 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to TV UP's Science Innovation Series. I'm Giselle Concepcion, a professor at the Marine Science Institute of UP Dileman, and I do research on marine drug discovery and development. I'm your host for today. Our topic is one of the hottest topics in the country today. And it's a dirty topic. It's unresponsible, sustainable mining. We're happy to have with us two resource persons from UP Dileman, the director of the National Institute of Geological Sciences, Dr. Mario Aurelio. Melinda Naro. Welcome, Mario. And Dr. Perry Ong, professor of biology, initiative biology. Thanks for coming, Perry. We know that this is a controversial topic in our country today, and so we would like to hear it first from our NIGS director. Mario, what's the business as usual mode of mining in our country today? Okay, to put things in perspective, that question should be answered, I guess. Taking into account what has recently just happened as far as the regulatory bodies concerned, meaning the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, a cabinet department of the government, which recently had a drastic change, I would say, in its leadership, because the former secretary-designate Gena Lopez was replaced by a new secretary now, General Sima II. So on the basis of that, because during the time of secretary-designate Gena Lopez, ex-secretary-designate Gena Lopez, she instituted a lot of changes, including, for example, the suspension of mining permits. At least about 70, 75 mining permits were suspended. Until now, those mining permits are still in suspension because that suspension has not been legally changed yet. So in other words, the status at the moment is that those suspensions exist. So it's still a sort of a status quo, although the industry is a bit more up-mode now because of the expectations that soon enough these suspensions will eventually be reverted back into non-suspensions. And therefore, the mining industry can proceed with its usual business. But having said that, however, there's now a difficulty as far as the government is concerned to do just the reversion of the suspensions because it has to go through a process again, which will take a little time. So I would say it's a little bit more hopeful than in the previous year, at least. So Mario, what was the basis for the suspension of the 75 out of the more than 200 mining companies? What were the criteria that were evaluated? Well, the suspensions came after what was then called as a mining audit. And the mining audit was conducted by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, of course, together with the Environmental Management Bureau. These are two bureaus of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. And it was a countrywide mining audit, highly technical. And after the results of the mining audit, then the Secretary decided to make her decision to issue the suspensions. As to the basis of the suspensions, it's very technical. There's at least some sort of a checklist for the mining auditors that they verify in the field. So technical personnel were sent out to the field to check on all the highly technical issues, including, for example, environmental issues, environmental compliance. Because we have to remember that mining operations according to the Mining Act of 1995, R.A.7942, has really very strict regulations, including environmental regulations. And if you violate any of those regulations, then it could be a justification for your suspensions. I would say it's essentially non-compliance or violation of some of the several of the regulations in the Mining Act. But foremost among them would be the environmental issues. So I've always been curious, Mario, what the basis for, say, violation would be. Do we as an academic institution, NAICS in particular, help the DNR in monitoring, say, chemical pollutants in the soil, in the water, in the air, in the... Yes, from time to time, there have been instances in the past, until now, that not only UP, other institutions as well, are consulted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In fact, they even grant projects, they fund projects to basically address some issues that the DNR thinks is not capable of doing, as far as the technicalities are concerned. But in theory, actually, the DNR has capability because it has the MGB, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, and the Environmental Management Bureau. These are the two arms of the DNR for such concerns. But as I said, yes, there are instances where, from time to time, DNR would consult academic institutions, UP included, to take a look at such problems. I can cite several where NAICS has been involved, like, for example, the pollution along Boak River after the disaster in the Marine Duque Mining, dam failure. Some of our faculty members at UP were given a small grant to study precisely what happened to the river in Boak. So, my own thinking as a chemist is that if someone were to do an audit, it would be based on the scientific data. And so I wondered when the 75 were suspended, whether there was chemical analytical data as basis for saying, you are causing pollution and therefore you have to be suspended. Because I know that's how it's done in other countries. And the monitoring of the pollutants is continuous. It's periodic. It's regular. It's not just a one-time monitoring. So I'm happy to know that NAICS, other UP units and other academic institutions have been asked by the DNR to help in the environmental monitoring. But we know very well that it's not only the physical or geological environment that is affected by