Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Mineral futures in land-use planning: Foresight tools and case studies in

Northern Finland
Mari Kivinen *, Pasi Eilu , Mira Markovaara-Koivisto
Geological Survey of Finland, Vuorimiehentie 5, FI-02151, Espoo, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Finland is a Northern country where mineral exploration and mining has significantly increased during the
Mining 2000s. At the same time there occurs competition over the right to use land and ecosystem services. Main
Mineral exploration competitors over land with mineral exploration and mining industry are especially tourism, reindeer herding,
Prospectivity
and environmental protection. In this study we combine information over geology, location, timescales, and
Raw materials
Conflict mediation
uncertainty to provide mineral related foresight tools: 1) Mine potential tool, and 2) Mineral deposit potential
Lapland tool. The former is applied to known mineral deposits and targeted mineral exploration, the latter to regional
mineral exploration. Cases presented include Sodankylä for nickel, Kolari for iron, copper and gold, and Kittilä
for gold. In a long-term foresight, the usefulness of information on mineral exploration licenses proved limited.
Better support for the long-term foresight is given by geological potential (prospectivity), time framing and
narrative probabilities for known mineral deposits. Visualising the long timescales and uncertainties in a spatial
context is the greatest value of these foresight tools. Also the concept of ‘deposit archive’, adopting those
detected mineral deposits that have proven uninteresting or uneconomic in the current market environment,
provides a valuable insight to availability of raw materials in a long term together with the adaptation of the
assessment of undiscovered mineral resources.

1. Introduction matured social and legal systems.

Economic development in many Northern regions is strongly driven
by mining and other resource-based industries (Tuusjärvi et al., 2014;
Tiainen 2016) and Northern regions rich in mineral resources have faced
growing interest of exploration and mining activities during the 2000s
(Suopajärvi et al., 2016; Tolvanen et al., 2019). This has created
competition over the right to use the land and the ecosystem services it
provides. Raw-material needs of the societies keep diversifying and
increasing, one of the main drivers being low-emission mobility,
high-tech devises and energy storage systems based on battery tech­
nologies (Grandel et al., 2016; EC 2018; Dehaine et al., 2020). Forecasts
presented by the EC (2018) indicate that the demand for batteries is
expected to grow exponentially in the next decades. In addition, growing
public demand that raw materials such as cobalt are to be sourced in a
responsible manner, meaning that their supply chains are transparent,
ethical and following international standards (Petavratzi et al., 2019;
Dehaine et al., 2020), is likely to further increase the interest towards
mineral resources of Northern and other developed World locations with
At the same time, many Northern regions have attracted increasing
nature-based tourism (Similä and Jokinen, 2018). Also, other
nature-based livelihoods and land-use forms, such as forestry, reindeer
herding, and nature conservation, are dependent on the same areas of
interest. This is a fertile situation for disputes and conflicts over right to
use land. Tolvanen et al. (2019) suggested that land-use related conflicts
can be divided into two classes: 1) the same natural resources or
ecosystem services are competed over by several different land-use
purposes (Brown et al., 2017; Similä and Jokinen, 2018), and 2) con­
flicts are created by differing values, fears and hopes concerning the use
of natural resources and land (Brody et al., 2004; Suopajärvi et al., 2016;
Stewart and Lewis, 2017; Komu 2019). Valenta et al. (2019) argue that a
major proportion of deposits forming future copper supply involves
environmental, governance and social risks. In this context, changing
market conditions and increasing societal and environmental demands
challenge companies in optimizing their operations accordingly (Bridge,
2004; Tuusjärvi et al., 2014; Törmä et al., 2015; Tolvanen et al., 2019).
Finland is an example of a Northern country where mineral

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mari.kivinen@gtk.fi (M. Kivinen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101917
Received 10 June 2020; Received in revised form 23 October 2020; Accepted 23 October 2020
Available online 25 December 2020
0301-4207/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Kivinen et al.
exploration and mining have increased during the 2000s (Tuusjärvi
et al., 2014; Tolvanen et al., 2019). Finland is ranked as one of the top
countries in the world attracting mining and exploration (e.g., Jackson
and Green 2016; Steadman and Green 2018). Finnish Lapland can be
regarded as having a good potential for gold, copper, and nickel de­
posits; however, the region can still be largely regarded as
under-explored for mineral commodities (Maier et al., 2015, and refer­
ences therein). High mineral potential, general increase in the metal
prices, and acceptance of foreign companies to operate has attracted
several mining and mineral exploration companies from abroad to
Finland since 1995 (Heikkinen et al., 2013; Kivinen et al., 2018). Con­
flicts related to mining have globally increased during the past decades
(Conde and Le Billon, 2017), and this same trend can be seen also in
Finland via increasing number of mining related disputes and conflicts
(Eerola 2017; Sairinen et al., 2017; Heikkinen et al., 2013). In Northern
Finland, mining industry competes over land use especially with
tourism, reindeer herding, and environmental protection (Brown et al.,
2017; Similä and Jokinen 2018).
For the general public, knowledge over the location and quality of
minerals as resources is less clear than for other industries utilising
natural resources (e.g., forestry). Mineral deposits occur underground,
and finding them and assessing the resource grade, tonnage and feasi­
bility are time and capital consuming. Utilisation of the mineral re­
sources also is strongly tied on the mineral markets, development of
metal prices and, ultimately, on trends in the global economy. In mineral
resource statistics, the resources are traditionally divided on classes
based on their metal content and size (Kivinen et al., 2018). However,
knowledge over the usability of these resources adds essential insight
and value to these statistics. Similarly, foresight in timescales needed for
Fig. 1. Project study area in Lapland, Finland (grey shading) and case study areas for IOCG, gold and nickel (squares).
2
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
assessment and development of mineral deposits towards mines adds
information needed for proactive land-use planning.
The aim of this study is to support proactive land-use planning in any
mineral-rich area. The foresight tool we present, combines information
over location, timescales and uncertainty for mineral deposits and pro­
spective areas. We test our tool on three areas within Northern Finland:
Sodankylä for nickel, Kolari for iron, copper and gold, and Kittilä for
gold (Fig. 1). Additionally, we study the speed of change in mineral
exploration activities in these areas.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. A foresight tool: mineral deposit potential (MDP) and mine potential
(MP)
For the purposes of this study we developed a planning tool that
reflects the uncertainty and long time frames related to development of
mineral deposits from exploration to mining stage. The scope includes
the entire cycle from initial efforts to locate a deposit to the complex
final stage of planning prior opening a mine: regional mineral explora­
tion, targeted mineral exploration, and mine planning. The tool also
recognises those initially reported mineral deposits that are currently
not worked on, and adopts time scaling and narrative descriptions of
uncertainty.
