par Jeudi » 24 août 2022, 02:59
Jeudi a écrit : ↑24 août 2022, 02:27
nemo a écrit : ↑23 août 2022, 23:29
Jeudi a écrit : ↑23 août 2022, 23:20
Non, restons sur le cuivre. Si ton point est, comme energy, sur la diminution du taux de minerai, pas de problème. La question sur laquelle je ne suis pas convaincu, c’est que mastondonte moderne sur filon pauvre demande plus d’effort humain que des méthodes plus anciennes sur des filons plus riches.
Il faut définir "effort humain" dans ce cas. Est ce qu'on a davantage de mineur pour une quantité comparable de minerais produit probablement pas. Mais le cout global en investissement et en énergie lui a énormément augmenté.
Le nombre d’heures travaillées par unité de masse de cuivre produite, si possible en ajoutant/convertissant investissement et énergie en temps humain. Bon point d’energy que la pollution devrait également être incluse, s’il existe un calcul raisonnable.
Pas trouvé de chiffres aussi précis, mais quelques lectures suggèrent que les changements de productivité sont dominés par des supercycles avec des périodes de prix bas/peu de personnel/haute productivité et des périodes de prix haut /beaucoup de personnel/basse productivité. La baisse du taux de minerai et les variations inter-entreprises (souvent un proxy pour l’impact du progrès technologique) sont mentionnés mais secondaire apparemment.
In the past 50 years, the US copper mining industry has experienced remarkable changes. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the US copper mining industry suffered a major recession. However, a few companies survived by implementing severe cost-cutting measures through innovation and technological changes. These efforts, in turn, helped quintuple labor productivity in the three decades following. Then from 2003 to 2012, labor productivity declined sharply to the levels equal to those of the early 1980s. This decline, following years of rising productivity, has led to questioning the effects of innovation and technological change on mining labor productivity. It has been argued that new technology will no longer be able to offset the adverse effects of depletion thus resulting in higher prices in the future. This study investigates the determinants of copper mining labor productivity empirically, and the extent to which they may vary cyclically for longer time spans (1965 to 2015) from the US perspective. The statistical model examines the level of labor productivity as a function of copper price, recoverable copper content of ore (percentage yield), production share of leaching, mine production index, and time trend. Overall, the results support the conclusion that falling productivity is mostly cyclical.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/minecn/v3 ... 167-y.html
In recent years, commodity-producing countries have seen their productivity growth rate decline. Chile is no exception. The 2016 Annual Report of the National Productivity Commission found that the total factor productivity (TFP) of the Chilean economy as a whole decelerated from 2.3% annually in the 1990s to 0.1% per year in 2000. The primary, though not the only reason, was the reduction in mining productivity. This fall was mainly due to the companies' reaction to the super cycle of copper prices, which led them to prioritize the level of production over other criteria such as efficiency.
In fact, copper production rose 19% between 2000 and 2014. However, this required 79% more energy, 157% more labor, and 178% more capital. This explosive growth in the use of inputs to achieve a modest increase in production entailed a heavy fall in productivity, which, according to some studies, was around 70% during the super cycle. However, this measure does not take into account that during the period, the ore's grade deteriorated significantly, which meant mining, loading and processing an additional 40% of mineral to achieve the same amount of fine copper.
https://www.cnep.cl/wp-content/uploads/ ... inglés.pdf
[quote=Jeudi post_id=2350000 time=1661300835 user_id=38382]
[quote=nemo post_id=2349991 time=1661290185 user_id=308]
[quote=Jeudi post_id=2349987 time=1661289624 user_id=38382]
Non, restons sur le cuivre. Si ton point est, comme energy, sur la diminution du taux de minerai, pas de problème. La question sur laquelle je ne suis pas convaincu, c’est que mastondonte moderne sur filon pauvre demande plus d’effort humain que des méthodes plus anciennes sur des filons plus riches.
[/quote]
Il faut définir "effort humain" dans ce cas. Est ce qu'on a davantage de mineur pour une quantité comparable de minerais produit probablement pas. Mais le cout global en investissement et en énergie lui a énormément augmenté.
[/quote]
Le nombre d’heures travaillées par unité de masse de cuivre produite, si possible en ajoutant/convertissant investissement et énergie en temps humain. Bon point d’energy que la pollution devrait également être incluse, s’il existe un calcul raisonnable.
[/quote]
Pas trouvé de chiffres aussi précis, mais quelques lectures suggèrent que les changements de productivité sont dominés par des supercycles avec des périodes de prix bas/peu de personnel/haute productivité et des périodes de prix haut /beaucoup de personnel/basse productivité. La baisse du taux de minerai et les variations inter-entreprises (souvent un proxy pour l’impact du progrès technologique) sont mentionnés mais secondaire apparemment.
[quote]In the past 50 years, the US copper mining industry has experienced remarkable changes. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the US copper mining industry suffered a major recession. However, a few companies survived by implementing severe cost-cutting measures through innovation and technological changes. These efforts, in turn, helped quintuple labor productivity in the three decades following. Then from 2003 to 2012, labor productivity declined sharply to the levels equal to those of the early 1980s. This decline, following years of rising productivity, has led to questioning the effects of innovation and technological change on mining labor productivity. It has been argued that new technology will no longer be able to offset the adverse effects of depletion thus resulting in higher prices in the future. This study investigates the determinants of copper mining labor productivity empirically, and the extent to which they may vary cyclically for longer time spans (1965 to 2015) from the US perspective. The statistical model examines the level of labor productivity as a function of copper price, recoverable copper content of ore (percentage yield), production share of leaching, mine production index, and time trend. [color=#FF0000]Overall, the results support the conclusion that falling productivity is mostly cyclical.[/color][/quote]
https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/minecn/v33y2020i1d10.1007_s13563-018-00167-y.html
[quote]In recent years, commodity-producing countries have seen their productivity growth rate decline. Chile is no exception. The 2016 Annual Report of the National Productivity Commission found that the total factor productivity (TFP) of the Chilean economy as a whole decelerated from 2.3% annually in the 1990s to 0.1% per year in 2000. The primary, though not the only reason, was the reduction in mining productivity. [color=#FF0000]This fall was mainly due to the companies' reaction to the super cycle of copper prices, which led them to prioritize the level of production over other criteria such as efficiency.[/color]
In fact, copper production rose 19% between 2000 and 2014. However, this required 79% more energy, 157% more labor, and 178% more capital. This explosive growth in the use of inputs to achieve a modest increase in production entailed a heavy fall in productivity, which, according to some studies, was around 70% during the super cycle. However, this measure does not take into account that during the period, the ore's grade deteriorated significantly, which meant mining, loading and processing an additional 40% of mineral to achieve the same amount of fine copper.
[/quote]
https://www.cnep.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Resumen-Ejecutivo-Idioma-inglés.pdf