mining. We say there is the biostrata in particular, the biodiversity, and of course the human population that's affected by mining activities. So, Perry, can you tell us a bit more about your own findings about the impact of mining on our biodiversity? Yes, but to answer that, I'd like to preface it with a statement. First of all, mining in itself brings societal goods. So there's no argument it brings societal goods. So the question is whether it's not whether we do mining or not. If we want to maintain and continue the way human society lives now, then mining will continue. Even under the law, as Dr. Ariello mentioned, it's legal to do mining in the country. The question is, what's the problem with mining? So as you mentioned, there are impacts on the human environment. There's impact on the ecosystem, on biodiversity. So those are the things that need to be addressed. And in this context, I'd like to... The context I'd like to bring in is that even the President made a pronouncement that he is not against mining. But he is against the continuing practice, the way mining is practiced in the country. So having said that, it means that the business as usual model of mining cannot proceed. It has to be undertaken now in the new context of awareness about the impacts. How do you now do mining, giving considerations to human welfare and environment? So again, to reiterate, we need to have a new mode of operations for mining to consider biodiversity and human welfare into their equation. Now, the problem is, I think that one of the major problems is that mining companies look at taking these considerations into the equation will mean reduced profit. And that's where I think the issue, the conflict could arise. Because most corporations being corporations, they have stock dividends, they have to have profit. And they're used to earn mega profit. And if they change their operation, it might reduce their profit. And that's usually the reason why they are hesitant to include these two considerations into the equation of their operations. But if they're willing, again, if they remember that mining is not being banned, but rather mining needs to be operated under new conditions, then as long as they're willing to reduce even bit of their profit, I think it can be done. So, Barry, what would you suggest we propose as academics to improve the policy and then the implementing rules and regulations for the mining industry that would take into consideration these biodiversity environment and human health and socio-economic improvement issues that have been raised with the mining industry. So, maybe you can tell us, you know, there are areas where we should not allow mining at all. Are there areas where this is to be encouraged? Are there new areas to explore? I think I've been in discussion with many groups about how to improve the operations of mining. And first of all, there's this mindset that mining rehabilitation happens only after the closure of a mine. I think the first mindset that should be changed is that mining rehabilitation should start on day one. For example, in terms of heavy equipment, in mining operations, the main equipment at the start would be a bulldozer. They would bulldoze trees and all the topsoil, et cetera, so that they can get to the mine. The mindset we need to change is instead of a bulldozer, we propose to use a backhoe. Meaning, a backhoe will now lift the soil and place it somewhere instead of just pushing it off the rinse. Okay, so it means that topsoil that the backhoe will collect will be the source of material to rehabilitate that area that had been mined out. So, in terms of heavy equipment that will be used, it's just a change from a bulldozer to a backhoe. I have to ask Mario if you think this is feasible. I do not completely agree because different materials have their own properties, and therefore the mechanisms or the methodologies that you have to employ will also differ. Of course, economics come in. The reason why bulldozers are used as they are cheaper, basically. But then again, as Perry said, there's a better way, more environmentally friendly way, but it will be more expensive. And again, that goes into the economics of mining, and that was mentioned by Perry, which eats up into their budget and therefore lessens their profit. But then if they do it, it will reduce their problem with the public. So, instead of spending PR money to clean their image, why don't mining companies use it at the front end instead of using it to clean up their image? So, what I'm asking the mining company to do is to look at the big picture because if they continue doing what they do, they're going to be stuck. If they want to continue, then they have to change the ways they do business. Of course, I think the worst thing I'd like to reiterate is the mindset itself. The details we can work on later, but we have to agree first that we have to change the way we do business because continuing the way mining does its business is not sustainable. It's going to end badly. So, my suggestion is rethink how we do business. As I've said, it will eat up. But again, you spend money at the end to clean up your image to make you look good. Why don't you do the right thing right at the very beginning? It's also a matter of scales actually. The very simple example of Berry about replacing a bulldozer with a backhoe, that can take place in a room like this. But if you're dealing with a larger area, a mountain, then that same concept, a usable dozer, but then you'll have to recover the same material that you pushed with something else like trucks. And that's what they are doing in some areas. They