Wednesday, March 02, 2022

‘Weaving Two Worlds’: How the resource sector can build trust with Indigenous communities

Alisha Hiyate | February 28, 2022 | 

Christy Smith and Mike McPhie, authors of Weaving Two Worlds: Economic Reconciliation Between Indigenous Peoples and the Resource Sector

LONG READ

Resource companies understand that positive relationships with Indigenous communities are key to their success. They are also aware that Aboriginal communities have a greater say and more power than ever over what happens on their traditional lands.


However, amid the shifting power dynamics and higher expectations, court cases such as Yahey v. British Columbia and the federal government’s commitment to implementing UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), the permitting landscape has grown more complex and the way forward, uncertain.

A new book coming out on March 1, Weaving Two Worlds: Economic Reconciliation Between Indigenous Peoples and the Resource Sector, aims to provide some guidance.

Written by Christy Smith and Michael McPhie, both principals of Falkirk Environmental Consultants, the book brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives (Smith is from the K’ómox First Nation in B.C., while McPhie is of Scottish and English descent). It also draws on the experience of each author in the resources sector – Smith as an Indigenous business consultant and Falkirk’s vice-president of Indigenous and stakeholder engagement, and McPhie, as a founding partner and co-chair of Falkirk, as well as a past president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C.



CMJ spoke with Smith and McPhie in February about the concept of ‘allyship,’ the trend of Indigenous-led environmental assessments, and why addressing unconscious bias is a prerequisite to building productive relationships with Indigenous communities.

CMJ: First of all, congratulations on the book. You’ve approached a sensitive and complex topic in a really thoughtful and practical way. So to start the conversation off, why did you two decide to write this book?

Christy Smith: Too often we see companies going into communities and engaging in what I consider a harmful way that just causes problems from the get-go in development of their relationships.

From my experience – Indigenous people are very relationship oriented and that’s a key to understanding how we operate, our concerns and interests. Without that relationship, there’s no trust. So building these relationships and this trust is key to resource companies in order to move projects forward.

Mike McPhie: Senior folks in the resource sector recognize that relationships with Indigenous communities is key to their success. But there’s a real gap in understanding how to get from recognizing the issue and how to actually do it well. Our belief is that dialogue is going to be the key to success. And there’s a lot of people that are actually quite interested but really struggle with even knowing where to start.

There are lots of guides out there on how to consult, the law and the permitting process, but they’re often written at a more academic level and are process driven. Whereas a lot of this is about belief systems, history, understanding – which is deeper discussion not everybody is comfortable with having. The difference with what we’ve done, having these two voices of Indigenous and non-Indigenous, it makes some of the topics a little more accessible.

This is just our experience and our ideas, but it’s based on a lot of years at the frontlines of doing this stuff both at the board and executive level as well as on the ground. So we’re just trying to share that experience and help the conversation move forward in a positive way.

CMJ: One of the things you talk about in the book is this legal power shift that’s been happening towards Aboriginal communities. Mining and exploration companies are certainly aware of this shift, including the many court cases for reaffirming Aboriginal rights and the federal government’s recent commitment to implement UNDRIP into Canadian law. But what is the next step for resource companies to take after just being aware – because as you say, they may be uncertain as to what to do next?

CS: The first thing companies need to understand is that Indigenous communities are not stakeholders. They are governments that represent their communities and have been stewards of their lands for thousands of years and must be engaged as such.

Building relationships takes time. You need to understand the distinct interests and concerns of the communities. That builds trust, which also takes time. Once proponents understand that, they can create a formal engagement and reconciliation plan, in partnership with the Indigenous communities in their project area. This is a long-term relationship they are building with a community that will have a direct interest in and influence over how their project will be advanced.

We mention in multiple areas in the book that listening is key and not truly listening can be a barrier to building that relationship. Listening to the silence of the conversation is also super important to guide proponents.

