TEXT 3

Sustainable mining – oxymoron or a way of the future?

Mining is an activity that has persisted since the start of humans using tools. However, one might argue that digging a big hole in the ground and selling the finite resources that come out of that hole is not sustainable, especially when the digging involves the use of other finite resources (i.e. fuels) and produces a lot of greenhouse gases.

The counter argument could go along the lines that minerals are not being lost or destroyed through mining and mineral processing – the elements are being shifted around, and converted into new forms. Metals can even be extracted from waste, seawater or even sewage, and recycled. But a more simple argument is possible: a mine can be sustainable if it is economically, socially and environmentally beneficial in the short and long term. To be sustainable, the positive benefits of mining should outweigh any negative impacts. […]

Social positives are often associated with mines in regional areas, such as providing better amenities in a nearby town, or providing employment (an economic and social positive). Social negatives can also occur, such as dust, noise, traffic and visual amenity. These are commonly debated and, whilst sometimes controversial, can be managed with sufficient corporate commitment, stakeholder engagement, and enough time to work through the issues. Time is the key parameter - it may take several years for a respectful process of community input, but as long as it is possible for social negatives to be outweighed by social positives, then the project will be socially sustainable.

It is most likely that a mine development will have some environmental negatives, such as direct impacts on flora and fauna through clearing of vegetation and habitat within the mine footprint. Some mines will have impacts which extend beyond the mine site, such as disruption to groundwater, production of silt and disposal of waste. Certainly these impacts will need to be managed throughout the mine life, along with robust rehabilitation and closure planning. […]

The real turning point will come when mining companies go beyond environmental compliance to create 'heritage projects' that can enhance the environmental or social benefits in a substantial way – by more than the environmental offsets needed just to make up for the negatives created by the mine. In order to foster these innovative mining heritage projects we need to promote 'sustainability assessments' - not just 'environmental assessments'. This will lead to a more mature appreciation of the whole system whereby the economic and social factors, as well as environmental factors, are considered in a holistic manner.

(adapted from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/western-australia-division/sustainable-mining-oxymoron-or-way-future. Retrieved on August 10, 2015)

TEXT 2

Innovation is the new key to survival

[…]

At its most basic, innovation presents an optimal strategy for controlling costs. Companies that have invested in such technologies as remote mining, autonomous equipment and driverless trucks and trains have reduced expenses by orders of magnitude, while simultaneously driving up productivity.

Yet, gazing towards the horizon, it is rapidly becoming clear that innovation can do much more than reduce capital intensity. Approached strategically, it also has the power to reduce people and energy intensity, while increasing mining intensity.

Capturing the learnings 

The key is to think of innovation as much more than research and development (R&D) around particular processes or technologies. Companies can, in fact, innovate in multiple ways, such as leveraging supplier knowledge around specific operational challenges, redefining their participation in the energy value chain or finding new ways to engage and partner with major stakeholders and constituencies.

To reap these rewards, however, mining companies must overcome their traditionally conservative tendencies. In many cases, miners struggle to adopt technologies proven to work at other mining companies, let alone those from other industries. As a result, innovation becomes less of a technology problem and more of an adoption problem.

By breaking this mindset, mining companies can free themselves to adapt practical applications that already exist in other industries and apply them to fit their current needs. For instance, the tunnel boring machines used by civil engineers to excavate the Chunnel can vastly reduce miners' reliance on explosives. Until recently, those machines were too large to apply in a mining setting. Some innovators, however, are now incorporating the underlying technology to build smaller machines—effectively adapting mature solutions from other industries to realize more rapid results. 

Re-imagining the future

At the same time, innovation mandates companies to think in entirely new ways. Traditionally, for instance, miners have focused on extracting higher grades and achieving faster throughput by optimizing the pit, schedule, product mix and logistics. A truly innovative mindset, however, will see them adopt an entirely new design paradigm that leverages new information, mining and energy technologies to maximize value. […]

Approached in this way, innovation can drive more than cost reduction. It can help mining companies mitigate and manage risks, strengthen business models and foster more effective community and government relations. It can help mining services companies enhance their value to the industry by developing new products and services. Longer-term, it can even position organizations to move the needle on such endemic issues as corporate social responsibility, environmental performance and sustainability.

(http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ru/Document s/energy-resources/ru_er_tracking_the_trends_2015_eng.pdf)

Now, read through the text below, adapted from The New York Times and based on its contents answer question.

READ THE TEXT IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS 21 -30:

Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).

Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes

For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...