push some dirt or some soil, but then they recover it and put it somewhere else. They call them stockpiles, for example. So, in any case, there are ways of approaching these problems. Only that, admittedly, there are companies who choose the simpler way, cheaper way, but at the end, more environmentally-destructive ways. So, I'd like to interject at this point something that I've been thinking about a long time, not just for mining, but other major industries in our country. So, the investment or the cost, the capital cost of equipment, is accepting the return on investment or the profit margin. Now, I've heard or I know for a fact that many of the products from the mining industry are of a medium quality. What I mean is the mining products are not pure. They are of a semi-crude nature. And in fact, these are being exported to other countries. And then the purification, the extraction to the high-value mineral products are done abroad. And the irony of it is these are re-imported back to our country. So, now, getting higher-value products from our mining industry would require more highly technical capabilities in our country. Expertise, producing our own high-value metals, minerals, alloys would necessarily increase our capital outlay or investment, but it would also increase the profit margin or the return on investment. If only we would also invest in the technologies required to produce those high-value products. So, Mario, what is NIG's doing about this situation? Because Peri suggests the more environment-friendly backhoe, very expensive compared to the bulldozer. So, if your products were to fetch a higher price in the market, then that expensive capital investment would be okay. The picture is like this. Not for all minerals, we send them as ores. Well, there's a difference between the pure mineral and what we call the ore. The ore is the piece of rock that contains some bits of minerals inside. Now, with the exception of gold, because in the Philippines, we process the gold until its purest existence, like in gold bars, for example. We produce gold bars. But the other minerals like for copper, nickel, basically those are the two big mineral industries right now in the country. Indeed, yes, what's happening is that the mining companies here, they extract the ore, and then the ore of copper or nickel, and then they send it abroad for processing, the term is processing. The ideal scenario, however, is that we should have our own processing plants. But the main hindrance in putting up our own mineral processing plants is the cost of electricity. Which is, I think, the highest in Southeast Asia, if not in Asia. So there's, again, an economics behind why we are not able to process our own minerals. Technologically, capability-wise, we are capable. We are trained personnel. But then again, it all goes into the business of it, the economics of it. That's also true for what used to be the steel industry in the Philippines. During the 1970s, there was a steel industry in the Philippines that's based in Iligan. The plant, the infrastructure still exists there. There are plants to revitalize that plant, but it has not been flying yet. But they are also hopeful given now the better ratio of cost benefit as far as materials are concerned and the technology is concerned also. So ideally, yes, we should be processing our own so that we are adding value to our resources. But somehow there's hemp that is being introduced by the more expensive power rates in the country. Basically, that's the reason. Of course. Again, going back to the ROI, I think the mining companies are faced with a situation of maintaining the current ROI which will eventually become zero or reducing their ROI but sustaining it for the long term. Because if they worry about to maintain their ROI now, I'm sure they're going to be closed down. They cannot continue as it is. So they should be willing, as I've said, changing mindsets, that are willing to take in reduced ROI but ensuring that their operations will continue over the long term. Basically, it's a no-brainer. So ROI of six versus ROI of zero. So I think the decision is easy to make. And also, we have to put things in context again. The business of mining does not happen overnight, of course. The gestation period from... Okay, there are basically four parts in the mining cycle. First is prospecting and exploration. Then you have the development period, then the mining phase, and then rehabilitation, which, as I said, should start from day one, which I agree also. You can put in rehabilitation procedures starting from day one. So of the four stages, the gestation period from the first to the... Let's not go yet to the final rehab. To the end of the mining, where the ore is all taken up, extracted, would range between 10 to 100 years. I can give you an example. Felix Mining has been mining their Santo Tomas to deposit. It's a copper gold deposit for the last 60 years, I guess. They started in the 1950s. It's still operating until now. But they started way back for the exploration period at least 20 years before, maybe 10 years before. So it's a very long engagement by a contractor who does not own the minerals, by the way. The regal endocrine in the mining industry is that anything below ground underneath the earth belongs to the state. But the state is not capable. It's not always capable of extracting it. So the government gets into contract with the second party, and that is the contractor, who will spend all, risk all its financial capabilities to do the procedure. Of course, the government will be the regulator. It provides the permits, it controls its