Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
https://web.archive.org/web/20151130021641/http://www.alcoa.com:80/global/en/eco_alcoa/info_page/alcoa_recycling.asp
(11/30/2015)
2
https://web.archive.org/web/20151022013834/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/water.asp
(10/22/2015)
3
https://web.archive.org/web/20151104165921/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/energy.asp
(11/4/2015)
4
https://web.archive.org/web/20151123083813/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/land.asp
(11/23/2015)
23%
reduction
from
2005
levels.
Total
wastes
sold
or
recycled
have
slipped
since
2011,
but
are
still
an
impressive
figure,
709
thousand
metric
tons.
Bauxite
residue
storage
efficiency
goal
of
15%
reduction
in
area
required
per
mass
of
alumina
produced
from
2005
baseline
by
2020
has
already
been
met.
The
Bauxite
residue
storage
efficiency
in
2005
was
67
square
meters
of
land
required
per
thousand
metric
tons
of
alumina
produced;
the
2030
goal
is
47
square
meters.
However,
the
Bauxite
residue
storage
area
rehabilitation
rate
(total
area
rehabilitated)
is
lagging,
and
perhaps
insufficient.
As
of
2014,
16
percent
of
the
total
area
of
storage
has
been
rehabilitated,
whereas
the
goal
for
2020
is
30%
and
40%
by
2030.
Compare
this
to
a
2005
baseline
of
13%
area
rehabilitated.
Finally,
most
integral
to
this
letter,
bauxite
residue
reuse
goal
is
only
30%
by
2030,
and
0%
has
been
achieved
as
of
December
2014.
This
performance
metric,
along
with
the
biodiversity
plans,
deserve
more
attention
from
Alcoa
leaders.
Background
Attached
to
this
document
is
a
systems
analysis
with
stock-flow
diagram,
and
a
link
to
the
interactive
diagram
online,
representing
the
flow
of
various
types
of
energy
and
materials
in
the
manufacture
of
aluminum
from
raw
bauxite.
Most
emphasis
and
detail
is
placed
on
the
processing
of
bauxite
to
alumina,
and
5
potential
end
uses
for
the
waste
product
bauxite
residue
are
shown.
In
the
remaining
of
this
letter,
I
hope
to
drive
the
point
home
that
more
research
and
development
should
be
paid
to
these
end
uses
for
the
bauxite
residue,
since
it
represents
on
the
order
of
3
times
the
volume
of
material
as
the
processed
aluminum
derived
therefrom
(emissions5
and
climate6).
Bauxite
residue
can
be
used
as
a
construction
material
for
sustainable
development
in
the
regions7
it
is
produced
by
Alcoa
Australia,
Brazil,
Guinea,
Jamaica,
Saudi
Arabia
and
Suriname.
It
can
also
be
bioremediated
and
put
to
productive
use,
added
to
abandoned
mine
tailings
to
neutralize
and
stabilize
the
pH
for
regrowth
of
land
cover,
used
as
a
building
material
or
agricultural
soil
supplement,
used
for
carbon
capture,
or
simply
stabilized
in
permanent
pilings
(which
is
current
common
practice
after
being
dewatered.
Potential
use
cases
are
shown
in
the
table
matrix
below,
ranked
by
measures
including
feasibility,
sustainability,
goodwill,
marketability
and
profitability
in
different
dimensions.
The
rankings
are
subjective
guesses,
explained
to
some
degree
in
the
list
succeeding
the
table
matrix.
Each
use
case
will
have
its
own
tradeoffs,
which
are
too
particular
to
address
in
much
detail.
In
general
a
lower
total
number
signals
a
more
preferred
alternative
in
the
table
below.
Table
1.
