- Email: [email protected]
Valorization of undeveloped industrial rock deposits in Poland
Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol
Valorization of undeveloped industrial rock deposits in Poland Barbara Radwanek-Bąk a, Marek Nieć b a b
Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Oddział Karpacki, ul. Skrzatów 1, 31-560 Kraków, Poland Mineral Economy and Energy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Science, ul. Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Kraków, Poland
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 27 May 2015 Received in revised form 6 July 2015 Accepted 6 July 2015 Available online 25 July 2015
Mineral deposit attributes are: renewability specific location controlled by geology, and the important role of meeting the needs of society. Their resources should be therefore rationally used. It requires in particular safeguarding access to deposits areas. The way to indicate the valuable deposits to protect them seems to be their valuation, using uniform criteria. The authors present a simple method of mineral deposits value ranking. It consists of deposits ranking value in four, separate domains: quality and size (resources) of deposit, as a main domain, mining conditions, environmental conditions, and land-use planning restrictions. Size of deposit and mineral (rock) quality parameters were defined for each kind of mineral commodity. Mining conditions were described by the degree of exploitation difficulties and the possibility to deliver the raw material to customers. Both environmental and land-use planning domains indicate some limits related to nature protection, housing and industrial building. Within each of four domains of evaluation 3 categories were distinguished, allowing for the specification of each deposit through a four letter symbol. The presented method was applied on yet undeveloped industrial mineral and rock deposits in Poland. These results are presented and discussed in the article. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Four domain multi-criteria valorization Industrial minerals Mineral deposits protection
1. Introduction Mineral deposits are a specific element of the natural environment. Their exploitation is indispensable to the satisfaction of basic needs of contemporary societies because over 80–90% of materials and goods used in everyday life are made of raw mineral materials. Bearing in mind that mineral deposits are non-renewable, with a few exceptions (e.g. gravel deposits in river valleys), they deserve careful protection to ensure their availability in the future. Their protection and reasonable exploitation are indispensable requests, resulting from sustainable development principles, as well as fundamentals of the multigenerational justice concept. One of most important aspects of mineral deposit protection is allowing for their accessibility in current and future exploitation. This means that the land (area) where mineral deposits occur has to be safeguarded for mining activity. It raises several land-use conflicts: between mining- and housing, road infrastructure, nature protection, forestry, agriculture, as well as social expectations. Problems of this type occur in all countries and for their solution various methods are used (SMARA, 1975; Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2005; Badera, 2010; Beeby, 1998; Nieć and Myszka, 2000; E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Radwanek-Bąk), [email protected] (M. Nieć). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.07.001 0301-4207/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Radwanek-Bąk, 2006, 2008; Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk 2010; Tiess, 2010, 2011; Weber, 2012; Wexler, 1996; Wringhton et al., 2014). All of them must take into account the principles of sustainable development and a need for compromise needed in the use of space (Shields and Šolar, 2004; Minerals Planning Policies and Supply Practices in Europe 2004; Baker et al. 2005; Villas Boas et al., 2005; Radwanek-Bąk, 2005; Wagner and Tiess, 2008; Improving framework conditions for extracting minerals for the EU. 2010; Solar and Shields, 2011; Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk, 2014). One of the ways to achieve this compromise between spatial land use planning and protection of mineral deposits is the valorization of mineral deposits, indispensible for safeguarding the most valuable ones against sterilization. It refers in particular to industrial minerals and rocks which, due to their open-pit exploitation, generate the most conflict. Such valorization is the aim of this study. The performed valorization is focused on explored deposits with identified (inferred or indicated) resources that till now were not designed for mining. Due to their real economic value not yet being defined, the proposed valorization is a kind of qualitative evaluation under which geological and mining attractiveness of deposits, as well as environmental and planning constraints for their usage, were considered. It is based on ranking deposits according to a selected set of criteria and was applied to a wide group of industrial minerals and rocks in Poland and was performed on a country-wide scale.
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
291
Fig. 1. Distribution of industrial rock deposits in Poland (generalized acc. E. Pietrzyk-Sokulska et al., in print);
2. Industrial mineral and rock deposits in Poland – an overview Poland is a country with considerable and diversified industrial mineral and rock resources, with long mining traditions dating back to prehistoric times. The oldest evidence of using mineral resources is related to the making of stone tools, extraction of clay for ceramics production, use of natural pigments (e.g. hematitebased ones), and use of rock materials for construction and building. At present, the Polish Mineral Resources Register lists about 12,0001 identified deposits of minerals and various industrial rocks (natural aggregates, dimension and crushed stones, ceramic clays, silica sands, gypsum and anhydrite, industrial dolomites, limestone for lime and cement industry, and several others). Among them, 7378 are not yet exploited. These deposits are of varying size (both resources and the area of occurrence). Their resources vary from a few thousand to over one hundred million tons and the area of occurrence from a few to several hundred hectares (Register of mineral resources in Poland as of et al. December 2014). Industrial minerals and rocks occur mainly in southern Poland (Fig. 1). The most important region where their presence is recorded is Lower Silesia (Lower Silesian and Opole Districts-Voivodships), situated in the south-western part of Poland where about 52% of dimension and crushed stones resources are located. Numerous deposits of basalt granites, melaphyres, porphyres and 1
The number of registered deposits varies in time.
keratophyres, gabbros and syenite, as well as metamorphic rocks (amphibolites, gneisses, quarzites, hornfelses, serpentinite, marbl and schists deposits) occur here, as well as significant deposits of sedimentary rocks (limestones, sandstones, kaolin, ceramic and brick clays). In the Odra river basin numerous important natural gravel–sandy aggregate deposits occur. The Upper Silesia (Silesian District), situated in the southern part of Poland, is a highly industrialized region of traditional intensive underground hard coal and zinc–lead mining activity. It is rich in several industrial rocks: dimension and crushed sandstones, dolomites, limestones, brick clays, natural aggregates, ordinary and foundry sand. The Holy Cross Mts region (Holy Cross District), located in the southern part of middle Poland, was a cradle of Polish mining which dates back to prehistoric times. There, in Opatów village in the vicinity of Ostrowiec town (Kamienna river valley), the important Neolithic underground flint mines were located. Recently, this unique flint with a white and black ribbon design has become valuable jewellery. The region is rich in varied industrial rocks: limestone and marl for the lime and cement industry, dolomites, limestones, sandstones as dimension and crushed stones, gypsum, ceramic clays, and silica-glass sands have been found there and numerous deposits are demonstrated. The Carpathian Region (Małopolskie and Podkarpackie Districts), in the south and south-eastern part of Poland, is rich in sandstone deposits as well as several good quality natural (gravel– sandy) aggregates located along many river valleys (the Vistula and almost all mountain river valleys). They are an important source of sand and gravel and have been intensively exploited for
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
292
Table 1 Dimension stones evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
Rock quality
410 10–2 o2
H H M
Suitable for production of big blocks 41.5 m3 or o medium size blocks (1.5 1.0 m3) Suitable for medium and small size blocks,1.5–0.5 m3 Suitable of decorative value without decorative value or small blocks ( o 0.5 m3) of for small blocks decorative stones ( o 0.5 m3) without decorative value M M M
M M M
Table 2 Limestone and marls for lime and cement industry evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
Rock quality Pure limestone ( 450 % CaO, r 2% Marls and marly limestones (42–50% CaO; r 2.5% MgO ) for MgO, o 2% SiO2, o 0.5% Fe2O3) cement production if nearby located deposits of corrective supplements occurs
Not for lime and cement industry but only for road and building materials
470
H
H
Valorization as a crushed stones production
70–20 o20
H M
M C
Table 4 Crushed stone evaluation criteria.
Table 3 Dolomite evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
410 10–1 ol
Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
Rock quality 419% MgO, o 1.5% Fe2O3, o 1% SiO2
416% MgO, o3.0% SiO2, o6.5% Fe2O3
Other
H M M
M M M
Valorization as a crushed stones
many years. The majority of them is, however, located inside the NATURA 2000 net or in the ecological corridors that restrains their development. In the central and northern part of Poland dozens of natural aggregate (sand and gravel) deposits of glacial or postglacial origin are as well as important brick clay deposits are located. Important marly– chalk deposits occur in the Lublin region, forming the base for the cement industry. It is also worth it to notice the additional occurrence of amber deposits supplying jewelry since antiquity.
