Suchergebnisse

National reporting organizations and regulatory bodies for the minerals and mining sector are requiring publicly reported Ore-Reserve estimates to take account of uncertainties. Whilst methodologies that account for physical uncertainty appear relatively well developed, methodologies which can take account of economic uncertainty appear much less so. To counter this shortfall, we present an efficient and general methodology which can quantify the effect of price uncertainty within reserve estimates, providing both the expected reserve size and the associated distribution (box whisker plot). This statistical information can be used by interested parties to understand precisely where the reserve risks lie, which we highlight in a worked example. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

The author discusses U.S. dependence on overseas sources of strategic minerals essential to sustain its economy and defense sector. U.S. vulnerability to a loss of access to important mineral supplies is more pronounced now than at any time since World War II. The uneven distribution of strategic mineral reserves and their concentration in a handful of politically unstable countries make it essential that U.S. policymakers ensure mineral availability in the new world order. The author considers the geographical imbalance of mineral trade patterns, evaluates the stability of the major strategic mineral producing countries, and assesses the potential for mineral supply disruption. He also examines several policy options for reducing U.S. vulnerability to a loss of strategic mineral supplies including retention and modernization of the National Defense Stockpile. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1943/thumbnail.jpg

It may well be that the Commons, or a committee of it, has been told that there are oil and gas reserves newly found in Antarctica but it's really not true. Russia has found huge oil and gas reserves in British Antarctic territory, potentially leading to drilling in the protected region.The reserves uncovered contain around 511bn barrels worth of oil, equating to around 10 times the North Sea's output over the last 50 years.The discovery, per Russian research ships, was revealed in evidence submitted to the Commons Environment Audit Committee last week. The committee was assessing questions regarding oil and gas research on ships owned by the Kremlin's Rosgeo, the largest geological exploration company in Russia.Antarctica is currently protected by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which prohibits all oil developments in the area.A major reason they're not reserves is that last sentence of that quote. This is also more than the mere pedantry we're so fond around here. The world simply will not make sense if you don't grasp these differences. We've explained them, at book length, here. To give a simpler version just in case any politician is about to believe these claims of Russian finds of reserves. Just one note, fossil fuel and mineral reserve definitions are slightly different but the base ideas apply to both.Resources and reserves are things that are man-made. Deposits are not, they're natural. It's vital to grasp this. So, a mineral deposit is that there's something there in that rock. OK, fine, it's there. A resource is when that something has been studied enough, tested, that we become reasonably (and there are gradations of "reasonably" leading to gradations of resource) sure that we can lift that mineral (or fuel) from that deposit in both technical and economic terms. A mineral reserve is when we have proven that we can extract, using current technology, at current prices, make a profit doing so and we've the varied licences and rights to be able to do so. Effectively, a "mineral reserve" is something proven up to the standard that a bank will lend against it or a stock market allow capital to be raised against the claim. That proving document is often called a Bankable Feasibility Study - proof enough to convince the bankers to unlock the vault.The mineral deposit simply is - but those resources and reserves are man-made things. Created by applying the attention and capital necessary to prove the volume, concentration, chemistry etc of the deposit up to that financeable stage. The importance of this is that people like the Club of Rome, varied environmental wowsers and idiots everywhere look at the volume of reserves - the man made things - and conclude that's all we can have. Run out of those and we all die. The very slightly more sophisticated apply the same misinsight to resources. Both are wholly and entirely wrong - humans are unlikely to run out of things made by humans. The limitation is deposits, not resources or reserves. But as we point out at book length (again) there's no shortage of deposits that can be transformed by that human effort into resources and or reserves.But back to oil in Antarctica. These findings are all at a very early stage as yet so they're not reserves and it's doubtful that they're even resources. Deposits, yes they are. But most importantly - a reserve is defined, in part, by the legal ability to extract and as oil extraction in Antarctica is illegal then any oil in Antarctica is not a reserve, is it?In just the same way that all that lovely gas trapped in the Bowland Shale is not a gas reserve because it's not legal to go fracking in England, is it? That copper at Bristol Bay is not a reserve because saving the fishies means no legal right to mine it. For while humans create mineral reserves by their actions humans can also - and do - destroy reserves by their legal and permitting actions.