Measure
and
ranking
of
use
case
alternatives
for
bauxite
residue
Stable
Bioremediation
Abandoned
mine
Construction
Carbon
Reference
Permanent
pile
&
productive
tailing
supplement
Materials
Capture
Number
Measure
Ranking
Pilings
(SPP)
use
(BPP)
(AMTS)
(CM)
(CC)
1
Feasibility
Ease
(easy
-
hard)
1
2
4
3
4
2
Feasibility
Timeline
(short
-
long)
3
2
2
1
3
Water
Quantity/Quality
3
Sustainability
(less
-
more)
2
2
0
0
0
4
Sustainability
Energy
(less
-
more)
1
1
3
2
2
Carbon
Dioxide
5
Sustainability
(reduce
-
increase)
2
1
0
3
0
6
Goodwill
Local
(less
-
more)
3
1
2
0
2
7
Marketability
Regional
(less
-
more)
4
1
3
1
3
8
Profitability
Global
(less
-
more)
4
1
1
2
3
Total
20
11
15
12
17
From
the
table
matrix
of
alternative
use
cases
for
bauxite
residue,
we
see
that
the
preferred
ranking
by
eight
measures
favors
bioremediation/productive
use,
construction
materials,
abandoned
mine
tailing
supplement,
then
carbon
capture,
and
finally
stable
permanent
pilings.
The
following
list
briefly
explains
the
reasoning
for
the
subjective
rankings.
5
https://web.archive.org/web/20151121032810/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/emissions.asp
(11/21/15)
6
https://web.archive.org/web/20161010110544/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/climate_protection.asp
(10/10/15)
7
https://web.archive.org/web/20151208231026/http://www.alcoa.com/alumina/en/info_page/bauxite_interests.asp
(12/8/15)
List
of
explanations
for
rankings
in
bauxite
residue
use
case
alternatives
1. Feasibility
by
ease
of
use:
SPP
is
easiest;
BPP
requires
microbiological
expertise;
AMTS
requires
intergovernmental
coordination;
CM
may
require
chemical
adjustment
and
heat/pressure
treatment;
CC
requires
chemical
expertise.
2. Feasibility
by
timeline:
SPP
is
a
long
process;
BPP
stabilizes
faster
than
SPP;
AMTS
takes
effort
and
time
to
coordinate;
CM
could
be
added
into
the
production
cycle
to
speed
up
bauxite
residue
use;
CC
would
continue
for
the
length
of
a
production
cycle.
3. Sustainability
of
water
quantity
and
quality:
SPP
leachate
is
a
concern;
BPP
requires
some
water
for
the
microbiota
and
ground
cover;
AMTS
improves
water
quality
over
time;
some
CM
do
not
use
water;
CC
makes
bauxite
residue
less
alkali,
improving
water
quality
of
leachate.
4. Sustainability
of
energy:
SPP
and
BPP
require
mechanical
energy
to
move
material;
AMTS
requires
significant
energy
to
move
material
large
distances;
CM
requires
mechanical
energy
and
heat,
but
likely
would
not
travel
very
far;
CC
requires
energy
for
CO2
compression8,
and
a
little
for
pumping.
5. Sustainability
of
Carbon
Dioxide:
SPP
is
somewhat
neutral,
but
not
well-conducive
to
growth
of
ground
cover
for
biological
carbon
sequestration;
BPP
improves
subsoil
conditions
to
enable
better
plant
growth
and
carbon
sequestration;
AMTS
makes
subsoil
and
topsoil
viable
and
enables
reforestation
especially
in
coal
mine
tailing
piles,
for
greater
biological
carbon
sequestration;
some
CM
uses
heat
treatment,
and
involves
CO2
externalities
inherently
in
the
building
process;
CC
sequesters8
CO2.
6. Goodwill
locally:
SPP
leaves
an
unnatural
geomorphology
and
takes
a
long
time;
BPP
makes
productive
use
of
the
residue
possible
for
agriculture,
forest,
or
native
replanting;
AMTS
has
little
effect
locally,
but
reduces
the
total
volume
of
residue
that
must
be
stored;
CM
potentially
offers
construction
materials
for
sustainable
development
where
it
is
needed
bricks,
road
base,
cement
fill,
even
acidic
soil
supplement;
CC
is
a
nice
gesture
locally,
but
relative
to
the
CO2
and
other
gas
effluent
has
little
effect.
7. Regional
marketability:
SPP
is
a
liability;
if
BPP
can
be
mastered,
consultant
knowledge
can
be
marketed
regionally;
there
may
be
some
AMTS
opportunities9
in
Australia
(supplied
by
Australian
bauxite
residue)
and
Colombia
(near
bauxite
production
in
Jamaica,
Suriname
and
Brazil);
CM
could
be
sold
at
a
low
price
point
near
its
source
and
join
into
existing
Alcoa
distribution
channels
to
find
market
share
without
much
adjustment
to
business
practice;
analyzing
the
EIA
map9,
it
does
not
appear
that
bauxite
residue
used
for
CC
at
the
source
would
be
difficult
to
market
regionally
given
the
relatively
low
opportunities.
