Abiotic Depletion Potential

- its philosophy from 1995 / 2002 –

Jeroen Guinée

Metals Industry Workshop on “Mineral resources in LCIA”

Natural History Museum, London, 14 October 2015

Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Contents
• The ADP 1995/2002
– philosophy, definitions & choices made
– based on Guinée & Heijungs 1995 and van Oers et al.
2002

• Recent developments
• Conclusions

Contents Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Sources

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/report_abiotic_depletion_web.pdf
Contents Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Core issue addressed by ADP
• How serious is the depletion of one particular
natural resource in relation to that of another,
and how can this be expressed in terms of
characterization factors for these resources?
– A typical LCA question: how does an aluminum
beverage can compare to a PET or glass bottle with
respect to depletion of resources?

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 No scientifically „correct‟ method
• Abiotic depletion is a problem crossing the
economy-environment system boundary
– reserve depends on (future) technology
– is it an economic or environmental problem, or both?

• Depletion problem can‟t be verified empirically:

– „correct‟ definition of the problem
– total amount of resource
– result of depletion equation
can all not be validated empirically

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Decisions/choices to take/make when
developing a method for depletion
• Abiotic and biotic
• Definition of the problem
• Stocks (deposits), funds and flows
• Renewable and non-renewable
• Concepts for assessing depletion
• Definition of availability
• Type of reserves
• Equation(s) for characterization factors (CFs)

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Abiotic and biotic
• ADP: assess depletion of biotic resources
separately from abiotic resources
– because of the intrinsic value of biotic resources, their
source function and their role in the maintenance of
the life support system
– the weighting step of impact assessment provides an
opportunity to assign a different significance to biotic
depletion

• Focus in this presentation on abiotic resources

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Definition of the problem

• Many possible definitions exist:

A. decrease of resource itself
B. decreasing world reserves of useful energy/exergy
C. contribution of current extraction processes to other
impact categories (no separate impact category)
D. incremental change in environmental impact of
extraction processes at some point in future (e.g.
result of having to extract lower-grade ores or
recover materials from scrap)
E. no environmental but economic problem
F. Etc.
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Definition of problem

• ADP: „decreasing availability of natural resources

(in geosphere and/or anthroposphere)‟
– „abiotic resources‟: natural resources (including fossil
energy resources and minerals) which are regarded as
non-living
– resource depletion is an environmental problem in its
own right, while recognizing that views differ on this
– problem definition highly subjective -> no „perfect‟
method, no scientific consensus ….

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Looking back … ADP only
addresses „depletion‟
• Depletion of a resource means that its amount
present on earth is being reduced. It refers to
geological/natural stocks
• Scarcity of a resource means that the amount
available for use is, or will soon be, insufficient
(“demand higher than supply flow”)
• Criticality of a resource means that it is scarce
and at the same time essential for the present
society
Source: Van der Voet (2013)

Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Definition of problem

• ADP: „decreasing availability of natural

resources‟
– „abiotic resources‟: natural resources (including
fossil energy resources and minerals) which are
regarded as non-living

„Depletion‟ only!

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Stocks, funds and flows
• Stocks/deposits: resources not regenerated
within human lifetimes: fossil fuels, minerals, etc.
• Funds: resources regenerated within human
lifetimes: groundwater and soil
• Flows: resources constantly regenerated: wind,
river water & solar energy (competitive use)

• ADP: focus on stocks

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Renewable, non-renewable

• Commonly made distinction

• ADP: renewability (or regeneration) is parameter

in modeling of CFs rather than a criterion for
categorizing resource types
– comparable with the distinction between degradable
and non-degradable toxic substances.

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Concepts for assessing depletion
• What determines the „decreasing availability” of
a given resource?

• Concepts for quantifying availability:

– the amount available (the reserve)
– annual de-accumulation: annual production (e.g. in
kg/yr) minus annual regeneration (same unit)

We also touched upon aspects of

scarcity/criticality (e.g., substitution)
but didn‟t include these in the ADP;
still „depletion‟ only!
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Concepts: depletion measured by
economic data (e.g., price)
• Although the price of a resource can be
considered as a measure of its scarcity and
societal value, it reflects more than just that:
– structure of particular economic markets
– national social conditions reflected in labour cost
– power of mining companies with a monopoly
– identification of new reserves is very expensive
– etc.

