The reality of climate change and warnings from the past

Few can doubt that climate change is a reality after recent record high temperatures, leading to wildfires, around the world. Temperatures soared to the high 40s in southern Europe and in the USA the temperature climbed to 53.3C in Death Valley, which runs along part of central California’s border with Nevada.

The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 56.7C in July 1913 at Furnace Creek in Death Valley. Temperatures at or above 54C have only been recorded on Earth a handful of times, mostly in Death Valley. Barbara and I experienced the extreme heat there in 1994. We had stayed overnight at June Lake, just over 200 miles away and had to scrape ice from the car windscreen in the morning before the drive to Furnace Creek, where the temperature was well over 40C!

Death Valley 1994

There is little doubt that humans have contributed to these extreme events, but there are also other contributing factors, such as El Niño and in June climate scientists announced that an El Niño weather pattern had taken hold, which would strengthen through to the end of this year and the first months of 2024, warning there is a good chance that it could be a particularly strong El Niño this year. 

It would appear that they were right but in July a team of climate scientists, the World Weather Attribution Group, said that the intense heatwave in Southern Europe, North America and China would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change.

It is all all very sobering and maybe we should have heeded the warning in a New Zealand newspaper, headed Coal Consumption Affects Climate:

The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.

What is particularly prescient about this warning is that it was published in the Rodney and Otamatea Times on August 14th 1912!  It was based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, who 16 years earlier had measured the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (see also Is CO2 the most maligned gas in history?).

Maybe we should have heeded warnings from the past?

"The era of global warming has ended and the era of global boiling has arrived"
UN Secretary General, António Guterres

@barrywills

COP26: was it just blah-blah-blah?

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) was hosted by the UK in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November. This international summit was seen as crucial to bringing climate change under control. The host, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said the challenge is huge but there are no compelling reasons for procrastination. The goal is to keep warming limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 but we are on track for 2.7C, which the UN says would result in "climate catastrophe". 

Around 40,000 people descended on the Scottish city of Glasgow for the two-week event, amidst cries of hypocrisy, as around 400 private jets flew into the country's airports. USA President Biden is estimated to have generated almost 1000 tonnes of CO2 in reaching the conference, his entourage consisting of a fleet of four planes, his Marine One helicopter and a vast motorcade. World leaders were present for only two days, leaving negotiators to deal with business, before flying off home in their jets, President Biden remarking that it was a great mistake that the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, had not been at the event, nor had the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

The perhaps unachievable Paris Agreement goal of net zero by 2050 (posting of 21 July 2019) took a bit of a knock on the first day when Indian prime minister Narendra Modi announced that the Indian target would be 2 decades later, 2070. India has the 3rd largest overall emissions after China and USA.

Not sure what they had to celebrate!
Source: Free Press Journal

The first major deal of the summit was the promise by over 130 world leaders to end and reverse deforestation by 2030. The commitment was supported by nations covering about 90% of the world's forests, including Canada, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and the DRC. Let's hope this will happen, as analysts have warned that a deal struck in 2014 failed to slow deforestation at all. 

Maybe we should also be wary of the 2nd day agreement between nearly 90 countries who have joined a US and EU-led effort to cut emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane by 30% by 2030. Methane is the major greenhouse gas after CO2 and it breaks down in the atmosphere faster, meaning that cutting its emissions can have a rapid impact on reducing global warming. However, this agreement is only voluntary, and three of the top five methane emitters, China, Russia and India, have not signed up to the pledge.

I also hope that the world will finally honour its agreement, three years behind its original promise, to give $100bn to the developing world to help it absorb the impacts of climate change. Some of this will be used for adaptation including improvements to sea defences and weather forecast systems. We should perhaps be more confident in the pledges from billionaire philanthropists who have vowed to make up any shortfalls.

Research from the University of Melbourne suggests that pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions could keep world temperature rises to below 2C, but only if the promises were followed through.  What might be needed to force these pledges from governments is action by Greta Thunberg and other young climate activists, who strike fear in politicians; she told an event by the Fridays for Future youth movement near the COP26 campus that politicians were merely pretending to take our future seriously. 

Greta Thunberg in Glasgow
Source: CNN

Speaking at COP26, former US President Barack Obama called on such young people to "stay angry" in the fight against climate change, urging them to apply political pressure to make a change. He said the world is "nowhere near where we need to be" to avoid a future climate catastrophe.

Although Miss Thunberg, and other activists who were out in force in Glasgow, may be naive when it comes to understanding the science (see posting of 14 January 2021) she would probably admit this. She sees her role as keeping the pressure on world leaders, who I fear are also naive regarding the science, into policy decisions and providing funds to those who can provide the technology and engineering skills to build the renewables and electric vehicles of the future. But alas this is where the bottleneck is likely to kick in- do we have the raw materials to produce this green new world? I have seen many activists demonstrating against mining, whereas what is needed is protests against the lack of investment in mining! Environmentalists are often against mining because it is a dirty business, which it can be, but many major mining companies now have net zero carbon targets, with realistic plans to achieve them.

Although the need to ramp up mining of critical metals is crucial, there was little, if any, mention of this at COP26, although coal mining was on everyone's agenda. More than 40 countries signed up to a statement to quit the use of coal and the UK government said that 190 nations and organisations had pledged to stop using it, in the 2030s for major economies and 2040s for the rest of the world. However the final wording of the deal is far weaker than the UK government first claimed, as it has the words "or as soon as possible thereafter" to the 2030s and 2040s deadline.

Some of the world's biggest coal-dependent countries, including Australia, China, India and the USA didn't sign up at all. China now accounts for almost a third of the world's CO2 emissions, burning almost half of the world's coal, with more than 1000 plants supplying 58% of its power. South Africa is also a major emitter of greenhouse gases and sulphur dioxide  as a result of its addiction to coal, and the country is set to receive US$8.5bn to help its reliance on coal, and a move to wind and solar power, in a deal funded by wealthier nations.