8. Global
profitability:
again
SPP
is
a
liability;
BPP
expertise
can
be
developed
into
a
potentially
very
profitable
niche
consultant
business
for
remediation
of
mine
tailings
globally;
likewise
AMTS
could
be
very
profitable
if
consultation
and
product
niche
is
found
through
significant
collaborative
effort
and
creative
financing
with
land
remediation
future
productive
use;
CM
is
abundant,
and
potentially
profitable
if
traction
can
be
found
in
the
market
near
the
source,
and
distributed
in
existing
channels;
CC
has
some
low
potential
profitability
in
the
global
carbon
trading
market.
Framework
The
Cradle
to
Cradle
framework,
coined
by
William
McDonough
and
Michael
Braungart,
conveniently
separates
the
manufacturing
world
into
technical
and
biological
nutrients
that,
with
sufficiently
careful
design
principles,
can
be
endlessly
recycled
or
upcycled.
As
Alcoa
knows
well,
pure
aluminum
can
be
endlessly
recycled
at
much
lower
energy
cost
than
when
refined
from
bauxite.
Natures
wisdom
has
developed
ecosystems
of
organisms
with
complimentary
metabolisms
that
mineralize
organic
materials
and
make
productive
use
of
inorganic
ones.
This
idea
of
two
separate
nutrient
streams
quickly
falls
apart
when
materials
are
traced
back
to
their
earthen
origins
as
in
the
case
of
primary
metal
extraction.
Here
McDonough
might
say
we
have
a
materials
in
the
wrong
place
problem.
The
earthen
material
below
the
8
http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide/52-bauxite-residue
9
http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/
root
zone
is
not
inert,
but
instead
teeming
with
microbiotic10
life,
hundreds
of
meters
in
depth.
For
this
reason,
bauxite
(or
any
kind
of
ore
source)
cannot
neatly
be
put
into
either
category
of
nutrient.
Perhaps
a
more
appropriate
framework,
then,
is
the
Natural
Step11.
There
are
just
four
care
instructions
for
a
sustainable
planet
in
this
framework:
(1)
reduce
dependence
on
fossil
fuels
and
heavy
metals,
(2)
reduce
persistent
synthetic
chemicals,
(3)
reduce
destruction
of
nature,
and
(4)
ensure
we
are
not
stopping
people
globally
from
meeting
their
needs.
Each
of
these
tenets
apply
to
Alcoa,
but
the
first
and
third
are
the
most
relevant
to
this
discussion.
Recycling
aluminum
achieves
both
aspects
of
the
first
tenet,
and
global
recycling
rates
are
fairly
impressive,
which
lowers
the
aluminum
commodity
price
and
relieves
pressure
on
existing
bauxite
mines
for
a
longer
future
reserve
life.
The
third
tenet
speaks
to
the
need
to
remediate
closed
mines,
and
continue
with
initiatives
like
Alcoas
10
million
trees12
project.
Perhaps
the
fourth
tenet
can
apply
here
too,
with
respect
to
productive
use
of
remediated
mines
and
bauxite
residue.
Turning
bauxite
residue
from
a
liability
to
a
source
of
revenue
will
require
Alcoa
to
find
a
market
niche,
work
with
stakeholders,
and
of
course
make
the
numbers
work,
and
there
must
also
be
an
intense
technical
effort.
The
difference
in
bauxite
composition
from
source
to
source,
and
therefore
the
difference
in
its
residue
chemical
composition
after
alumina
has
been
extracted,
presents
challenges
for
its
reuse.
Particularly,
the
sodicity
and
alkalinity
of
bauxite
residue
complicate
its
manufacture
into
a
value
added
product,
and
also
its
treatment
to
ensure
its
biogeochemical
stability.
Caustic
chemicals,
water
and
heat
are
added
to
the
bauxite
material
before
alumina
can
be
removed,
a
process
that
probably
kills
all
of
the
microbiota
in
the
bauxite
material,
and
likely
affects
its
geological
stability
in
storage
as
well.
Bioremediation
can
help
expedite
the
process
of
returning
the
bauxite
residue
into
a
more
natural
state.
