Pittsburgh ENGINEER 13

By John O. MarsdenPhelps Dodge Mining Company, Phoenix, AZ

Technology Development and CompetitiveAdvantage: Sustainable or Short Term?

Technology development hasplayed a crucial role in the miner-als industry throughout history. Thedevelopment of new technologyallows mankind to produce metalsand minerals at progressively lowercost of production in real terms, andtherefore at progressively lowerprices, improving their availability,accessibility and utilization world-wide. However, the developers ofsuch technology are not guaranteedto reap the benefits from this effort:There is an expectation that tech-nology developers will gain an ad-vantage over their competitors. Isthis a short-term benefit that resultsfrom a temporary cost or efficiencyimprovement, or is it a sustainablelonger term “edge” that prevailseven after metal or mineral pricehas been eroded by the implemen-tation of a major step change tech-nology? This issue is examined byreference to several case study ex-amples in the copper industry.

BackgroundThe development and adoption

of new technology has played a cru-cial role in the commodity miner-als industry throughout history. Asnew, cost-efficient technologies arecommercialized, the cost of produc-tion decreases, and this enableslower grade ore to be processedprofitably. This in turn increases theavailability and supply of the metalor mineral of interest, and ulti-mately (in a free market environ-ment where the supply-demand bal-ance determines price) inevitablydecreases the metal or mineralprice. This leads to the question:Why should mining companies in-vest in (new) technology develop-ment if the result is a decrease inthe product price? The answer is toachieve competitive advantage,where the application of new tech-nology enables one or more com-

modity producers to gain a costadvantage over their competitors,at least for a period of time. Themore sustainable and longer term,the greater the competitive edgeachieved.

Technology development iscostly and, in general, the greaterthe potential benefit, the higher thecost. The commercial implementa-tion of new technology is inherentlyrisky — the technology has notbeen applied before and must beproven over time. The risk must bemanaged, and this involves addi-tional cost and intellectual effort.Finally, both technology develop-ment and commercial implementa-tion typically requires significantinvestment of time. This latter fac-tor is significant where the metal/mineral of interest is a commoditythat exhibits cyclical pricing withextended periods of depressed pric-ing followed by periods of strongpricing. This will be discussed fur-ther later.

Sources of CompetitiveAdvantage

There are many sources of com-petitive advantage that can resultfrom the development and applica-tion of new technology. Each ofthese is listed and briefly reviewedbelow:

1. Prevent competitors fromusing the technology

The mining industry is well-ac-customed to the use of patenting oftechnology, processes, equipment,chemicals and reagents, non-com-modity supplies, and other aspectsof the mining industry. Patents canprovide companies with an effec-tive way to protect competitivetechnology for a significant period,up to twenty (20) years. In addition,the ability to maintain technicalknow-how, operational expertise

and trade secrets as confidential andproprietary information is an alter-native (or complimentary) way toprotect competitive technology inboth the short and long term.

2. Make it hard for competitorsto use or duplicate the technol-ogy

In some cases, maintaining tech-nical know-how, operational exper-tise and trade secrets as confiden-tial and proprietary informationmay be a successful strategy inachieving competitive advantage.The downside with this option isthat it is difficult to keep such in-formation as truly confidential andproprietary for a significant periodof time. In addition, such a strat-egy stifles technical and operationalinterchange between mining opera-tions and companies, and this ap-proach is probably unproductive inthe long term.

3. Apply the technology morerapidly than competitors

Being the first to apply a particu-lar technology cost effectively, torapidly improve the technology, andquickly make a significant impact ona substantial proportion of overallproduction and costs may providesignificant competitive advantage.Alternatively being a “fast follower“ or a rapid adapter of technologymay provide similar benefits.

