MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403571260 · doi:10.1016/j.exis.2024.101562

Assessing environmental liabilities of mining in Northern Australia: A case study of the McArthur River Mine

2024· article· en· W4403571260 on OpenAlexaff
Samy Andres Leyton-Flor, Kamaljit K. Sangha, Kirsty Howey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Extractive Industries and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMining industryEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningArchaeologyMining engineeringGeographyEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Highlights severe adverse effects on Indigenous communities from mining, including ecosystem service and well-being losses and opportunity costs, which are mostly unaccounted for in the environmental assessments. • Offers insights for improving environmental and mining legislation to protect ecosystems and Indigenous communities. • Fills a significant gap in assessing the true economic impacts of mining activities by using market and non-market valuation methods. Mining projects supposedly offer enormous economic benefits; however, they often involve serious environmental liabilities that extend far beyond the life of the mine, including perturbing the ecological balance and causing the loss of ecosystem services that are vital for sustaining human well-being. Understanding and assessing the environmental liabilities of mining is crucial for estimating the costs of restoring, replacing, or providing the equivalent of the damaged natural resources. This study estimates the market and non-market values of the mining impacts in the Northern Territory, Australia, particularly for the McArthur River Mine. We assess these costs by applying the Replacement Cost, Welfare Costs Savings, and Basic Value Transfer methods in terms of the loss of local Indigenous communities' well-being, loss of ecosystem services from native vegetation and freshwater, and the opportunity cost of the mine site none of which are not fully accounted for in the mining operator's environmental assessments and mitigation measures approved by the local governmental authorities. Our valuation analysis indicates that the market value of the environmental and social impacts of mining ascends to AUD 1.1 billion per year while the non-market value is AUD 20 million per year. Assessing mining-related environmental liabilities offers crucial insights for informed decision-making regarding mitigation and remediation efforts and strengthening environmental and mining legislation in the Northern Territory. In conclusion, our study contributes to developing a comprehensive understanding of the true economic impact of mining activities on ecosystems and local Indigenous communities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Extractive Industries and SocietySame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207