3. Review of methods used in the assessment of mineral deposits Methods commonly used for the assessment of mineral deposits refer to their economic value and the deposits are treated either as objects of purchase and sale or as objects of investment associated with deposit exploitation. If the evaluation, however, refers to a general valorization of the deposits as components of the natural environment and as objects of potential future exploitation but without yet defining its scale and scope, to which an economic evaluation methods cannot be applied.
Rock quality
420 20–5 o5
4 50% for I class aggregate
Mainly for II class aggregate
Other
M M C
M C C
C C C
Table 5 Gypsum and anhydrite evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
410 10–1 o1
Rock quality Gypsum – 480% CaSO4 2H2O Anhydrite 460% CaSO4%
Other
H M M
M M M
Table 6 Natural aggregate (gravel and sand) evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
420 20–5 o5
Rock quality Sand (below 2.0 mm grain size) content, below 50%
Sand (below 2.0 mm grain size) content 50– 75%
Sand (below 2.0 mm grain size) content over 75 %
M M C
M C C
see sands
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298 Table 7 Sands evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (mln t)
410 10–1 o1
Rock quality Silica (quartz) sands
Common sands
495% SiO2 (quartz grains), o0.1% Fe2O3 in washed sand
4 85% quartz grains, o 5% finegrained (silt-clay, below 0.064 mm grain size)
10–25% gravel in gravel deficient regions*
up to 25% gravel
H M C
M M C
M M C
C C C
Central Poland
Difficulties in defining uniform rules for quantitative mineral deposit valorization, which has to take into account many noncomparable features of the deposits, resulted in seeking simpler methods of valorization e.g. through point bonitation and ranking. In such an approach selected features of a given mineral deposit are assigned by particular rating. Based on a total sum, or a product of bonitation points, the deposits are ordered on a ranking list. The starting point for such valorization is the identification and selection of its criteria. The main criteria, which decides upon the advantage of deposit exploitation are: their geologic settings, mineral (rock) quality as a raw material commodity, and expected mining conditions (Fettwies, 1979). The value of a mineral deposit is also dependent on the factors controlling the deposit accessibility, i.e. restraint by environment protection exigencies and existing land utilization. The appropriate criteria can be grouped as follows: 1. Natural deposit features: identified deposit resources, type and quality of mineral commodity and geologic factors of mining as e.g. depth of deposit location 2. Deposit accessibility, defined by existing transportation routes and travel-distance to customers 3. Environmental restrictions imposed by nature protection regulations and/or negative mining impact to the natural environment 4. Spatial planning and land-use factors: the mode of land utilization and build up over the area of mineral deposit occurrence; 5. Social and political factors: NIMBY effect – scale of societal appreciation and legal-political conditioning. Due to variety of criteria for the deposit evaluation and lack of their uniform, quantitative measures, various ranking models were proposed. The first one, made by W.J. Krasnikow (Kreiter, 1960), was based on scoring on a 3-grade scale (0,1,2) assigned to basic
293
features of the deposit: identified resources, quality of raw material, geologic and geographic conditions of exploitation and landuse of the area of the deposit occurrence. The scores that were assigned to particular properties were summed up which allowed the total score to compare deposits which were graded from 0 to 10. Valorization of the deposits by their ranking, although methodologically simple, generates a series of difficulties if the number of criteria increases and if the roles of particular criteria adopted for evaluation differ. Therefore, the criteria are also assigned certain weighting indices which are used as multipliers. Such weights, determined using an expert method, depend on the valorization purpose. More recent proposals for valorization that consider a larger number of deposit features were presented in Poland for the lignite (Piwocki and Kasiński 1993; Kasiński et al., 2006) and industrial rocks deposits (Bromowicz et al., 2003, 2004; RadwanekBąk, 2002, 2005, 2006; Nieć and Radwanek-Bak, 2011; Nieć, 2013). These proposals provide criteria for the deposit evaluation divided in particular groups. Each group is assigned a given weight (aj) while each feature is assigned a certain score (pi). Summarized products of pi and aj locate the deposit on the ranking list. The discussed methods for the deposit evaluation differ with respect to weighting particular criteria depending on the type of mineral commodity. When considering some deposits on the regional or local scale, some criteria lose their importance in relation to their insignificant differentiation. As a consequence, local scale evaluation assessment may be different from that used in a countryscale. Attempts to valorize the deposits presented above indicate difficulties in this domain and lead to the following conclusions: 1. Evaluation based on numerous criteria of non-equivalent importance leads to complexity of ranking procedures. 2. A wide variety of factors controlling deposit values hinders formation of a uniform valorization system. Therefore, the formation of a relatively simple ranking system, which could be applied to all the raw material deposits, should be a challenge.
4. Proposed principles of valorization of industrial mineral and rock deposits 4.1. General principles The proposed valorization system of industrial mineral and rock deposits is based on 4 main groups of criteria: raw material type and resources, mining, environmental and land use conditions. Important are also societal criteria of mineral resources utilization acceptance. However due to their changes over time and the impossibility of precise quantification they were not
Table 8 Kaolin and ceramic clays. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
45 1–5 o1
Rock quality Ball clays (white-firing), bending Kaolin, o1.2% Fe2O3, whiteness over 75% after strength (dry) over 2 MPa, whiteness over 70% and water absorption over 6% burning in 1350 °C after burning in 1200 °C
Refractory clays, 423%, Al2O3, o 3.2% Fe2O3, refractoriness over 1650 °C
Stoneware clays, below| 15% of fine grains (below 0.06 mm), water absorption over 6% after burning in 1200 °C:
Other
H H M
H M C
M M C
See brick clays
H H M
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
294
Table 9 Brick clays (for building ceramics). Size of deposit (resources) (Mm3)
Rock (clay) quality
45 1–5 o1
Clays for light weight aggregate production, over 40% grains below 0.01 mm, swelling index 42.5
Common clays (for roofing tiles) drying shrinkage over 8%, marl grains content below 0.05%
Common clays (for drain tiles, conduite pottery etc.) drying shrinkage over 7%, marl grains content below 0.1%
Other common (brick) clays
M M C
M M C
M C C
C C C
Table 10 Overburden conditions. stripping ratio (O/D) Thickness of the overburden [m]
o0.5 0.5–1 41
o 2 2–8
48 or o8 if build of very hard rock (blasting is needed)
1 2 3
3 3 3
2 2 3
considered. Taking into account the incomparability of evaluation of particular factors which stand behind the value of the deposits, the authors propose independent valorization and ranking for each of the criteria groups indicated above (Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk 2014) based on a 3-grade rating designed by respective letters: high, very good, the best (H), medium, good, fair of conditional (M) and mediocre, common2 (C) In view of such valorization, each deposit can be described using 4 symbols successively which represent
materials (e.g. dimension and road stones, limestones, dolomites, gypsum etc.). The proposed criteria allow for the evaluation of raw material and resources value and can be used to indicate the potential economic importance of the deposits. They provide the basis for prioritization of the deposits in the adopted 3-grade scale rating as follows: H – high value-nationally-important deposits (most valuable deposits of raw materials), M – medium value-regionally important deposits (deposits of valuable raw materials) C – common-locally important deposits (all other deposits) The above ranking corresponds to spatial planning levels: governmental, regional and local. The distinguished categories are assigned the differentiated requirements related to the deposit protection for possible future mining activity. In the Tables 1–9 examples of the detail scoring for some industrial rocks in Poland were shown. Full data was presented by Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk (2011, 2014).