Although activists and politicians were demanding replacing fossil fuels, mainly coal, with renewables, there is little appreciation that building renewables, and providing the necessary raw materials requires vast amounts of energy, which, during the transition to all-renewables, will require energy from non-renewable sources. China mines and processes over 85% of the world's rare earth metals, including neodymium, an essential alloying element in the powerful magnets used to generate electricity. Processing of rare earth metals is extremely energy intensive and in China that energy is produced mainly from coal. The great irony is that fossil fuels will be needed for some time in order to phase out fossil fuels!

Nuclear energy is the other option, of course. It is essentially zero-carbon but has been removed as an option by many countries due to the problems of disposing of waste, and reaction to the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Rather than huge fission reactors, such as that being built at Hinkley Point in UK, there may be a case for small modular reactors, which can be built and put into service relatively quickly. And looking to the future, and 2050, maybe we will be zero carbon if fusion can be made a viable option. The engineering problems are immense, but never underestimate the ingenuity of man in solving apparently insurmountable problems.

The long negotiations ended on Saturday evening, with nearly 200 countries agreeing the Glasgow Climate Pact to keep 1.5C alive and finalise the outstanding elements of the Paris Agreement, but it will only survive if promises are kept and commitments translate into rapid action.

The Glasgow Climate Pact will speed up the pace of climate action. All countries agreed to revisit and strengthen their current emissions targets to 2030, in 2022. This will be combined with a yearly political round table to consider a global progress report and a Leaders summit in 2023.

The pact was notable for naming coal as a root cause of the climate problem, for the first time in 30 years of UN diplomacy. The final text included the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels, phase out subsidies for fossil fuels and transition countries to using more renewable energy. The pact does not, however, hold wealthy countries to specific financial commitments to help poorer countries, the most devastated by climate change.

While the Glasgow Climate Pact is an ambitious attempt to rein in rising temperatures, the last-minute row over coal has undoubtedly cast a shadow over the deal. India was joined by China in pushing for a watering down of this key commitment, insisting on "phasing down" rather than "phasing out".  COP26 President, the tireless Alok Sharma, said that they would have to "explain themselves" to vulnerable nations.

The new deal comes just a few days after another notable Chinese achievement. Last Wednesday, the Xinhua news agency trumpeted the fact that the country produced more coal than ever before on a single day. When consumed for energy the one day of coal will produce carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to Ireland's output for an entire year!

There are also vague clauses that will allow some countries to avoid updating their plans to cut emissions, depending on "differing national circumstances". There are real worries that some bigger developing economies like India and China will use that clause to skip updating their plans next year.

There are growing fears that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C is unlikely to be met. UN Secretary General António Guterres said the summit would probably not see governments make the pledges needed to cut CO2 emissions by enough. However there was a glimmer of hope when activists and politicians gave a cautious welcome to the unexpected announcement that the US and China would work together to tackle climate change. The US-China declaration sees the two countries, the two biggest CO2 emitters in the world, vow to boost climate co-operation over the next decade, working together to achieve the 1.5C temperature goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Ultimately, this controversial pact does keep hope alive that temperatures may be held in check, somewhere between 1.8C and 2.4C this century.  However this is a frightening prospect in a world that has warmed by just over half that amount already, with massive impacts around the globe.

According to an analysis by the Climate Action Tracker, the world is still nowhere near its goals on limiting global temperature rise, despite the pledges made at COP26. It calculates that the world is heading for 2.4C of warming, far more than the 1.5C limit nations committed to. COP26 "has a massive credibility, action and commitment gap", according to the analysis.

There have been lots of promises but only time will tell if COP26 was a success, or merely more 'hot air'.

@barrywills

Unsettled: to what extent do humans contribute to climate change?

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) began this week, with an introduction by, among others, the People's Advocate Sir David Attenborough, who made an impassioned plea to world leaders to act now to avoid the approaching apocalypse. 

Climate change is a reality, no sane person can deny the evidence of that, but in terms of the cause of climate change, and how we should deal with it, is the science settled? There have been "heated" debates on the blog over the years, with eminent geologists, such as Australia's Prof. Ian Plimer arguing that the climate is changing solely due to natural phenomena (posting of 20th October 2009), while climate scientists such as the UK's Prof. Stephan Harrison argued to the contrary (posting of October 31st 2009), that the changes are solely due to human actions.

Who is right, who should we believe? There have been many books, mainly by psuedo-scientists, debunking global warming as a hoax, but not so many by respected scientists who can examine the science and its foibles and present coherent assessments.

I have had long discussions with Prof. John Ralston, the founding Director of the University of South Australia's Wark Institute, and a former South Australian Scientist of the Year (posting of 27th May 2014), and he shares my views about the need for an objective assessment of the various contributions to global warming, so I was pleased when he recommended a controversial new book which the author claims puts forward a balanced view of climate change and man's influence.

Unsettled: what climate science tells us, what it doesn't and why it matters, is a book published this year, and by an author, Steven Koonin, who has the right credentials, expertise and experience to ask the right questions and to give realistic answers.

Prof. Koonin is a leader in US science policy and former science advisor for the Obama administration. With more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science, he was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech, also serving as Caltech’s Vice President and Provost for almost a decade. He is currently a University Professor at New York University.

The earth's temperature arises from a delicate balance between warming sunlight and cooling heat radiation, which is disturbed by both human and natural influences, with greenhouse gases playing an important role. As everyone knows, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and its concentration in the atmosphere has increased since 1750 from 280 parts per million (0.028%) to 0.0413% in 2021, and continues to rise by about 2.4 ppm every year. Although most of today's CO2 is natural, there is no doubt that this rise is, and has been, due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This CO2 added by humans over the past 250 years has increased the atmosphere's ability to impede heat and is exerting a growing warming influence on the climate, which Koonin fully acknowledges. He does not know of any expert who disputes that the rise of CO2 concentration over the past 250 years is almost entirely due to human activities. However, he feels that the human influence on temperature is physically small, and there are more powerful natural forces, such as volcanoes, the sun, deep ocean currents, driving the climate as well, and they illuminate the scientific challenge of understanding these natural influences well enough to confidently identify the climate response to human action. The real question is not whether the globe has warmed recently but rather to what extent this warming is being caused by humans.

The CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels disrupts the balance of the great carbon cycle, since that carbon has been pulled out of the deep underground, where it was isolated from the natural processes.  Koonin says, however, that human-emitted CO2 is a relatively small add-on to the vast natural cycle of carbon moving among the earth's crust, oceans, plants and atmosphere.

According to Koonin, the study of climate and energy is the ultimate multidisciplinary activity, no single researcher is able to be an expert in more than two or three of its aspects. Usefully describing the earth's climate remains one of the most challenging scientific simulation processes there is. The multitude of climate models disagree with, or even contradict, each other, and he says that a vague "expert judgement" has sometimes been applied to adjust model results and obfuscate shortcomings. As such the science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it. 

Koonin says that is has become de riguer for the media, politicians, and even some scientists, to implicate human influences as the cause of heat waves, droughts, floods, storms and whatever else the public fears. The on-the-scene reporting is powerful, and often moving, and our poor memories of past events can make "unprecedented" quite convincing. But he argues that the science tells a different story,  the World Meteorological Organisation saying in November 2020 that any single event, such as a severe tropical cyclone, cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the current status of scientific understanding. He says that observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don't show any significant change, some having actually become less common or severe.  There will be many unconvinced by this, as 2021 has been the hottest year ever recorded, with millions of people living with extreme temperatures and facing a growing threat of flooding or wildfires. 

Koonin stresses that open debate is the heart of the scientific process, and it is absurd that scientists should fear being labelled anti-science for engaging in it. William Hogan, Professor of global energy policy at Harvard Kennedy School has said that rather than an existential crisis we face a wicked problem that requires a pragmatic balancing of costs and benefits and feels that Koonin's book is essential reading and a timely breath of fresh air for climate policy. 

However, others have negative responses to the book. Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science finds that the book is based on a number of inaccurate and misleading claims, flawed studies, and cherry-picked information.

Gary Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, writing in Scientific American, feels that Koonin is wrong and that the science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades.

Dr. Mark Boslough, who has served on the Executive Committee of the American Physical Society Topical Group on the Physics of Climate, has strong criticism, saying that Koonin creates an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack. 

He asks why does Koonin think that unsettled questions in climate science are any kind of comfort when the consequences of doing nothing can be catastrophic, as predicted by Sir David at COP26? Exactly my feelings. As the degree of human influence on climate change is unsettled, we should assume the worst and make every attempt to phase out fossil fuels as soon as we can, bearing in mind that there must be a transition period when these fuels will be needed to build the new generation of electric vehicles and renewables. Even if Koonin is right, we must still do this, as fossil fuels are the world's major source of air pollution, one of the globe's biggest killers.

It won't be easy however. As Koonin states, the world will need much more energy in the coming decades. Today's global population of just under eight billion will grow to over nine billion by mid-century, with virtually all that growth occurring outside the developed world. Currently fossil fuels provide about 80% of the world's energy and this dominance is projected to persist through mid-century, although a strong growth in renewable sources will decrease the share of the world energy provided by fossil fuels to about 70%.

It will be interesting to see if anything significant comes out of COP26. Stronger international collaboration is required to achieve net zero emissions, and this might not be forthcoming. High emitting developing economies are expected to increase emissions significantly by 2030. China (the world's #1 emitter) and India (#3) are building coal-fired power stations that will double and triple their emissions respectively, and Russia (#4) also proposes investments that will increase its emissions substantially.

Koonin believes that due to the uncertainty the societal response will be to adapt to a challenging climate, and that adaption will very likely be effective. Only time will tell; the climate is changing, humans are playing a role, but our global energy needs are growing too.

It will be interesting to hear what blog readers think!

@barrywills

October update: are we heading for another lockdown, and will mining be mentioned at COP26?

Is the pandemic over, or are we just living an illusion?  This was the question we asked this month, with further restrictions lifted even though the UK had one of the highest rates of Covid infection in Europe, and the rates in Cornwall were increasing again to over the UK average. Britain has had no Covid restrictions for 3 months, longer than anywhere else in the developed world and hospital admissions are rising steadily, all the more worrying as England's hospitals are struggling to recruit staff, with tens of thousands of posts unfilled, the situation made particularly bad by a drop in recruits from Europe. 

Health Secretary Sajid Javid held firm against calls for immediate restrictions, and the Government is unlikely to consider enforcing its Plan B before mid-November, after the COP26 conference in Glasgow. Plan B involves the return of compulsory facemasks, working from home and the introduction of vaccine passports.

The Times, 21st October

Towards the end of the month Morocco banned flights to and from the UK because of Britain's rising number of Coronavirus cases, but relaxed travel restrictions earlier allowed Amanda and Richard to spend a week in Crete, and Jon and friends met up for a weekend in Dorset. And back in Cornwall, Barbara and I had our first visitors stay with us since the start of the pandemic. Even Boris Johnson managed to take a week off running the country, to holiday in Marbella.

Amanda and Richard in Crete, Jon and friends at Durdle Door, Dorset,
and visitors to Cornwall's submarine mines

Despite the worrying rise in infections, on the 2nd day of the month there was a crowded bar at the CSM Annual Dinner, the first since March 2019, where it was great to see how more and more women are pursuing careers in the mining industry.

Photo: Silje Lovstad

However, Covid has taken a secondary role this month, as other matters have dominated the news, notably the murder of a prominent Member of Parliament, and the acute shortage and high cost of gas, record fuel prices and cuts in benefits. The Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has promised that Britain will not run out of gas this winter, words that may come back to haunt him. Where is fracking when we need it? The north of England has huge reserves of shale gas, which cannot be exploited because of the "earthquake" fear.

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) began yesterday in Glasgow, with around 30,000 delegates, but without the attendance of the leaders of 2 of the top emitters of CO2, China (#1) and Russia (#4). Worrying times, as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are higher than ever despite a drop in emissions due to coronavirus restrictions. Maybe feedback is kicking in, where the oceans release CO2 as the temperature increases?

