The Availability of Primary Copper in Market Economy Countries

By Porter, Kenneth E.

Book Id: WPLBN0000152718
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 2.2 MB
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	The Availability of Primary Copper in Market Economy Countries
Author:	Porter, Kenneth E.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Health., Medical research, Medical reports
Collections:	Medical Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Citation APA MLA Chicago Porter, K. E. (n.d.). The Availability of Primary Copper in Market Economy Countries. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Excerpt
ABSTRACT: The U.S. Bureau of Mines has estimated the potential availab'ity of copper from 204 mines and deposits in market economy couhtries (MEC's). The evaluated properties have demonstrated resources totaling 436.4 million metric tons of contained copper and account for 90% of the Bureau of Mimes reserve base for copper in market economy countries. Total recoverable MEC copper resources are 340.8 million metric tons, 69% of which is from producing mines and 31% from nonproducing mines and deposits. Chile had the lowest estimated average total cost from producing mines of W.48 per pound of recoverable copper at a 0% discounted cash-flow rate of return (DCFROR), with estimated average totd costs ranging from $0.40 to $0.81 per pound. The estimated average total cost of production, per pound of copper, for producing mines in the United States amounts to $0.57 in January 1988 dollars at a Wo DCFROR, with estimated total costs ranging from $0.36 to $0.85 per pound. In both real and nominal terms, the United States has, on average, significantly lowered its copper production costs since 1981. Rationalization of the industry and significant increases in productivity have made a strong improvement in the competitiveness of the U.S. copper industry to the extent that the United States should no longer be considered as a marginal producer of copper.

Table of Contents
CONTENTS Abstract. I Introduction....................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments., .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . 2 World copper production .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Reserves/ resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Methodologies and cost evaluation 5 Capital costs to develop nonproducing deposits................................................. 14 Operating costs 15 Nominal versus real operating costs for copper................................................. 17 Mining, milling, and G&Acosts, on a per ton of ore basis . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. 18 Total production costs and copper availability.................................................... 20 Planned expansions and'estiniated copper production .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . 23 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 References 26 Appendix Al Cost reduction measurestaken by the copper industry during the 1980's........................ Al Labor costs and training........................................................................ Al In-pit crushers and conveyors................................................................... Al Eliminaterailroad system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al Steepen pit slopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Larger equipment units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Rebuildingversus replacing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Trolley-assisted haul trucks..................................................................... A2 Increased leachingof wastedumps A2 Heap leachingof low-grade.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 In situ leaching A3 SX-EW plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 Column flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4 SAG mills '.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4 Automation A4 Decliningore grades. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . A5 Byproductcredits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6