Table 11 Geological setting and water flooding of the deposit. Geological structure of deposit
Simple (thick deposit tectonically not disturbed or only slightly disturbed, easy for exploitation) Complex (deposit of small or variable thickness and varied mineral quality, tectonically disturbed, exploitation may be difficult) Very complex of variable structure thickness and mineral quality, faulted, folded, discontinuous, difficult for mining
Water flooding (expected during exploitation) Dry pit or underwater exploitation
Deep pit with only rain water flooding
Deep pit with water flooding from aquifers
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
evaluation of the deposit value based on the 4 groups of criteria discussed above: For example: HHMC designates the deposit as being of the highest value in respect to its resources and mineral quality, favorable for mining, without oppressive environmental restraints but with some limitations imposed by existing land utilization. 4.2. Criteria related to raw material quality and quantity The following criteria have been adopted: 1. Volume of identified resources (indicated or inferred) 2. Quality of mineral commodity (industrial mineral or rock) The criteria are defined individually for particular types of raw 2
N, W and Z respectively in Polish language
4.3. Mining and supply criteria Mining criteria are twofold. They define difficulties associated with eventual exploitation and the ability to supply a given commodity to consumers. In the case of deposits designed for surface (open cast) mining, the scale of difficulties is determined by: 1. Thickness of overburden; 2. Stripping ratio (ratio of overburden thickness (O) to deposit thickness (D), i.e. (O/D)); 3. Water-flooding of the deposit; 4. Complexity of geologic setting. Ability to supply the raw material commodity to the consumers depends on: 1. Distance to a road network, 2. Distance to potential delivery points.
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
295
Table 12 Location of the deposit in respect to access routes and distance to potential delivery points. Transport availability
Raw materials consumers
Favorable, 10 km to main roads Limited, distance to main roads 410 km Lack of local roads
Far (sand and gravel 50–100 km, crushed stones 100– Close to deposit (sand and gravel o 50 km, crushed stones o 100 km, common clays o 2 km, limestone and marls o5 km, 200 km, common clays 2–5 km, limestone and marls 5– 10 km, other without limits) other without limit)
Very far or lack
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Table 13 Summary of mining criteria evaluation.
Table 16 Summary valorization of environmental criteria.
Scoring system
Scoring system
Total sum of points (Tables 6–8) Deposit rating
Total sum of points
Deposit rating
3–4 5–6 7–8 9
2–3 4–5 6
H M C
H M C X
Table 14 Nature, landscape and underground water protection (beyond National Parks). Underground waters protection
Nature and landscape protection
Non Utility aquifer Main underground water reservoir (rich aquifer with high quality potable water)
Non Areas of landscape protection or areas located by the Nature 2000 borders
Landscape Parks or areas inside Nature 2000 net
1 2 3
3 3 3
2 2 3
No o30% 30–90% 490% n
The second stage comprises the division of deposits into 4 categories of mining attractiveness: H (best), M (fair), C (low), X (unsatisfactory) based on the total score (summed point values) obtained in the first stage. The proposed mining-related valorization scheme is presented in Tables 10–13 4.4. Environmental criteria
Table 15 Soil and forest protection. Forest protection (% of deposit area covered by forest)
setting, 3. Distance to a road network and distance to potential delivery points.
Soil protection (% of deposit area covered by fertile soil) Soil classn IV– VI (low fertility)
Soil classn I–III (fertile) o 30 %
Soil classn I–III (fertile) 430%
1 2 3 6
2 2 3
3 3 3
According to the polish soil fertility classification system.
Because of the relatively numerous criteria that have been selected, the authors suggest valorizing mining conditions in two stages. The first stage comprises a 3-grade rating from 1 (the best) to 3 (the worst) applied to pair-wise analyzed criteria: 1. Overburden and O/D, 2. Water-flooding of the deposit and complexity of geologic
Basic restrictions to the accessibility of the deposits due to environment protection exigencies are related to nature and landscape protection, to protection of usable ground water resources, and to soil and forest protection. Combining these factors in pairs and using the 3-grade rating (1 – minor restrictions to 3 – serious restrictions) provides the total scores which leads to assigning one of 3° of the deposit environmental accessibility: H – highest, M – conditional, and C – restricted. The proposed valorization scheme is presented in Tables 14–16. 4.5. Housing and industrial land use criteria In the case of land-use, the only simple criterion was the degree of built-up development on the ground overlying the deposit. Four classes of accessibility to the deposits are distinguished: 1. 2. 3. 4.
High accessibility (H) if terrain built-up to 10%; Medium accessibility (M) if terrain built-up from 11 to 30%, Restricted accessibility (C) if terrain built-up from 31 to 90% And no accessibility (X) if terrain built-up in over 90%.
5. The valorization procedure Based on the adopted criteria the explored, but not yet designed for mining, deposits of industrial minerals and rocks in Poland have been valorized. The valorization was performed in 2 stages. In the first stage, a subgroup of the most valuable and highly valuable deposits were selected out of over 7378 deposits
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
296
Fig. 2. Distribution of the most valuable industrial rock deposits in Lower Silesian (A) and Podlasie (B) voivodships (Nieć, 2013). Table 17 Regional distribution of significant (H and M class) industrial rock deposits in Poland. Regionn
Total Valorized deposits H þM class
A – West 923 164 B – South 1787 219 C – Central 3170 162 D – North 1498 93 Total 7378 638
Hþ M class(%)
H class H class % M class M class %
17.7 12.2 5.1 6.2 8.6
40 58 27 1 126
4.3 3.2 0.8 0.06 1.75
124 161 135 92 512
13.4 9.0 4.2 6.1 6.9
n A – Lubuskie, Dolnośląskie and Opolskie Voivodships, B – Śląskie, Małopolskie, Podkarpackie and Świętokrzyskie Voivodships, C – Lubelskie, Mazowieckie, Łódzkie, Wielkopolskie and Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodships, D – Podlaskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie and Zachodniopomorskie Voivodships.
development and nature protection requirements. Such deposits should be subject for discussion between planners, local authorities, with the aim to achieve a compromise that would facilitate protection of mineral resources. It allows for the selection of the most valuable deposits which should be protected before others. The data referring to particular properties of the deposits and minerals/raw materials, originated from geologic reports. Environmental and land use conditions for these deposits were verified with reference to nature-protected areas and current land-use spatial plans for particular municipalities. The data was compiled from forms designed for that purpose, loaded to a database developed under Access software and verified following the adopted criteria (Bednarz et al., 2013).
6. Valorization results (5494 sand and gravel included), which were listed in the national register of mineral resources. The selected deposits were considered the most worth protecting. Due to that, they were subjected to further detailed valorization according to the mining, environmental and land use criteria. It allows to indicate the deposits to which serious restrictions apply due to built-up
Realized valorization of explored but as of yet undeveloped deposits of industrial minerals and rocks in Poland has demonstrated that deposits characterized by valuable resources and mineral (rock) quality (H and M classes) make up only a small percentage of the total of all deposits analyzed. Out of the total of
Table 18 Regional distribution of significant (H and M class) industrial rock deposits in Poland by type of raw material. Type of raw material
Dimension and crushed stones Limestones and marls (lime and cement industry) Industrial dolomite Gypsum and anhydrite Silica sands Ceramic and brick clays Natural aggregates (sand and gravel) Other
H class/M class deposits in regions
Total H class/M class
A – West
B – South
C – Central
D – North
14/45 3/1 2/0 0/1 3/8 16/9 0/46 2/14
19/33 34/11 1/8 4/4 0/12 0/32 0/59 0/2
0/8 20/3 0/0 0/1 4/24 1/24 0/66 2/9
0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/15 0/10 0/66 0/1
33/86 57/15 3/8 4/6 8/59 17/75 0/237 4/26
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
7378, only 126 were ranked as of the highest (H) and 512 as high (M) value. It is 1.75 and 6,9% of all yet undeveloped deposits respectively. These 2 classes of deposits should be protected in landuse planning as future objects of mining activity. Spatial distribution of these deposits within the country is irregular following varied geology (Fig. 2). The most valuable deposits (H) occur in the southern (58 deposits) and western (40 deposits) parts of the country (Table 17). These are mainly deposits of dimension stones, as well as of carbonate rocks for the lime and cement industry. Deposits of ceramic clays i.e. kaolin and white-burnt (ball) clays (Table 18) are represented in smaller numbers. Aggregate deposits predominate among those evaluated as valuable mineral deposits (M). They amount to almost a half of all the deposits valorized in this class of mineral raw materials. There are some kinds of good quality crushed stones in this group too. Valorization of mining attractiveness shows that mining conditions of the valorized deposits are harsh, in most cases, and difficult only in some instances. The factors which hinder exploitation of the deposits usually are: overburden thickness and limited transportation accessibility or sometimes lack of closely located consumers of a commodity. The mining criteria are auxiliary and do not differentiate the deposits considerably. Requirements of nature protection or spatial planning impose severe restrictions on possible deposit utilization. There are only a few deposits free of them; in the whole country there are only 88 such deposits, including 45 of the natural sandy-gravel aggregates. The deposits whose usage slightly hinders environmental and land use conditions are also non-numerous. There are 188 such deposits with 29 assigned N with respect to mineral/ raw material criteria. Therefore, it is concluded that the deposits of the highest and high mineral/raw material values (H and M class) should be protected in land-use planning as future objects of mining activity. The access to such deposits must be guaranteed. The deposits of the highest mineral/raw material values (Hclass) are important on a country scale. These are the deposits of rocks used for the lime and cement industry, dimension stones, high-quality crushed stones and highest quality ceramic clays. Their protection should be considered on the level of the countryscale spatial planning. The deposits of the high mineral/raw material value (M-class) are mainly of regional importance. Their protection should be considered at provincial (voivodeship) level of spatial planning. In the case of very numerous common deposits of lower importance, their protection and accessibility might be considered and mitigated in the frame of local spatial planning, as these deposits are the sources of commodities for local societies. Moreover, their exploitation is job-creating and stimulates the local economy. Access to mineral deposits needs some legal spatial-planning regulations. The recent achievements in environment protection by mining companies (Pietrzyk-Sokulska et al., in print) allows for the mitigation of social aversion to mining as damaging dramatically environment. The increased awareness of mining as a source of mineral raw material indispensable to everyday life would help this task. The main purpose of the presented proposal was to find a satisfactory and simple way for allowing a preliminary assessment and comparison of undeveloped mineral deposits, for their protection and maintenance of availability for future exploitation. The valorization criteria like size and quality of deposit, mining possibilities, nature protection and land use exigencies have been adapted to the Polish conditions, but they can easily be transformed to the European level, giving the opportunity to solve this growing problem of sustainable management of mineral resources.
