Global Material Cycles: Financial Needs Of The Extractive Industry

INTRODUCTION I retired in 1977 and have been enjoying myself ever since doing odd jobs for various people - on occasions, politicians. I commend it to you as post retirement - get involved in situations that nobody else will take on. It produces all sorts of excitement, it is a lot of fun and, courtesy of the media, you provide great raw material for their current Punch and Judy shows. The example of the adventures in the Escondida financing made me think about the history of the minerals industry in the United States. In order to see more clearly what is going to happen in the future, we have to look at the past and what we have learned, and try to extrapolate from that a scenario for the future. This paper is about global material cycles and the financial needs of the extractive industries. Since about 2,000 years B.C. we have been living in the Iron Age. Since about 4,000 B.C. we have been living in the Copper Age. These have been the two foundations of modern industrial society. Understanding the use of metals and materials helps us understand the civilization in which we live today. Let me focus more closely on the United States, particularly in this century. In the first two-thirds of this century the United States was growing and expanding and developing. It was providing for its inhabitants a society which was enjoying the benefits of a rising standard of living, improved opportunities and the ability to support a population growing at quite a dramatic rate. It is still growing. In the Department of Commerce, there is a clock that shows how many people there are in the United States. It turns all the time; the numbers are going up. On January 21,1980, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, the number on that clock was a little over 220 million, and in the last week before he left, it was travelling towards 245 million. During his period in Washington, we have added , the equivalent of one total state such as California. That gives the dimensions of the U.S. appetite for raw material inputs. The inputs are of critical importance. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE During the first two-thirds of this century, the minerals sector enjoyed comparative advantages. There was a clear understanding of the importance of minerals enshrined in the tax legislation of the country from the early decades of this century - the depletion allowance. No other country identified as clearly that the supplies of minerals were finite. As they are used up, just as with a wearing-out machine, one must get capital back to replace the resource when the time comes. Within the last decade, that idea has been questioned and criticised. It is now seen as giving money away to a preferred part of the economy, instead of recognizing what depletion is all about. In previous times it insured that the U.S. always was able to regenerate the capital in its minerals industry, so that it could remain competitive. The U.S. had plenty of everything, including energy. We had a growing population. Equally important, we had an agriculture that led the world in productivity, even as far back as the turn of the century. It continues to do so. We still retain that comparative advantage, an ability to produce our foodstuffs in quantity and quality at excellent cost. Look at another ingredient of our comparative advantage, the energy position. We ran through the first two-thirds of the century with ever- decreasing energy costs. In the 1940s and 1950s the coal industry went into a decline. Why? Because the $3.00 - $5.00 a ton cost of mining coal in the U.S. represented relatively expensive energy. A ton of good grade bituminous coal contains 25 million BTU's. $0.20 a million BTU's represents $5.00 a ton at the pithead. That price was undermined by the increasing ability to find petroleum at even lower costs. At the apex of the growth of development of the American dominated