4. Apply the technology betterthan competitors

If you apply a particular technol-ogy better than your competitors,either with greater efficiency, at alarger scale, or at lower cost (capi-tal or operating), then competitiveadvantage may be achieved. Acompany’s ability to do this dependslargely on the quality of people andthe resources at their disposal to ef-fectively apply technology and in-

novate within their operations. As apractical matter, it is difficult toachieve sustained competitive ad-vantage by this manner alone be-cause of the mobility of staff (muchgreater in recent years than histori-cally) and the relatively rapid andfree interchange of informationthroughout the mining industry.

5. Apply the technology to agreater proportion of metalproduction than competitors

If a technology can be appliedbroadly across multiple operationsor divisions within a company, it islikely to be more advantageous thanits application at a single operationby a competitor. For example, acompany that can effectively applya new nickel laterite hydrometallur-gical process to 50% of their min-eral reserves will derive greateradvantage than a similarly sizedcompany that applies the same pro-cess to only 5% of their reserves.

6. Derive more value thancompetitors due to specificgeographical, geological orother conditions

One company may have specificgeographical or geological factorsor other site-specific conditions thatrenders the application of a particu-lar technology to be more favorableat one or more of their sites thanfor others. This can be a source ofsustained competitive advantage.An example might be a blend ofpotential acid-producing mineralresources located close to acid-con-suming mineral resources that canutilize a technology that producesacid as a by-product.

7. People development andmotivation

Technology development activ-ity excites, invigorates and motivatescapable and energetic technical and

14 Fall 2004

Technology Development and Competitive Advantage: Sustainable or Short Term? Continued

Period No. of Years1900 –1902 21907 –1911 41916 –1921 51929 –1932 31937 –1945 81956 –1958 21970 –1986 161989 –1993 41995 –2003 8Total 52

operating people. Technology devel-opment activity gives staff the op-portunity to get involved in some-thing new and to create value out ofnothing, purely through innovation.This environment gives staff thechance to grow along with the tech-nology being developed. Technol-ogy development breeds a conta-gious enthusiasm — a commoditythat can’t be easily bought or traded.

Technology Developmentand Implementation

The “players “ in the implemen-tation of new technology fall intofour categories, as follows:

“First Mover”The first mover has the highest

risk in applying a new technology,and generally the highest cost.However, there is the potential toapply the technology rapidly andleverage the technology with com-petitors to gain advantage. The first

mover has the potential to reap thelargest benefits and, potentially, asustained competitive advantage.

“Fast Follower “ (or Adapter)The fast follower gains the ben-

efit of the “first mover” experiencewith the implementation of a newtechnology. The fast follower oradapter has lower risk comparedwith the first mover, but risk maystill be high because some aspectsof the technology may not be fullyproven. There may be some poten-tial for the fast follower to lever-age the technology and gain signifi-cant competitive advantage. Insome cases, there may be an abilityto gain greater competitive advan-tage than the first mover as a resultof lessons learned.

“Conservative Follower”The conservative follower takes

a low-risk approach, but does what-ever needed to stay competitive

over the long term, even if the ben-efits may not be achieved from thetechnology during its initial periodof application. The conservativefollower has little opportunity toleverage the technology to achievecompetitive advantage and may endup as the one being leveraged.

“Lagger”The lagger takes the lowest risk

option at every opportunity and stayswith well-proven technology. Theyare the last to adopt and apply newtechnologies, but rely on other waysto stay competitive (e.g., resourcequality, captive market or integratedmarket) or end up exiting the mar-ket voluntarily or involuntarily.

Case Study: TechnologyDevelopment in theCopper Industry

The Copper Price CycleLet us consider the example of

technology development in the cop-per industry throughout the 20thcentury. Figure 1 shows the annualaverage copper price from 1900 to2003, with the price expressed inconstant 2003 dollars. The periodis characterized by peaks and val-leys that reflect the market forcesfor the commodity traded in thewestern world and, more recently,on a more global basis. During pe-riods where demand has outpacedsupply, the peaks occur. Converselyduring periods where copper sup-ply exceeds demand, then periodsof low price prevail. In generalterms, peaks have occurred in 1907,1912, 1916, 1929, 1937, 1947 – 48,1956, 1970, 1974, 1979 – 80, 1989,and 1995. Similarly, valley“troughs “ have occurred in 1911,1914, 1921, 1932, 1945, 1958,1972, 1978, 1986, 1993 and 2002.