297
7. Conclusions The proposed valorization of industrial mineral and rock deposits may be a useful tool for selecting those of them which merit special attention as possible future sources of appropriate rock raw materials. The safeguarding measures against their sterilization may be defined and put in operation appropriate to the deposit value at country, regional or local levels. Valorization of deposits may be the first step to select those of public importance in the framework of country or local mineral policy.
References Badera, J., 2010. Social conflicts on the Environmental backgrounds related to development of mineral deposits in Poland (in Polish with English summary). Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi –Min. Resour. Manag. 26 (1), 105–125. Baker, D., Hendy, B., 2005. Planning for sustainable construction aggregate resource in Australia. In: Sidwell, A. Ch. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference, 4–5 July 2005. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Queensland. Available online at: 〈http://eprints.qut.edu.au/25674/1/c25674.pdf〉 (accessed 11.03.14). Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2005. Details for Planning Application. Bednarz, A., Borowicz, A., Duczmal, M., Nowacka, A., Specylak-Skrzypecka J., Ślusarczyk G, 2013. Budowa i procedury baz danych złóz surowców skalnych dla systemu geoinformacji. Poltegor Instytut. Wroclaw. Beeby, D., 1998. Successful integration of aggregate data in land-use planning: a California case study, Aggregate Resources: A Global Perspective. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 27–50. Bromowicz, J., Figarska-Warchoł, B., Karwacki, A., et al., 2003. Główne kryteria waloryzacji złóż kamieni budowlanych i drogowych. Prace Nauk. Inst. Górnictwa Politechniki Wrocławskiej 104 Konf 37; , pp. 3–14. Bromowicz, J., Figarska-Warchoł, B., Karwacki, A., et al., 2004. Waloryzacja złóż kamieni budowlanych i drogowych z różnych punktów widzenia. Prace Nauk. Inst. Górnictwa Politechniki Wrocławskiej 108 Konf 40; , pp. 3–11. Fettweis, G.B., 1979. World coal resources – methods of assessment and results. Elsevier, S.P.C, Amsterdam. Improving framework conditions for extracting minerals for the EU., 2010. Exchanging best practice on land use planning, permitting and geological knowledge sharing, European Commission. Enterprise and Industry Directorate General, p. 59. Kasiński, J., Mazurek, S., Piwocki, M., 2006. Valorization and ranking of lignite deposits in Poland (in Polish with English summary). Prace PIG CLXXXVII1, Warszawa. Kreiter, W.M., 1960. Poiski i razwiedka mestorożdenij poleznych iskopajemych. Gesgeołtechizdat, Moskwa. Minerals Planning Policies and Supply Practices in Europe, 2004. University of Leoben, Austria. Waloryzacja niezagospodarowanych złóż kopalin skalnych w Polsce. 201. Poltegor Instytut, Kraków-Wrocław, Poland. Nieć, M., Myszka, R., 2000. Prognozowanie, dokumentowanie i ochrona złóż w warunkach gospodarki rynkowej. Górn. Odkryw. 42 (2–3), 1–23. Nieć, M., Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2011. Ranking value of industrial rocks deposits. (in Polish, with English abstract) 52, 5–15. Nieć, M., Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2010. Recent and future utilization of mineral deposits in Poland and threats to security of mineral raw material supply. Proceedings of Aachen International Mining Symposia 3. Mineral Resources and Mine Development. Aachen, 137–147. Nieć, M., Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2014. Ochrona i racjonalne wykorzystane złóż kopalin. Wyd IGSMiE AN, Kraków. Nieć, M. (Ed.) 2013. Waloryzacja niezagospodarowanych złóż kopalin skalnych w Polsce. Poltegor Instytut. Wrocław, Poland. p. 201. Pietrzyk-Sokulska, E., Uberman, R., Kulczycka, J. 2015. The impact of mining on the environment in Poland – myths and reality. Gosp. Sur. Min. Kraków, Poland (in press). Piwocki, M., Kasiński, J., 1993. Metoda ekonomiczno-sozologicznej waloryzacji złóż węgla brunatnego. Przegl. Geol. 35 (5), 346–359, Warszawa. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2002. Kryteria waloryzacji złóż kopalin skalnych dla ich ochrony. Górn. Odkryw 44 (2–3), 27–31. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2005. Management of rock Raw materials resources in the Polish Carpathians on sustainable development conditioning (in Polish with English summary). Prace PIG CLXXXIII Warszawa, 123. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2006. The concept of multi-criteria mineral resources protection. Environ. Geol. 52, 137–145. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2008. Accessibility of mineral deposits areas as a priori for their protection (in Polish with English summary). Górnictwo Odkrywkowe 47 (2–3), 19–24. Register of mineral resources in Poland as of PIG-PIB. Warszawa December 2014 469. SHIELDS, D.J., ŠOLAR, S.V., 2004. Sustainable mineral resources management and indicators: case study Slovenia. Geol. Surv. Slovenia, Ljubljana (83s).
298
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
SMARA, 1975. Surface mining and reclamation act of 1975. California Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology. Solar, S., Shields, D., 2011. The SARMA Project: enhancing sustainable aggregates resource management and supply in Southeast Europe. Proceedings of Aachen International Mining Symposia 3. Sustainable Development in the Minerals Industry. Aachen, 827–836. Tiess, G., 2010. Mineral policy in Europe: some recent developments. Resour. Policy 35, 190–198. Tiess, G., 2011. General and International Mineral Policy Focus: Europe. Springer, Wien, p. 620. A review of indicators for the sustainability for the Mineral Extraction Industries.