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Concepts: physical data
• Physical data on reserves (“resources”) & de-
accumulation

• ADP: physical data on reserves & de-

accumulation; substitution not (yet) possible

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Definition of availability
• „Narrow sense‟: availability in primary extraction
medium „Urban‟/anthropogenic stocks

– depletion: annual production exceeds annual regeneration

• „Broad sense‟: availability in geo- and anthroposphere
– elemental materials can never be depleted unless ..
 competitive use rather than depletion
– increasing energy & solid waste amounts in extracting ever
lower concentrations, or in recovering dispersed resources

• ADP: „narrow sense‟

– while recognizing „broad sense‟ is preferable (this afternoon)
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Resource …confusion
Type of reserves
Mineral resource
• Reserve base: reasonable potential for
becoming economically and technically available
Mineral reserve
• Economic reserve: part of reserve base which
could be economically extracted at time t
Crustal content
• Ultimate reserve: natural resources in earth crust
Extractable global resource
• Ultimately extractable reserves: reserves that
can ultimately be technically extracted

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Economic and base reserves involve
economic considerations not directly
related to resource depletion
Concentration (kg/m3)

Economic reserve
Mineral reserve No longer reported by USGS
Reserve base
Mineral resource

Ultimately extractable reserve

Extractable global resource

Ultimately extractable reserves

best but unknown by definition
Ultimate reserve
Crustal content
Earth crust volume (m3; average crust thickness of
ADP:
17000 m and crust surface „ultimate
of 5.14x10 14
mreserves‟
2
) second best yardstick,
but sensitivity analyses recommended with
other reserves!!
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Equation: R and/or DR rate
resource A B C D

Reserve (Gton) 1 0.0001 1 1

De-accumulation Rate (Gton/yr) 0.000001 0.000001 0.1 0.0001

• A and B differ only in scale of their Rs

– depletion of B more serious problem than A
• C and D differ only in scale of their DRs
– extraction of 1 kg C more problematical than 1 kg of D
• Conclusion: both R and DR important
– Another argument derives from renewable resources: seriousness of
extracting renewable resource is determined partly by degree of net de-
accumulation (production/extraction minus regeneration)
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Equations

abiotic depletion   ADPi  mi

i

ADPi Abiotic Depletion Potential of resource i (-)

mi quantity of resource i extracted (kg)

The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Equations
DR i
R i 2
ADPi 
Assumed 0 for DR ref
abiotic resources R ref 2

Ri ultimate reserve of resource I (kg);

DRi de-accumulation rate (extraction/production minus
regeneration) of resource i (kg·yr-1)
Rref ultimate reserve of the reference resource, antimony (kg)
DRref de-accumulation rate of Rref (kg·yr–1)

The indicator result is expressed in kg of the reference (ref)

resource, viz. antimony.
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 ADP 1995/2002: summary of choices
• Abiotic and biotic: separate impact categories
• Problem: decreasing availability of natural
resources
• Stocks (deposits)
• Renewable/non-renewable in modeling of CFs
• Concept: physical data on reserves & de-
accumulation
• „Narrow sense‟ availability
• Ultimate reserves DR i
 
• Equation:
2
Ri
ADPi 
DR ref
R ref 2
The ADP 1995/2002 Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Recent developments
• For latest ADPs:
http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html
– correction of mistakes
– no data updates by CML after 2002; but update of
some DR and R data by Frischknecht et al. (2012)
– finally split up the ADP in two subcategories (fossil
fuels and minerals).

• Schneider et al. (2011) AADP and ESP

• Gemechu et al. (2015) GeoPolRisk

Recent developments Leiden University. The university to discover.