For
treatment
of
bauxite
residue,
Grfe
and
Klauber13
have
suggested
in
situ
bioremediation
with
halophyte
plants
and
alkaliphilic
microbes
in
conjunction
with
applied
gypsum,
drainage
strategies,
and
addition
of
organic
waste,
sewage
sludge
and
macro
and
micro-nutrients
to
promote
plant
and
microbe
survival.
In
this
way,
bioremediation
can
be
achieved
well
within
the
lifetime
of
a
refinery
operation,
such
that
closure
of
a
site
soon
after
an
end
to
operations
is
feasible,
with
the
surface
biogeochemistry
suitable
to
restore
the
previous
ecosystem,
or
perhaps
to
sustain
farming
or
some
other
productive
use
for
the
communities
nearby.
With
these
advances
in
expertise,
Alcoa
can
truly
be
a
responsible
global
corporate
citizen
in
its
socio-
environmental
workings,
to
add
value
and
eliminate
any
liability
with
respect
to
the
integrity
of
the
land,
water,
and
biodiversity
where
it
operates.
And
with
this
in-house
expertise,
Alcoa
can
become
a
world-wide
remediation
expert.
Other
mining
and
mineral
extraction
sectors
have
left
a
terrible
environmental
legacy
with
abandoned
mines
and
acid
mine
drainage.
As
Alcoa
reorganizes
into
two
companies,
the
side
focused
on
primary
metal
extraction
in
all
its
facets
will
need
to
develop
its
own
value-added
strategies
including
land
management
and
remediation.
This
is
important
because
primary
metals
may
likely
continue
to
fall
in
price
as
a
commodity
in
the
short
and
medium
terms
since
recycling
(especially
of
secondary
aluminum)
is
mainstream
and
takes
90%
less
energy
than
primary
production
to
refine
(EIA,
2014)14.
Alcoa
has
already
shown
in
2010
in
a
pilot
project
with
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
that
bauxite
residue
can
be
used
to
neutralize
coal
refuse
to
viably
seed
and
reclaim
land
in
abandoned
mine
scenarios
(Alcoa,
2010)15.
These
kinds
of
projects
raise
a
very
exciting
prospect,
such
that
10
https://web.archive.org/web/20150927092846/https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Groundwater
(9/25/15)
11
https://web.archive.org/web/20151106122831/http://www.thenaturalstep.org/
(11/6/15)
12
https://web.archive.org/web/20150913043230/http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/eco_alcoa/info_page/tmt.asp
(9/13/15)
13
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304386X11000442
14
https://web.archive.org/web/20150914233644/http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16211
(9/14/15)
15
https://web.archive.org/web/20151017074154/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/case_studies/2010_USA_mather_mine.asp
(10/17/15)
Alcoa
can
mitigate
its
CO2
emissions
by
making
forest
viable
on
otherwise
desolate
land,
while
supporting
wildlife
and
eliminating
the
liability
of
some
bauxite
residue.
Enough
of
these
projects
could
feasibly
offset
a
significant
portion
of
the
companys
total
GHG
emissions.
Under
a
scheme
like
the
short-lived
Australian
Carbon
tax16,
there
was
virtually
no
incentive
to
reduce
CO2
emissions,
however,
one
can
reasonably
expect
increased
public
pressure
in
the
future
to
reduce
emissions,
especially
after
the
climate
agreement17
in
Paris.
Carbon
sequestration
by
carbonation
with
flue
gas
from
on-site
power
production
may
be
an
option
to
adjust
the
pH
of
the
bauxite
residue,
and
mitigate
a
small
fraction
of
Alcoas
CO2
emissions.
Alcoa
reported
40.4
total
million
of
metric
tons
of
emissions,
whereas
only
0.3
million
metric
tons
could
be
sequestered
if
carbon
capture
with
bauxite
residue
were
implemented
across
all
three
Western
Australia
facilities
(Alcoa
201418,
World
Aluminium
201419).
This
small
carbon
offset
is
part
of
the
reason
the
carbon
capture
alternative
was
ranked
low
on
the
decision
matrix.
Bioremediation
and
reforestation
could
have
a
greater
positive
carbon
benefit,
along
with
benefits
for
water
and
wildlife.