The foresight tool is divided into two parts: 1) Mine potential (MP),
and 2) Mineral deposit potential (MDP). The MP is applied to known
mineral deposits and targeted mineral exploration, and MDP to regional
mineral exploration. They reflect a main difference in company strate­
gies: in the MP, the ultimate focus is on building a mine, and in the MDP
M. Kivinen et al.
in locating a mineral deposit.
The key factors are: 1) activities at the site, 2) geographical bound­
aries of mineral exploration, and 3) geological potential for mineral
deposits to occur. Of the two latter, the mineral exploration boundaries
are considered as a changing factor whereas geological potential is a
stable factor within the timeframes of this study.
The factor Activities at the site reflects the cumulating amount and
quality of information and insight related to a mineral deposit. For the
early stage exploration targets the level of information and insight is
low, while the level of uncertainty is high, and time and efforts needed
prior the possible mining stage are large. For late stage mine planning
these aspects are reversed. The factor Geographical boundaries of mineral
exploration reflects the areas in which mineral exploration activities are
performed, in other words, the areas where new deposits are looked for.
The factor Geological potential for mineral deposits reflects the geological
potential for the existence of mineral deposits (i.e., prospectivity). The
prospectivity maps used in this study for Northern Finland are published
by Nykänen et al. (2015), Nykänen and Ojala (2007), and Nykänen et al.
2008a, 2008b, 2008c.
2.1.1. MP and MDP classification system
In the MP classification (Table 1), the identified mineral deposits are
divided into five classes based on the focus of current work to develop
them. Information used for the MP classification is based on the activities
at the sites: studies on mineral deposit qualities and prerequisites for
Table 1
Classification for mine and mineral deposit potential.
Mine potential MP (identified mineral deposits and targeted mineral exploration)
Class Time Probability Activities at the site
frame
5 0 Mine in Operating or suspended mine. Suspension
place over 5 years ago → to be placed on class 4, if
over 10 years ago → to be placed on class 1
4 1–10 Probable Pre-feasibility studies finalised (or
years mine comparable milestone, e.g. mining
concession granted). Active development on-
going (e.g., technical studies, environmental
and social impact assessment, feasibility
studies). If no active development during last
5 years, to be placed on class 1. Less than 5
years ago suspended mines, if over 10 years
ago → to be placed on class 1.
3 5–15 Possible Pre-feasibility studies launched (or
years mine comparable milestone, e.g. mining
concession applied); resource estimate
available; active development on-going (e.g.,
technical studies, environmental and social
impact assessment, pre-feasibility studies,
mineral resource review). If no active
development during last 5 years, to be placed
on class 1.
2 10–25 Unclear An identified deposit or occurrence with or
years without resource estimate, with on-going
exploration. No prefeasibility study launched
(nor comparable milestone, e.g., mining
concession applied). If no active development
during last 5 years, to be placed on class 1.
1 Archive NA Deposit archive: An identified deposit with or
without resource estimate, without activities
during last 5 years. Closed/abandoned mines
are to be placed in to this category.
Mineral deposit potential MDP (regional exploration)
Class Time Probability Characteristics
frame
2A 10–25 Unclear Mineral exploration permit in force or applied
years in areas with indicated natural potential.
2B 10–25 Unclear Mineral exploration permit in force or applied
years in areas without indicated natural potential.
1 NA NA Areas with indicated natural potential but no
mineral exploration permit in force or
applied.
3
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
mining. Fig. 2 shows the development path for an individual mineral
deposit from discovery to active mine and, finally, to mine closure. It
also gives a time frame for the development needed before the actual
mining may begin. The time frames are based on mine life cycle pre­
sented by Kauppila et al. (2011).
The grey arrows in Fig. 2 indicate a basic development chain from
discovery to mining. The light grey arrows indicate the exchange be­
tween deposit archive (inactive deposits and occurrences) and active
development path. It is common in the minerals industry that companies
give up of their activities on a certain location and, later, a new company
gets interested on this same location. A common factor having effect on
this exchange is commodity prices. When prices are at a high level,
companies are more eager to study borderline cases than on low-price
times. Decision into which MP class a mineral deposit is to be placed
depends on the type of exploration or mine planning ongoing and is
specified on Table 1.
In addition, the MP classes include a narrative, which reflects the
probability to actually reach the mining stage. This probability reflects
the cumulating information: the closer the project is to becoming a mine
the more is known about the profitability, technical qualities, and
environmental, social and economic impacts. One project goes through
several economic check points during the mineral exploration and mine
planning cycle when decisions on either continuing or discontinuing
with a project are made (e.g., Moon and Evans 2006). In practise, on
each check point, the weakest projects within the prevailing economic,
technical and legal context are dropped (and go to the deposit archive).
For example, for a project in a feasibility study phase the probability to
become a mine is much higher than for a project in initial mineral
resource evaluation stage. However, as probability is impossible to
quantify for this purpose in exact numbers, we reflect this with narrative
probabilities.
While the MP classification is targeted for located mineral deposits
and occurrences (point data), the MDP classification is targeted for
regional mineral exploration (areal information). It is based on these
factors: geographical boundaries of mineral exploration, and geological po­
tential for mineral deposits. It’s divided into two main classes (Fig. 2,
Table 1) in which Class 1 there is no current activities but identified
geological potential, and Class 2 (with subdivision to 2A and B) with
ongoing mineral exploration. In addition to mineral exploration permits
in force, the Class 2 also includes permits applied for. This is to also
involve those areas into which mineral exploration is going to take place
in the near future.
The classification, and the descriptions on Table 1, is based on the
Finnish legal system (TEM 2011). When applied to elsewhere, there may
rise a need to modify the classification according to the local legal
regulations. However, the general principles of the development chain
presented in Fig. 2 should remain basically similar.
