Energy consumption in the copper de Consumo de... · 2018. 11. 29. · In 2017, an average of 30.9 GJ was required to produce a ton of fine copper, up by 1.6% on 2016 and by 69.7%

Energy consumption in the copper

mining industry, 2017

DEPP 03/2018

Intellectual Property Register © N° 293423

Executive Summary

This report is based on the results of the Mining Production, Water and Energy Survey (EMPAE), applied by

COCHILCO to the country’s copper mining operations annually since 2001. The inclusion of the plants of ENAMI in

2017 meant that the survey covered 100% of the universe, giving it the nature of a census.

In 2017, the copper mining industry

consumed 169,923 TJ of energy,

equivalent to around 14% of Chile’s

total consumption. Electricity

accounted for 51.8% of the

industry’s consumption and fuels for

48.2%. The figure on the right shows

consumption of electricity and fuels

and production of fine copper from

2001 to 2017.

Energy consumption and copper production, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

The industry’s overall consumption of electricity and fuels are quite similar but, at the level of individual processes,

vary significantly. The operation of open-pit mines, for example, accounted for 77% of consumption of fuels,

followed by smelters with a further 9% while, in the case of electricity, concentrators accounted for 57%, followed

by electrowinning with 22%.

In terms of regional consumption in the copper mining industry, the Antofagasta Region led the list, both as

regards fuels (46 thousand TJ, equivalent to 58.2% of the industry’s total consumption in 2017) and electricity

(47.6 thousand TJ, equivalent to 52.2% of the total). It was followed by the Atacama Region which accounted for

11.4% of total energy consumption, the Coquimbo and Valparaíso Regions which together accounted for 12.9%,

the O’Higgins and Santiago Regions with 11.6% and the Arica y Parinacota Region with 9.1%.

As regards consumption by size of operation, the large-scale private mining industry accounted for two-thirds of

consumption of both electricity and fuels in 2017, while large-scale state mining, represented by Codelco,

accounted for 30% and 28% of fuel and electricity consumption, respectively. Medium-scale private mining

operations accounted for 3% of fuels and 4% of electricity.

Finally, as regards costs, the report shows that electricity consumption represented spending of approximately

US$2,155 million in 2017 as compared to US$918 million on fuels. In other words, the industry’s spending on

electricity was almost 2.5 times its outlay on fuels. In total, energy is estimated to represent between 11% and

12% of the costs of the Chilean copper mining industry.

The survey’s results show that the energy requirements of the copper mining industry continue to grow. The aging

of mines, harder rock, lower ore grades, the construction of reverse osmosis seawater desalination plants and a

shift towards the production of concentrate meant that energy consumption once again rose in 2017, showing an

increase of 0.9% on 2016, despite a 0.9% drop in output of mine copper. This situation of lower output and growing

energy consumption has been a feature of the last four years and, since 2013, copper production has dropped by

4.7% while energy consumption has risen by 9.7%.

0

2

4

6

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Mill

ion

s o

f FM

T

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Fuels Electricity Copper production

Energy consumption in the copper mining industry, 2017

II

Comisión Chilena del Cobre

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ I

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1. General information and survey ........................................................................................ 3

2.2. Analysis of the data ............................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1. Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2. Electricity ............................................................................................................... 6

3. Energy consumption of the Chilean copper mining industry ..................................................... 8

3.1. Total energy consumption of the copper mining industry ................................................. 8

3.2. Energy consumption by production process ...................................................................... 8

3.3. Energy consumption in copper mining as share of national energy consumption ........... 10

3.4. Energy consumption by region ........................................................................................ 11

3.5. Energy consumption by size of operation ........................................................................ 12

3.6. Total unit energy consumption in copper mining ............................................................ 13

4. Fuel consumption .................................................................................................................... 15

4.1. Aggregate consumption .................................................................................................... 15

4.2. Consumption by process................................................................................................... 16

4.3. Unit consumption ............................................................................................................. 16

5. Electricity consumption ........................................................................................................... 19

5.1. Aggregate consumption ................................................................................................... 19