AbstractThis work focuses on modelling soil water reserves using an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Four model variants were established based on 843 records (verified through 268 measurements) of soil water content (SWC) measured at full‐scale field sites located in Southwest Poland. It is revealed that commonly recorded climatic data (precipitation and temperature) linked with SWC and field water capacity (FWC) are applicable in the ANN modelling. The basic model (utilising the meteorological data) was the most suitable for soil profiles with thicknesses of 0–25 cm, while in profiles with thicknesses of 0–50 cm and 0–100 cm the comprehensive ANN model (linking climatic data, FWC and SWC) was the most appropriate. Furthermore, comparative studies of the measured and modelled data indicated their statistical convergence, thus providing support for the practical implementation of the proposed ANN modelling.

In fact, as the Pentagon itself quotes us as saying, Afghanistan's mineral reserves are worth bupkiss.Which makes this Washington Post report more than a little suspect. Rich lode of EV metals could boost Taliban and its new Chinese partnersThe Pentagon dubbed Afghanistan 'the Saudi Arabia of lithium.' Now, it is American rivals that are angling to exploit those coveted reserves.No. Really, just no. But now, in a great twist of modern Afghan history, it is the Taliban — which overthrew the U.S.-backed government two years ago — that is finally looking to exploit those vast lithium reserves, Again, no. There are no lithium reserves in Afghanistan. Therefore the value of lithium reserves in Afghanistan is zero.A mineral reserve is a specific thing, a phrase that has a meaning in the technical jargon. It means that we - some member of the species, perhaps some group of such, homo sapiens sapiens - has drilled, measured and weighed the deposit, shown that it can be extracted using current technology, shown that doing so will make a profit at current prices and also has the licences to be legally allowed to do so. As no licences have been issued - let alone any of the other work - there are no lithium reserves in Afghanistan. Therefore the value of lithium reserves in Afghanistan is zero.This is all a repeat of a grand mistake that has been made for a long time now. This one:A decade earlier, the U.S. Defense Department, guided by the surveys of American government geologists, concluded that the vast wealth of lithium and other minerals buried in Afghanistan might be worth $1 trillion, more than enough to prop up the country's fragile government. In a 2010 memo, the Pentagon's Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, which examined Afghanistan's development potential, dubbed the country the "Saudi Arabia of lithium." A year later, the U.S. Geological Survey published a map showing the location of major deposits and highlighted the magnitude of the underground wealth, saying Afghanistan "could be considered as the world's recognized future principal source of lithium."Really, just no. We explained this here in 2010, at The Register. We explained it again in 2017 at Forbes. There are lithium deposits in Afghanistan, no one has any doubt about that. But there are lithium deposits near everywhere. It's a common element. The value of spodumene (the lithium-containing mineral being talked about) at the end of a two goat track is about that zero even when extracted. The artisanal miners are talking of having been able to sell it at 50 cents a kg a year or more back when lithium prices were at their peak. Which is about right, $600 a tonne today (much lower than that 18 months back) for direct shipping ore - delivered.But don't just take our word for it. Or rather, take our word but filtered through the intelligence services of the Pentagon. For there is this, from SIGAR ("Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction"):More recently, and more colloquially, the British economic writer Tim Worstall commented on the U.S. government's view of Afghanistan's large deposits of iron, copper, and lithium: "The problem with all of this is that those minerals are worth nothing. Just bupkis." The reason for his assertion: "The value of a mineral deposit is not the value of the metal once it has been extracted. It's the value of the metal extracted minus the costs of doing the extraction. And as a good-enough rough guess the costs of extracting those minerals in Afghanistan will be higher than the value of the metals once extracted. That is, the deposits have no economic value"—"As we can tell," he adds, "from the fact that no one is lining up to pay for them"Afghanistan has lots and lots of lovely rocks. Of mineral reserves it has not a shred nor a scrap. It is indeed entirely possible that some of those rocks will one day become mineral reserves. But the net present value of those rocks is, as minerals, something around zero. The idea that they're worth $1 trillion is truly away with the faieries - the result of not understanding even the first bedrock* principles of the subject under discussion.Even the Pentagon now understands this. And if it's possible to get military intelligence to understand an idea then the rest of us should be able grasp it too.*Ahaha. Sorry, couldn't resist.