3. Mine and mineral deposit potential in the central Finnish
Lapland
The methodology was tested in the Central Lapland region, in
Northern Finland (Fig. 1), with three case studies focusing on magmatic
nickel, orogenic gold and iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) types of de­
posits. The aim was to see how the foresight tool is working in practise
and to study the MP and MDP of the region.
Central Lapland has experienced extensive exploration since mid-
1990s. Two new mines have been opened in the region during the last
ten years: Kevitsa Ni–Cu-PGE mine at Sodankylä and Kittila gold mine at
Kittilä (Eilu et al., 2016). In addition, there are Pahtavaara gold mine
(currently on hold), an iron-copper-gold mine project (Hannukainen) in
feasibility stage, and a recent, potentially world-class, Ni–Cu discovery
(Sakatti) within the case areas (Moilanen and Peltonen 2015; Brown
2016; Rupert Resources 2017).
Three municipalities cover the study area: Sodankylä, Kittilä and
Kolari (Fig. 1). In total, these municipalities have 19,000 inhabitants
M. Kivinen et al.
Fig. 2. Life cycle of mineral deposits from initial efforts to locate a deposit to the mine closure, including the ‘deposits archive’. The thickness of the arrows describes
the proportion of mineral deposits moving between different stages of life cycle. MDP = Mineral deposit potential, MP = Mine potential. For the description of classes
see Table 1.
(approx. 1.0 inhabitant/km2). The present important livelihoods in the
region include services (tourism & administration), mining and mineral
exploration, and forestry. In addition, the entire region is reindeer
herding area. The biggest town in the region is Sodankylä (8800 in­
habitants) and an international airport is located at Kittilä. Three major
ski resorts (Levi, Luosto, and Ylläs) are located in the region. In addition,
several nature conservation areas, including national parks, nature re­
serves and NATURA 2000 areas, with an extensive trekking and skiing
trail network, are located in the region.
3.1. Data sources for case studies
The case studies in this research are based on extensive exploration
and mining-related datasets gathered at the Geological Survey of
Finland (GTK) and on research on mineral prospectivity within Central
Lapland. The datasets include the Mineral Deposit and Exploration
Database (MdaE, http://gtkdata.gtk.fi/MDaE/), which contains geodata
and spatial information on deposits, exploration and mining in Finland;
the Fennoscandian Ore Deposit Database (Eilu et al., 2016), which
contains numeric information of metallic mines, deposits and significant
occurrences in Fennoscandia. In addition, information published by
companies was gathered for studied mineral deposits.
The prospectivity assessments include studies for magmatic nickel-
copper, orogenic gold, and iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) types of de­
posits (Nykänen and Ojala 2007; Nykänen et al. 2008a, 2008b, 2008c,
2015). In addition to these information, we used data from the Mining
Register Map Service maintained by TUKES (the mining permitting
authority in Finland), which includes knowledge over all mining and
exploration tenements in Finland (TUKES 2015, 2017).
This information was analysed together in a spatial context to derive
new layers of information presented in this paper. The tenement data
used for MDP studies represents year 2015, and the information related
to mineral deposits represents year 2017. In addition, we reflect the state
of exploration in 2019 in the discussion. We consider that using data
from different years do not inflict a risk of a large error for this research
as the main focus is to see how the developed tool is working in practise.
On the contrary, it provides an opportunity to consider the temporal
validity of the provided data layers.
4
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
3.2. Case 1: magmatic nickel in sodankylä
The Sodankylä region currently hosts one active mine, Kevitsa,
which is a Ni–Cu-PGE deposit of magmatic origin within a composite
ultramafic intrusion (Mutanen 1997; Santaguida et al., 2015). In addi­
tion, there is the ultramafic-hosted Sakatti Ni–Cu-PGE deposit under
pre-feasibility stage (Brownscombe et al., 2015; Luolavirta et al., 2018)
and the Pahtavaara gold mine in care and maintenance. Pahtavaara is
excluded from the nickel case study as it represents gold, not nickel
mining.
The nickel case study area includes a marked amount of domains
with high to very high geological potential for nickel (Fig. 3). Most of the
region was under mineral exploration permits (in force or applied for) in
2015. This suggests that more nickel deposits are expected to be found in
the area.
Nickel MP and MDP in the Sodankylä area were classified according
to Table 1 and are presented in Fig. 3. According to the 2017 situation,
the Kevitsa mine falls in the MP class 5 (in place) as being an operating
mine. Sakatti, the only known, unexploited, nickel deposit in the studied
area is classified in the MP class 2 (Probability: unclear). This means a
minimum time span to proceed to mining being from 10 to 25 years if
proved feasible. In 2019 the works at this deposit have already proceed
to pre-feasibility stage with environmental impact assessment started
(Anglo American 2019). This would rise the deposit to MP class 3
(Probability: possible mine, time span 5–15 years). In 2017, exploration
was on-going at the site, and the first resource estimate was published
(AngloAmerican 2017). The deposit lies under a protected wetland
Viiankiaapa and Fig. 4 shows that within Viiankiaapa mire there wasn’t
an exploration licence in force in 2015, only an applied one. However
the company got a permit from the Supreme Administrative Court of
Finland (KHO 2016) to continue exploration works despite of com­
plaints. In 2019, the company has been granted the exploration permit
in this area (Fig. 4).
Most of the nickel case study area falls in the MDP class 2A (marked
with blue colours in Fig. 3) which means that there are mineral explo­
ration permits in force or applied for, and the area has an indicated
geological potential. In addition, a small part of the exploration permit
areas does not have indicated geological potential, thus placing them in
MDP class 2B. Minimum time span for mining to be started (if a deposit
is located and works continued) is 10–25 years for the class 2A and 2B
areas, while the probability for this remains ‘unclear’. In addition, there
M. Kivinen et al. Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917

Fig. 3. Nickel case study area north of town Sodankylä. Pahtavaara gold mine is indicated in the map but excluded from the nickel analysis. Tenement data cor­
responds year 2015 and mineral deposit data year 2017.

Fig. 4. Change in the exploration permits at the nickel case study area between 2015 and 2019. Mining permits and mining permit applications represent year 2019.

are areas which are classified into the MDP class 1 (marked with green
colours in Fig. 3). This class represents areas without exploration per­
mits in 2015 but with identified geological potential for nickel.