During the period 1900 – 2003shown in Figure 1 (103 years), therehave been approximately 9 majorprice cycles. Table 1 shows the ma-jor periods of increasing copperprice.

Without exception, these peri-ods of increasing price are relatedto strong copper demand and con-sumption, low production (eitherslow recovery of curtailed produc-tion and/or insufficient new pro-duction brought onstream to keeppace with demand), or combina-tions of the two.

Table 2 lists periods of decreas-ing copper price.

The periods of decreasing priceare related to 1) periods of weakcopper demand, with excess cop-per going into exchange invento-

Figure 1 Annual copper price between 1900 and 2003

Table 1 Periods of increasing copper price Table 2 Periods of decreasing copper price

Period No. of Years1902 –1907 51911 –1916 (Beginning of 1st World War) 51921 –1929 81932 –1937 (Post-depression) 51945 –1956 (Post-2nd World War) 111958 –1970 21986 –1989 31993 –1995 2Total 41

Pittsburgh ENGINEER 15

ries or other easily accessible inven-tories, 2) excessive copper produc-tion, either due to slow curtailmentof production during a copper cycledownturn or too much new produc-tion brought on line in excess ofdemand requirements during thepeak period of the copper pricecycle and, as some have postulated,3) technology developments thatincrease production and/or lowerthe cost of production significantlyand on a sustained basis.

While there is no doubt that thesupply-demand balance drives thecopper price, the question ofwhether significant technology de-velopment adversely affects thecopper price is more complex. Thisissue will be examined further us-ing three examples of step changetechnology development in the cop-per industry: open pit “bulk “ min-ing, flotation, and solvent extrac-tion-electrowinning (SX/EW).

Large Scale (Bulk) Open PitMining

The widespread adoption ofbulk, open pit mining methods in

the 1920s and 1930s represented asignificant technology developmentfor the copper industry. During theperiod from 1910 to 1945 therewere significant increases in oremilling rates, in large part madepossible by the bulk open pit min-ing method. According to A. B.Parsons, Daniel C. Jackling firstproposed the use of large-scale,bulk, open pit mining at Utah Cop-per in 1899. His proposal was basedon mining 2,000 tons per day of ore.At the time his proposal was made,the largest copper concentrator was500 tons per day, so his proposalrepresented a “stretch “ for bothmining and processing technology.In 1905, Utah Copper made thedecision to proceed with the openpit plan and production started in1907.(1) It may seem obvious to usnow that open pit “bulk” miningmakes good economic sense, but atthe time this was far from obviousand intuitive. Utah Copper wasmilling almost 15,000 tons per dayby 1910, increasing to 25,000 tpdin 1913 and to about 75,000 tonsper day by 1940.(2,4) By contrast,

Morenci began large-scale miningin 1942, supplying ore to a 25,000tons-per-day concentrator, whichwas increased to over 40,000 tonsper day by 1947. El Teniente (origi-nally “Braden”) was processingonly 6,000 tons per day of ore priorto 1920, but increased to 15,000tons per day by 1927, and then toabout 30,000 tons per day by 1947.Open pit mining started at Inspira-tion in 1948 and at Ray in 1950.Large-scale open pit mining startedat Chuquicamata in about 1927 ata rate of more than 20,000 tons perday and increased to about 50,000tons per day by 1952.(2) This chro-nology indicates that many compa-nies were slow to adopt open pitmining methods, even though thisultimately proved to be the mosteffective mining method.