On
the
other
hand,
this
kind
of
carbon
capture
does
reduce
the
alkalinity
of
bauxite
residue,
which
improves
groundwater
quality
in
the
stored
residue.
Finally,
with
appropriate
chemical,
heat
and
pressure
treatment
it
should
be
profitable
to
produce
construction
bricks
from
bauxite
residue.
This
could
be
particularly
useful
for
sustainable
development
in
the
tropical
areas
(Brazil,
Guinea,
Jamaica,
Suriname)
where
Bauxite
is
mined,
and
could
be
more
marketable
in
Australia
and
Saudi
Arabia
where
the
construction
industry
is
more
established.
Of
course,
the
vast
majority
of
Alcoas
bauxite
is
mined
in
Western
Australia.
Research
from
the
Bauxite
Institute
Suriname20
has
showed
that
construction-grade
bricks21
could
be
produced
from
bauxite
residue
with
a
very
low
firing
temperature
(converting
from
MPa
to
kg/cm2
and
looking
at
the
wide
range
of
compressive
strength).
Then,
feasibly,
waste
heat
at
the
alumina
facilities
could
be
used
to
fire
these
bricks.
Indeed,
bricks
are
cheap,
on
the
order
of
$0.30
each
in
wholesale.
As
a
thought
experiment
Im
using
pricing
and
dimensions
of
clay
bricks
from
an
Alibaba22
search.
Here
Im
assuming
a
bauxite
density
of
2,600
kg/m3
and
dimensions
of
230mm
X
102mm
X
75mm.
Then
the
approximate
wholesale
price
for
manufactured
production
bricks
would
be
about
$65
per
metric
ton.
Compare
this
to
the
reported
EBITDA
per
metric
ton
of
$95
for
alumina23
in
the
third
quarter
of
2015
(which
was
$49
lower
in
third
quarter
2014);
at
the
time
the
alumina
exchange
prices
were
in
the
neighborhood
of
$280
per
metric
ton24,
and
aluminum
exchange
prices
on
the
order
of
$700
per
metric
ton25.
So,
bricks
would
not
be
a
high
value
product,
but
it
does
represent
an
opportunity
to
at
least
offset
some
of
the
cost
of
managing
the
bauxite
residue.
It
is
worth
investigating
it
may
be
less
expensive
to
simply
produce
and
give
away
16
https://web.archive.org/web/20151211071936/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
(12/11/15)
17
https://web.archive.org/web/20151212194316/http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008
831
(12/12/15)
18
http://static.globalreporting.org/report-pdfs/2015/8244c3d9e1d1c0b5302ec452ed2be97b.pdf
19
https://web.archive.org/web/20150420204817/http://www.world-
aluminium.org/media/filer_public/2014/09/03/bauxite_residue_management_-_best_practice.pdf
(4/20/15)
20
http://www.bauxietinstituut.com/files/Bauxite
Residue
Application
Technology
-
Richard
Verwey.pdf
21
https://web.archive.org/web/20151030065811/http://www.theconstructioncivil.org/compressive-crushing-strength-of-bricks/
(10/30/15)
22
http://www.alibaba.com/products/F0/clay_construction_bricks/------------------------------14-10,100004172-362155------------------------------------
--------------------ATTR-14-10,ATTR-100004172-362155.html
23
https://web.archive.org/web/20151025051633/http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/news_detail.asp?newsYear=2015&pageID=2015100800
0301en
(10/25/15)
24
https://web.archive.org/web/20151224041008/http://marketrealist.com/2015/12/falling-alumina-prices-alcoas-pain-century-aluminums-
gain/
(12/24/15)
25
http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/aluminum_historical.html
bauxite
residue
bricks
than
to
build
permanent
stable
pilings.
Consider
that
Alcoas
remediation
reserve26
stands
at
$538M
as
of
March
31,
2015,
with
$66M
in
current
liabilities.
Other
than
amendment
to
coal
mine
tailings
to
improve
soil
fertility,
there
is
one
more
application
for
bauxite
residue
worth
mentioning,
which
Alcoa
has
patented
for
agricultural
soil
amendment,
Alkaloam.27
Efforts
for
regulatory
approval
and
project
administration
date
back
at
least
to
1993.
URS
conducted
a
comprehensive
assessment
report
on
this
product
in
2009,
and
found
it
to
be
marketable
although
there
are
some
concerns.