Ahead of the meeting, the UK Government revealed its latest strategy to make the move to a virtually zero-carbon economy. The trillion pound green gamble includes grants for purchase of electric cars and for replacement of home gas boilers by heat pumps. Considering that, despite these grants, the purchasing costs will still be prohibitive for those with low incomes, it seems that the poor, via their taxes, will be subsidising the rich.

Johnson announced that all Britain's electricity will come from renewables, mainly wind, by 2035, a significant step towards the government's ambition to hit net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, a goal which I have questioned before:

Critical Metals and the UK's "Green Industrial Revolution" 
Just how energy efficient are wind turbines? 
Is Zero Carbon by 2050 attainable?
The real cost of using neodymium in wind turbines 

Last year 43% of the UK's energy was generated by renewables, 40% by fossil fuels, and the rest by nuclear. The new target will require significant growth, not only in offshore wind generation, but also in nuclear capacity and will mean a minimum quadrupling of offshore wind from the present level over the next decade. Considering how much raw material is needed to manufacture a single wind turbine (posting of 25 August 2019) is this all possible with current mining output? The stocks of copper for instance, one of the most critical metals, are at their lowest on the London Metal Exchange since the 1970s, driving the price to record levels by the middle of the month.

I wonder if mining will even be mentioned at COP26. The goals may be laudable but without investment in mining, not only in primary mining, but also in the the processing of secondary deposits, and the biggest challenge, recycling, it is unlikely that set targets will be achieved. I am sure that there will be calls to ban the use of fossil fuels, but the reality is that wind turbines need not only huge amounts of metals, they also require a great deal of energy to build them and to extract the raw materials, so in the transition period to 100% renewables fossil fuels will be needed, in the absence of sufficient nuclear energy.

There are many other potential sources of renewable energy apart from wind, for instance should more emphasis be placed on geothermal energy, a reliable, continuous source, of which there is much potential down here in Cornwall with its hot granite rocks?

November will be another worrying month, and as we now approach winter and infection and death rates continue to rise the future is still very much uncertain. 

"I'm fixing the obesity crisis via food shortages, the climate crisis via
fuel shortages and sorting the pension deficit by killing all the old people.
I just don't know what more I can do, Laura"
"The public are just ungrateful bastards, Prime Minister"

@barrywills

Brief encounters at Mining Indaba 2020

Investing in African Mining Indaba is dedicated to the successful capitalisation and development of mining interests in Africa and to supporting education, career development, sustainable development and other important causes in Africa. As I soon found out, however, many of the topics for discussion were relevant not only to Africa but had truly global significance. In this respect it was a shame that there was little, if any, representation from the major mining publications outside Africa.

Mining Indaba is held every year at the Cape Town Convention Centre, and I have attended every few years, the last time being 4 years ago (posting of 13th February 2016).

MEI was a media partner and although investment conferences are not high on our agenda the event often springs a few surprises due to the sheer weight of numbers, around 7000 this year, and my aim was to forge new contacts and hopefully catch up with a few friends from around the world, some of them occasionally from the distant past.

So rather than sitting in the conference rooms over the four days, I spent my time wandering around the exhibition seeing what transpired. I also caught snippets of the many speeches, panel discussions and discussions which took place, by spending some time in the excellent press lounge, where events on the main stages were live streamed.

This is my personal diary which I hope will be supplemented by the experiences of others. 

Monday 3rd February

The exhibition at Indaba is large, and  entering the  hall this morning I was pleased to see a familiar face, Pauline Choshane of Comminution '20 sponsor Metso, who, with her colleague Charles Ntsele (2nd left)  was talking to delegates from Bilboes Gold, Zimbabwe.

Mark Cutifani

On the press lounge screens I caught part of the presentation by Mark Cutifani, CEO of Anglo American, talking of connecting mining with next-generation values. His message was that we must dispel the myth that mining takes more than it gives. It contributes around 45% to the global economy. He said "the mining industry enables life as we know it, and it’s the cornerstone of energy transition with PGMs and the development of the hydrogen economy."

His words were echoed by Samson Gwede Mantashe, South Africa's Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, in his opening address. He said that the mining and energy portfolio is critical to economic growth and development.  "South Africa and the African continent are important to global mining and its development and should be the destination of choice for the investment community."

Mr. Mantashe (left) visiting the exhibition

Back in the exhibition hall I was pleased to see two delegates from Cornwall, John Eyre and Kim-Marie Clothier, of North Coast Consulting, UK.

John and I had a few drinks together last night at a waterfront sundowner,  where we also met Chris Bryan, one of our Biomining '20 consultants. Formerly with Camborne School of Mines, Cornwall, Chris is now with BRGM, France and it was good to meet some of his colleagues in the BRGM booth.

With Chris Bryan (centre)

At the large Germany booth I talked to Kai Bartram of Steinert, a leading manufacturer of electronic sorting machines, and a regular sponsor of MEI's Physical Separation conferences. Kai was with John Knouwds, an expert on control and instrumentation. Based in Namibia, this was John's first day with Steinert so we wish him well and hope to see more of him in the future.

John and Kai

 

Tuesday 4th February

It is very noticeable that there are many more women in attendance at Indaba this year than on my previous visit in 2016.  Although mining is still one of the most male dominated industries, positive steps have been made in recent years to integrate women into the industry, and the number of female speakers at Indaba has been increasing over the past few years, this year 30.4% of the speakers being women. Today saw Indaba's first all female panel discussion, focussing on climate change and other issues.

The mining industry is one of the major weapons in the fight against climate change. The UN Paris Agreement requires humanity to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century but there are doubts as to whether this is attainable, as to attain these goals will put enormous demands on what are very finite resources of raw materials (Is zero carbon by 2050 attainable?).