Fig. 3 shows also that there are reasonably large areas under other
forms of land use in the nickel case study area, the most important being
nature conservation and population. These areas overlap with areas of
high and very high geological potential for nickel deposits in many parts,
which may indicate potential areas for mineral exploration and mining
related conflicts of interest in the future. Most of the high and very high
geological potential areas lie, however, outside these areas.

5
M. Kivinen et al.
In the Sodankylä municipality, mineral exploration tenements cover
a rather large area. However, the change between years 2015 and 2019
in exploration permits (in force) is distinct (Fig. 4). Large areas were
given up in the left middle, south-west middle and south-east corner of
the case study area. At the same time new permit areas were granted,
especially in the right middle and far left of Fig. 4. New permits were
also granted in 2019 within nature conservation areas: East of the
Kevitsa mine and on Sakatti deposit within Viiankiaapa mire conser­
vation area. The direction of change between these two years is clearly
not dictated by the best geological potential areas. However, it is
possible that, in the future, exploration will move towards the high and
very high geological potential parts of these areas.
3.3. Case 2: iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) in kolari
There are two closed iron (±copper, gold) mines and a closed calcite
mine in the Kolari area (Fig. 5). In 2015, exploration and mine devel­
opment in the region focussed in evaluation and re-opening the Han­
nukainen mine and its satellite ore body Kuervitikko, with less active
work in other parts of the area. All the iron deposits in the Kolari area are
skarn-like occurrences, but are currently classified into the genetic
category of iron oxide–copper–gold (IOCG) deposits (Niiranen et al.,
2007; Moilanen and Peltonen 2015). These iron deposits have a variable
potential for by-product copper and gold, and those with the highest
gold and copper grades have, during the past two decades, been the
main targets of exploration in the Kolari area, and across the border in
Sweden, too (Perdahl et al., 2012).
The MP and MDP for the IOCG in Kolari area were classified ac­
cording to Table 1 and are presented in Fig. 5. The Hannukainen and
Fig. 5. IOCG case study area north of town Kolari. Kolari calcite mine included in the map but excluded from the IOCG analysis. Tenement data corresponds year
2015 and mineral deposit data year 2017.
6
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
Kuervitikko deposits are classified into a MP class 4 as they are currently
in a feasibility study stage. This means that minimum time prior possible
mining at these deposits is 1–10 years (probability: probable mine).
Other IOCG deposits within this case area fall into MP class 1 (±25 years
prior mining with unknown probability) as there currently are no ac­
tivities for their development.
Most of the IOCG case area falls in to the MDP class 1 (marked as
green colours in Fig. 5) as there are only few mineral exploration permits
in force and applied for, in addition to those linked to Hannukainen and
Kuervitikko deposits (the two larger areas with blue colours in the centre
of the case study area). Within the MDP class 1, there are several areas
with a high or very high geological potential indicated. They partially
overlap nature conservation areas and come very close to Ylläs ski resort
and the Kolari town. Compared to year 2017, in 2019 the area under
active mineral exploration is clearly subtracted (Fig. 6), and focuses on
the vicinity of the planned Hannukainen mine. The geological potential
of IOCG did not directed the change between these two years.
3.4. Case 3: orogenic gold in kittilä
The Kittilä area has been explored for base metals and gold for
several decades. Minor test mining for gold took place already in the
1950s (Eilu et al., 2007; Eilu 2015). Mining in industrial scale started
much later, however, at Saattopora (operated 1988–1995), which is
situated about 20 km west from the Levi ski resort, 15 km west of the
area depicted in Figs. 7 and 8. The Suurikuusikko gold deposit was
discovered in 1986, and the mine (Kittila Mine, Figs. 7 and 8) started
production in 2008 (Eilu et al., 2016). The latter is the largest gold
producer in Europe with the cumulative production, resources and
M. Kivinen et al.
Fig. 6. Change in the exploration permits in the IOCG case study area between 2015 and 2019. Mining permits and mining permit applications represent year 2019.
reserves combined being about 290 t of gold (Agnico Eagle 2020).
Another gold deposit, Kuotko, about 10 km north from the Kittila Mine
(Fig. 7), is currently under feasibility study.
About 30 gold deposits and occurrences are known from the Kittilä
area; almost all of these have been classified into the category of
orogenic gold (Eilu et al. 2007, Eilu, 2015). This deposit class is the most
common host to gold in orogenic belts (such as greenstones) and,
currently globally, the most important source of gold produced (Frim­
mel 2008; Goldfarb 2013). Hence, it is a natural target for any company
exploring for gold and developing gold mines also in Finland.
MP and MDP for orogenic gold in the Kittilä area were classified
according to Table 1 and are presented in Fig. 7. The Kittila mine falls in
the MP class 5 (Active mine) and Kuotko deposit to the MP class 4
(Probable mine). There were several deposits in 2017 for which active
exploration was performed and these fall into the MP class 2 (Unclear).
In addition, within the case study area, several currently undeveloped
deposits fall into the MP class 1 (unknown).
The exploration, and thus the MDP classes 2A and 2B, concentrates
around known deposits and occurrences, whereas large parts of the case
study area were not covered by exploration permits in force or applied
for in 2015. An interesting feature is that most of the high and very high
prospectivity areas indicated by Nykänen et al. (2007) were not under
exploration in 2015. The areas falling to MDP classes 2A and 2B (blue
areas) in Fig. 7 overlap with population and nature conservation in a few
places, most importantly with the wilderness area within the eastern
border of the case area. For the MDP class 1 areas (green areas), there is
more overlap with nature conservation although majority of the high
and very high prospectivity areas occur outside the protected areas. In
7
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
the SW of the case area, high and very high prospectivity areas run close
to the Levi ski resort and the Kittilä town.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison in mineral exploration permits in 2015
and 2019. The difference is evident, as in comparison to year 2015, the
area under exploration permits increased greatly in 2019, especially in
the areas south and north from Kittilä mine. In the southern part, the
new exploration permit areas are widespread over the area, and in a few
instances clearly reflect high to very high geological potential (green
areas in Fig. 7). In comparison to 2015, the activities in 2019 have
moved substantially closer to the Kittilä town and the Levi ski resort,
hence also toward more populated areas. Despite of general expansion
some exploration permits were also expired. These locate to the west of
Kittilä mine, north of Kittilä town and SE corner of Fig. 8.