MM: In the book, we talk about the first step being to educate yourself, understand what you’re dealing with because the mining industry is a global industry and to operate successfully, whether you’re in Central America, Asia or Canada, you need to understand local cultures, their history, and the place that they’re coming from.

There are over 200 First Nations just in British Columbia, and all of them have different histories and experiences with resource companies. So the first thing is to understand. The second thing is to talk with the nation and ask them, this is what we’d like to do – we want to go out and drill ten holes to test this target. Discuss that ahead of time, not just when you need the permit and after you’ve filed it. That should actually be your first call when you acquire a property, make contact. It’s the first thing you do and it’s a sign of respect; then you start everything off on a good step.

CMJ: Let’s talk about this process of people educating themselves. The book calls for the mining sector to play a bigger role in reconciliation and you explain that this has to start at the personal level, with each person examining their own biases and educating themselves about Indigenous peoples and history. How much of a willingness do you see within the resource sector to actually do this work?

CS: It’s all over the board and it depends on the individual. Sometimes the management level is super keen to do this work, but it’s not supported at other levels. Or the individuals at the board level haven’t done the work in support of the management, so it really depends on the scenario.

And change is uncomfortable. Nobody really wants to get deep into self-reflection, especially when examining some of these biases, assumptions and guilt or what they would presume as normal thoughts. But if that self-reflection isn’t done, the relationship can’t be formed in that positive way.

In our book we’re saying in a soft way that you do need to do this to be successful, but we’re not jamming it down their throats, saying, ‘You’ve been thinking about these things all wrong all your life and here we are to change you.’ We try to guide people softly through a self-reflective process.

MM: There’s been a movement over the last 10 years to a more enlightened view in the resource sector. But the spectrum is really wide and there are still people that are operating in a 1950s mentality, and then there’s folks that are way ahead of the game and making real change. And I think we’re seeing that the folks with the more enlightened view are the ones who are successful.

Pension funds and other sources of finance are pushing management teams in that direction, whether it’s through ESG reporting or the Equator Principles. But a lot of the metrics used in ESG reporting haven’t been able to fully address some key issues such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as defined in UNDRIP, which is now law in Canada through Bill C-15 which received Royal Assent in June 2021. We are now in version 2.0 of what engagement and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is all about and moving to where people really start to understand what a productive relationship with First Nations and Indigenous people is.

CMJ: What would you say to people in the resource sector who don’t get it and who would bristle at some of the language like White fragility, White privilege that are part of the discussion in the book, and the concept of decolonization training.

MM: With all honesty, I had trouble with those concepts going into this and Christy really helped me to understand it. It is uncomfortable because most people think they’re good people, right? They don’t see themselves as carrying around these biases or stereotypes in their mind, but I think once you actually recognize what these terms and concepts represent, you can begin to understand it much better. I mean, the domination of White settlers over Indigenous people in the country – there’s no question about the facts behind that. Does that make you (as a non-Indigenous person) a bad person? No. But does that mean you have to acknowledge that history and why people have felt unfairly treated over many, many hundreds of years? This is our shared history and, importantly, it isn’t an attack on you – it’s an attack on and a questioning of our past as a country. Having those honest conversations, yes, is going to be hard for some people.

We try to be really positive on this stuff – nobody is being blamed here. It’s about deepening your knowledge, you have to understand where people are coming from to be able to have productive conversations. They don’t really teach this stuff in engineering school and that’s part of the challenge.

People can get defensive even hearing terms like White privilege. We only have to look south of the border, where talking about race can become incredibly emotional really quickly. So we try to be really positive on this stuff – nobody is being blamed here. It’s about deepening your understanding, you have to understand where people are coming from to be able to have productive conversations. That’s how you build connection. They don’t really teach this stuff in engineering school and that’s part of the challenge.