monitors, and all these regulations. It comes from the government. So it's a big investment. It's a high-stake endeavor. It's a very risky business. So many things to talk about. But I'd like to pick up Philex. He said it's been around for 60 years. Would you say that it's sustainable and responsible mining on the part of Philex? Are there other examples? And then I also wanted to ask about steel, because I know that a new company, Steel Asia, claims to be providing half the supply of steel for the construction industry. And that's based in Mindanao. My third question is about the nickel ores. And we know that price of nickel is relatively down. At the moment, yes. But still manageable. We're aware that some of our mining companies with foreign partners are mining nickel for the very, very valuable transition metals that are found in the nickel that could be extracted by them. So there are those three questions, but I have like the same number of questions for Barry. So quickly. I'll try to be brief, yes. Let's start with the case of Philex. Well, it is not only Philex that has been in existence for quite a while now, but perhaps one of the reasons why Philex is still existing, I'm speaking of that particular deposit, Santo Tomas, that's in Padcal, just south of Baguio City, is that, well, because the geological setting is also very promising. The grades are good. The volume is quite large. But also, the company has practiced responsible mining in the last 50, 60 years. And then the second thing is that if the image of mining to most people is simply extracting dirt on the surface of the earth, the method they use in that particular mine is underground mining. So you don't basically visibly see what's happening at the surface. It's as if nothing is going underneath. But it's underground mining. This perspective of a normal person, it's a matter of perspective, normal person seeing directly what's happening on the surface. But in this particular case, it's underground mining. Of course, the technology is quite more difficult, more expensive, even more risky actually. But environmentally wise, it's not seen at the surface as being the extraction of materials from the ground. And perhaps the third is that the company has been very socially responsible. In the Mining Act, there's such a thing as the SDMP, the Social Development Management Program, which sets aside a big chunk of your mining budget that is meant exclusively in the development of the social environment, the cities, municipalities, or barangays around. And perhaps that's also the third reason why this company has stayed there, because it's been very responsible in taking care of its SDMP program. For the case of, let me go first to the nickel issue, there's also a particular company, which is always being mentioned in several fora, or forums, Rio Tuba in Southern Palawan. That nickel mine has also been existing for quite some time now. And it's also a good example where rehabilitation has been successful. Of course, as I mentioned at the start, different ores, different minerals have their different characteristics, and therefore different methodologies are viable. In the case of nickel, nickel exists at very shallow depths in the surface so that the viable option only to mine it is by, it's not even an open pit, we don't consider it as open pit, it's scraping, just scraping the ground. But the very drastic effect of that is that you cut trees basically, but then it's not impossible to replant trees. So that's what has happened in Rio Tuba, they're continuing to do that, and it has proven, been proven that it is viable and it's sustainable. As far as the iron industry is concerned, I'm not so familiar with that, but as I said, there are attempts now to revive the industry, but then again, it's the power rates, which is, you know, it's killing it basically, yes. I also heard it's not only the power rates, it's also the smuggling rates. Okay, so you are producing steel, but you have second grade steel from other countries being smuggled to the country. So I was told that if you only tried to control that smuggling, then these local steel industries will start to flourish. I want to ask Barry about the other factors. Anyway, I'd like to add, you know, you're still Asia. Do you realize that we don't produce a single nail in the country? Even the needle that we use, it's imported. We don't produce anything. What still Asia produce are rolled sheets. So the needle, the nail, the paco, the tognilio, they're all imported, we don't produce it, even when we are still in the industry. That's a good start. And that's already brought down the price of steel. And it's really partly why we also have the booming construction industry. That's why we need to have our steel industry. Yes. But as Mari have said, the electricity and the smuggling have to be first. So we have the iron ores. Going back to what Mari was discussing about Ryutuba, while, yes, Ryutuba did some reforestation, but this is where the point I made in that area. They could have done that. If they had a backhoe, the trees put it somewhere, they could use it to replace it now. What they did is, yes, they did replanting, but they replanted with exotic species. So with what I was thinking is if you use the backhoe, you could have returned what was removed. The same trees. Yes, the same trees. Ideally, almost, you could restore it to as close as possible. We know it couldn't be restored to its original state, but it would be restored as close as possible. So, yes, it could have been done better if they had a different set of mines. It all boils down to the cost. Yes, I know. But then