Session 2 | Software
Abstract
The understanding and interpretation of Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction(“RPEEE”), a consideration in International Reporting Codes for the reporting of Mineral Resources, has been one of the key areas of debate and interpretation over the last decade (or so), leading to an improved level of transparency and disclosure when reporting Mineral Resources. It is an expectation that practitioners clearly narrate and opine on the technical and economic factors that support the potential extraction of the deposit in question. As part of this evolution, we have seen the development of certain principles coupled with general industry-wide standardisation of approaches (open-pit optimisations, cut-off grade calculations, etc). Whilst there are elements of these practices that are now relatively common to both industrial minerals and metallic deposits, industrial minerals have additional criteria that require consideration to satisfy the requirements to assess and report with RPEEE.
Of these criteria, probably the most critical factor is the requirement to develop a robust understanding of the product types and specification or “product quality” that is required to achieve a saleable product, and understand the selling prices, as well as an understanding of the yield of the saleable product from the in-situ mineralisation. Product qualities may be dictated by the raw feed material and/or may be influenced by the processing route applied, such as in cases where multiple products are produced through multiple processing streams. Within this context, mineral processing testwork, at various stages of a project development is key, and typically needs to consider (or can be driven by) the potential for deleterious/gangue components and their impact on the quality of the final product. The product qualities may also be impacted by non-geochemical parameters such as mineralogy, particle size distribution, colour, physical properties (hardness, density, etc.), impact on processing (i.e. calcination, expansion), etc., where these may have a positive or negative affect.
Product qualities will be linked to selling or commodity prices, where such information may be considered “sensitive”, captured in commercially sensitive contracts with multiple consumers, and commonly limited in its availability in the public domain. Some products may also be tailored to a customer's specialised requirements and are not necessarily a commonly traded product. In such cases it may be necessary to seek 3rd party support to assist in defining the market, product specifications and associated price forecasts. . Alternatively, it may be that product price is determined through transfer pricing or agreed through offtake arrangements, all of which add further complexity or require greater effort to determine, and again may be confidential and non-public domain.
Industrial minerals may also be bulk commodities, i.e. phosphate, silica sand, bauxite, kaolin, etc., which require significant infrastructure and logistical elements to develop or operate. It may therefore be necessary to consider the scale of the project, going beyond a simple “operating cost” assessment, testing whether the project is large enough to overcome the capital hurdle required for its establishment. Such projects can have significant environment and social impacts and permitting challenges, and draws on resources . Therefore, an understanding of whether these present a risk to the project/operation is required.
Given current trends to minimise waste stored on site, and ongoing innovative research and use of waste/by-products, it is likely that we will also see an increase in industrial minerals being considered, and produced as a secondary mineral or by-product. These opportunities have the potential to capture additional revenue from previously defined waste streams, enhance the projects’ ESG credentials and achieve greater levels of resource recoverability. Integrating these elements in to the RPEEE assessment requires the same level of assessment as for a primary product, and therefore requires a wider or different experience or knowledge base within the evaluation team than for the primary commodity alone. In these case further research and development, and product development from existing waste sources should continue to be supported and commended.
As within much of the work we do as Mineral Resource practitioners, it places reliance on the knowledge and experience of the Competent Person, often in highly specialised or narrow fields of experience. This is not wholly unique to industrial minerals projects, but it can be critical to understand the nuances associated to product qualities for certain types of deposit and the requirement of the end users or customers.
Industrial mineral projects and operations face a number of unique challenges in relation to reporting Mineral Resources with RPEEE, where there is a requirement to understand the often complex relationships between product quality criteria, mineral processing and commodity pricing, as well as number of other factors. There is however great potential for there to be to improved transparency as the minerals industry continues to evolve, and for there to be increased exposure through supporting important research into creating saleable products from what was previously determined as waste, enhancing the ESG credentials of the projects, operations and products.
