Water is a Critical Material for a Thirsty Man
July 22, 2011
In recent years the terms Critical Minerals, Strategic Minerals and even Vital Minerals have been coined and presumably coin has been turned on their basis.
These divisions have resulted in endless lists and explanations of which minerals are which, who thinks so and why. Indeed I was been party to this in the early days, however you know things have got silly when an article arrives that lists every element as critical and only excepts two. If it were written ironically I would let it pass.
What must be recognised is that ‘criticality’ is completely relative. It depends on the technology, who you are in the technology cycle and where (geographically and economically) you are speaking from. In fact as I argued in a short note to the UK’s Energy Research Council Network just before Parliament took representations from our learned societies on this topic, what you define as critical defines you.
Maybe these terms have use in policy-making circles, but having spoken to academics and NGOs on the topic I don’t think that’s true. They are generally more confused by the use of these terms than they were before. They can cope with specifics. They are not dumb.
We, in the mining industry, should not be complicit in confusing investors or legislators by wanton rebranding with meaningless jargon. It is difficult enough to persuade the non-mining world that mines are a necessary evil without obsfucation.
This trend appears to have started with the USA pre-occupation with energy independence and its false hope of controlling all elements of its energy cycle. It is a false hope because energy is global cycle not a national one. The separation of supply chains using national security as justification is the basest form of resource nationalism and not one becoming of the world’s biggest economy. It is not surprising that China reacts to this kind of posturing with a robust economic response. It knows that any comment from the WTO on this topic is bluster, at best.
Mining is an exercise in coping with living on a planet whose resources are not distributed evenly. Always has been. Always will be. The sudden realisation, from outside the industry, that the technological world would grind to a halt for the want of a iron nail should not deflect us from providing that nail and millions like it every day.
There is virtually no industrial metals mining left in the USA and those of us who operate outside that dysfunctional legislature should not be drawn into its often bizarre internal politics. Let us concentrate on supplying those nails at the best possible price and let the US increase its own transaction costs to the point where it has no industry left. Then maybe we can call a metal a metal.
PS. the two elements omitted from the ridiculous ‘critical’ list – iron & aluminium, the two most used metals in society today.
Forging Ahead. Not you Sheffield !
June 21, 2010
In the past it was usually considered an advantage to have someone at the top of government fighting for their constituency and its interests. The member for Sheffield Hallam appear to wish to buck this trend and make his constituency suffer for voting for him.
Back in March I commented on the government loan guarantee of £80m to the Sheffield Forgemasters in order to build a world-leading 15kt forge press that would enable Britain to become a significant player in nuclear manufacturing for decades to come. The cost to the tax payer about £20m over 5 years in opportunity cost (things that we could have done with the cash).
Well the recent announcement that this loan guarantee is to be cut shows exactly what our new government thinks of UK manufacturing – it couldn’t care a toss. What Nick Clegg thinks of Sheffield – he’d rather kick them in the nuts than stand up to his public school buddy. How far our new chancellor looks when he tries to balance the books – no further than two years out. How much influence that DECC has on energy system planning – zero. And how bloody stupid partisan government can be when faced with a choice that involves long term thinking.
The argument is that this loan constitutes a subsidy to the nuclear industry and the new govt has said no public money to that industry. They are still quite happy to pile cash into windmills, solar panels for the top of your house and subsidise coal and CCS, but building an export capacity that would bring in millions every year from outside our shores. Apparently thats bad news. Not to mention how long it will take to wait for any new nuclear build within the UK with the only other forge press in Japan booked up years in advance.
Even Chris Goodall at Carbon Commentry thinks its a bad idea.
I’m not prone to swearing, but this is a bloody stupid idea and if I were in Sheffield (or staying at my Gran’s old house 10 miles away) I would be demonstrating outside Clegg’s front door irrespective of whether he’s now in his grace and favour mansion or not.
Falmouth Energy Week 2010 May 24-25
May 29, 2010
What a difference a year makes !
Last year was full of hope. Openness and interdisciplinarity was part of the deal. Media exposure was integral to the design of the event.
This year the doors closed. Chatham House rules were imposed (and this report is composed under those restrictions). No media were there to report (though some did attend).
So what did we discuss at this exclusive event ?
Well. It became apparent that attendees saw the exclusivity as part of a wider trend (though they didn’t apparently see themselves as contributary to that trend). The phrase ‘decisions made in smoke filled rooms’ was one that was heard in more than one session. Speakers seemed less open to suggestions and there was a definite sense of ranks closing.
Partly this was put down to the relative success of the climate skeptic movement and the failure of COP15, but also to the new government’s policy set and approach so far. However, as a newcomer to this ‘scene’ I can’t help feeling this is the way that the regulars prefer it.
Fuel poverty seems to be taking a back seat with some kind of diluted concept of equitable apportionment of cost taking over. A greater focus on real politique and economics rather than innovation was evident. Argument rather than advance you could say. Calls for quick action, some action, any action seemed like a call to spend money rather than a call to change systemic conditions. Gone was the rhetoric of radical progress. In came the mumbled apologies of compromise.
What to do about a thing like a Green Bank ?
March 22, 2010
So the UK Conservative party want to build a Green Investment Bank to consolidate all the funding functions currently held by bodies such as The Carbon Trust and the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund.
Fair enough, seems like a good idea. Use ISAs to fund it ? Again, no objections there.
Here’s what it needs to be successful;
A strong research department.
That’s it. Nothing else. Just a set of market savvy investment analysts to make sure that the technologies and projects that are being invested in are not complete trash. It won’t be able to afford the best brokers or indeed the best analysts, but then its aim is not to outperform the market. It would be good for the country if it did, home-grown profits count double in this game, but there is no shareholder imperative to work against (or indeed with) so fiduciary responsibility is replaced by electoral responsibility.
The analysts need to have cross-sectoral visibility so that they are not working against each other but apart from that nothing special needs to be in place, except some independent oversight to build confidence in the market that these are kosher companies with realistic chances of commercial success.
Of course if the worst happens and all its investments come to nought, that could be a lot of cash that the govt has to refund to the ISA holders, but presumably there will be some form of hedge against catastrophic loss.
We’ll have to wait and see what Labour’s equivalent looks like when the last pre-election budget is announced on Wednesday, but Reuters is reporting a £2bn investment fund with half from assets sales and half from private investment. I’m sure that there will be more detail than that, but if Alistair Darling’s announcement conforms to the leak, sorry briefing, then it really isn’t very imaginative. Its just another pot of cash with another set of criteria. £2bn isn’t enough to kick-start any major infrastructure projects (the super grid is estimated at around £30bn, the high speed rail at £30bn and each of the 8-12 new nuclear reactors is supposed to be around £5bn (very roughly)), so you have to ask where is this money aimed at ? We’ll find out on Wednesday I suppose.