CS: Mike, I love how you started that with your own self-reflection – it’s an ongoing process. I want to be clear, when we talk about privilege, I also have to check my privilege and how I’m coming into a room and to the table. I want to hear what the community has to say. Self-reflection is not just Indigenous, non-Indigenous. It’s something everyone needs to do when they’re listening and engaging.

And it’s tough when it’s an ingrained behaviour or an assumption that has been normalized. You have to continually work at changes and habits and changing perspectives take time. But it starts with the willingness to do the work. Lots of times the term White privilege offends people and they get their back up, but I think it’s OK to have those hard conversations and make people a bit uncomfortable because that’s where the real change comes.

CMJ: You write in in the book that the ultimate goal is for the resource sector to shift its thinking and move from being an adversary of Indigenous communities towards being an ally. Can you give us any examples from your experience where you’ve seen resource successfully make that shift?

MM: There are a couple of companies in British Columbia, like Skeena Resources and Talisker Resources where a shared ownership perspective on projects is being developed. The Tahltan actually made an equity investment into Skeena and they’re now partners in the development of the Eskay project. Talisker signed an exploration agreement with the Xwísten First Nation (or the Bridge River Indian band), and as part of that there was a consideration of equity ownership in the company. So that’s where you begin to shift from just consultation and jobs and scholarships to being full partners in development. And that’s where being allies comes in.

CS: With respect to allyship, you’ll see the success come when you see the company truly understands what the Indigenous communities want, because there’s some that want equity and some that want and need other things. The idea of allyship is supporting that community and lifting that community up.

MM: One thing that’s key is that mines are only there for 10 or 15 years. Being allies is also about recognizing that yes, there are benefits during construction and operations, but what is the long-term legacy, and are you working with and supporting a community in the way that they want to be supported to create enterprises and opportunities that last well beyond the mine life? When you talk about sustainability, there’s this massive opportunity to leverage the investment in a mine to create long-term enterprises. It’s that kind of perspective – what’s your legacy of being there and have you created a more resilient, stronger community or have you done something else?

The last thing I’ll say about allyship is that it has to be welcomed. You can’t just show up and say, ‘Hey, we’ve got all this money and all this opportunity – here you go.’ It’s more like, ‘Here’s this opportunity. How do we do it together, and are you willing to accept that?” It’s very much a reciprocal relationship.

CS: When we talk about legacy, the land base will be there a lot longer than the project, so it’s really about becoming co-stewards with the community and ensuring that you’re supporting and protecting the environment into perpetuity in a way that the communities want. So not only providing support from the investment/business side, but also from a land-use planning perspective.

CMJ: You flagged a really interesting trend in in the book of Indigenous-led environmental assessments. This is a still a very new area, but how should the mining sector get prepared for this? What do they need to know?

MM: For quite some time there’s been increased involvement of Indigenous people in the assessment of the economic and environmental effects of projects. It’s mostly being led out of British Columbia, but it’s also happening in other parts of the country and in other parts of the world, where you’re seeing provincial or federal processes being either amplified or even almost replaced. There are only a few jurisdictions that are moving in that direction so far, but I would expect over the next 10 years it’ll become much, much more common.

The Squamish First Nation on the West Coast of British Columbia did their own environmental assessment on the Woodfibre LNG project that was being proposed in their territory in 2019. The Tahltan Nation is moving rapidly in that direction to assess projects in their traditional territories, and there’s lots of other discussion in that regard. We don’t know exactly how this is going to play out but the trend is real and companies need to be aware.

We do not see the essential science and methods of doing an EA changing, but the questions that are being asked, how the Indigenous community is involved in the review and the process that is to be followed will evolve. Procedurally, it may affect timelines, it could be a little bit more expensive and complicated. Hopefully though, where these assessments are Indigenous-led, or where they have their own parallel process, the projects will have a higher degree of certainty and support at the end, which could be a real positive.

CS: The government has been tasked with implementing UNDRIP in B.C. and now across the country. Having these processes in place where there’s true engagement and consensus-making forums I think will help the process in the long term. Maybe there’ll be ups and downs, but as far as I can see to date, it’s been super positive and the communities have a voice at the table with respect to their land, which is huge.