In supplying the raw materials to build electric vehicles and renewable energy sources, as well as providing suitable alternatives to oil and gas for heating home and offices, the importance of mining cannot be over-emphasised  (posting of 5th January). Ironically, however, the mining industry is one of the most energy intensive industries, and, according to a recent report, the world’s biggest mining companies are failing to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord and need to consider more aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Consultant McKinsey said the mining industry was taking insufficient action and putting underwhelming plans in place to tackle global warming, risking a backlash from investors and society. Mining groups have only just begun to set targets that range between a zero and 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, falling well short of the level required under the Paris accord, the report said.

The majority of the mining industry’s on-site emissions, which are as much as 5.1 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent a year, largely come from methane released during coal mining, while power consumption is the second-biggest contributor. As other sectors reduce their carbon emissions and introduce low-carbon technologies, such as wind turbines and electric vehicles, mining companies should diversify their portfolios to meet the demand for metals underpinning those technologies, despite being unable to replace revenue from coal and iron ore, the report added.

The past two days at Indaba have seen many discussions around the role of mining in addressing climate change and the fact that it must do much more to address these issues.

Today's panel discussion included contributions from representatives from Anglo American, Bushveld Minerals, Rio Tinto and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Anglo CEO Mark Cutifani said that he had no plans for Anglo to exit its coking coal business completely, but he is keen to reduce the organisation's carbon footprint with the help of suppliers, peers and customers. He said that he believed that mines can, and will, be carbon neutral and will use less water as well as delivering positive biodiversity outcomes. It will be interesting to see if his ambitions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency by 30% this year will be attained, as will Canada's Teck Resources pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050.

 

Wednesday 5th February

Faces familiar to me are very thin on the ground, so it was really nice to talk to Elizma Ford and Aphelele Sithole of Mintek, South Africa this morning. Aphelele is a pyrometallurgist, and Elizma heads Mintek's comminution section. She looks forward to being back in Cape Town in April for Comminution '20.

Elizma and Aphelele of Mintek

Also good to catch up with Jules Aupiais, of Senmin, South Africa. I first met Jules at Reagents '91 in Cornwall, and Senmin has been a regular sponsor of all MEI's Flotation conferences. Senmin, a business of AECI Mining Solutions, is a manufacturer and supplier of mining chemicals used in the beneficiation of a wide range of ores such as platinum, copper, zinc, coal etc as well as polyacrylamides used for tailings treatment. Jules is photographed below with two of his AECI colleagues. 

Jules Aupiais (right) and colleagues

Thursday 6th February

Despite this being the final half day of the meeting, the exhibition hall was still buzzing this morning. 

I was pleased to see that students interested in careers in mining were invited to attend Mining Indaba’s Young Leaders Programme today

Now in its 5th year, the Young Leaders in Mining, a collaboration between Mining Indaba and Brunswick, a critical issues advisory firm, creates a forum for the next generation of miners – students at university and young professionals already working in the industry - to meet and engage with senior leaders in mining, government and civil society. 

Pupils from Simon's Town School talk to Mintek's head of Biotechnology Mariekie Gericke

Tom Quin, Head of Content for Mining Indaba said: “...mining needs to attract top talent just as much as it needs to attract investment and community support if it is going to thrive."

This is very true, but young people are only going to be attracted to the industry if it is perceived to be sustainable and responsibly managed. The message that mining is crucial, and that if we cannot grow it, it must be mined, must come across strongly.

Thankfully this has been the pervasive message at Indaba 2020 and congratulations must be given to all involved with this great event. Ministers, mining CEOs and relevant stakeholders have been joined for some progressive conversations about working collaboratively to move the industry forward. It was particularly good to see the mining majors really promoting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) protocol, but as cautioned by Bady Blade, Director of EITI International Secretariat  "we cannot just rely on the most responsible companies. Governments have a critical role to play in reducing mining’s carbon footprint and bringing all the actors to the same standard."

ESG has often not been too important an issue for the global mining industry, mainly because there were no hard and fast rules on how to develop and implement ESG policies, nor any penalties for failing to do so. Many companies felt they could legitimately ignore calls to ensure operations were carried out ethically and sustainably.

But in an industry with a checkered history of accidents, environmental disasters and corruption scandals, it seems that the balance is finally starting to tip in favour of "good" ESG, and this was strongly felt at Indaba.  As John Welborn, CEO of Resolute Mining said "ESG investing is not just a moral case, it’s a good investment case and an absolute necessity for our business".

Let's continue to hammer home this message.

@barrywills

Will the roaring 20s be the decade of the mineral processor?

As we enter a new year and a new decade what will be the main issues facing the world and the mining industry? Predicting the future is an impossible task, but it is fairly evident that climate change will be high on the agenda.

Few people now deny that climate change is a reality, but some question whether the current extremes of weather are due to natural climate cycles, totally due to human influence, or a combination of the two?

Interestingly 10 years ago, as we prepared to enter a new decade, the debate was as controversial as it is now. The main protagonist for a natural geological cycle was Prof. Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of Earth Science at the University of Melbourne, who contributed a long argument against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on the blog in October 2019.

In the opposite corner, providing a strong case for AGW, was Prof. Stephan Harrison, an earth scientist who is Prof. of Climate and Environmental Change at the University of Exeter in Cornwall.  Ten years on, a recent paper by Prof. Plimer in The Spectator shows that his views have not changed and he concludes with "evidence from the past is why geologists regard human-induced global warming as total nonsense."

I am not altogether sure that there is such a consensus among geologists; I know some that do advocate a natural cycle, others that don't, and Plimer's arguments have been refuted by many reputable scientists, who accuse him of distorting or ignoring published research on many topics, and that his claims are not supported with evidence or peer-reviewed research.

Many scientists believe, maybe instinctively, that the cause lies between the two extremes. The basic problem is that the science is so immensely complex that maybe we will never know the exact cause, but we do know the effect, and if we believe that humans are at least part of the problem, then we should be doing something about it.

And we, the mining industry, will play a huge part if 'zero carbon' is ever to be attained. Leaving aside the ludicrous demands of Extinction Rebellion, the UN Paris Agreement requires humanity to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century and the UK has committed to attain this goal by 2050, the first major economy to do so. My article of 21st July last year cast doubts as to whether this is attainable, as to attain these goals will put enormous demands on what are very finite resources of raw materials.

