Archive

Archive for the ‘minerals and mining’ Category

Annual Coal Report 2013 (released January 2015)

February 10, 2015 Comments off

Annual Coal Report 2013 (PDF)
Source: Energy Information Administration

This report presents annual data on U.S. coal production, number of mines, productive capacity, recoverable reserves, employment, productivity, consumption, stocks, and prices.

Value of U.S. Mineral Production Increases Despite Lower Metal Prices

February 6, 2015 Comments off

Value of U.S. Mineral Production Increases Despite Lower Metal Prices
Source: USGS

The estimated value of mineral production increased in the United States in 2014, despite the decline in price for most precious metals, the U.S. Geological Survey announced today in its Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015.

The estimated value of mineral raw materials produced at mines in the United States in 2014 was $77.6 billion, an increase of 4.6 percent from $74.2 billion in 2013. U.S. economic growth supported the domestic primary metals industry and industrial minerals industry, however, weak global economic growth and the strong U.S. dollar limited U.S. processed mineral exports, which decreased to $108 billion in 2014 from $129 billion in 2013. Meanwhile, low-priced metal imports increased during most of 2014.

The annual report from the USGS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2014 mineral production data for the world. It includes statistics on about 90 mineral commodities essential to the U.S. economy and national security, and addresses events, trends, and issues in the domestic and international minerals industries.

UK — Resource nationalism

January 20, 2015 Comments off

Resource nationalism
Source: Cabinet Office

This paper explores resource nationalism, particularly for energy and metal and mineral supplies, and the potential implications for the UK.

Resource nationalism is defined as anti-competitive behaviour designed to restrict the international supply of a natural resource. Population growth, the uneven worldwide distribution of resources, and governance issues can lead to resource nationalism.

Resource nationalism is likely to have a greater effect on global terms of trade when a natural resource is only produced in few countries. In these markets, countries can affect global prices for raw materials and have most to gain from resource nationalism. In these cases, there is potential for the main producers (companies or countries) to act together to manipulate global prices.

The risk of resource nationalism may be higher for some lesser-known metals and minerals than resources such as oil, coal and gas.

CRS — Conflict Minerals and Resource Extraction: Dodd-Frank, SEC Regulations, and Legal Challenges (October 15, 2014)

October 20, 2014 Comments off

Conflict Minerals and Resource Extraction: Dodd-Frank, SEC Regulations, and Legal Challenges (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)

Two sections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) require that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) issue regulations to make public the involvement of U.S. companies in conflict minerals and in resource extraction payments. Supporters of the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals statute and the SEC implementing rule believe that such disclosures could have an impact on the amount of violence involved with the mining of conflict minerals. Opponents of the statute and rule argue that they require disclosures that are arbitrary and capricious and that some of the required disclosures violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Supporters of the resource extraction statute and the SEC implementing rule believe that they are needed to achieve the goal of the transparency of payments made by resource extraction issuers to governments in order to foster reform and anticorruption and to improve the tax collection process. Opponents believe that they are arbitrary and capricious and violate the First Amendment. Legal challenges to the statutes and regulations have occurred, based primarily on administrative law and First Amendment grounds.

New From the GAO

October 16, 2014 Comments off

New GAO Reports
Source: Government Accountability Office

1. Climate Change: USDA’s Ongoing Efforts Can Be Enhanced with Better Metrics and More Relevant Information for Farmers. GAO-14-755, September 16.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-755
Highlights – http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665809.pdf

2. Specialty Metals: DOD Dissemination of National Security Waiver Information Could Enhance Awareness and Compliance with Restrictions. GAO-15-133, October 16.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-133
Highlights – http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666533.pdf

McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity — Issue 2, Summer 2014

August 14, 2014 Comments off

McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity — Issue 2, Summer 2014
Source: McKinsey & Company

Articles in this issue

McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity—Introduction
In this second issue of McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity, we seek to establish the value of sustainability and to demonstrate how these opportunities can (and are) being captured in a range of industries.

Profits with purpose: How organizing for sustainability can benefit the bottom line
Becoming a sustainability leader requires big changes, but the effort is worth it—in both environmental and economic terms.

The human factor: Amassing troops for the ’resource revolution‘
Companies on the front lines of the resource revolution need to implement creative talent-management strategies.

Riding the resource wave: How extractive companies can succeed in the new resource era
With economic and social expectations rising in resource-rich countries, extractive companies must rethink how they do business.

Brave new world: Myths and realities of clean technologies
Don’t be fooled by high-profile setbacks. The cleantech sector is gaining steam—with less and less regulatory assistance.

Unconventional wisdom: Fracturing enters a new era
Faced with change on a scale not seen in decades, companies must alter their business plans to accommodate unconventionals or else risk irrelevance.

The disruptive potential of solar power
As costs fall, the importance of solar power to senior executives is rising.

Bioenergy in Europe: A new beginning—or the end of the road?
Bioenergy faces challenges in Europe, but there is reason to believe it can make a comeback.

DOD OIG — Procedures to Ensure Sufficient Rare Earth Elements for the Defense Industrial Base Need Improvement

July 10, 2014 Comments off

Procedures to Ensure Sufficient Rare Earth Elements for the Defense Industrial Base Need Improvement
Source: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General

Objective
We determined whether DoD effectively planned for life-cycle sustainment of rare earth elements (REE) for the defense industrial base (DIB). Specifically, we determined whether DoD effectively implemented procedures to maintain a sufficient and available supply of REEs for the DIB.

Finding
DoD lacked a comprehensive and reliable process to assess REE supply and demand. Specifically, Defense Logistics Agency, Strategic Materials Division officials did not ensure that its modeling and simulation contractor used: REE supply forecasts that considered market and environmental risks; complete REE demand survey results; and verified economic consumption data to forecast REE demand.

This occurred because the Defense Logistics Agency, Strategic Materials Division did not have adequate verification and validation procedures in place to ensure realistic supply and demand inputs and did not require that the contractor use an accredited model to forecast REE supply and demand.

As a result, DoD may not have identified all REEs with expected shortfalls, increasing the risk that those shortfalls will adversely affect critical weapons systems production in the DIB, and overall DoD readiness.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Director, Defense Logistics Agency–Strategic Materials Division:

  • develop and implement a verification and validation plan for REE supply and demand forecasting model inputs;
  • develop and implement procedures to ensure that future shortfall analyses compare DoD demand and supply for REEs under the same scenarios;
  • develop and implement procedures for obtaining DoD REE consumption data by leveraging Service acquisition executive participation and other techniques as appropriate;
  • develop and implement an accreditation plan for theforecasting model’s intended use; and
  • ensure that current and future contracts for models, simulations and associated data include verification, validation and accreditation procedures in the contract requirements.

Management Comments and Our Response

The Director, Defense Logistics Agency, Acquisition Directorate generally addressed the recommendations; however, comments on Recommendation 2 partially addressed the recommendation. Therefore, we are requesting additional comments on Recommendation 2 by August 4, 2014.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,014 other followers