CETEM/MTC/CNPq/CYTED/IMPC. Ro de Janeiro 320. Wagner, H., Tiess, G., 2008. Minerals planning policies and supply practices in Europe, Proceedings of the 21st WMC&Expo. Taylor & Francis Group, London. Weber, L. (Hrsg), 2012. Der Osterreichische Rohstoff Plan. Archiv fur Lagerstättenforschung. Band 26. Wien. Wexler, M.N., 1996. A sociological framing of the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) syndrome. Int. Rev. Mod. Sociol. 26 (1), 90–110. Wringhton, C.E., Bee, E.J., Mankelow, J.M., 2014. The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom. Resour. Policy, 160–170.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol
Valorization of undeveloped industrial rock deposits in Poland Barbara Radwanek-Bąk a, Marek Nieć b a b
Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Oddział Karpacki, ul. Skrzatów 1, 31-560 Kraków, Poland Mineral Economy and Energy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Science, ul. Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Kraków, Poland
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 27 May 2015 Received in revised form 6 July 2015 Accepted 6 July 2015 Available online 25 July 2015
Mineral deposit attributes are: renewability specific location controlled by geology, and the important role of meeting the needs of society. Their resources should be therefore rationally used. It requires in particular safeguarding access to deposits areas. The way to indicate the valuable deposits to protect them seems to be their valuation, using uniform criteria. The authors present a simple method of mineral deposits value ranking. It consists of deposits ranking value in four, separate domains: quality and size (resources) of deposit, as a main domain, mining conditions, environmental conditions, and land-use planning restrictions. Size of deposit and mineral (rock) quality parameters were defined for each kind of mineral commodity. Mining conditions were described by the degree of exploitation difficulties and the possibility to deliver the raw material to customers. Both environmental and land-use planning domains indicate some limits related to nature protection, housing and industrial building. Within each of four domains of evaluation 3 categories were distinguished, allowing for the specification of each deposit through a four letter symbol. The presented method was applied on yet undeveloped industrial mineral and rock deposits in Poland. These results are presented and discussed in the article. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Four domain multi-criteria valorization Industrial minerals Mineral deposits protection
1. Introduction Mineral deposits are a specific element of the natural environment. Their exploitation is indispensable to the satisfaction of basic needs of contemporary societies because over 80–90% of materials and goods used in everyday life are made of raw mineral materials. Bearing in mind that mineral deposits are non-renewable, with a few exceptions (e.g. gravel deposits in river valleys), they deserve careful protection to ensure their availability in the future. Their protection and reasonable exploitation are indispensable requests, resulting from sustainable development principles, as well as fundamentals of the multigenerational justice concept. One of most important aspects of mineral deposit protection is allowing for their accessibility in current and future exploitation. This means that the land (area) where mineral deposits occur has to be safeguarded for mining activity. It raises several land-use conflicts: between mining- and housing, road infrastructure, nature protection, forestry, agriculture, as well as social expectations. Problems of this type occur in all countries and for their solution various methods are used (SMARA, 1975; Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2005; Badera, 2010; Beeby, 1998; Nieć and Myszka, 2000; E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Radwanek-Bąk), [email protected] (M. Nieć). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.07.001 0301-4207/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Radwanek-Bąk, 2006, 2008; Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk 2010; Tiess, 2010, 2011; Weber, 2012; Wexler, 1996; Wringhton et al., 2014). All of them must take into account the principles of sustainable development and a need for compromise needed in the use of space (Shields and Šolar, 2004; Minerals Planning Policies and Supply Practices in Europe 2004; Baker et al. 2005; Villas Boas et al., 2005; Radwanek-Bąk, 2005; Wagner and Tiess, 2008; Improving framework conditions for extracting minerals for the EU. 2010; Solar and Shields, 2011; Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk, 2014). One of the ways to achieve this compromise between spatial land use planning and protection of mineral deposits is the valorization of mineral deposits, indispensible for safeguarding the most valuable ones against sterilization. It refers in particular to industrial minerals and rocks which, due to their open-pit exploitation, generate the most conflict. Such valorization is the aim of this study. The performed valorization is focused on explored deposits with identified (inferred or indicated) resources that till now were not designed for mining. Due to their real economic value not yet being defined, the proposed valorization is a kind of qualitative evaluation under which geological and mining attractiveness of deposits, as well as environmental and planning constraints for their usage, were considered. It is based on ranking deposits according to a selected set of criteria and was applied to a wide group of industrial minerals and rocks in Poland and was performed on a country-wide scale.
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
291
Fig. 1. Distribution of industrial rock deposits in Poland (generalized acc. E. Pietrzyk-Sokulska et al., in print);
2. Industrial mineral and rock deposits in Poland – an overview Poland is a country with considerable and diversified industrial mineral and rock resources, with long mining traditions dating back to prehistoric times. The oldest evidence of using mineral resources is related to the making of stone tools, extraction of clay for ceramics production, use of natural pigments (e.g. hematitebased ones), and use of rock materials for construction and building. At present, the Polish Mineral Resources Register lists about 12,0001 identified deposits of minerals and various industrial rocks (natural aggregates, dimension and crushed stones, ceramic clays, silica sands, gypsum and anhydrite, industrial dolomites, limestone for lime and cement industry, and several others). Among them, 7378 are not yet exploited. These deposits are of varying size (both resources and the area of occurrence). Their resources vary from a few thousand to over one hundred million tons and the area of occurrence from a few to several hundred hectares (Register of mineral resources in Poland as of et al. December 2014). Industrial minerals and rocks occur mainly in southern Poland (Fig. 1). The most important region where their presence is recorded is Lower Silesia (Lower Silesian and Opole Districts-Voivodships), situated in the south-western part of Poland where about 52% of dimension and crushed stones resources are located. Numerous deposits of basalt granites, melaphyres, porphyres and 1
The number of registered deposits varies in time.
keratophyres, gabbros and syenite, as well as metamorphic rocks (amphibolites, gneisses, quarzites, hornfelses, serpentinite, marbl and schists deposits) occur here, as well as significant deposits of sedimentary rocks (limestones, sandstones, kaolin, ceramic and brick clays). In the Odra river basin numerous important natural gravel–sandy aggregate deposits occur. The Upper Silesia (Silesian District), situated in the southern part of Poland, is a highly industrialized region of traditional intensive underground hard coal and zinc–lead mining activity. It is rich in several industrial rocks: dimension and crushed sandstones, dolomites, limestones, brick clays, natural aggregates, ordinary and foundry sand. The Holy Cross Mts region (Holy Cross District), located in the southern part of middle Poland, was a cradle of Polish mining which dates back to prehistoric times. There, in Opatów village in the vicinity of Ostrowiec town (Kamienna river valley), the important Neolithic underground flint mines were located. Recently, this unique flint with a white and black ribbon design has become valuable jewellery. The region is rich in varied industrial rocks: limestone and marl for the lime and cement industry, dolomites, limestones, sandstones as dimension and crushed stones, gypsum, ceramic clays, and silica-glass sands have been found there and numerous deposits are demonstrated. The Carpathian Region (Małopolskie and Podkarpackie Districts), in the south and south-eastern part of Poland, is rich in sandstone deposits as well as several good quality natural (gravel– sandy) aggregates located along many river valleys (the Vistula and almost all mountain river valleys). They are an important source of sand and gravel and have been intensively exploited for
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
292
Table 1 Dimension stones evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
Rock quality
410 10–2 o2
H H M
Suitable for production of big blocks 41.5 m3 or o medium size blocks (1.5 1.0 m3) Suitable for medium and small size blocks,1.5–0.5 m3 Suitable of decorative value without decorative value or small blocks ( o 0.5 m3) of for small blocks decorative stones ( o 0.5 m3) without decorative value M M M
M M M
Table 2 Limestone and marls for lime and cement industry evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
Rock quality Pure limestone ( 450 % CaO, r 2% Marls and marly limestones (42–50% CaO; r 2.5% MgO ) for MgO, o 2% SiO2, o 0.5% Fe2O3) cement production if nearby located deposits of corrective supplements occurs
Not for lime and cement industry but only for road and building materials
470
H
H
Valorization as a crushed stones production
70–20 o20
H M
M C
Table 4 Crushed stone evaluation criteria.
Table 3 Dolomite evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
410 10–1 ol
Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
Rock quality 419% MgO, o 1.5% Fe2O3, o 1% SiO2
416% MgO, o3.0% SiO2, o6.5% Fe2O3
Other
H M M
M M M
Valorization as a crushed stones
many years. The majority of them is, however, located inside the NATURA 2000 net or in the ecological corridors that restrains their development. In the central and northern part of Poland dozens of natural aggregate (sand and gravel) deposits of glacial or postglacial origin are as well as important brick clay deposits are located. Important marly– chalk deposits occur in the Lublin region, forming the base for the cement industry. It is also worth it to notice the additional occurrence of amber deposits supplying jewelry since antiquity.