In supplying the raw materials to build electric vehicles and renewable energy sources, as well as providing suitable alternatives to oil and gas for heating home and offices, the importance of mining cannot be over-emphasised and the most important technology within the industry is, and increasingly will be, mineral processing.

Mining activity must step up a few notches in order to attain the zero carbon goals but all at a time when grades of ore mined are falling and the mineralogy becoming more complex. Mineral processing has to adapt to these changes, and as well as treating primary ores, there must be more emphasis on treatment of secondary sources, such as old tailings, and also on recycling, which is fairly easy with metals such as copper, but tremendously difficult with some of the hi-tech metals found in tiny amounts in computers and mobile phones.

Ironically the mining industry is one of the most energy intensive industries. The energy problem will most likely be solved this century by nuclear fusion, but it is doubtful whether this will be viable by mid-century as a replacement for fossil fuels, as truly formidable engineering problems have to be overcome, so efforts must be made to reduce the energy which is consumed in mining and processing.

The most energy intensive component of mineral processing is comminution, and every effort is being made to reduce energy consumption in crushing and grinding, and this is highlighted by the programme for MEI's Comminution '20 conference in Cape Town in April. The conference begins with two keynote lectures on comminution energy, and energy is the focus for the whole of the first morning.

Comminution '20 is the first of five MEI conferences this year which are all pertinent to the increasing importance of mineral processing. Sustainable Minerals '20, in Falmouth in June, recognises that the rapid growth of the world economy is straining the sustainable use of the Earth's natural resources due to modern society's reliance on raw materials, and will highlight the crucial role of mineral processing in the quest for a circular economy.

There is much overlap between Sustainable Minerals '20 and Biomining '20 which immediately precedes it. Biomining '20 will focus on the latest developments in biohydrometallurgy and bioprocessing, not only for primary ore processing but for novel resources, such as mine and electronic wastes, and the bioremediation of mining-impacted environments.  The provisional programmes for these two conferences will be published later this month, so it is not too late to submit abstracts.

Falmouth, the venue for #Biomining20 and #SustainableMinerals20

A few decades ago, the metals which we now call Hi-Tech Metals, such as the rare earth element neodymium, were relatively unheard of.  Lithium was essentially a curiosity but the demand for this once minor metal will increase with the continuing development of electric vehicles. The rare earths and lithium are primary mined, but some of the once minor metals, such as gallium, germanium and indium, which are essential for our modern way of life, are by-products of base metal mining.

The importance of all the 'Hi-Tech' metals cannot be overestimated and in October the 2nd conference on the mineral processing and extraction of these metals, Hi-Tech Metals '20, will be held in Cape Town, and will be immediately followed by Process Mineralogy '20, focussing on an area which is of increasing importance as mined ores and secondary deposits become ever more complex.

And to end the first year of the new decade the International Mineral Processing Congress will be in Cape Town in October, following the two MEI Conferences. This will be a great opportunity for minerals engineers of all disciplines to come together to discuss future needs and problems.

Cape Town, the venue for #Comminution20, #HiTechMetals20, #ProcessMineralogy20 and #IMPC2020

On behalf of us all at MEI, I would like to wish you all the very best for 2020, and we hope to catch up with as many of you as possible during the year.

@barrywills

Is CO2 the most maligned gas in history?

The mining industry is one of the world's greatest emitters of carbon dioxide, and legislation to reduce emissions has a severe impact not only on existing operations but on the potential start up of new ventures. And all at a time when the demand for metals is growing, particularly with the electric vehicle revolution.

It is not surprising, therefore, that talk at major mineral processing conferences often drifts towards climate change and its causes. Mineral processors are not climate change scientists but they are entitled to their views. As is the veteran broadcaster Sir David Attenborough, who last week was the keynote speaker at the opening ceremony of the United Nations-sponsored climate talks in Katowice, Poland, the most critical meeting on climate change since the 2015 Paris agreement.

Sir David painted a truly apocalyptic vision of the future with the collapse of civilisations and the extinction of "much of the natural world".  "Right now," he said "we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change". He urged everyone to change their habits, in particular avoiding air travel- a little hypocritical maybe, as he spends half his life in the air travelling to remote locations for his excellent natural history series.

Sir David's comments were the lead story on the BBC national news that evening. Not surprising as his views reflect the BBC's hard-line policy, an article in The Times (BBC freezes out climate change sceptics, September 8th 2018) reporting that science staff have been told that they need no longer invite those who deny anthropogenic global warming on its programmes, suggesting that allowing them to speak was "like letting someone deny last week's football scores". It is very noticeable that the BBC's references to climate change are almost always preceded by 'man-made', but what really angers me is the repeated assertion that "all scientists agree that climate change is due to the activities of man".

This is just not true. When I discuss the topic at conferences there are, of course, many who back anthropogenic warming, but there are many who are sceptics who question some, or much, of the science. Many, however, are outright deniers of man-made climate change and feel that it is more likely that the temperature rise is due to natural cycles. Geologists in particular tend to support this, claiming that they have seen it all before, although not literally, and some astrophysicists argue that the temperature rise is due to solar activity.

There was much intense debate on the blog a few years ago, and a very eminent geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of the University of Melbourne, presented some very convincing arguments against anthropogenic global warming, which led to some interesting comments, and a long response against his arguments by the University of Exeter's Dr. Stephan Harrison. Many geologists that I speak to support Plimer's views.

So where do I stand on this extremely complex topic? I have spent almost 40% of my life as an editor of a peer-reviewed journal and have developed a nose for sniffing out bad science and I have to admit that I have been very sceptical about some of the science advocating anthropogenic global warming. I am a great believer in the motto of the Royal Society, nullius in verba (take nobody's word for it) and believe that all scientists should question the work of others even though they may not be directly involved in that field.