in the end, if you're shut down, then there's no arrow height to speak of. So in some areas, the conflict between biodiversity and mining stems from the fact that biodiversity as a legal concept came only into the picture in 1992 during the Earth Summit. So before that, mining was already in existence. So in an island like Denagat, it had been declared a mine reserve in the 1930s. Can you please tell us a bit more about Denagat Island with a unique biodiversity? So Denagat Island is north of Surigao, and it is an island where a forest called Ultramafik, Forest Ultramafik is found, meaning it's an area that is highly mineralized. And the trees, the plant materials that grew there are only specific to that condition. So this is where you can see Bonsai Forest or the Pygmy Forest. But as I was saying, it had been declared a mining reserve since the 1930s. And there are now about 18 mining production sharing agreements in existence, some of which had been suspended by the former Secretary Gina Lopez. And again, I've been to that island at least twice, and if you look at the way they have been mining, it's really scary because we were up 800 meters in one of the areas, and you can see down below, they are almost level. So again, is there a better way? Maybe there is. But I think that the main challenge is because it has been done in the easier way. Nobody has put their heads to think about doing it a better way. They're so used to doing it the business as usual model, they have never thought of doing it or talked about doing it some other way. And I think this is the right time. The geologists, the mining engineers, the metallurgical engineers should come together and think about how do we make things better? So we all agree that mining should not be stopped at this rate. It needs to be improved. It needs to address the environmental issues. It needs to address the social issues. And everything can go on. So it's the change in mindsets on how do we do the mining that needs to be talked about. There are many things that are done that we haven't thought about that there are other ways. And this is the right time to think about it, to help us. As a company, this is the best opportunity for us to think about it, to help us. It's important. Personally, I'm now engaged in working with two non-metallic mining groups. And the reason I got involved is that I was challenged by the former director of NEEDS, Kalloy Aisilya. And he said, you environmentalists, the problem with you environmentalists is that you keep on criticizing mining as doing harm. Yet when we approach you to help us, to tell us how to do good, you won't work with us. So where do you put us, leave us within that situation? That's why I have to take up the challenge to work with these non-metallic mining groups to find ways to do better. I think the perspective should be ecological, one ecosystem, and also geological. But let's focus on, say, the top five metals or mineral ores. You talked about gold, copper, iron, nickel. So you say Philex is good for gold and copper. So the metals there are not affected because they are underground. So there's no geological impact. There's also an impact in the sense that when you excavate a solid object, you actually lessen its strength. But again, this is where the mining engineers, the civil engineers come in. They design the structure in such a way that it can resist any eventual, for example, earthquake. That place is very close to Baguio. And you remember Baguio City, what happened to it in 1990. The mine site had barely any scar from that earthquake. That means that it was very well designed. Now, I think the problem with the image of the mining industry as far as degradation is concerned is there's a big contribution from the small-scale miners. Well, it is in the law also that you can do mining at the small scale. That's in the mining act also. But then there are a lot of others, small-scale miners who do not care about the environment at all. They use, for example, mercury. They use cyanide, which are all prohibited by the law. But this is the image that people see. And then the mindset, again, is that when you see that, even if I'm not a geologist or not well educated about the issue, I would also have the same perspective. So that has to change also. But even within the big mines or the company operated mines, there should also be a way of polishing their own ranks. There really are mining companies. There's no argument about that. And that has to take place now. And in fact, if there's one good thing that was, there was a wake-up call when Secretary Gina Lopez suspended all of those companies because it was a wake-up call that the industry has to polish its own ranks. Gina really did the first pass. So out of 200, not too many, about one-third. So it looks like... There was supposed to be a next step. A next step. Okay, but that's the most non-compliant. So for the interest of our viewers, let us reiterate what is the value of the mining industry? What are the benefits to society? Gold, copper, aluminum, nickel, iron. Just summarize, Mario, because you know, it's very basic. But in our daily lives, it's really very important. Yeah, well, what we started as primaries is civilizations need the mining, especially when developing this civilization. For the Western world, they also started as mining countries, actually. So there's really a need for extracting these minerals. Actually, the motto of miners is, if it cannot be grown, it has to be mined. Yeah. And so the industry... Well, let's put again them in the proper context. For example, cement. You need cement to construct this