CMJ: You opened the book with a dedication to the reader that says: ‘may you place your feet on the ground, open your heart, listen with intention and do something to make our world a better place.’ It’s a beautiful message and it’s very hopeful. Where did that come from?

CS: Since the beginning when Mike asked me to help him write the book and partner on this, that was his objective – making the world a better place, which I fell in love with.

In order to do that, what we try to say throughout the book is listen; open yourself up. Do the work. And then hopefully the legacy of our work will be that that person will go on to do something to make our world a better place.

(This article first appeared in the Canadian Mining Journal)
CORPORATIST JURISTS
US Supreme Court questions scope of EPA’s climate change powers

Bloomberg News | February 28, 2022 

Plant Bowen, the third largest coal-fired power station in the United States.
 (Image by Sam Nash, Wikimedia Commons).

US Supreme Court justices debated putting new limits on the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions, as they considered a case that threatens to undercut President Joe Biden’s climate agenda.


Hearing two hours of arguments in Washington, the justices gave a mixed reception to Republican-led states and coal companies seeking to bar the EPA from issuing a sweeping plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The Biden administration is defending the agency’s authority, with backing from power companies and environmental groups.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned the administration’s assertion that it can broadly push electricity generation away from high-emission sources, as long as it doesn’t impose unreasonable costs or threaten grid reliability.

“I really don’t see what the concrete limitations are in any of what you said,” he told U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “So long as the costs are not absolutely crushing for the society, I don’t know why EPA can’t go even a lot further.”

But Justice Clarence Thomas, indicated he wasn’t convinced by the distinction the EPA’s opponents sought to make between permissible and impermissible regulation. The states say the agency can regulate “inside the fence-line” of power plants but can’t try to restructure the entire industry.

“I don’t know how you can draw such clean distinctions,” Thomas said.

The session was relatively low-key given the stakes involved. One of the court’s conservatives, Justice Neil Gorsuch, asked only a single question, while two others, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, made only a handful of comments.

Biden’s pledge


The case could jeopardize the country’s ability to meet Biden’s pledge to at least halve greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade. It’s impossible to hit that target without regulations to stifle greenhouse gases from oil wells, automobiles and power plants, as well as tax incentives designed to spur clean energy that can edge out fossil fuels, according to several analyses.

The argument came hours after the release of a United Nations panel report warning that the world has a “brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity” to slow the pace of global warming.

The companies and states are asking the court to preemptively bar anything resembling former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which pushed states to shift electricity generation from coal-burning plants toward lower-emitting options, such as renewable power. The Supreme Court blocked the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and it never took effect.

Exelon Corp., Consolidated Edison Inc. and National Grid USA are among the power companies joining the Biden administration in defending the EPA’s authority. The challengers include a Nacco Industries Inc. unit and Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC.

The case centers on a Clean Air Act provision requiring the EPA to identify the “best system of emission reduction” for existing pollution sources. The law then tasks states to implement plans that reflect those findings.

‘Agency’s wheelhouse’

Justice Elena Kagan said those words indicated Congress “wanted to give the agency flexibility to regulate as times changed, as circumstances changed, as economic impacts changed.”

The justices devoted much of the session to the so-called major questions doctrine, which the court in past cases has said requires Congress to provide clear authorization before an agency exercises broad powers. The court relied on that doctrine when it lifted the Biden administration’s moratorium on evictions during the pandemic and blocked plans to require vaccines or regular tests for 84 million workers.

Barrett drew a contrast with the eviction moratorium ruling, which rested in part on the court’s assessment that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was reaching beyond its core area of authority.

“Here, if we’re thinking about EPA regulating greenhouse gases, well, there’s a match between the regulation and the agency’s wheelhouse, right?” Barrett asked.