4. Discussion
4.1. Case studies
Mineral exploration interest at Sodankylä targeted on a wide area in
2015 as visualized in Figs. 3 and 4. Most probably there was a great hope
to locate more major deposits of nickel such as Kevitsa and Sakatti. The
discovery of the Sakatti deposit was first time officially announced on
2011 at FEM (Fennoscandian Exploration and Mining) conference
(Anglo American 2011). In 2019 exploration is much more targeted and
permit areas are focused on the area between Kevitsa mine and Sakatti
mineral deposit, and to the south-west of the Pahtavaara mine. The
exploration permits near Pahtavaara mine are actually targeted for gold,
so the main exploration area for nickel is the area from Kevitsa to Sakatti
M. Kivinen et al.
Fig. 7. Gold case study area north of town Kittilä. Small marble quarry is included in the map but excluded from the gold analysis. Tenement data corresponds year
2015 and mineral deposit data year 2017.
and to the east. This implies that, in comparison to 2015, the mineral
exploration in 2019 has become more targeted and focused on devel­
oping already located deposits. In other words the companies working
on this area have moved from targeting mineral deposits to developing a
mine strategy.
The main conflict of interest between mining industry and other
types of land use in Sodankylä relates to nature conservation and rein­
deer herding. Sakatti deposit occurs partially under a conserved mire,
Viiankiaapa, and there is a large conservation area east of Kevitsa mine
site. According to Tuulentie et al. (2019) there’s no local formal Com­
munity Liaison Committee (CLC) in place to facilitate communications
between companies, stakeholders and citizens. However, Anglo Amer­
ican applies social management system ‘Social Way’ at Sakatti (Kai­
vosvastuu 2018) including active community engagement practises. In
addition, the municipality of Sodankylä is pursuing for an
agreement-based co-operation with the mining industry (Sodankylä
municipality, 2017). Social impacts of mining in Sodankylä were studied
in REGINA project (2015–2018) via interviews, and reported by Kuisma
and Suopajärvi (2017). They draw a conclusion that “People are satisfied
with Sodankylä as a place to live, and mining is in general considered to have
a positive effect on the vitality and spirit of the municipality.” The study
showed that people welcomed the economic benefits, but were at the
same time worried about the environmental effects of mining activities.
The mineral exploration activities for IOCG at Kolari are clearly
focused on the vicinity of the Hannukainen mine. In 2015 there were
still other places of interest in addition to the planned mine site, but in
2019 the only remaining exploration permits locate around the mine
site. This indicates a clear focus on re-opening the Hannukainen mine. In
addition to the company holding Hannukainen mine site, there were no
8
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
other companies working in the area. This indicates that in geological
and technical terms the mining potential of these IOCG deposits are not
evaluated high by exploration companies at the current metal price
levels.
Although exploration activities outside the Hannukainen mine site
are currently halted, there is a geological potential in the Kolari area that
might attract mineral exploration in the future. Very high and high
geological potential come very close to Ylläs ski resort and Kolari town.
These areas also overlap with nature conservation areas. These are the
clearest places for mineral exploration and mining related conflicts of
interests would the mineral exploration move to these areas in the
future. Already now the mining company and tourism entrepreneurs
disagree on the use of the area as the mining activities are seen as a
serious threat for the local entrepreneurs dependent on tourism (Heik­
kinen et al., 2013; Suopajärvi et al., 2016; Similä and Jokinen 2018;
Komu 2019). The high-prospectivity domain 10–15 km to the east of
Ylläs would potentially be less conflict prone, should it come under
exploration in the future.
In 2015 exploration for gold was clearly focused around the Kittilä
mine to increase the mineral resources for the existing mine by satellite
deposits such as Kuotko. In addition there were a few exploration per­
mits closer to Kittilä town. In 2019 exploration near the active mine is
still there, but in contrast to IOCG, elevated interest to locate new de­
posits southwards of the mine is evident. This is supported by the t high
gold price and new findings for gold in the area. Reindeer herding places
the most important conflicting land use type for mining in Kittilä. In the
case of Kittila mine reindeer herders have negotiated directly with the
company (Suopajärvi et al., 2016). According to Tuulentie et al. (2019)
Kittila mine has not yet faced significant troubles in community
M. Kivinen et al.
Fig. 8. Change in the exploration permits in the gold case study area between 2015 and 2019. Mining permits and mining permit applications represent year 2019.
relationships during mine planning and operation. Among other com­
munity actions, a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) has been
established by the operating company (Agnico Eagle Ltd), in order to
connect with local citizens. According to interviews reported by Tuu­
lentie et al. (2019), local people are mostly satisfied on this practise. One
driving factor for lower level of disagreements is probably the greater
geographical distance from those land areas important for tourism and
nature conservation than in the IOCG and nickel cases. However, if the
mineral exploration activities shall come closer to housing and main
tourism location in the future in Kittilä, there is a potential to increase
disputes along this matter.
4.2. MDP and MP as foresight tools: limits and abilities
The foresight tool developed in this research was tested in three
mineral deposit types from Northern Finland: magmatic nickel, IOCG
and orogenic gold. Although all these cases are situated in a geograph­
ically small area, they were proved different in exploration and mine
development profiles. In the main IOCG area in the west, the focus is
clearly in re-opening the Hannukainen mine. In the main gold area in the
middle, very active exploration is currently on-going. In the eastern part
of the study area, the interest in nickel is moving from regional explo­
ration to more targeted one and into a mine planning phase.
In studied two years the geological potential indicated by the pro­
spectivity maps didn’t guide the change in mineral exploration for nickel
and IOCG. However, for gold there is an existing correlation. One reason
for this might be the difference in company strategies: For gold there is
an on-going search for new deposits, when for nickel, and especially for
IOCG, the focus is turned more towards developing already indicated
9
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
mineral deposits. The studied time frame is very short, but gives an
indication that the information of the geological potential can be used to
foresee where the mineral exploration activities could be moving to;
although exploration is not restricted to these parts. One notion is that
the area under mineral exploration licenses changed very much in the
cases of nickel and gold in only four years. This indicates that especially
in a long-term foresight the usefulness of mineral exploration licenses in
the form of MDP is limited. Better support for the long-term view is given
by the combination of geological potential (prospectivity), MP time
framing, and narrative probabilities for known mineral deposits. Our
research provides an example on that the mineral exploration is not
dictated only be the geological potential but is tightly bound (among the
other factors) on the state of the markets, legislation and the strategies
(or business models) of the companies.