3. Review of methods used in the assessment of mineral deposits Methods commonly used for the assessment of mineral deposits refer to their economic value and the deposits are treated either as objects of purchase and sale or as objects of investment associated with deposit exploitation. If the evaluation, however, refers to a general valorization of the deposits as components of the natural environment and as objects of potential future exploitation but without yet defining its scale and scope, to which an economic evaluation methods cannot be applied.
Rock quality
420 20–5 o5
4 50% for I class aggregate
Mainly for II class aggregate
Other
M M C
M C C
C C C
Table 5 Gypsum and anhydrite evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
410 10–1 o1
Rock quality Gypsum – 480% CaSO4 2H2O Anhydrite 460% CaSO4%
Other
H M M
M M M
Table 6 Natural aggregate (gravel and sand) evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
420 20–5 o5
Rock quality Sand (below 2.0 mm grain size) content, below 50%
Sand (below 2.0 mm grain size) content 50– 75%
Sand (below 2.0 mm grain size) content over 75 %
M M C
M C C
see sands
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298 Table 7 Sands evaluation criteria. Size of deposit (resources) (mln t)
410 10–1 o1
Rock quality Silica (quartz) sands
Common sands
495% SiO2 (quartz grains), o0.1% Fe2O3 in washed sand
4 85% quartz grains, o 5% finegrained (silt-clay, below 0.064 mm grain size)
10–25% gravel in gravel deficient regions*
up to 25% gravel
H M C
M M C
M M C
C C C
Central Poland
Difficulties in defining uniform rules for quantitative mineral deposit valorization, which has to take into account many noncomparable features of the deposits, resulted in seeking simpler methods of valorization e.g. through point bonitation and ranking. In such an approach selected features of a given mineral deposit are assigned by particular rating. Based on a total sum, or a product of bonitation points, the deposits are ordered on a ranking list. The starting point for such valorization is the identification and selection of its criteria. The main criteria, which decides upon the advantage of deposit exploitation are: their geologic settings, mineral (rock) quality as a raw material commodity, and expected mining conditions (Fettwies, 1979). The value of a mineral deposit is also dependent on the factors controlling the deposit accessibility, i.e. restraint by environment protection exigencies and existing land utilization. The appropriate criteria can be grouped as follows: 1. Natural deposit features: identified deposit resources, type and quality of mineral commodity and geologic factors of mining as e.g. depth of deposit location 2. Deposit accessibility, defined by existing transportation routes and travel-distance to customers 3. Environmental restrictions imposed by nature protection regulations and/or negative mining impact to the natural environment 4. Spatial planning and land-use factors: the mode of land utilization and build up over the area of mineral deposit occurrence; 5. Social and political factors: NIMBY effect – scale of societal appreciation and legal-political conditioning. Due to variety of criteria for the deposit evaluation and lack of their uniform, quantitative measures, various ranking models were proposed. The first one, made by W.J. Krasnikow (Kreiter, 1960), was based on scoring on a 3-grade scale (0,1,2) assigned to basic
293
features of the deposit: identified resources, quality of raw material, geologic and geographic conditions of exploitation and landuse of the area of the deposit occurrence. The scores that were assigned to particular properties were summed up which allowed the total score to compare deposits which were graded from 0 to 10. Valorization of the deposits by their ranking, although methodologically simple, generates a series of difficulties if the number of criteria increases and if the roles of particular criteria adopted for evaluation differ. Therefore, the criteria are also assigned certain weighting indices which are used as multipliers. Such weights, determined using an expert method, depend on the valorization purpose. More recent proposals for valorization that consider a larger number of deposit features were presented in Poland for the lignite (Piwocki and Kasiński 1993; Kasiński et al., 2006) and industrial rocks deposits (Bromowicz et al., 2003, 2004; RadwanekBąk, 2002, 2005, 2006; Nieć and Radwanek-Bak, 2011; Nieć, 2013). These proposals provide criteria for the deposit evaluation divided in particular groups. Each group is assigned a given weight (aj) while each feature is assigned a certain score (pi). Summarized products of pi and aj locate the deposit on the ranking list. The discussed methods for the deposit evaluation differ with respect to weighting particular criteria depending on the type of mineral commodity. When considering some deposits on the regional or local scale, some criteria lose their importance in relation to their insignificant differentiation. As a consequence, local scale evaluation assessment may be different from that used in a countryscale. Attempts to valorize the deposits presented above indicate difficulties in this domain and lead to the following conclusions: 1. Evaluation based on numerous criteria of non-equivalent importance leads to complexity of ranking procedures. 2. A wide variety of factors controlling deposit values hinders formation of a uniform valorization system. Therefore, the formation of a relatively simple ranking system, which could be applied to all the raw material deposits, should be a challenge.
4. Proposed principles of valorization of industrial mineral and rock deposits 4.1. General principles The proposed valorization system of industrial mineral and rock deposits is based on 4 main groups of criteria: raw material type and resources, mining, environmental and land use conditions. Important are also societal criteria of mineral resources utilization acceptance. However due to their changes over time and the impossibility of precise quantification they were not
Table 8 Kaolin and ceramic clays. Size of deposit (resources) (Mt)
45 1–5 o1
Rock quality Ball clays (white-firing), bending Kaolin, o1.2% Fe2O3, whiteness over 75% after strength (dry) over 2 MPa, whiteness over 70% and water absorption over 6% burning in 1350 °C after burning in 1200 °C
Refractory clays, 423%, Al2O3, o 3.2% Fe2O3, refractoriness over 1650 °C
Stoneware clays, below| 15% of fine grains (below 0.06 mm), water absorption over 6% after burning in 1200 °C:
Other
H H M
H M C
M M C
See brick clays
H H M
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
294
Table 9 Brick clays (for building ceramics). Size of deposit (resources) (Mm3)
Rock (clay) quality
45 1–5 o1
Clays for light weight aggregate production, over 40% grains below 0.01 mm, swelling index 42.5
Common clays (for roofing tiles) drying shrinkage over 8%, marl grains content below 0.05%
Common clays (for drain tiles, conduite pottery etc.) drying shrinkage over 7%, marl grains content below 0.1%
Other common (brick) clays
M M C
M M C
M C C
C C C
Table 10 Overburden conditions. stripping ratio (O/D) Thickness of the overburden [m]
o0.5 0.5–1 41
o 2 2–8
48 or o8 if build of very hard rock (blasting is needed)
1 2 3
3 3 3
2 2 3
considered. Taking into account the incomparability of evaluation of particular factors which stand behind the value of the deposits, the authors propose independent valorization and ranking for each of the criteria groups indicated above (Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk 2014) based on a 3-grade rating designed by respective letters: high, very good, the best (H), medium, good, fair of conditional (M) and mediocre, common2 (C) In view of such valorization, each deposit can be described using 4 symbols successively which represent
materials (e.g. dimension and road stones, limestones, dolomites, gypsum etc.). The proposed criteria allow for the evaluation of raw material and resources value and can be used to indicate the potential economic importance of the deposits. They provide the basis for prioritization of the deposits in the adopted 3-grade scale rating as follows: H – high value-nationally-important deposits (most valuable deposits of raw materials), M – medium value-regionally important deposits (deposits of valuable raw materials) C – common-locally important deposits (all other deposits) The above ranking corresponds to spatial planning levels: governmental, regional and local. The distinguished categories are assigned the differentiated requirements related to the deposit protection for possible future mining activity. In the Tables 1–9 examples of the detail scoring for some industrial rocks in Poland were shown. Full data was presented by Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk (2011, 2014).