The dispute could be a key one for the movement to rein in the so-called administrative state. Legal conservatives say unaccountable regulators are usurping a role the Constitution entrusts to Congress.

The cases are West Virginia v. EPA, 20-1530; North American Coal Co. v. EPA, 20-1531; Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. EPA, 20-1778; and North Dakota v. EPA, 20-1780.

(By Greg Stohr and Jennifer A. Dlouhy)
Congo court appoints temporary administrator to run China Moly’s Tenke mine

Reuters | February 28, 2022

Aerial view of the processing plant at China Molybdenum’s Tenke Fungurume mine in 2015. (Image courtesy of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold)

A court in Democratic Republic of Congo on Monday appointed a temporary administrator to run China Molybdenum’s Tenke Fungurume copper and cobalt mine at the request of state miner Gecamines, a minority shareholder in the project.


The order from the Tribunal of Commerce in the southeastern city of Lubumbashi marks a significant development in a dispute that broke out last year between Congolese authorities and China Moly over reserve levels at the mine.

Congo’s government announced in August it had formed a commission to reassess the reserves and resources at the mine in order to “fairly lay claim to (its) rights”. Several Gecamines officials were appointed to the commission.

China Moly, which has an 80% stake in Tenke Fungurume, Congo’s second-biggest copper mine, said at the time it was confident the issue would be resolved. The government has made few public comments about the matter since then.

But the court order on Monday showed state mining company Gecamines, which owns 20% of Tenke Fungurume, petitioned judges in December to strip the mine’s current leadership of decision-making powers and appoint a temporary administrator.

The court appointed Sage Ngoie Mbayo, who Gecamines recently appointed as its representative to the mine, as administrator for a period of six months. He will take over management responsibilities from China Molybdenum-appointed chief executive, Jun Zhou.

The court tasked Ngoie with “reconciling the two partners on the points of divergence, namely access to technical information and social affairs of the company”.

China Moly did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tenke Fungurume produced around 182,600 tonnes of copper and 15,400 tonnes of cobalt in 2020, the last year for which complete data is available.

(By Aaron Ross; Editing by Chris Reese)
Alcoa CEO affirms promise of no new aluminum smelters

Bloomberg News | March 1, 2022 

Image: Elysis

Alcoa Corp.’s top executive is doubling down on his company’s promise to not add new aluminum capacity, indicating the world shouldn’t rely on the largest U.S. aluminum producer to help ease supply pains.


Chief Executive Officer Roy Harvey said Tuesday that Alcoa has no plans to add capacity by building or restarting aluminum smelters. His words reiterate a position made by the Pittsburgh-based company in November, which vowed to only build low-emission mills using technology from a venture dubbed Elysis.

“We choose not to invest in conventional technology — that brownfield or greenfield capacity,” Harvey said during a BMO Capital Markets conference in Florida. “We’re just not going to do it because by the time you design and start to construct, Elysis as a package will be ready to go.”

Harvey’s comments are significant given aluminum’s surge to an all-time high on Monday as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine compounds ongoing global shortages of the industrial metal used in goods ranging from autos and airplanes to appliances and packaging.

Elysis is a joint venture between Alcoa and Rio Tinto Group that developed technology to make aluminum with production methods that don’t emit carbon dioxide. Alcoa has said it expects the project will produce at commercial scale in a few years, and vowed in November that any new capacity would only be built using this technology.

Shares of Alcoa surged as much as 14% on Tuesday in New York, while benchmark aluminum prices in London gained up to 3.7%. The global market swung to a 1.9 million-ton deficit last year, according to the World Bureau of Metal Statistics.

Harvey said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has no direct impact on Alcoa’s business, though the war will impact the global supply of alumina, a key aluminum-making ingredient. As sanctions against Russia increase, the CEO also said Alcoa is assessing what to do about its aluminum sales to Russian companies.

