ESG
CANADA’S EDGE IN THE RACE TO DECARBONIZATION Analysis by Skarn Associates points to multiple advantages, including orebody quality By Mark Fellows and Paul Harris
16 | CANADIAN
MINING JOURNAL
Skarn’s E1 GHG intensity curve for each commodity, reveals yet more. Canada’s relatively low emissions volumes are facilitated by low emissions intensity; on aggregate, the country’s copper, nickel, gold and metallurgical coal mines rank in the lowest decile of their respective global emissions curves. There are multiple reasons for this. Hydroelectricity is a key factor, reducing Canada’s Scope 2 emissions to negligible levels, a massive competitive advantage relative to countries with predominantly coal-fired power grids such as South Africa or Indonesia. The other major advantage Canada has is the high qual-
ity of many orebodies. The Sudbury and Manitoba nickel mines, for instance, achieve low GHG intensities by virtue of their high grades and the energy efficiency of the sulphide smelting and refining process, in comparison say, to the laterite nickel-ferronickel or HPAL (high-pressure acid leaching) processes used in Indonesia. While the orebody quality advantage is likely to remain a long-term strength, Canada’s edge in Scope 2 emissions is already eroding, as the roll-out of renewable energy globally begins to accelerate, slowly levelling the playing field. It seems likely therefore that in the next
Figure 1
E0 (Scope 1+2) GHG Emissions – Major Mining Countries Aluminium Copper
E0 Emissions (Mt CO2e)
C
anada has a diverse, vibrant mining industry, but is also a global leader in establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets backed up with a federal carbon tax – although provinces may implement independent regimes, provided they broadly comply with the federal scope. This juxtaposition of a prominent mining sector and GHG reduction leadership places Canada in an interesting position, which is highlighted by Skarn Associates’ research. We quantify mining sector energy use and carbon emissions intensity on an asset-by-asset basis globally, currently covering iron ore, copper, nickel, gold, metallurgical coal and aluminum (including bauxite and alumina). When this data is aggregated into country totals and averages, a picture emerges of each country’s competitive position with regard to GHG emissions. Figure 1 shows total E0 for the major mining countries split by commodity; E0 is Skarn’s proprietary mine site Scope 1 (combustibles used on site) and Scope 2 (purchased energy) GHG metric. This simple graph reveals some interesting facts. Canada’s total carbon emissions from the five commodities are substantially lower than Australia, the United States, Russia, South Africa, Indonesia, Chile and Brazil. Figure 2, which shows each country’s percentile position on
Gold Iron Ore Met Coal Nickel
ala
tri
s Au
S
th ou
ca
ri Af
ia
ss
Ru
ed nit
es
t Sta
U
Iron ore = seaborne only
sia
on
Ind
il
az
Br
ile
Ch
tan
hs
ak
z Ka
da
na
Ca
u
r Pe
o
xic
Me
ua
p Pa
a
a
oli
ng
Mo
N
ew
ine
Gu
en go ed on Sw DR C CREDIT: SKARN ASSOCIATES
www.canadianminingjournal.com