If pushed I would take the view that climate change is mainly a natural phenomenon, to which we humans contribute but by how much nobody knows. The suggestion that a small increase in concentration of a trace gas in the atmosphere can have such a profound effect on climate, and on the acidification of the oceans, leading to the disappearance of coral reefs, is not easy for me to accept. The media regularly report that CO2 levels have increased by around 40% since pre-industrial times, and the temperature has risen by 0.8 C. A question that I have asked before, but have not really got a satisfactory answer to, is 'how do we know this'? How can we compare temperatures and CO2 levels now to those of pre-industrial times when there was then no real interest in these levels?

An increase in 40% seems a lot, but in absolute terms this is an increase in concentration from just under 0.03% to the present level of just over 0.04%. Can this small increase have such a profound effect? Many scientists are convinced that it can, as the Danish electrochemist Arrhenius showed in the early 20th century that without the greenhouse gases H2O, CO2, CH4, O3 and N2O, the surface of the earth would be about -20C , like the moon. In this complex mix CO2 is the gas which has the second largest impact on reducing the amount of long wavelength radiation emitted by the earth, warmed by the Sun, back to space. The most potent green-house gas is water vapour and rising temperatures increase the amount of this gas in the atmosphere. Other major green-house gases are hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride. These are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. They are typically emitted in smaller quantities than CO2, but because they are powerful greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases.

But suppose Plimer is right, and temperature rise is part of a natural cycle. The oceans contain trillions of tonnes of CO2 and a rise in temperature must, according to Henry's Law, release CO2 into the atmosphere, explaining the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, the argument behind the climate change debate. The CO2 level would then be expected to lag behind the temperature rise, and there have been many articles in reputable journals over the past decade saying just this, although there have not been many reports of this in the media. So, does temperature drive CO2 levels, and not the other way round? Or maybe it is a combination of both?

What I find really hard to swallow, however, is that an increase in CO2 concentration from 0.03% to 0.04% can acidify the oceans to such an extent that Sir David Attenborough predicted in his superb series, The Blue Planet, that the coral reefs would disappear by the end of the century. The programme even had a ludicrous demonstration of this, showing that when acid was poured onto a piece of coral it bubbled and fizzed- of course it would.

Carbonic acid is one of the weakest of acids, but even so, an increase in ocean temperature must release CO2, so if indeed the rate of attack on the coral reefs is increasing, what is causing it? Well every hydrometallurgist knows that the rate of leaching increases not only with acid concentration, but also with temperature.

So back to my eponymous question. Is CO2 the most maligned gas in history? It is present in trace amounts in the atmosphere, it is not a pollutant and is essential for plant growth and the production of oxygen.

Is the emphasis on CO2 taking the pressure off the real killer in the atmosphere? Air pollution is one of the world's major causes of death, and one of the main culprits is NO2 in internal combustion engine emissions. Electric vehicles will play a major role in the reduction of such emissions, and the mining industry will be vital in producing the materials for these vehicles. Let's hope that it is not hamstrung by the need to spend billions on controlling its own CO2 emissions. Mining is the primary industry, which feeds all other industries, and without a thriving mining industry civilisations would indeed collapse. So if draconian cuts in emissions are imposed, maybe it could be considered as a special case? Very unlikely I would suspect.

I am expecting a bit of flak by publishing this post, but it is basically to solicit your views on this controversial subject. Do you believe that climate change is solely down to human activity, is it a purely natural phenomenon, or do you feel that it is probably a combination of both?

Twitter @barrywills

Carbon Capture and Storage: more research, or none at all?

There is no doubt that the requirement to reduce emissions of CO2 will have a marked impact on the minerals industry, particularly on the viability of new ventures.

In last week's The Times, Matt Ridley argues that carbon dioxide is not the most urgent problem facing humanity, compared with war, extremism, poverty and disease. "But most presidents, popes and film stars think it is, so what is the best way of solving the problem?"

The science and technology committee of the House of Lords (on which Ridley sits) told the government in a recent report on the resilience of the electricity system that it has not sufficiently informed the public about the “trilemma” facing policymakers. We cannot — in the present state of technology — make the electricity supply low-carbon, resilient and low-cost all at the same time. Decarbonisation is not achievable if politicians wish to restrain energy prices.

Which leaves plan B: to continue using fossil fuels but extract the carbon dioxide from power station exhaust by “carbon capture and storage” (CCS).

There have been many research articles on CCS published lately, some in mineral processing journals, such as Minerals Engineering which recently published a special issue on the Accelerated Carbonation conference (ACEME 2013), which also aimed at promoting mineral carbonisation in the context of CCS and Carbon Capture and Utilisation.When the topic of CCS comes up, I, like Matt Ridley, admit to being unsure whom to believe. On the one hand there are those who say: it is ready to go, it solves the problem, what are we waiting for? On the other, those who say it’s a costly white elephant going nowhere.

Ridley argues that the first problem is that the process reduces the efficiency of the power station. "A normal coal-fired power station runs at about 35 per cent efficiency — that is to say, a bit more than a third of the heat energy in the steam gets turned into electricity. Adding CCS means that the efficiency drops to maybe 26 per cent. The cost correspondingly goes up substantially, as do people’s electricity bills." The British government has been dangling a £1 billion carrot in front of the energy industry to get CCS going but delays and cancellations are affecting CCS around the world. Given that electricity is only a small part of the energy system, if CCS is to solve our problems it has to roll out to not just every coal and gas power station on the planet, but to smelters, refineries and all operations generating large quantities of CO2.

Ridley concludes that there is no way to meet our self-imposed decarbonisation target without bankrupting the country. It’s not more effort and political will we need; it’s more research.

In response to this, Frederick Bellringer, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, felt that Matt Ridley was wrong in concluding that more research on CCS is required. He argued that carbon capture is a relatively straightforward but expensive technology. Storage, however, requires that liquid carbon dioxide has to be conveyed by pipeline to a suitable hole in the ground where it has to remain for ever. He said "In the UK we have apparently spent oil wells where this may be possible. Even in the UK the logistics of such an operation are formidable, but for the rest of the power stations throughout the world the logistical, political, technical and financial problems would be insurmountable." He concludes by saying "We do not require more research on CCS. We require a firm decision from our politicians that it is nonsense."