(By Joe Deaux)
BHP says it must do more to address toxic workplace culture

Bloomberg News | March 1, 2022 

Ken MacKenzie, BHP chairman since 2017. (Image courtesy of BHP.)

BHP Group Ltd. has been focused on tackling all forms of harassment at its workplaces for some time, but the company still has more to do, Chairman Ken MacKenzie said in a speech Wednesday.


His comments come after rival miner Rio Tinto Group in Feb. published an explosive report showing evidence of endemic sexual harassment, racism and bullying across its operations. The industry’s remote mines can be especially risky for women. They remain largely male-dominated, with workers living in camp-style accommodation that blurs the line between work and social life.

“We know unacceptable behaviour still occurs in all workplaces, including BHP. And it shouldn’t,” MacKenzie told a conference in Melbourne. “Our data shows that an inclusive and diverse workforce is safer, more engaged and more productive,” he added.

BHP revealed last year that it had fired 48 workers at its sites in Western Australia since July 2019 after verifying allegations of harassment, as well as receiving two substantiated allegations of rape.

The global miner has increased female participation across the business by two-thirds since 2016, lifting it to over 30%, MacKenzie said, although it still has work to do to meet an aspirational target of gender balance by 2025.

Demands on large corporations from a range of stakeholders “seem louder, and more conflicting than ever before,” MacKenzie said, but BHP must not lose sight of the opportunities afforded by the increased focus on environmental, social and governance issues.

(By James Thornhill)
‘Uncertainties’ for Kinross Gold’s Russian operations amidst conflict — BMO

Naimul Karim | March 1, 2022 

Image: Kinross

Prolonged international sanctions might “slow or halt” the development of Kinross Gold’s (TSX: K; NYSE: KGC) operations in Russia, BMO’s metals and mining analysts said, as the country continues to attack Ukraine.


The first wave of sanctions on Russia were announced on February 22, after Moscow’s order to deploy troops to eastern Ukraine.

“As the Russia conflict continues to evolve, uncertainties around Kinross’s operations in-country continue to build,” BMO mining analyst Jackie Przybylowski wrote in a research note to clients. Przybylowski spoke to the Kinross team, including its CEO Paul Rollinson, at the ongoing 2022 BMO Global Metals and Mining Conference in Hollywood, Florida.

International sanctions limit the ability of Russian domestic banks to purchase Kinross’s produced gold and if gold were to accumulate at site for a prolonged period, Kinross could see a shortage of working capital, which could affect short-term operations, the analyst said.

The lack of sales could also slow or halt development of the company’s Udinsk project in southeast Russia, which is currently in the feasibility stage and is expected to be funded by cash generated from the Kinross Gold’s Kupol mine in Russia.

Kinross Gold wasn’t immediately available for comment. However, in a press release on February 23, the company said that its operations in Russia were “operating according to plan” and remained “unaffected by U.S. sanctions.”

Kinross has been operating in Russia for about 25 years, and currently operates the Kupol underground mine and mill in Russia’s Far Eastern region of Chukotka, about 7,000 km from Ukraine. The mine produced 481,108 gold-equivalent oz. last year.

In 2013, the company expanded the mill from 3,500 to 4,500 tonnes per day to process additional ore from the Dvoinoye mine, about 100 km to the north, where mining activities ceased in 2020. Stockpiles from Dvoinoye are expected to be processed until about 2024.

In January 2020 Kinross acquired the Chulbatkan licence, also in Russia’s Far East. Drilling there has focused on the Udinsk resource pit, which is the first project it expects to develop on the licence, with first production forecast to start in 2025.

In 2022, Kinross expects approximately 13% of its global production to come from Russia.

The company’s stock is down 29% year to date, which is “significantly worse than other gold companies under BMO’s coverage,” said Przybylowski.

However, BMO believes that the company is taking reasonable measures to “balance risk from exposure to Russia with commitments to its local stakeholders and its operations.”

