Finite Resources: The Arguments


There are basically two arguments regarding "finite resources".
Argument 1

We have sufficient mineral resources to last until such time that we have developed alternative technologies/materials that will take over the jobs of the current mineral resources. Thus there is no great need to be concerned. 		Argument 2

Mineral resources will become scarce within the next 50 years. We must endeavour now to re-cycle and reduce our use, particularly in the developed countries now!

i.e. The rich must live more simply so that the poor may simply live.


Argument 1
The arguments are based around the fact that we have
  1. Not identified all of the current resources accurately
  2. Mineral extraction tends to be governed by a number of issues not least, economics and technology availability/development. Therefore scarcity may be an illusion in certain situations, brought about by other factors such as political influence and financial manipulation.
Governments may limit exports to influence foreign policy, or subsidise prices to discourage competition and increase foreign exchange. In addition prices fluctuate with costs of labour, materials, property, and pollution controls.

The Table below shows the average selling prices of some common metals in dollars per tonne compared with estimated concentrations in the surface layer of the earth. Aluminium you will notice appears expensive since it is relatively abundant, however it is extremely energy intensive to extract and the workable grades require 30% aluminium.

Table 3

Metal
Price ($)
Content (wt%)

Workable grade (%)
Al
1254
8.23
30
Fe
 
5.63
25
Mn
 
0.1
15
Cr
 
0.096
15
Zn
1240
0.007
4
Ni
70002
0.007
1
Cu
2205
0.0055
0.4
Pb
522
0.0013
4
Sn
6107
0.0002
0.5
W
 
0.0001
1.35
Ag
1.20E+05
7E-07
0.01
Pt
1.11E+07
4E-07
0.0001
Au
1.08E+07
2E-07
0.0008


The supporters of argument 1 accept that resources are finite but believe thereare considerably more minerals available and that the technologies will be found to recover/re-cycle the materials we need. For those materials where this is difficult new materials will be manufactured which can also be re-used or re-cycled, and we will be able to sustain current development and standard of living.

Argument 2
The supporters of this view argue that;

  • The accuracy of estimating mineral resource availability is improving regardless of political or financial influences.
  • Although there are geochemically abundant minerals (iron, aluminium, titanium, magnesium and silicon) it is unlikely that all the world's people could have the per capita quantities of these items that people in rich countries have, (due mainly to the energy costs). For example; to produce the annual American per capita steel consumption already takes as much energy as the poorest half of the world's people use for all purposes.

Table 4 illustrates some of the estimates of metal resource availability based on the following assumptions :-

  1. 10% of the mineral deposits in the top 4.6 km of the earth's crust a) will be found, b) will be accessible c) will have ore rich enough to mine and d) will be big enough to warrant building a mine at the site
  2. 11 billion people use them at the per capita rate of the current developed countries.

Table 4

Metal

Amount in ore deposits (billion tonnes)

Annual use for 11 billion people at present developed world per capita use
(million tonnes)

Resource lifetime (Assuming 10% of deposits accessible)

Copper

9.6

109

9 years

Gold

0.0007

0.007

10 years

Lead

2.5

65

4 years

Nickel

11.6

10.6

109 years

Silver

0.012

0.273

4 years

Tin

0.3

3.8

8 years

Zinc

15.4

60

26 years


These estimates assume of course that 11 billion people instantly begin to use these resources and that other methods of extraction will not be found that makes the various processes more economically viable.

Since both arguments accept that resources are finite, strategies for preventing the extinction of a mineral resource will be required, whether now or at some point in several hundred years time.