 Result: updated CFs for different reserves
Substance cas no. group ADP
kg antimony eq. / kg extraction 1,2,3
The reserve adopted may change the
Crustal content ultimate4 reserve base reserve
decision-support provided reserve Mineral resource Mineral reserve
aluminium (Al) 7429-90-5 element 1.09E-09 2.53E-05 2.14E-05
antimony (Sb) 7440-36-0 element 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00
arsenic (As) 7440-38-2 element 3.93E-03 2.40E+00 2.33E+00
barium (Ba) 7440-39-3 element 6.04E-06 3.37E-03 1.55E-02
beryllium (Be) 7440-41-7 element 1.26E-05 3.95E+00
bismuth (Bi) 7440-69-9 element 4.11E-02 4.49E+00 1.08E+01
boron (B) 7440-42-8 element 4.27E-03 5.28E-03 1.74E-02
bromine (Br) 7726-95-6 element 4.39E-03
cadmium (Cd) 7440-43-9 element 1.57E-01 1.11E+00 1.92E+00
chlorine (Cl) 7782-50-5 element 2.71E-05
chromium (Cr) 7440-47-3 element 4.43E-04 1.96E-05 3.77E-05
cobalt (Co) 7440-48-4 element 1.57E-05 2.56E-02 4.89E-02
copper (Cu) 7440-50-8 element 1.37E-03 2.50E-03 3.94E-03
gallium (Ga) 7440-55-3 element 1.46E-07
germanium (Ge) 7440-56-4 element 6.52E-07 1.95E+04 1.04E+04
gold (Au) 7440-57-5 element 5.20E+01 3.60E+01 3.99E+01
indium (In) 7440-74-6 element 6.89E-03 5.55E+02 1.15E+03
iodine (I2) 7553-56-2 element 2.50E-02 2.22E-03 3.10E-03
iron (Fe) 7439-89-6 element 5.24E-08 1.66E-06 3.64E-06 etc.
kalium 7440-09-7 element 1.60E-08 9.00E-06 1.59E-05
(K;potassium)
lead (Pb) 7439-92-1 element
Source:6.34E-03 1.50E-02 2.67E-02
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/report_abiotic_depletion_web.pdf
lithium (Li) 7439-93-2 element 1.15E-05 1.33E-02 4.38E-02
base year DR (extraction/de-accumulation)
magnesium (Mg) 7439-95-4 element 2.02E-09data: 1999 (USGS)
manganese (Mn) 7439-96-5 element 2.54E-06 Leiden University. The
2.35E-05 university to discover.
5.80E-04
Recent developments
Reserve adopted may change results

Inventory result
product A Product B
aluminium (Al) 5 0
antimony (Sb) 0,1 0,2
arsenic (As) 0 0,5
barium (Ba) 0 3
beryllium (Be) 0,5 0
Crustal content Mineral resource Mineral reserve iron (Fe) 0 5
Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Conclusions
• Impossible to define one correct method, since
correctness cannot be verified empirically
• Definition of the problem and all other choices
matter!!!
– other choices, and thus other methods, equally defensible
– “there‟s no such thing as the scientifically best method”
• Data ultimately extractable reserve will by definition
never be available
• CFs should be regularly updated, but are not!
– needs other „resources‟ 
Conclusions Leiden University. The university to discover.
 Most choices cannot be validated Increasing reserves (base and
by experimental data economic), but decreasing crustal
content and extractable global resource

(Non-scientific) consensus?
Undeservedly neglected so far
Mining & metals Other
„Depletion‟ versus „accessibility,
industry stakeholders
presence or readiness of a resource for
Abiotic and biotic human use‟  
Problem: decreasing availability of natural
resources („depletion‟) Independent of chosen stock?  
Data update or „regeneration‟?
Stocks (not funds and flows) 
„Depletion‟ (environmental aspect; LCA)
only versus „accessibility, presence 
readiness‟ (socio-economic aspects;
Renewable/non-renewable in modelling CFs
scarcity/criticality;
= “Fixed Stock world view”? ?
weighting or LCSA)
?
Updated!!
=Depending
“OpportunityonCost world definition,
Physical data on reserves &view”? problem
de-accumulation
world view (narrow/broad sense) / 
etc.; all choices are mutually
Narrow sense availability (notdependent!
yet broad) / ?
Ultimate reserves (crustal content) ? 
Equation
Conclusions for characterization factors
? Leiden University. The university?to discover.
 Why R2?
1. Share in reserves should also be assessed:
• Suppose a choice between applying 1 kg of resource A or 1 kg of
resource B, with following R and DR data:
– resource A: R=109 kg (and P=5×107 kg/yr)
– resource B: R=100 kg (and P=5 kg/yr).
– conclusion: A preferred, as R of A is affected far less by 1 kg extraction
• Now, suppose we adopt an equation R/DR (also known as R/P)
– R/DR of A and B is both 20 years
– resource A and B equally attractive in terms of depletion
2. Choice of units for ADP should not influence the final result for
abiotic depletion score
• Solution: Rz with z = y+1 and y>0 as reserve should be included
– R/DR method doesn‟t meet this requirement; see Guinée & Heijungs,
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (1995),14, 5, 917-925

Leiden University. The university to discover.