Table 11 Geological setting and water flooding of the deposit. Geological structure of deposit
Simple (thick deposit tectonically not disturbed or only slightly disturbed, easy for exploitation) Complex (deposit of small or variable thickness and varied mineral quality, tectonically disturbed, exploitation may be difficult) Very complex of variable structure thickness and mineral quality, faulted, folded, discontinuous, difficult for mining
Water flooding (expected during exploitation) Dry pit or underwater exploitation
Deep pit with only rain water flooding
Deep pit with water flooding from aquifers
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
evaluation of the deposit value based on the 4 groups of criteria discussed above: For example: HHMC designates the deposit as being of the highest value in respect to its resources and mineral quality, favorable for mining, without oppressive environmental restraints but with some limitations imposed by existing land utilization. 4.2. Criteria related to raw material quality and quantity The following criteria have been adopted: 1. Volume of identified resources (indicated or inferred) 2. Quality of mineral commodity (industrial mineral or rock) The criteria are defined individually for particular types of raw 2
N, W and Z respectively in Polish language
4.3. Mining and supply criteria Mining criteria are twofold. They define difficulties associated with eventual exploitation and the ability to supply a given commodity to consumers. In the case of deposits designed for surface (open cast) mining, the scale of difficulties is determined by: 1. Thickness of overburden; 2. Stripping ratio (ratio of overburden thickness (O) to deposit thickness (D), i.e. (O/D)); 3. Water-flooding of the deposit; 4. Complexity of geologic setting. Ability to supply the raw material commodity to the consumers depends on: 1. Distance to a road network, 2. Distance to potential delivery points.
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
295
Table 12 Location of the deposit in respect to access routes and distance to potential delivery points. Transport availability
Raw materials consumers
Favorable, 10 km to main roads Limited, distance to main roads 410 km Lack of local roads
Far (sand and gravel 50–100 km, crushed stones 100– Close to deposit (sand and gravel o 50 km, crushed stones o 100 km, common clays o 2 km, limestone and marls o5 km, 200 km, common clays 2–5 km, limestone and marls 5– 10 km, other without limits) other without limit)
Very far or lack
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Table 13 Summary of mining criteria evaluation.
Table 16 Summary valorization of environmental criteria.
Scoring system
Scoring system
Total sum of points (Tables 6–8) Deposit rating
Total sum of points
Deposit rating
3–4 5–6 7–8 9
2–3 4–5 6
H M C
H M C X
Table 14 Nature, landscape and underground water protection (beyond National Parks). Underground waters protection
Nature and landscape protection
Non Utility aquifer Main underground water reservoir (rich aquifer with high quality potable water)
Non Areas of landscape protection or areas located by the Nature 2000 borders
Landscape Parks or areas inside Nature 2000 net
1 2 3
3 3 3
2 2 3
No o30% 30–90% 490% n
The second stage comprises the division of deposits into 4 categories of mining attractiveness: H (best), M (fair), C (low), X (unsatisfactory) based on the total score (summed point values) obtained in the first stage. The proposed mining-related valorization scheme is presented in Tables 10–13 4.4. Environmental criteria
Table 15 Soil and forest protection. Forest protection (% of deposit area covered by forest)
setting, 3. Distance to a road network and distance to potential delivery points.
Soil protection (% of deposit area covered by fertile soil) Soil classn IV– VI (low fertility)
Soil classn I–III (fertile) o 30 %
Soil classn I–III (fertile) 430%
1 2 3 6
2 2 3
3 3 3
According to the polish soil fertility classification system.
Because of the relatively numerous criteria that have been selected, the authors suggest valorizing mining conditions in two stages. The first stage comprises a 3-grade rating from 1 (the best) to 3 (the worst) applied to pair-wise analyzed criteria: 1. Overburden and O/D, 2. Water-flooding of the deposit and complexity of geologic
Basic restrictions to the accessibility of the deposits due to environment protection exigencies are related to nature and landscape protection, to protection of usable ground water resources, and to soil and forest protection. Combining these factors in pairs and using the 3-grade rating (1 – minor restrictions to 3 – serious restrictions) provides the total scores which leads to assigning one of 3° of the deposit environmental accessibility: H – highest, M – conditional, and C – restricted. The proposed valorization scheme is presented in Tables 14–16. 4.5. Housing and industrial land use criteria In the case of land-use, the only simple criterion was the degree of built-up development on the ground overlying the deposit. Four classes of accessibility to the deposits are distinguished: 1. 2. 3. 4.
High accessibility (H) if terrain built-up to 10%; Medium accessibility (M) if terrain built-up from 11 to 30%, Restricted accessibility (C) if terrain built-up from 31 to 90% And no accessibility (X) if terrain built-up in over 90%.
5. The valorization procedure Based on the adopted criteria the explored, but not yet designed for mining, deposits of industrial minerals and rocks in Poland have been valorized. The valorization was performed in 2 stages. In the first stage, a subgroup of the most valuable and highly valuable deposits were selected out of over 7378 deposits
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
296
Fig. 2. Distribution of the most valuable industrial rock deposits in Lower Silesian (A) and Podlasie (B) voivodships (Nieć, 2013). Table 17 Regional distribution of significant (H and M class) industrial rock deposits in Poland. Regionn
Total Valorized deposits H þM class
A – West 923 164 B – South 1787 219 C – Central 3170 162 D – North 1498 93 Total 7378 638
Hþ M class(%)
H class H class % M class M class %
17.7 12.2 5.1 6.2 8.6
40 58 27 1 126
4.3 3.2 0.8 0.06 1.75
124 161 135 92 512
13.4 9.0 4.2 6.1 6.9
n A – Lubuskie, Dolnośląskie and Opolskie Voivodships, B – Śląskie, Małopolskie, Podkarpackie and Świętokrzyskie Voivodships, C – Lubelskie, Mazowieckie, Łódzkie, Wielkopolskie and Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodships, D – Podlaskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie and Zachodniopomorskie Voivodships.
development and nature protection requirements. Such deposits should be subject for discussion between planners, local authorities, with the aim to achieve a compromise that would facilitate protection of mineral resources. It allows for the selection of the most valuable deposits which should be protected before others. The data referring to particular properties of the deposits and minerals/raw materials, originated from geologic reports. Environmental and land use conditions for these deposits were verified with reference to nature-protected areas and current land-use spatial plans for particular municipalities. The data was compiled from forms designed for that purpose, loaded to a database developed under Access software and verified following the adopted criteria (Bednarz et al., 2013).
6. Valorization results (5494 sand and gravel included), which were listed in the national register of mineral resources. The selected deposits were considered the most worth protecting. Due to that, they were subjected to further detailed valorization according to the mining, environmental and land use criteria. It allows to indicate the deposits to which serious restrictions apply due to built-up
Realized valorization of explored but as of yet undeveloped deposits of industrial minerals and rocks in Poland has demonstrated that deposits characterized by valuable resources and mineral (rock) quality (H and M classes) make up only a small percentage of the total of all deposits analyzed. Out of the total of
Table 18 Regional distribution of significant (H and M class) industrial rock deposits in Poland by type of raw material. Type of raw material
Dimension and crushed stones Limestones and marls (lime and cement industry) Industrial dolomite Gypsum and anhydrite Silica sands Ceramic and brick clays Natural aggregates (sand and gravel) Other
H class/M class deposits in regions
Total H class/M class
A – West
B – South
C – Central
D – North
14/45 3/1 2/0 0/1 3/8 16/9 0/46 2/14
19/33 34/11 1/8 4/4 0/12 0/32 0/59 0/2
0/8 20/3 0/0 0/1 4/24 1/24 0/66 2/9
0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/15 0/10 0/66 0/1
33/86 57/15 3/8 4/6 8/59 17/75 0/237 4/26
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
7378, only 126 were ranked as of the highest (H) and 512 as high (M) value. It is 1.75 and 6,9% of all yet undeveloped deposits respectively. These 2 classes of deposits should be protected in landuse planning as future objects of mining activity. Spatial distribution of these deposits within the country is irregular following varied geology (Fig. 2). The most valuable deposits (H) occur in the southern (58 deposits) and western (40 deposits) parts of the country (Table 17). These are mainly deposits of dimension stones, as well as of carbonate rocks for the lime and cement industry. Deposits of ceramic clays i.e. kaolin and white-burnt (ball) clays (Table 18) are represented in smaller numbers. Aggregate deposits predominate among those evaluated as valuable mineral deposits (M). They amount to almost a half of all the deposits valorized in this class of mineral raw materials. There are some kinds of good quality crushed stones in this group too. Valorization of mining attractiveness shows that mining conditions of the valorized deposits are harsh, in most cases, and difficult only in some instances. The factors which hinder exploitation of the deposits usually are: overburden thickness and limited transportation accessibility or sometimes lack of closely located consumers of a commodity. The mining criteria are auxiliary and do not differentiate the deposits considerably. Requirements of nature protection or spatial planning impose severe restrictions on possible deposit utilization. There are only a few deposits free of them; in the whole country there are only 88 such deposits, including 45 of the natural sandy-gravel aggregates. The deposits whose usage slightly hinders environmental and land use conditions are also non-numerous. There are 188 such deposits with 29 assigned N with respect to mineral/ raw material criteria. Therefore, it is concluded that the deposits of the highest and high mineral/raw material values (H and M class) should be protected in land-use planning as future objects of mining activity. The access to such deposits must be guaranteed. The deposits of the highest mineral/raw material values (Hclass) are important on a country scale. These are the deposits of rocks used for the lime and cement industry, dimension stones, high-quality crushed stones and highest quality ceramic clays. Their protection should be considered on the level of the countryscale spatial planning. The deposits of the high mineral/raw material value (M-class) are mainly of regional importance. Their protection should be considered at provincial (voivodeship) level of spatial planning. In the case of very numerous common deposits of lower importance, their protection and accessibility might be considered and mitigated in the frame of local spatial planning, as these deposits are the sources of commodities for local societies. Moreover, their exploitation is job-creating and stimulates the local economy. Access to mineral deposits needs some legal spatial-planning regulations. The recent achievements in environment protection by mining companies (Pietrzyk-Sokulska et al., in print) allows for the mitigation of social aversion to mining as damaging dramatically environment. The increased awareness of mining as a source of mineral raw material indispensable to everyday life would help this task. The main purpose of the presented proposal was to find a satisfactory and simple way for allowing a preliminary assessment and comparison of undeveloped mineral deposits, for their protection and maintenance of availability for future exploitation. The valorization criteria like size and quality of deposit, mining possibilities, nature protection and land use exigencies have been adapted to the Polish conditions, but they can easily be transformed to the European level, giving the opportunity to solve this growing problem of sustainable management of mineral resources.