The above discussion indicatesthat the major copper producing(porphyry) mines increased oremining and processing rates dra-matically between about 1925 and1947, with the majority of the ma-jor expansions occurring between1940 and 1947. By 1947, 73% of

the US copper production was ob-tained by open pit mining. (6) Simi-lar developments in Chile followed.As open pit mining took off, theincreased scales of economy for thebulk mining and significantly largerprocessing facilities reduced thecost of production significantly.Then, the mining engineers of theday translated the reduced costsinto lower cutoff grades, resultingin a steady decrease in the averagegrade of ore processed. At manyoperations, ore grades droppedfrom over 2% (typical undergroundmining grades) to 1.5% and in somecases below 1%. Gradually, as oregrades decreased and as wages andother costs inflated over time, pro-duction costs shifted back to theprior levels.

A review of the copper pricecurve (Figure 1) shows that themetal price experienced a sharpdecrease from 1916 to 1921, butthen a long period of general priceincrease occurred from the early1920s to the mid-1970s. This is dis-cussed further at the end of the flo-tation section.

Re-employment ListingsThe re-employment program

is a FREE service offered byESWP on an ongoing basis toall unemployed members andAffiliated Technical Societiesmembers. These individuals areeligible to submit a resume andhave a one paragraph summaryof their qualifications publishedin the e-TC, the onlineTechniCalendar — ESWP’smonthly newsletter and calen-dar, and in the Pittsburgh EN-GINEER, ESWP’s quarterlypublication. Potential employ-ers contact ESWP to receivecandidates’ full resume.

Anyone who meets theabove qualifications and wouldlike more information shouldcontact ESWP at 412-261-0710or eswp@eswp.com.

If your business is interested inany of the following candidates,please contact the ESWP at 412-261-0710 or eswp@eswp.com.

#142 — Seeking a position inconstruction management in opera-tions, business development or man-agement. Experience: constructionmanagement, business develop-ment, construction inspection, ma-terial sampling/testing. Skills: strongcomputer skills including profi-ciency in Word, Excel and other spe-cialty applications; excellent writtenand verbal communication skills.Degree: BS-Env.Sci, BS-Civil Eng.,MS-Civil Eng.

#144 — Seeking a program/project management position to uti-lize 17 years of experience in adozen different industries, domes-tic/international, commercial/gov-

ernment projects, including P/L re-sponsibility, all phases of projectlife-cycle, risk management, sal-vaging damaged projects, and op-timizing performance of operations,processes and teams. Degrees: MS,PhD, PMP.

#146 — Seeking position aschemical process engineer. Hardworking, tenacious and experi-enced chemical process engineer;for the past 10 years, the only engi-neer in a chemical plant with 80employees, five batch reactors andtwo Fisher-Provox DCS systems.Experience is broad and includes:process improvement, processtrouble-shooting, process control,training, regulatory management,and more. Degrees: MS, BS Chemi-cal Engineering.

#148 — Results-driven man-ager with expertise in projectmanagement, production plan-ning, process improvement, andoperations management. Expertat turning around troubledprojects. Skilled in translatingbetween business needs andtechnology requirements. Ex-cellent mentor and manager.

#149 — Customer focusedIT Manager with experience innetwork implementation andsupport, application, user anddesktop support. Skilled at ven-dor management and purchas-ing. Experienced in NetWare,Windows and Linux. Imple-mented variety of systems in-cluding Citrix WinFrame,Opentext Document Manage-ment and Lotus Notes.

16 Fall 2004

Technology Development and Competitive Advantage: Sustainable or Short Term? Continued

FlotationBulk-oil flotation was patented

by Mr. Francis Elmore in 1898 andwas first applied commercially ona small scale at the Glasdir mine inWales in 1899. It was described asa “dirty and nasty process “ thatcannot have presented much appealto the owners and operators of themining and smelting operations ofthe day. Mr. Elmore further devel-oped this technology into avacuum-oil flotation process in1927, and several others developedand patented flotation processesbetween 1902 and 1907. The Min-erals Separation Company was es-tablished in 1903 specifically topurchase and exploit the flotationpatent that incorporated the use ofair, water-soluble oil and dramati-cally reduced the amount of oil re-quired (below 1%). The early daysof flotation, between 1907 and1923, are marked by extensive le-gal wrangling and litigation be-tween many of the major copperproducers of the day, MineralsSeparation Company and othersinvolved with the development andcommercialization of flotation tech-nology? This makes for highly en-tertaining nighttime reading.(3,4)