I know very little about this subject, so I do not wish to take sides in the argument. I would, however, like to have the opinions of those of you are involved with CCS: those who are researching this area and those of you who are affected by the need to implement such technology to reduce your carbon emissions.

A few simple questions for climate scientists

Porthleven, Cornwall

A report this week from the UK Met Office warns that the "conveyor belt" of storms which has battered us since early December is likely to last for at least the next few weeks. It suggests that the UK's floods and storms are just one element of a global disruption of weather patterns, the origin of which lies thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific. According to the report, the changes are consistent with climate change.

Climate change science, and in particular government policies determined by scientific reports, are of great importance to the minerals industry, a major consumer of energy and producer of CO2. It is interesting to read the intense debate which took place on this blog over three years ago,  the overwhelming consensus among the many minerals industry correspondents being that if humans are contributing to climate change, the extent to which they are contributing is open to much doubt and debate.

Since the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report the media are again reporting that all scientists agree that climate change is taking place and that there is little doubt that human action is the main contributor via CO2 emissions. I wonder if the correspondents of 3 years ago now fall into line with these views?

Personally I don't want to get embroiled in the debate between climate change believers and deniers again. There appears to be little doubt that climate change is now taking place, and that humans are playing some part in this, but to what extent is still open to debate.

My scepticism has always been about the reliability of models describing this immensely complex system and the IPCC report also casts some doubt on the models and their predictions of what will happen by the end of the century.

The debate is essentially about carbon dioxide levels and temperature, but for me some aspects have never been satisfactorily explained. My questions may be naïve, but if they are simplistic then maybe someone can provide simple answers:

1. It is said that the average temperature of the atmosphere has risen by 1.5 C over the last 100 years. How do we know this? There must be sophisticated methods of measuring the temperature now, but how was average temperature measured 100 years ago?

2. Apparently the CO2 level is now around 400ppm. Is this a global average or is this a uniform figure ie is the CO2 level in the UK the same as that in India and of that over the centre of the Pacific? If it is not uniform is it reliable to compare levels now with levels inferred from CO2 trapped only in Antarctic ice? And would CO2 in this air be dissolved into the ice with time, thus giving falsely low readings?

3. If a country is told to cut its CO2 levels by X%, how does anyone know if they have done this or not? How are a country's emissions measured (or calculated)?

Please help me understand!

Why we have cancelled Climate Change ‘11

Although I am beginning to wish that I hadn’t, almost a year ago I opened up a long debate on the blog on climate change and the effect that it might have on the minerals industry. The debate was primarily initiated by a series of emails that I received from a South African academic, who was very pro-anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and criticised the scope of the MEI Conference Climate Change and the Minerals Industry ’11 (blog of 22nd August).

Since then I sense that the consensus has swung towards the non-AGW lobby, and the strongest voice arguing for AGW on this blog is Stephan Harrison, who had agreed to be one of our speakers at next year’s event. I know that Stephan is totally sincere in his belief that global warming is human-induced, and that he is a highly competent scientist.

I have been browsing through various LinkedIn group discussions and find that even on the Climate Change groups the swing is towards non-AGW. A very long discussion (Climate Change- Fact or Fiction) can be found on the Think Green group, and an even longer one (Has Global Warming Ended?) on the Green group.

There is a particularly strong anti-AGW discussion, initiated by Neville Roberts, an international mining consultant, on the Minerals & Metals Professionals Globally Group. Neville doesn’t hold back at all:

"Those of you following the real science will know that this is the biggest and most expensive scam ever perpetrated on the human race. The chicanery, professional corruption and downright fraud associated with this will eventually be totally exposed; meanwhile the bluster and unethical cover ups will continue to obscure the facts. As professionals whose industry will be significantly adversely affected by the proposals to counteract this non event we all ought to add our comments to the multiplicity of pseudo scientific articles polluting the web. We can't match the histrionics of the green religion crowd, but we can still be advocates for truth and supporters of the true scientists who are exposing the fraud."

There are over 40 comments on this discussion almost all agreeing totally with Neville and his almost evangelical views on the "truth" and “real science”. I commented on Stephan Harrison’s proposed keynote speech and my quest to find a speaker to give a counter-argument to Stephan’s views, and Neville responded with “..there is overwhelming evidence of bias against the presentation of evidence to disprove AGW.... The last thing we should be doing is adding our weight to that bias by giving a platform to a known 'the science is settled' proponent like Harrison."

This to me sounds pretty hard on Stephan but is typical of how heated, and, in many cases, totally unprofessional, these arguments are becoming, while effectively going nowhere. One of the most sensible comments comes from Gregg Wagner, Director of Sustainability and Environment at Rio Tinto Minerals, USA:

"I find it simply amazing regarding the amount of time and effort that those in our industry are expending to fight the idea of climate change and emissions trading. You don't have to believe in climate change. The only thing we should do is focus on becoming more energy efficient. By reducing our energy intensity we increase profitability. The added benefit of reducing CO2 emission is a savings account against the possibility of potential emission trading programs."

I agree totally with Gregg on this. I am a climate change agnostic- basically I do not know what to believe, as the problem is so complex, and there are even doubts as to whether global warming is actually occurring, so I keep asking questions. However, the arguments are becoming very emotive, abusive in some cases, and seem to be going round and round in circles. Politicians huff and puff about human induced CO2, but when it comes to the crunch, as Copenhagen showed, they won’t do anything about it.

So are the arguments now purely academic? I feel that nothing meaningful will come out of a conference debate on whether climate change is caused by man or other factors, and for that reason have decided to cancel next year’s Climate Change and the Minerals Industry conference. Certain elements of the conference:

• The economic impact of carbon emission controls on the industry.
• Case studies of existing methods to reduce emissions and new technology being developed, such as carbon capture and storage.
• Efforts to reduce energy consumption in mining and mineral processing operations.

will now be incorporated into the conference Sustainability through Resource Conservation and Recycling ’11, which will be extended to 3-days, and held in Falmouth from May 10-12, 2011.