In MP methodology the greatest value lies in understanding and
comparing the timescales and probabilities for mineral deposits to
become a mine. Traditionally mineral deposits are presented without
such a classification. This does not allow a direct interpretation on how
advantaged these deposits are in the perspective of mining. The MP
classification provides a toolkit to respond on this. Also the context of
‘deposit archive’ adopting those recognised mineral deposits that have
proven uninteresting or uneconomic in the current market environment
provides a valuable insight to long term mineral raw materials capacity
together with the adaptation of an undiscovered resources research
(Rasilainen et al., 2016). This deposit archive provides a valuable base
for potential future development in line with changes in minerals
markets.
The MDP and the MD differ in applicability for other regions and
countries. In practise, the use of the MDP method is limited to the areas
M. Kivinen et al.
with existing prospectivity models in place, for example, in parts of
Australia, China or Zambia (Carranza et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2010;
Wei et al., 2020). In addition, the prospectivity models are restricted to
specific ore types, thus typically exclude parts of the actual geological
potential. The prospectivity maps rely on interpretation and the current
knowledge of the modelled ore types. For these reasons they are subject
to change when the knowledge and understanding deepens over time,
and when the modelling methodology evolves. The legal system in
Finland (TEM 2011) was used in formulating the classification presented
in Table 1. In other locations, classification need to be adjusted ac­
cording to the local legal regulations. In principle, the development
chain presented in Fig. 2 should remain basically similar.
The use of MP classification is, however, not limited by prospectivity
but can be applied to any mineral deposit, and exploration and mining
project for which spatial data is available and the operating company is
publishing progress. The basic information on mineral deposits is usu­
ally maintained by geological surveys, and the MP classification can be
derived by including company actions on these. The classification
principles presented in Table 1 should be reflected according to the
jurisdiction, and the time scales may vary according to permitting and
financing practises in different countries.
From the perspective of land-use planning, or land-use foresight, the
presented tools provide a way to understand better the uncertainties and
time scales related to mineral exploration and mine planning. However,
they cannot provide direct implications on in which specific areas
mineral exploration would move in the future. In addition to geological
potential, mineral exploration and mine development is tightly bound
(among the other factors) on the state of the markets, the strategies (or
business models) of the companies, and restrictions in land use. In
addition, it’s also dictated by beliefs and hopes of people running these
companies as described by Komu (2019).
The value of these methods lies in that they give indications of the
mineral rich areas for possible future interest, and help in framing
minimum time scales and uncertainties related to mineral exploration
and mining activities. The geological potential presented by pro­
spectivity maps by Nykänen et al. (2015), Nykänen and Ojala (2007),
and Nykänen et al. (2008a, 2008b, 2008c) provide as such an indication
whereto the exploration interests could move in the future. When and at
which scale, they cannot provide an answer. However, they provide
valuable information about the geological potential that remains in the
ground regardless of the changing markets and the industry. Via a
detailed analysis of the overlaps with other land-use interests they could
also provide perspectives to foresee potential mineral related conflicts of
the future.
5. Conclusions
In this study we presented two land-use foresight tools for mineral
rich areas: 1) Mine potential (MP) tool, and 2) Mineral deposit potential
(MDP) tool. The MP is applied to known mineral deposits and targeted
mineral exploration (company focus in building a mine), and the MDP to
regional mineral exploration (company focus in locating a mineral de­
posit). The tools reflect uncertainties and long time frames related to
mineral exploration and mine development. Cycle from regional
exploration to mine development is included.
Three case studies presented in this study proved that although the
cases are situated in geographically small area, they differ in exploration
and mine development profiles: 1) For IOCG (Kolari municipality) the
focus is clearly in late-stage mine development. 2) For gold (Kittilä
municipality) the focus is divided between satellite deposit development
for an active mine and early stage exploration for new mineral deposits.
3) For nickel (Sodankylä municipality) the focus is moving from regional
exploration to more targeted one and into a mine planning phase. Also
the main conflict of interest in land use differ for these cases: For IOCG
it’s presented by nature tourism, for gold by skiing tourism, and for
nickel by nature conservation.
10
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
Case studies showed that area under mineral exploration licenses
changed very much in the cases of nickel and gold between years 2015
and 2019. In a long-term foresight the usefulness of mineral exploration
licenses is then limited. Better support for the long-term foresight is
given by geological potential (prospectivity), time framing, and narra­
tive probabilities for known mineral deposits.
Visualising the long timescales and uncertainties in a spatial context
is the greatest value of these foresight tools. Also the context of ‘deposit
archive’ adopting those recognised mineral deposits and occurrences
that are left to wait “for better times” provides a valuable insight to long
term mineral raw materials capacity. The deposit archive provides a
basket for potential future development in line with changes in minerals
markets.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mari Kivinen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing - original draft, Visualization, Funding acquisition, Project
administration. Pasi Eilu: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft,
Supervision, Funding acquisition. Mira Markovaara-Koivisto:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visu­
alization, Writing - original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Academy of Finland ARKTIKO
Program [grant number 283166]. This research have been presented at
SGA Nancy and SGA Quebec meetings in 2015 and 2017, respectively.
References
Agnico Eagle, 2020. Agnico Eagle mines limited detailed mineral reserves and resources
data. Online at: https://www.agnicoeagle.com/English/operations-and-developme
nt-projects/reserves-and-resources/default.aspx. (Accessed 8 May 2020).
Anglo American, 2011. Information Sheet - Sakatti. Finland, November 2011.
Anglo American, 2017. Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources Report 2016, p. 56. Online
at: http://www.angloamerican.com. (Accessed 8 December 2017).
Anglo American, 2019. Information web-page for Sakatti deposit. https://finland.anglo
american.com/en/about-sakatti. (Accessed 18 November 2019).
Bridge, G., 2004. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 29, 205–259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.011503.163434.
Brody, S.D., Highfield, W., Arlikatti, S., Bierling, D.H., Ismailova, R.M., Lee, L.,
Butzler, R., 2004. Conflict on the coast: using geographic information systems to
map potential environmental disputes in Matagorda Bay, Texas. Environ. Manag. 34
(1), 11–25.