A number of copper producerstested and used flotation on a smallscale. The Central Mill of BrokenHill in Australia is generally rec-ognized as the first commercial ap-plication of the flotation process aswe know if today, where the pro-cess was used to recover zinc. Alarge number of companies around

the world tested the process be-tween 1907 and 1915. In 1907. TheButte and Superior Copper Co. in-stalled a 150-tpd flotation mill forzinc recovery and, because they ig-nored the Minerals SeparationPatent, provoked the first lawsuit.In 1912, Inspiration Copper startedtesting the response of chalcociteore to flotation and achieved 87%recovery from 2% copper ore intoa concentrate containing 15% cop-per. The concept was to use flota-tion in place of traditional gravityconcentration. Inspiration built a50-tpd pilot plant in 1913 and a600-tpd facility in 1914. Inspirationsubsequently agreed to license theflotation process from MineralsSeparation Company in 1915, anda 15,000 ton-per-day mill was com-missioned in 1915. This plantachieved about 80% copper recov-ery, with approximately 72% ob-tained by flotation and 8% by grav-ity concentration. At the time. Thiswas the second largest concentra-tor in the world, superceded onlyby Utah Copper’s gravity-basedconcentrator (25,000 tpd).

Several copper companies testedand licensed the flotation processfrom Minerals Separation Company,including Anaconda, Miami andUtah Copper. Chino had a 15,000ton-per-day concentrator that uti-lized flotation in operation in 1915.In the case of Utah Copper, flota-tion was first employed at Garfieldin about 1918 at a modest scale, andthen subsequent expansions and re-modeling resulted in the eventual

total conversion to flotation by about1930. During this period, copperrecovery increased from 64% priorto 1917, to over 80% by 1919, andthen to 90% by 1930.

The importance of these initiallarge-scale commercial applicationscannot be overstated. Firstly, flota-tion provided a step change in con-centrator efficiency and perfor-mance by increasing the recoveryfrom typical chalcopyrite andchalcocite ores from typically 64%– 66% by gravity concentration tobetween 64% - 66% by flotation.Secondly, the widespread commer-cialization of flotation occurred inparallel with the broad applicationof open pit bulk mining methods inthe copper industry. These twotechnology developments were in-timately linked. Referring to thecommercialization of the flotationprocess, Hines (4) makes the state-ment “the total effect on the think-ing of the mining industry wasenormous even if the industry wasslow in accepting all the newideas.” In this statement, he wasapparently referring to the slow rateof adoption of flotation technologyby the industry. But how slow re-ally was this rate? The first largecommercial facility was commis-sioned in 1947. By 1928, therewere large flotation mills at Utah,Chino, Miami, Inspiration, Braden,Chuquicamata, and many othercopper mines. By 1930, over 50%of US copper production was gen-erated by flotation. It is estimatedthat over 65% of copper production

worldwide (which was dominatedby the US and Chile) came fromflotation plants at that time.

It is notable that the concentra-tor operating costs for flotationwere about the same as those forthe traditional gravity concentra-tion process. However, on average,flotation technology increasedcopper recovery by about 15%,increasing the divisor by anequivalent amount for the pur-poses of production cost calcula-tion. This was a huge step changein copper production technology.