building. So there's no way you can construct this building without mining the raw materials for cement. And that's for open pit mines, actually, because these are limestone areas. The mineral sector that was mentioned by Perry, which is non-metallic. Gold, obviously, has its own purposes. But even for technology, your cell phones have gold in it. And all the computer software, there's gold in them. For copper, obviously, all the lights here wouldn't be here without the copper wires. And yeah. The only, perhaps, the emphasis of... What should be the emphasis right now is... Because we can call these the traditional metals. The copper, gold, nickel, even iron, and silver, which usually goes with gold. I think the focus should now also be, as far as the academic sector is concerned, is to look into the minerals that will be used in the future. And in fact, Kalaya Arcilia has a project with DOST looking at the content of nickel laterites as far as scandium is concerned, which is much more expensive than gold, which has applications in high technology, high technology, such as space technology. And there are others, actually, cobalt and other rare earth elements. And fortunately, the DOST has been also supportive in granting, although still minimal, I would say, research grants for this purpose. The government should provide more support as far as doing these kinds of research are concerned. So I think IT and nano technologies make important use, have many medicines from our transition earth metals. And so it's important to support the mining industry, but they should be responsible, and they must come up with long-term sustainability. Change the way they do business. Yeah, programs. So I'd like to maybe ask Perry for some final words, words of advice. You told me in the past that in Dinagat Island, nickel is being mined, and then it's got valuable metals like chromium. Is it chromium? Scandium. So basically, I think the largest producer of scandium now is China, but they don't have scandium in the land. So they take it from the nickel ores that we export to them. That's the other concern because the mining company sells only the nickel content, and the scandium is free. But in fact, if you do the math, it's even more... They earn more from the scandium. Exactly. So I think that the NIGs should take the lead in trying to learn this scandium extraction technology, and then perhaps we would get a better return on investment on our mining activities from the nickel. I heard that in the mining forum two weeks ago, YouTube was setting up a plan to extract scandium. They were the first ones to do it. My last word is that I think biodiversity mining could coexist. It's just that you have to change the mindset on how we do business, on how we operate the mines. It would be difficult at the start because nobody has done it before. But if we as a university don't even think about it, how can it even happen? So I think that's our role as an academic institution, to explore ways on how the mining, the geologists, the mining engineers, the meteorological engineers, the biologists, the physicists, the chemists to work together and come up with solutions that will ensure that we get the benefits of the mining, reduce its impact on the environment, and make everybody happy. So Perry has been focusing more on land-based mining, but he has a view on watersheds, and I know that Mario also has some view on new sites of mining. So Mario, perhaps you can tell us about the future of mining in the Philippines, assuming that we're able to fix up the way we do the land-based mining, the forest-based mining. You mean non-land-based mining? Non-land-based mining, yes. Okay, there's a new frontier in mining. I say new frontier because it's relatively new. It started only in 1996 when a United Nations organization called the International Seabed Authority was established. The ISAA, for short, was established to carry out or to implement Part 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Love of the Sea, and what is Part 6? Part 6 is the area beyond national jurisdiction. So we are in international seas, but underneath the oceans there's a seabed, and in the seabed there are minerals, which are unpatched, but they are also very fragile, but they contain also high technology minerals, and therefore at the moment this UN organization is the regulator for exploration activities in the seabed. We can perhaps set up another forum for this, but yes, that's a new frontier, and the Philippines can engage in this kind of mineral exploration activities, but as a state party to enclose. Only state parties can participate in seabed mineral mining activities, as regulated by the ISAA. So it's nice to end on that note, Mario. We're thinking of future exploration, and I'd like to thank you and Perry for grazing this occasion, and let's just say that from the University of the Philippines, we know what needs to be done on the basic level. It's to increase the number of technical experts in geology and in the related disciplines, but I think it's also important to have that bigger, long-term view of what's good for a particular society in the mining area, and so Perry talked about the impact of mining on biodiversity and the biostratum, and we already know that the mining companies are being required to take care of the employees. So it's about social engagement in the long-term or corporate social responsibility, which the National University emphasizes in any major industry or undertaking in the country. So thank you very much for being with us in this science innovation talk on responsible, sustainable mining. Thank you very much.