Levels
of
Arsenic,
Barium,
Cadmium,
Chromium,
Cobalt
and
Fluorine
are
above
Western
Australia
criteria
for
review
in
the
worst-case
scenario
of
samples.
However,
it
is
claimed
in
the
study
that
leachate
tests
confirmed
that
soil
amended
with
Alkaloam
were
within
accepted
levels
for
all
metals
based
on
water
quality
guidelines,
landfill
guidelines,
and
soil
investigation
levels.
Another
claim
is
that
at
the
prescribed
application
rate
of
20
tonnes
per
hectare,
there
is
no
anticipation
of
detrimental
effect
on
salinity
of
groundwater,
surface
water
or
surrounding
watercourses.
Also,
the
study
claims
that
there
was
no
significant
plant
uptake
of
heavy
metals
and
radionuclides.
In
addition
to
increasing
pH,
the
product
can
slightly
improve
water
holding
capacity
in
the
soil,
increase
in
fertilizer
efficiency,
significantly
aid
in
phosphorus
retention,
increase
plant
growth.
Despite
these
benefits
backed
with
scientific
studies
following
regulatory
guidelines,
there
has
been
considerable
trouble
overcoming
regulatory
hurdles
to
come
to
market.
The
study
cites
another
author,
Neville
(2004)
who
uses
a
capital
cost
figure
including
cartage
and
spreading
of
just
$14
per
tonne,
which
in
turn
had
been
cited
elsewhere.
More
troubling
cost-
wise
for
Alcoa
is
the
minimal
benefit
that
Alcoa
would
receive
from
reduced
bauxite
residue
storage
and
capping
costs,
which
the
URS
study
assumes
to
be
just
1.5%
of
the
residue
production
(6.6
million
tonnes
over
a
25
year
period
in
Western
Australia
facilities).
In
fact,
much
more
value
would
be
provided
in
avoided
cost
for
the
application
studied
in
the
Peel-Harvey
catchment
based
on
reduced
phosphate
fertilizer,
increased
agricultural
production,
and
reduction
in
phosphorus
loading
in
the
waterway
resulting
in
algae
blooms
and
fish
kills.
It
is
also
worth
noting
that
this
value
proposition
may
increase
in
the
future
as
the
world
reserves
of
rock
phosphorus
continue
to
diminish,
and
farmers
of
tropical
acidic
soils
seek
solutions
to
improve
yields.
See
Attachment
D
for
the
NPV
from
the
URS
study.
In
conclusion,
Alcoa
faces
a
challenge
with
its
bauxite
residue
that
represents
a
long-term
liability,
complicates
its
biodiversity
and
land
management
goals,
and
manifests
in
opportunity
costs.
For
every
1
kg
of
finished
aluminum,
there
is
almost
3
kg
of
this
substance
with
properties
of
alkalinity,
sodicity,
and
concentrations
of
trace
metals
that
make
it
troublesome
in
huge
volumes
and
a
magnet
for
regulators
in
applications
involving
people,
animals
or
food.
Alternatives
to
the
current
best
practice
of
stable
permanent
pilings
have
been
identified
and
evaluated
in
preferred
order,
through
a
ranking
by
eight
measures,
to
be:
bioremediation/productive
use,
construction
materials,
abandoned
mine
tailing
supplement,
then
carbon
capture.
The
current
best
practice
is
the
least
preferred
alternative.
The
term
construction
materials
throughout
this
document
has
grown
to
include
bricks
and
agricultural
soil
amendment.
Alcoa
currently
uses
its
bauxite
residue
as
construction
backfill
and
road
base,
and
given
the
large
volumes
required
for
these
applications,
the
appeal
to
reduce
storage
cost
is
understandable.
I
have
advocated
for
more
productive
use
of
this
material
to
make
bricks,
to
bioremediate
the
residue
to
support
plant
cover
and
reforestation,
as
a
soil
amendment
to
increase
farm
productivity
and
reduce
phosphorus
runoff,
to
remediate
coal
mine
tailings
for
reforestation.
Perhaps
the
questions
Alcoa
management
should
be
asking
are
more
holistic,
about
their
sustainability
goals
and
how
they
relate
to
governmental
and
NGO
sustainability
goals,
how
to
present
and
frame
information
like
the
URS
report,
in
an
exemplary
triple
bottom
line
format
that
adds
value
and
reduces
costs
for
all
involved.