Who benefited from the devel-opment of flotation? 1) The ownersof Mineral Separation Companymade a significant amount of moneyoff licensing flotation technologyuntil their patents expired in 1907.The company was liquidated at thattime. 2) The first commercial usersof the technology and the fast fol-lowers gained a significant and sus-tained production cost benefit. Inaddition, the reserves of manymines were increased as a result oflowering the cutoff grade of ore pro-cessed by up to 20%. This in turnallowed expansions to occur. It ispossible that the widespread com-mercial application of flotation con-tributed to the dramatic copper pricedecline experienced in 1930 – 1932.However, undoubtedly this dramaticprice decline was heavily influencedby the Great Depression in the US,which greatly reduced copper de-mand for an extended period. It isinteresting to note that this was im-mediately followed by an extendedperiod of generally increasing pricefrom 1933 – 1973, with some rela-tively minor dips. It is impossibleto determine the exact impact of flo-tation on copper price. What is clearis that the most progressive, adap-tive and innovative copper produc-ers were able to achieve 10 –15 yearsof competitive advantage from therapid, broad and large-scale adop-tion of flotation at their operations.The slow adopters and “laggers “eventually followed or disappeared.By the 1970s, over 90% of primarycopper (excluding scrap) was pro-duced by flotation. Flotation has

Figure 2 Annual copper production by leaching/SX/EW and flotation/smelting/refining from 1980 to 2000

Pittsburgh ENGINEER 17

maintained its position as the domi-nant technology for processing ofchalcopyrite and chalcocite oresfrom 1930 to the present day, al-though heap leaching is playing anincreasing role in the processing ofchalcocite ores.

Solvent Extraction andElectrowinning

The third and final example oftechnology development in the cop-per industry is the commercializa-tion of solvent extraction (SX )andelectrowinning (EW). Liquid ionexchange technology, or “SX “ asit is now called, was first used com-mercially at the Ranchers’ Bluebirdmine, near Miami, Arizona, in 1968(5) SX/EW technology replaced thepreexisting iron cementation pro-cess for the recovery of copper fromlow-grade copper solution obtainedfrom leaching of oxide ore. Ninemillion pounds of copper were pro-duced by the new process duringits first full year of operation. In1971, Bagdad installed an SX/EWfacility to recover copper fromstockpile leach solution. A tailingsleach operation was commissionedat the Nchanga division of ZambiaConsolidated Copper Mines(ZCCM) in 1974, utilizing SX/EWtechnology for copper recovery.Additional commercial-scale plantswere then installed at Miami-BHP(1976), Miami-Inspiration (1979),Cananea (1980), Pinto Valley(1981), Tyrone (1984), Ray (1985),Gibraltar (1986), Morenci (1987),Sierrita (1987), Chuquicamata(1987), and Chino (1988). Wide-spread adoption in Chile did notoccur until the mid-1990s with ap-plications at Zaldivar, El Abra,Mantos Blancos, Quebrada Blancaand many others.

The major advantages for mostof these operations were 1) the re-placement of costly and labor-in-tensive iron cementation processthat generated a precipitate for fur-ther processing by smelting, and 2)the ability to expand heap andstockpile leaching operations sig-nificantly by the use of larger vol-umes of leach solution as a result

of the ability to efficiently processlarge volumes of low-grade coppersolution by SX. This provided alow-cost supplement of copper pro-duction to the core flotation con-centrator facilities in many cases.The Miami-Inspiration concentra-tor shut down in 1986 and theTyrone concentrator shut down in1992, resulting in both of theseoperations evolving into an all-SX/EW production base. These eventswere major milestones that allowedcopper companies to considerstand-alone leaching and SX/EWoperations to be developed, provid-ing a lower cost process for extract-ing copper from chalcocite and ox-ide ores. While many factors affectthe production cost calculation andcomparison between leaching/SX/EW and flotation/smelting/refiningprocesses for chalcocite ores, it isapparent that the former processroute initially presented a 15% –25% cost advantage. Once again,this was not intuitively obvious atthe time and it took a number ofyears for this concept to germinateinto a commercially applicabletechnology. In the 1990s manystand-alone chalcocite and oxideore leaching/SX/EW operationswere developed and successfullyplaced into production.