“In the near term, maintaining operations is important to ensure the long-term viability of the regional business. Kinross has a responsibility to the community; it maintains employment of its ~2,000 workers and numerous stakeholders in country (Russia),” wrote Przybylowski.

(This article first appeared in The Northern Miner)
EXPLAINER – The importance of Russian titanium to global industry

Reuters | March 1, 2022 | 

Monument to Russian Yuri Gagarin, the first person to travel in space, made of titanium. (Stock image by Сергей Детюков.)

The potential for disruptions to Russian commodity supplies has thrown a spotlight on the metal used in the aerospace, marine and auto industries.


The United States and Europe have imposed financial sanctions on Russian banks, individuals and other entities after Russia invaded Ukraine.



There are as yet no sanctions on Russian commodity exporters such as VSMPO-Avisma, which supplies titanium to planemakers Boeing and Airbus.

But a decision by Western allies to block “selected” Russian banks from the SWIFT payments system could disrupt supplies of commodities that Russia exports, as could suspension of container shipping to and from Russia.

Where is titanium produced?

Titanium minerals are used to make titanium sponge, which is turned into metal for industrial applications.

China is the world’s top producer of titanium sponge, accounting for 57% of global output at 210,000 tonnes last year, according to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

USGS data shows Japan comes next with nearly 17%, followed by Russia with nearly 13% of the market. Kazakhstan produced 16,000 tonnes and Ukraine 3,700 tonnes.

Russia has low titanium mineral reserves.

“In 2021 Ukraine was the leading source of titanium mineral concentrates imports into Russia,” USGS said. “Other leading sources included Vietnam, Mozambique and Kazakhstan.”

USGS estimates that Ukraine produced 525,000 tonnes of titanium mineral concentrates last year.

Who imports uranium?


Consultancy CRU says that China was the largest importer of titanium sponge last year with more than 16,000 tonnes, up from 6,000 tonnes in 2020.

The second-largest importer was the United States with about 16,000 tonnes last year, down from 19,000 in 2020.

Japan is the largest exporter of titanium sponge to China and the United States, shipping 8,000 tonnes and 14,000 tonnes respectively last year.

“The recovery of industries such as construction and aerospace last year led to a jump in demand for titanium products post-pandemic,” CRU analysts said.

Tight supplies can be seen in prices of titanium sponge which are up nearly 9% since the end of December at about $9 per kg.

What is titanium used for?


Titanium is used in the aerospace industry to make landing gear, blades and turbine discs, in the marine industry titanium sheet is used to make ships and submarines and in the auto sector it is used in components for internal combustion engines.

In chemical processing, titanium offers protection from fatigue and cracking, in vaping titanium wire is used to enhance safety and control temperature and in sport its uses include golf club heads.

Titanium is also used for joint replacements and dental implants because it has a similar density to human bones.

What’s in a name?

The name Titanium is derived from the Titans of Greek mythology, with the metal accounting for about 0.6% of the earth’s mass.

It is a hard, strong, lightweight metal with extraordinary resistance to corrosion. Titanium is as strong as steel, yet 45% lighter.

(By Pratima Desai; Editing by David Goodman)
BHP, Capricorn back startup promising cleaner lithium mining
Bloomberg News | March 1, 2022 

The Calgary-based startup also plans to raise at least $100 million in series B funding by the end of this year or early next year. (Adobe Stock Image.)

Capricorn Investment Group and BHP Group’s venture capital unit are backing a startup that says its processes make for cleaner and more efficient mining in lithium, the metal used in electric-vehicle batteries.


Summit Nanotech Corp. said in a statement that it closed on a $14 million investment round co-led by Capricorn’s Technology Impact Fund and Temasek’s Xora Innovation, along with BHP Ventures. Funds will be used to help commercialize Summit’s technology.



Summit is tapping into an accelerating race among mining heavyweights and automakers to control more supplies of raw materials that are key to transitioning to low-carbon energy sources. Investors are pressing miners to ensure that battery metals including lithium, nickel and cobalt are produced ethically and in an environmentally friendly way amid a global push to reduce pollution in worldwide economies.