Brown, G., 2016. Anglo American exploration: key ingredients to a decade (1999− 2010)
of success. Soc Econ Geol Spec Publ 18, 321–329.
Brown, W.M., Gedeon, T.D., Groves, D.I., Barnes, R.G., 2010. Artificial neural networks:
a new method for mineral prospectivity mapping. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 47, 757–770.
Brown, G., Kangas, K., Juutinen, A., Tolvanen, A., 2017. Identifying environmental and
natural resource management conflict potential using participatory mapping. Soc.
Nat. Resour. 30, 1458–1475.
Brownscombe, W., Ihlenfeld, C., Coppard, J., Hartshorne, C., Klatt, S., Siikaluoma, J.K.,
Herrington, R.J., 2015. The Sakatti Cu-Ni-PGE sulfide deposit in northern Finland.
In: Maier, W.D., Lahtinen, R., O’Brien, H. (Eds.), Mineral Deposits of Finland.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 211–252.
Carranza, E.M.J., Woldai, T., Chikambwe, E.M., 2005. Application of data-driven
evidential belief functions to prospectivity mapping for aquamarine-bearing
pegmatites, lundazi district, Zambia. Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 47–63.
Conde, M., Le Billon, P., 2017. Why do some communities resist mining projects while
others do not? Extr. Ind. Soc. 4 (3), 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
exis.2017.04.009.
Dehaine, Q., Michaux, S., Pokki, J., Kivinen, M., Butcher, A., 2020. Battery minerals from
Finland: improving the supply chain for the EU battery industry using a
geometallurgical approach. European Geologist Journal 49, 5–11.
Eerola, T., 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility in Mineral Exploration - the Importance
of Communication and Stakeholder Engagement in Earning and Maintaining the
Social License to Operate, vol. 233. Geological Survey of Finland. Report of
Investigation.
Eilu, P., 2015. Overview on gold deposits in Finland. In: Maier, W.D., Lahtinen, R.,
O’Brien, H. (Eds.), Mineral Deposits of Finland. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 377–410.
M. Kivinen et al.
Eilu, P., Pankka, H., Keinänen, V., Kortelainen, V., Niiranen, T., Pulkkinen, E., 2007.
Characteristics of gold mineralisation in the greenstone belts of northern Finland.
Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 44, 57–106.
Eilu, P., Hallberg, A., Bergman, T., Bjerkgård, T., Feoktistov, V., Korsakova, M.,
Krasotkin, S., Lampio, E., Lauri, L.S., Litvinenko, V., Philippov, N., Sandstad, J.S.,
Shchiptsov, V., 2016. Fennoscandian Ore Deposit Database. Annual Update. htt
p://en.gtk.fi/informationservices/databases/fodd/index.html. (Accessed 25
February 2017).
European Commission, 2018. Report on raw materials for battery applications (2018)
245/2 final. In: Commission Staff Working Document. SWD, Brussels, 22.11.2018.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/3rd-mobility-pack/swd201
80245.pdf.
Frimmel, H.E., 2008. Earth’s continental crustal gold endowment. Earth Planet Sci. Lett.
267, 45–55.
Goldfarb, R.J., 2013. Lecture Notes at SGA2013 Congress. Uppsala, Sweden.
Grandell, L., Lehtilä, A., Kivinen, M., Koljonen, T., Kihlman, S., Lauri, L.S., 2016. Role of
critical metals in the market expansion of clean energy technologies. Renew. Energy
95, 53–62.
Heikkinen, H., Lépy, É., Sarkki, S., Komu, T., 2013. Challenges in Acquiring a Social
Licence to Mine in the Globalising Arctic. Polar Record, pp. 1–13.
Jackson, T., Green, K.P., 2016. Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies
2015. Fraser Institute, Vancouver. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/fi
les/survey-of-mining-companies-2015.pdf. (Accessed 20 January 2017).
Kaivosvastuu, 2018. Social Responsibility Actions 2018 Summary for Anglo American
Exploration Finland. AA Sakatti Mining Oy. https://www.kaivosvastuu.fi/yh
teiskuntavastuuraportti-2018/.
Kauppila, P., Räisänen, M.L., Myllyoja, S., 2011. Best Environmental Practices in Metal
Ore Mining, vol. 29. Finnish Environment, p. 219.
KHO, 2016. Decision number 3526/2016. http://kho.fi. (Accessed 20 February 2017).
Kivinen, M., Pokki, J., Markovaara-Koivisto, M., 2018. Discovered and undiscovered
mineral resources: evolving accounts and future prospects of minerals in Finland.
Mineral Economics 31, 301–317.
Komu, T., 2019. Dreams of treasures and dreams of wilderness – engaging with the
beyond-the-rational in extractive industries in northern Fennoscandia. The Polar
Journal 9, 113–132.
Kuisma, M., Suopajärvi, L., 2017. Social Impacts of Mining in Sodankylä. University of
Lapland Rovaniemi 2017, ISBN 978-952-484-971-5 (pdf). Available at: http://www.
reginaproject.eu/library. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Luolavirta, K., Hanski, E., Maier, W., Santaguida, F., 2018. Whole-rock and mineral
compositional constraints on the magmatic evolution of the Ni-Cu-(PGE) sulfide ore-
bearing Kevitsa intrusion, northern Finland. Lithos 296–299, 37–53.
Maier, W.D., Lahtinen, R., O’Brien, H., 2015. Mineral Deposits of Finland. Elsevier,
Oxford.
Moilanen, M., Peltonen, P., 2015. The Hannukainen Fe-(Cu-Au) deposit, western Finnish
Lapland: an updated deposit model. In: Maier, W.D., Lahtinen, R., O’Brien, H. (Eds.),
Mineral Deposits of Finland. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 485–506.
Moon, C.J., Evans, A.M., 2006. Introduction to Mineral Exploration, second ed. Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, p. 486.
Mutanen, T., 1997. Geology and ore petrology of the Akanvaara and Koitelainen mafic
layered intrusions and the Keivitsa-Satovaara layered complex, northern Finland.
Geol. Surv. Finl. Bull. 395, 233.
Niiranen, T., Poutiainen, M., Mänttäri, I., 2007. Geology, geochemistry, fluid inclusion
characteristics, and U–Pb age studies on iron oxide–Cu–Au deposits in the Kolari
region, northern Finland. Ore Geol. Rev. 30, 75–105.