How did the advent of SX/EWtechnology affect copper marketfundamentals? Figure 2 shows theproduction of copper by leaching/SX/EW and flotation/smelting/re-

fining from 1980 to 2000. SX/EWaccounted for about 3% of totalprimary copper production in 1980,increasing to about 8% by 1927,and to just over 18% by 2000.Similarly to flotation, it is difficultif not impossible to directly link thecommercialization of SX/EW tech-nology with a period of copperprice decrease. The most likely pe-riod of impact is the period 1994 –2000 when the proportion of cop-per produced by SX/EW more thandoubled. It can be seen that the cop-per price decreased significantlyduring the period 1995 – 2001;however, other market forcesplayed a significant role during thatperiod and it is unlikely that tech-nology played a dominant role. Thenext decade of the copper cycle willreveal more on the impact of SX/EW technology.

Based on remaining copper re-serves by ore type, it is projectedthat leaching/SX/EW will accountfor about 21% of total productionby 2010. This assumes that there isno technology breakthrough for theatmospheric leaching of low-gradechalcopyrite ores and excludes anyimpact of leaching processes totreat concentrates as an alternativeto smelting and refining.

Other Technology DevelopmentsThere have been many other

technology developments that arenot discussed here. Some of theother significant developments in-

clude the reverberatory furnace,tube and ball milling, flash smelt-ing, autogenous and semi-autogenous milling, in-pit crushingand conveying, computer control ofprocessing and mining operations,and use of increasingly large-scalemining equipment. (7) There havebeen many other incremental im-provements, changes and innova-tions that have helped shape thecopper industry over time. Many ofthese have provided sustainablecompetitive advantage to the usersof the technology.

Impact of Technology Develop-ments on Production Costs

Figure 3 shows the full produc-tion cost curve for primary copperproduction (excluding scrap) for1992, 1996 and 2000. The full costincludes cash production cost plusdepreciation and amortization. Thegraph shows that as production vol-ume increased over time from 1992to 2000, the cost curve flattened andthe average production cost de-creased from $0.74/lb to $0.61/lb.A significant portion of this decreasewas due to low cost, new produc-tion coming on line, but a portionwas due to technology develop-ments. However, an important pointto make from this graph is that rela-tively modest decreases in produc-tion cost can have a huge impact oncompetitiveness between mines andcompanies. For example, a 15% de-crease in production cost, say from

Figure 3 Estimated copper production cost curves for 1992, 1996 and 2000

18 Fall 2004

$0.70/lb to $0.60/lb, moves a pro-ducer from the bottom of the fourthquartile to the top of the secondquartile on the cost curve. The pro-ducers who adopted open pit min-ing, flotation and SX/EW technol-ogy reaped the benefit of similarorder-of-magnitude changes in theircost profile and changed the fate oftheir companies forever. Sustainablecompetitive advantage indeed.

Summary and ConclusionsCompetitive technology devel-

opments have reduced the produc-tion costs for all commodity met-als over time, either throughsignificant step changes, such asthose discussed in detail above, orby incremental change. In the caseof copper, there is some evidencethat major step change technologydevelopments have contributed toan increased availability of com-modity metals, resulting in down-

ward pressure on metal prices.However, other market forces in-cluding reserve and resource avail-ability and quality, mine investmentdecisions, commodity metal de-mand, economic conditions andtrends, and other factors have domi-nating effects on the long-termcommodity metal markets.

In the case of the three examplesused in the copper industry casestudy, much of the industry was slowto adopt new technology, even afterits effective use had been clearly(and publicly) demonstrated. Stepchange technology developmentsallow the innovative and progressiveproducers to achieve a sustainedadvantage over a significant propor-tion of their competitors for periodsof 10 –15 years, and in some caseseven longer.

While the use of patenting andthe confidential retention of propri-etary know-how, trade secrets and

References1. Parsons, A. B. 1933. The Porphyry Coppers. New York: AIME.2. Parsons, A. B. 1957. The Porphyry Coppers in 1956. AIME. First ed.3. Rickard, T. A. 1916. The Flotation Process. San Francisco: Mining &

Scientific Press.4. Hines, P. R., and J. D. Vincent. 1962. The early days of froth flotation. In

Froth Flotation — 50th Anniversary Volume. Edited by D. W. Fuerstenau.New York: AIME.