The Calgary-based startup also plans to raise at least $100 million in series B funding by the end of this year or early next year and has already engaged in talks with three automakers, according to Founder and Chief Executive Officer Amanda Hall.

(By Yvonne Yue Li)
Honduras to cancel environmental permits for mining, ban open pits

Reuters | February 28, 2022 

Stock image.

Environmental permits for Honduran metal and non-metal mining will be cancelled, the country’s government said in a brief statement on Monday, describing the industry as harmful and declaring it will specifically prohibit open-pit mining.


The statement from the Ministry of Energy, Natural Resources, Environment and Mines added that natural areas with “high ecological value” will be preserved, without going into further detail.

“The approval of permits for extractive exploitation is cancelled due to being harmful to the state of Honduras, threatening natural resources, public health and because they limit access to water as a human right,” according to the ministry’s statement.

The energy and mining ministry did not immediately respond to a request for clarification on whether the permit cancellations will only affect new projects, or whether they will also apply to existing ones.

The announcement comes from the barely a month-old government of leftist President Xiomara Castro, who took office in January promising to pull the Central American nation “out of the abyss” caused by failed economic policies and rampant corruption.

Castro’s election manifesto released last September pledged to limit mining, prior to her victory at the polls in late November. The manifesto detailed 282 mining concessions doled out by previous governments through 2017, citing the country’s geology and mining institute.

Canada’s Aura Minerals operates an open-pit mine in western Honduras, where it has encountered stiff local opposition in part due to alleged disturbances to a Maya-Chorti indigenous cemetery.

Last year, the company suspended operations due to what it described as illegal blockades.

Aura Minerals’ San Andres mine processed more than 4.4 million tonnes of ore in 2020, producing nearly 61,000 ounces of gold, according to the company’s website.

Honduran mining export revenue from silver, zinc and lead projects in the country totalled nearly $130 million last year, according to central bank data, which did not include any revenue from gold shipments.

(By Gustavo Palencia and Kylie Madry; Editing by David Alire Garcia, Chris Reese and Kenneth Maxwell)
USA 
Most Georgians prefer clean energy over coal – study
MINING.COM Staff Writer | March 2, 2022 | 6:06 am Energy News USA Coal Uranium

Solar panels. (Image from Piqsels).

A recent survey carried out on behalf of researchers at Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia found that a majority of residents of the US state of Georgia strongly support new solar and wind power capacity over new coal-fired plants and believe the government should set a carbon emissions reduction goal.


Conducted by polling firm Dynata, the survey found that 60% of residents back the creation of a state carbon emissions reduction goal. That includes 74% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 52% of independents, and 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.


The poll also found that seven out of 10 Georgians support new solar power and six out of 10 back new wind power, with new hydroelectric and natural gas capacity also receiving relatively favorable marks.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the study showed that only 30% of respondents supported new coal-fired power plants.

“This survey demonstrates that many Georgians across the political spectrum are in favor of green energy solutions that will benefit the state’s environment, create new jobs, and support our economy,” Marilyn Brown, professor of sustainable systems in Georgia Tech’s School of Public Policy, said in a media statement.

Coal is the fourth most important energy source in Georgia, contributing to nearly 12% of the state’s net generation in 2020.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, most of the state’s electricity comes from natural gas, accounting for 49% of its net generation in 2020.

The southern region also exports LNG, particularly after the Elba Island liquefied natural gas import terminal added liquefication and export facilities with the capacity to export 350 million cubic feet per day. Export operations began two years ago, and more than 36 billion cubic feet were exported from Elba in 2020.

Locally, LNG was followed by nuclear power, as Georgia’s four operating nuclear reactors accounted for 27% of the net generation in the same year, while renewable energy, including hydroelectric power and small-scale solar, accounted for 12%.