297
7. Conclusions The proposed valorization of industrial mineral and rock deposits may be a useful tool for selecting those of them which merit special attention as possible future sources of appropriate rock raw materials. The safeguarding measures against their sterilization may be defined and put in operation appropriate to the deposit value at country, regional or local levels. Valorization of deposits may be the first step to select those of public importance in the framework of country or local mineral policy.
References Badera, J., 2010. Social conflicts on the Environmental backgrounds related to development of mineral deposits in Poland (in Polish with English summary). Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi –Min. Resour. Manag. 26 (1), 105–125. Baker, D., Hendy, B., 2005. Planning for sustainable construction aggregate resource in Australia. In: Sidwell, A. Ch. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference, 4–5 July 2005. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Queensland. Available online at: 〈http://eprints.qut.edu.au/25674/1/c25674.pdf〉 (accessed 11.03.14). Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2005. Details for Planning Application. Bednarz, A., Borowicz, A., Duczmal, M., Nowacka, A., Specylak-Skrzypecka J., Ślusarczyk G, 2013. Budowa i procedury baz danych złóz surowców skalnych dla systemu geoinformacji. Poltegor Instytut. Wroclaw. Beeby, D., 1998. Successful integration of aggregate data in land-use planning: a California case study, Aggregate Resources: A Global Perspective. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 27–50. Bromowicz, J., Figarska-Warchoł, B., Karwacki, A., et al., 2003. Główne kryteria waloryzacji złóż kamieni budowlanych i drogowych. Prace Nauk. Inst. Górnictwa Politechniki Wrocławskiej 104 Konf 37; , pp. 3–14. Bromowicz, J., Figarska-Warchoł, B., Karwacki, A., et al., 2004. Waloryzacja złóż kamieni budowlanych i drogowych z różnych punktów widzenia. Prace Nauk. Inst. Górnictwa Politechniki Wrocławskiej 108 Konf 40; , pp. 3–11. Fettweis, G.B., 1979. World coal resources – methods of assessment and results. Elsevier, S.P.C, Amsterdam. Improving framework conditions for extracting minerals for the EU., 2010. Exchanging best practice on land use planning, permitting and geological knowledge sharing, European Commission. Enterprise and Industry Directorate General, p. 59. Kasiński, J., Mazurek, S., Piwocki, M., 2006. Valorization and ranking of lignite deposits in Poland (in Polish with English summary). Prace PIG CLXXXVII1, Warszawa. Kreiter, W.M., 1960. Poiski i razwiedka mestorożdenij poleznych iskopajemych. Gesgeołtechizdat, Moskwa. Minerals Planning Policies and Supply Practices in Europe, 2004. University of Leoben, Austria. Waloryzacja niezagospodarowanych złóż kopalin skalnych w Polsce. 201. Poltegor Instytut, Kraków-Wrocław, Poland. Nieć, M., Myszka, R., 2000. Prognozowanie, dokumentowanie i ochrona złóż w warunkach gospodarki rynkowej. Górn. Odkryw. 42 (2–3), 1–23. Nieć, M., Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2011. Ranking value of industrial rocks deposits. (in Polish, with English abstract) 52, 5–15. Nieć, M., Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2010. Recent and future utilization of mineral deposits in Poland and threats to security of mineral raw material supply. Proceedings of Aachen International Mining Symposia 3. Mineral Resources and Mine Development. Aachen, 137–147. Nieć, M., Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2014. Ochrona i racjonalne wykorzystane złóż kopalin. Wyd IGSMiE AN, Kraków. Nieć, M. (Ed.) 2013. Waloryzacja niezagospodarowanych złóż kopalin skalnych w Polsce. Poltegor Instytut. Wrocław, Poland. p. 201. Pietrzyk-Sokulska, E., Uberman, R., Kulczycka, J. 2015. The impact of mining on the environment in Poland – myths and reality. Gosp. Sur. Min. Kraków, Poland (in press). Piwocki, M., Kasiński, J., 1993. Metoda ekonomiczno-sozologicznej waloryzacji złóż węgla brunatnego. Przegl. Geol. 35 (5), 346–359, Warszawa. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2002. Kryteria waloryzacji złóż kopalin skalnych dla ich ochrony. Górn. Odkryw 44 (2–3), 27–31. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2005. Management of rock Raw materials resources in the Polish Carpathians on sustainable development conditioning (in Polish with English summary). Prace PIG CLXXXIII Warszawa, 123. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2006. The concept of multi-criteria mineral resources protection. Environ. Geol. 52, 137–145. Radwanek-Bąk, B., 2008. Accessibility of mineral deposits areas as a priori for their protection (in Polish with English summary). Górnictwo Odkrywkowe 47 (2–3), 19–24. Register of mineral resources in Poland as of PIG-PIB. Warszawa December 2014 469. SHIELDS, D.J., ŠOLAR, S.V., 2004. Sustainable mineral resources management and indicators: case study Slovenia. Geol. Surv. Slovenia, Ljubljana (83s).
298
B. Radwanek-Bąk, M. Nieć / Resources Policy 45 (2015) 290–298
SMARA, 1975. Surface mining and reclamation act of 1975. California Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology. Solar, S., Shields, D., 2011. The SARMA Project: enhancing sustainable aggregates resource management and supply in Southeast Europe. Proceedings of Aachen International Mining Symposia 3. Sustainable Development in the Minerals Industry. Aachen, 827–836. Tiess, G., 2010. Mineral policy in Europe: some recent developments. Resour. Policy 35, 190–198. Tiess, G., 2011. General and International Mineral Policy Focus: Europe. Springer, Wien, p. 620. A review of indicators for the sustainability for the Mineral Extraction Industries.
CETEM/MTC/CNPq/CYTED/IMPC. Ro de Janeiro 320. Wagner, H., Tiess, G., 2008. Minerals planning policies and supply practices in Europe, Proceedings of the 21st WMC&Expo. Taylor & Francis Group, London. Weber, L. (Hrsg), 2012. Der Osterreichische Rohstoff Plan. Archiv fur Lagerstättenforschung. Band 26. Wien. Wexler, M.N., 1996. A sociological framing of the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) syndrome. Int. Rev. Mod. Sociol. 26 (1), 90–110. Wringhton, C.E., Bee, E.J., Mankelow, J.M., 2014. The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom. Resour. Policy, 160–170.