5. Power, K. L. 1970. Operation of the first commercial copper liquid ionexchange and electrowinning plant. In Copper Metallurgy. Edited by R. P.Ehrlich. New York: AIME. 1 – 26.

6. McMahon, A. D. 1965. Copper — A Materials Survey. IC 8225. US Bureauof Mines. US Department of the Interior.

7. Anon. Copper — Technology & Competitiveness. 1988. Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, Congress of the United States.

Technology Development and Competitive Advantage: Sustainable or Short Term? Continuedexpertise can be effective in pro-viding short-to medium-term com-petitive advantage, it is probablyother factors such as the speed ofadoption, the effectiveness ofimplementation, and the scale ofapplication of new technology thatprovides the biggest competitiveadvantage. The ability to applytechnology more widely through-out an organization than a competi-tor is an advantage that in many

cases cannot be duplicated due togeographical and geologic (re-source) factors.

In conclusion, this author be-lieves that a strategically-drivenand sharply focused technologydevelopment effort, along with aneffective implementation programthat actively manages risk, is a re-quirement for every thriving, sus-tainable mining company.

AACEI Association for theAdvancement of Cost Engineer-ing International, Ken Ross, 412/563-2111

ACHMM Academy of CertifiedHazardous Materials Managers, JohnQuinlisk, 412/264-8701 ext. 113

ACI American Concrete Institute,Beth Rader, 724/452-1468

AFE Association for FacilitiesEngineers (formerly AIPE), SteveCampbell, 412/257-2111 x632

AIChE American Institute ofChemical Engineers, JoAnnTruchan, 412/578-7981

AIME/SME American Institute ofMining Metallurgy, & PetroleumEngineers / Society of Mining, Dr.Jurgen Brune, 412/831-4437

AIST Association for Iron andSteel Technology, Main Office,724/776-6040

ASCE American Society of CivilEngineers, Patrick Kane, PE, 412/262-5400

ASHRAE American Society ofHeating, Refrigeration & AirConditioning Engineers, Christo-pher Larry, 412/257-2111 ext. 626

ASM American Society forMaterials, Riad Asfahani, 412-825-2081

ASME American Society forMechanical Engineers, DougKoebler, 412/826-5205 x5204

ASPE American Society forProfessional Estimators, MaryCrawford, 412/823-0400

ASQ American Society forQuality, Sailesh Kapadia, 724/935-7507

AWMA Air & Waste Manage-ment Association, RobertVolkmar, 412/396-4094

CSI Construction SpecificationsInstitute, Scott Keener, 412/243-3430

IEEE Institute of Electrical &Electronics Engineers, HarryHagerty, 412/487-8235

IIE Institute of IndustrialEngineers, Jeffrey Arnold, 412/921-2400 Ext. 245

ISA Instrument Society ofAmerica, Mariruth Cotter, 412/371-9161

NACE National Association ofCorrosion Engineers, WilliamWidmer, 724/428-3503

PMI Project ManagementInstitute, Ed Rosenstein, 412/337-7737

PSPE Pennsylvania Society ofProfessional Engineers, MainOffice, 412/391-0615

SACP Society for AnalyticalChemists of Pittsburgh, GerryChurley, 412/825-3220 ext. 204

SAE Society of AutomotiveEngineers, National Office, 724/776-4841

SAME Society of AmericanMilitary Engineers, DarleneMuntean, 412-254-4400 x211

SFPE Society of Fire ProtectionEngineers, Harold Hicks, 724/327-6715

SPE Society of Plastics Engineers,Matthew Nagy, 412/777-4910

SSP Spectroscopy Society ofPittsburgh, Gerry Churley, 412/825-3220, x204

SWE Society of Women Engi-neers, Alka Patel, 412/227-3089

TS-CUC Tri-State ConstructionUsers, Ann Billak, 412/922-3914