I have a saying for our industry at the moment. It can't read the label from inside the bottle. On the outside of the bottle it says, ‘save the world’, but we can’t read it.
There’s a lot at stake. The mining sector needs to effectively communicate its role in a low-carbon future while at the same time delivering the metals and minerals in sufficient quantities.
Failure means risking the future of decarbonisation and accelerated electrification.
On some scenarios, solar and wind energy will have to grow 20 to 30 times to deliver the amount of electrification the USA needs to decarbonise by 2050.
But I look at those projections and wonder where the copper will come from to achieve such growth.
"How on earth are we going to go from 22 million tonnes of copper to 30 million tonnes a year?"
To supply the demand for electric vehicles by 2040 we’ll need 42 times the amount of lithium, 25 times more graphite, 21 times more cobalt, 11 times more nickel and seven times more rare earths than we are producing now.
I only find that mildly disturbing because when I look at those commodities I think we can find the lithium. No one's looked for it seriously. We’re finding lots of lithium hard rock deposits at the surface in Australia.
Australia has increased its hard rock lithium production immensely in just a matter of two or three years.
It’s the same with graphite. We haven’t seriously looked for graphite. Cobalt is an issue, particularly with mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we can we find 20 times more cobalt, that’s not a problem geologically.
There are cobaltian pyrite deposits sitting at the surface all through the Curnamona Block in Australia and, increasingly, cobalt is being recovered as a byproduct of nickel laterite mining.
Cobalt prices have declined this year amid a drop in demand, the possibility of a change in battery technology with less reliance on cobalt, and some miners increasing production.
As a geoscientist I don’t worry about the supply of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earths.
But I worry a lot about copper.
Declining grades worldwide means more waste and using more water and more power just to maintain existing supply rates without factoring in the demand that will come from new energy sources and the electrification of everything in a low-carbon future.
Better data from ore body knowledge could help unlock some of the stranded copper assets worldwide that are not constrained by ESG issues.
In 2021, we used about 20 to 23 million tonnes of copper, but some projections have that demand going to 30 million tonnes by 2030. How on earth are we going to go from 22 million tonnes of copper to 30 million tonnes a year?
The Kamoa-Kakula copper mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the largest mine that has come on line for some time and will produce half a million tonnes a year. We need two Kamoa’s a year for the next 10 to 15 years to supply the copper we need to decarbonise.
Of those 22 million tonnes of copper, the four largest producers are Chile, Peru, Congo and China. None of these countries you would call exemplars of democratic governance and stability.
So, of the current supply, apart from the geological problems of securing more supply and putting it into production, the existing resources are under threat. This is a very finely balanced supply consumption equation.
We can't risk copper supply chain delays or our want and willingness to expand solar, and wind electricity production won't happen.
If you think that the industry is responding by ramping up exploration budgets massively and getting to work, it sort of is and isn't. What we're doing is within the realms of what our industry conventionally does in the face of these things which is not much actually because we’re still risk averse.
Of course, the more political problems you have in a jurisdiction, the less likely you are to spend $10 billion.
Some companies are really making an effort. Barrick Gold has gone back into Reko Diq gold and copper mine on the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. That tells you something about the risk appetite and that the looming copper deficit is true. It is a giant deposit. Given its geopolitical complexity, if it could be released it would be a big win for future copper supply.
But as a reflection of our industry, about half the total global exploration expenditure still is spent on gold. Next would be copper. The amount of exploration spending on copper is increasing, but not really anything that's going to make a difference.
The message for my mining industry comrades is, I just wonder if our industry can actually do anything about this.
...
Dr Dave Lawie has been the Chief Geoscientist for IMDEX since 2012 and Chief Technologist – Mining for IMDEX since 2015. He holds a PhD in Geosciences and Analytics from the University of New England and held global positions in exploration geochemistry and research and development.
ASX-listed IMDEX develops cloud-connected sensors and drilling optimisation products to improve the process of identifying and extracting mineral resources for drilling contractors and resource companies globally.
.JPG)
.png)