I
look
forward
with
cautious
optimism
to
see
how
the
Alcoa
restructuring
will
approach
these
management
challenges
to
transform
liabilities
into
assets
and
create
added
value
by
sharing
values.
26
https://web.archive.org/web/20150908021319/https://www.alcoa.com/global/en/investment/pdfs/form_10-Q_1Q2015.pdf
(9/8/15)
27
http://asdi.curtin.edu.au/csrp/_media/downloads/csrp/Alkaloam_Assessment_Report_Full_27Apr10.pdf
General
References
for
Background
Information:
Alcoa
emissions
reporting
https://web.archive.org/web/20151121032810/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/emissions.asp
(11/21/15)
Alcoa
energy
reporting
https://web.archive.org/web/20151104165921/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/energy.asp
(11/4/15)
Alcoa
engaging
with
the
community
long-term,
bauxite
residue
management
in
Australia,
2006
https://web.archive.org/web/20151017051959/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/case_studies/2006_ww_rewards.asp
(10/17/15)
Alcoa
financials
2015
https://web.archive.org/web/20150908021319/https://www.alcoa.com/global/en/investment/pdfs/form_10-Q_1Q2015.pdf
(9/8/15)
Alcoa
list
of
vision
targets
by
category
https://web.archive.org/web/20150921044351/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/vision_targets.asp
(9/21/15)
28
https://insightmaker.com/insight/44892/Aluminum-from-Bauxite
Stock
Flow
Diagram:
Raw
Bauxite
to
Manufactured
Aluminum;
Emphasis
on
Land
Stewardship
and
Added
Value
from
Waste
Materials
Legend:
Energy
Flow,
Material
Flow
(raw),
Material
Flow
(processed),
Electricity
Flow,
Heat
Flow,
Waste
Heat,
Liquor
Flow,
Chemical
Flow,
Gas
Flow,
Water
Flow
Appendix
B:
Review
of
Four-Part
Bauxite
Residue
Issues
Study
In
their
four-part
scientific
review
the
bauxite
residue
issues,
Grfe
and
Klauber
discuss
the
scale
of
the
problem
(2.7
billion
metric
tons
as
of
2007,
growing
by
120
million
metric
tons
annually)
and
the
complexities
from
chemical
and
physical
properties
of
residues
that
may
possess
only
generic
similarities
and
differ
by
source.
They
discuss
the
primary
reasons
for
inaction
on
residue
use:
volume,
performance,
cost
and
risk.
This
byproduct
is
more
a
liability
than
another
industrial
feedstock
due
to
its
sodicity,
alkalinity,
the
presence
of
other
heavy
metals
and
low
levels
of
naturally
occurring
radioactive
material.
The
high
alkalinity
is
a
primary
reason
for
classification
as
a
hazardous
material,
and
when
combined
with
the
sodic
content,
the
main
reason
the
residue
will
not
support
plant
life.
The
alkalinity
cannot
be
removed
simply
by
washing
with
water
due
to
the
presence
of
Bayer
process
characteristic
solids
such
as
hydroxides,
carbonates,
aluminates
and
aluminosilicates
that
are
formed
by
the
action
of
the
caustic
soda
on
bauxite.
Also,
the
physical
consistency
is
affected
by
the
chemistry,
which
in
turn
limits
its
usefulness
for
other
industrial
processes.
Bulk
density,
sedimentation
rates
and
compaction,
hydraulic
conductivity,
drying
rates
and
dusting
behavior,
and
physical
strength
after
drying
are
all
affected
by
the
chemistry.
Understanding
the
relationship
between
pH,
surface
charge,
neutralization,
and
the
underlying
mineralogy
will
lend
itself
to
modeling
and
predicting,
and
planning
the
best
uses
for
bauxite
residue.
The
final
part
in
the
review
focuses
on
in
situ
bioremediation
by
use
of
halophyte
plants
and
alkaliphilic
microbes
in
conjunction
with
applied
gypsum,
drainage
strategies,
and
addition
of
organic
waste,
sewage
sludge
and
macro
and
micro-nutrients
to
promote
plant
and
microbe
survival.