Nykänen, V., Ojala, J., 2007. Spatial analysis techniques as successful mineral-potential
mapping tools for orogenic gold deposits in the Northern Fennoscandian Shield,
Finland. Nat. Resour. Res. 16, 85–92.
Nykänen, V., Groves, D.I., Ojala, V.J., Gardoll, S.J., 2008a. Combined conceptual/
empirical prospectivity mapping for orogenic gold in the northern Fennoscandian
Shield, Finland. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 55, 39–59.
Nykänen, V., Groves, D.I., Ojala, V.J., Eilu, P., Gardoll, S.J., 2008b. Reconnaissance-scale
conceptual fuzzy-logic prospectivity modelling for iron oxide copper – gold deposits
in the northern Fennoscandian Shield, Finland. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 55, 25–38.
Nykänen, V., Lahti, I., Niiranen, T., Korhonen, K., 2015. Receiver Operating
Characteristics (ROC) as validation tool for prospectivity models – a magmatic Ni-Cu
case study from the Central Lapland greenstone belt, Northern Finland. Ore Geol.
Rev. 71, 853–860.
11
Resources Policy 70 (2021) 101917
Perdahl, J.A., Hallberg, A., Niiranen, T., Eilu, P., 2012. Pajala-Kolari Fe, Cu, Au, vol. 53.
Geol Surv Finland Special Paper, pp. 186–190.
Petavratzi, E., Gunn, G., Kresse, C., 2019. Commodity Review: Cobalt. British Geological
Survey, p. 72.
Rasilainen, K., Eilu, P., Halkoaho, T., Heino, T., Huovinen, I., Iljina, M., Juopperi, H.,
Karinen, T., Kärkkäinen, N., Karvinen, A., Kontinen, A., Kontoniemi, O., Kousa, J.,
Lauri, L.S., Lepistö, K., Luukas, J., Makkonen, H., Manninen, T., Niiranen, T.,
Nikander, J., Pietikäinen, K., Räsänen, J., Sipilä, P., Sorjonen-Ward, P., Tiainen, M.,
Tontti, M., Törmänen, T., Västi, K., 2016. Assessment of undiscovered metal
resources in Finland. Ore Geol. Rev. 86, 896–923.
Rupert Resources, 2017. Company web pages at: http://rupertresources.com/. (Accessed
8 December 2017).
Sairinen, R., Tiainen, H., Mononen, T., 2017. Talvivaara mine and water pollution: an
analysis of mining conflict in Finland. The Extractive Industries and Society 4,
640–651.
Santaguida, F., Luolavirta, K., Lappalainen, M., Ylinen, J., Voipio, T., Jones, S., 2015. The
Kevitsa Ni-Cu-PGE deposit in the central Lapland greenstone belt in Finland. In:
Maier, W.D., Lahtinen, R., O’Brien, H. (Eds.), Mineral Deposits of Finland. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 195–210.
Similä, J., Jokinen, M., 2018. Governing conflicts between mining and tourism in the
Arctic. Arc. Rev. Law Polit. 9, 148–173.
Sodankylä municipality, 2017. Sodankylä municipality’s mining programme 2018–2021.
Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5649b47fe4b0b9e2752c60c
9/t/5ba35cf5b8a045210e1272bc/1537432833401/Sodankyl%C3%A4n_kaivosohje
lma_EN_v12_WEB.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Stedman, A., Green, K.P., 2018. Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies
2017. Fraser Institute, Vancouver, p. 68. Online at: www.fraserinstitute.org.
(Accessed 30 April 2018).
Stewart, I., Lewis, D., 2017. Communicating contested geoscience to the public: moving
from ‘matters of fact’ to ‘matters of concern’. Earth Sci. Rev. 174, 122–133.
Suopajärvi, L., Poelzer, G.A., Ejdemo, T., Klyuchnikova, E., Korchak, E., Nygaard, V.,
2016. Social sustainability in northern mining communities: a study of the European
North and Northwest Russia. Resour. Pol. 47, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2015.11.004.
TEM, 2011. Mining act (621/2011). Issued in Helsinki 10 June 2011. Online at: www.fi
nlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110621.pdf. (Accessed 8 August 2019).
Tiainen, H., 2016. Contemplating governance for social sustainability in mining in
Greenland. Resour. Pol. 49, 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2016.06.009.
Tolvanen, A., Eilu, P., Juutinen, A., Kangas, K., Kivinen, M., Markovaara-Koivisto, M.,
Naskali, A., Salokannel, V., Tuulentie, S., Similä, J., 2019. Mining in the Arctic
environment - a review from ecological, socioeconomic and legal perspectives.
J. Environ. Manag. 233, 832–844.
Törmä, H., Kujala, S., Kinnunen, J., 2015. The employment and population impacts of
the boom and bust of Talvivaara mine in the context of severe environmental
accidents–A CGE evaluation. Resour. Pol. 46, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2015.09.005.
TUKES, 2015. Mining register map service. http://www.tukes.fi. (Accessed 11 March
2015).
TUKES, 2017. Mining register map service. http://www.tukes.fi. (Accessed 20 February
2017).
Tuulentie, S., Halseth, G., Kietäväinen, A., Ryser, L., Similä, J., 2019. Local community
participation in mining in Finnish Lapland and Northern British Columbia, Canada –
Practical applications of CSR and SLO. Resour. Pol. 61, 99–107.
Tuusjärvi, M., Mäenpää, I., Vuori, S., Eilu, P., Kihlman, S., Koskela, S., 2014. Metal
mining industry in Finland – development scenarios to 2030. J. Clean. Prod. 84,
271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.038.
Valenta, R.K., Kemp, D., Owen, J.R., Corder, G.D., Lebre, E., 2019. Re-thinking complex
orebodies: consequences for the future world supply of copper. J. Clean. Prod. 220,
816–826.
Wei, H., Xiao, K., Shao, Y., Kong, H., Zhang, S., Wang, K., Li, Q., Chen, B., Xiang, J.,
Wen, C., 2020. Modeling-based mineral system approach to prospectivity mapping
of stratabound hydrothermal deposits: a case study of MVT Pb-Zn deposits in the
Huayuan area, northwestern Hunan Province, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 120 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2020.103368.