In
this
way,
bioremediation
can
be
achieved
well
within
the
lifetime
of
a
refinery
operation,
such
that
closure
of
a
site
soon
after
an
end
to
operations,
with
the
surface
biogeochemistry
suitable
to
sustain
the
previous
ecosystem,
or
perhaps
farming
or
some
other
useful
purpose
for
the
communities
nearby.
Bauxite
residue
issues
(I-IV)
by
Grfe
and
Klauber
I.
Options
for
residue
utilization29
II.
Current
management,
disposal
and
storage
practices30
III.
Alkalinity
and
associated
chemistry31
IV.
Old
obstacles
and
new
pathways
for
in
situ
residue
bioremediation32
29
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304386X11000466
30
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304386X11000454
31
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304386X11000430
32
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304386X11000442
Appendix
C:
Alcoa
reported
sustainability
progress
graphs
https://web.archive.org/web/20151121032810/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/emissions.asp
https://web.archive.org/web/20151123083813/http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/land.asp
Appendix
D:
Excerpt
from
URS
report33
of
Alkaloam
assessment
at
Peel-Harvey
Catchment
33
http://asdi.curtin.edu.au/csrp/_media/downloads/csrp/Alkaloam_Assessment_Report_Full_27Apr10.pdf
Bauxite Residue (Alkaloam) Sustainability Assessment
Table 5-2 Net value of Alkaloam use in Peel-Harvey catchment ($m NPV)
Value to agriculture
Agricultural production increase 59.6
Phosphate fertiliser cost reduction 31.9
Alkaloam application costs -52.5
38.9
Environmental benefits
Reduction in Peel-Harvey Inlet P load 23.8
Agency monitoring & response costs 0.2
24.0
6.0
Sensitivity of the net value to farmer adoption rate and the budgeted discount rate is shown in Table
5-3. A positive net return is indicated with adoption rates as low as 20 per cent by area of suitable soils
in the Peel-Harvey Catchment, and over the discount rates indicated.
Table 5-3 Net value of Alkaloam sensitivity: maximum adoption rate and discount rate ($m NPV)
Discount rate
4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
20% 35 27 21 17 14
Maximum 30% 53 41 32 26 21
adoption of
40% 71 55 43 35 28
Alkaloam
(% by area) 50% 89 69 54 43 35
60% 107 83 65 52 42
Sensitivity of the net value result to farmer adoption-rate levels and agricultural productivity increases
is shown in Table 5-4. Break even returns are indicated with adoption rates at 20 per cent by area of
suitable soils in the Peel-Harvey catchment, and with a ten per cent productivity increase.
42906947/01/01 99
Bauxite Residue (Alkaloam) Sustainability Assessment
Table 5-4 Net value of Alkaloam sensitivity: maximum adoption rate and productivity increase ($m
NPV)
Productivity increase
20% 1 14 27 41 55
Maximum 30% 2 21 41 62 83
adoption of
40% 3 28 55 83 111
Alkaloam
(% by area) 50% 4 36 69 103 139
applying Alkaloam to low PRI soils at 20 tonnes per hectare every five years;
maximum adoption of 50 per cent of the low PRI soil area;
20 per cent improvement in agricultural productivity;
a 50 per cent reduction of phosphate fertiliser costs; and
Alkaloam application costs of $16.25 per tonne.
The net value to agriculture was estimated at $38.9 million over 25 years, comprising:
$59.5m increase in the net value of agricultural production;
$31.9m reduction in the cost of phosphate fertilisers; and
$52.5m in Alkaloam application costs.
The benefit: cost ratio of agricultural values was estimated at 1.75, with an internal rate of return of 59
per cent. These numbers suggest a strong financial incentive for farmers to use Alkaloam on their
low PRI or sandy soils. These returns exclude any additional environmental advantages to the
community, and any liming effect benefits.
The sensitivity of the net agricultural value result was tested by varying application cost and
productivity increases, as shown in Table 5-5. The result is shown to be sensitive to both parameters.
The adoption of Alkaloam will be contingent on strong financial incentives generated by productivity
increases. This financial incentive will be based on at least a 20 per cent productivity increase and the
maintenance of application costs at budgeted levels around $15-16 per tonne in the paddock. Any
decline in productivity gain or increase in application cost will result in little incentive for farmers to use
the product.
42906947/01/01 100