5.2. Consumption by system ................................................................................................... 19

5.3. Consumption by process .................................................................................................. 20

5.4. Self-generation ................................................................................................................ 21

5.5. Unit consumption ............................................................................................................ 22

6. Expenditure on energy ............................................................................................................ 24

7. Final comments ....................................................................................................................... 26

8. Appendix: Operations surveyed .............................................................................................. 27

Energy consumption in the copper mining industry, 2017 3


1. Introduction

The Chilean Copper Commission (COCHILCO) has been conducting the Mining Production, Water and Energy

Survey (EMPAE) to the country’s copper mining companies since 2001. Using this tool, COCHILCO calculates

total and unit consumption of fuels and electricity as well as their evolution over time, disaggregated by type

of process, geographical area and other variables. This information is published in the Copper Energy

Consumption Statistics available on http://www.cochilco.cl/estadisticas/energia.asp as well as in this report,

whose objective is to analyze the copper mining industry’s overall consumption of fuels and electricity and

the evolution of unit consumption.

Section 2 of the report describes the methodology used, explaining the scope of the survey and the treatment

of the data. In Section 3, data on the industry’s overall and unit energy consumption is presented, followed

in Sections 4 and 5 by analysis of fuel and electricity consumption, respectively, by process and in unit terms.

Estimates of the energy costs incurred by the industry are presented in Section 6 and Section 7 sets out some

of the conclusions that can be drawn from the study.

2. Methodology

The methodology comprises three main stages:

a) Information about production levels and energy and water consumption by mining process is gathered

through the EMPAE.

b) The information received is reviewed and, where there are discrepancies with other sources of

information or the data appears to be at odds with historical information, the company in question is

consulted.

c) Based on the information supplied by the mining operations, total and unit consumption of electricity

and fuels are calculated by process at the industry level. Total consumption is reported in terajoules (TJ)

and unit consumption in megajoules per metric ton of output (MJ/MT).

2.1. General information and survey

Two copper production lines are identified according to the mineral processed: the processing of sulfide

minerals, using concentration, smelting and refining, and of oxide minerals and low-grade sulfides, using

leaching or a hydrometallurgy process to obtain copper.

The main production processes used in the case of sulfide minerals are mine extraction, concentration,

smelting and refining while, for oxide minerals, they are mine extraction, leaching, solvent extraction and

electrowinning. Figure 1 shows these processes with the corresponding product and its units.

http://www.cochilco.cl/estadisticas/energia.asp



Figure 1: Copper mining production processes

* Pregnant Leach Solution (PLS)

Source: COCHILCO.

Although they are not shown in Figure 1, the analysis considers the services process, defined as those

activities not included in the main value chain, but which are necessary in mining production, such as camps,

workshops and desalination and the pumping of water to mine sites, all of which consume energy.

The copper mining industry’s main sources of energy are electricity from the country’s main grids - the

Northern Interconnected System (SING) and the Central Interconnected System (SIC) - and different fuels. In

the latter case, the report considers coal, gasoline, diesel, Enap 6, kerosene, liquefied gas, natural gas,

firewood, butane and Escaid 110.

Figure 2: Types of energy used in copper mining

Source: COCHILCO.

The information for calculating energy consumption is obtained through the EMPAE, a survey that collects

data about the output of the principal production processes, identifying the mineral inputs as well as the

resulting products and their main characteristics. In the case of mine extraction, for example, the amount of

mineral and waste rock extracted, with their respective grades, is reported and, in the case of concentration,

Min

eral

(K

MT) Mine extraction:

Extraction of sulfides

Co

nce

ntr

ate

(MT) Concentration:

Milling and flotation of the mineral A

no

des

(F

MT) Smelting:

Production of blíster/anodes

ER c

ath

od

es

(FM

T) Refining:

Production of cathodes using electrorefining (ER)

Min

eral

(K

MT) Mine extraction:

Extraction of oxides and leachable sulfides P

LS (

m3

/sec

)

Leaching (Lx):

Irrigation of pads to produce PLS*

Elec

tro

lyte

(m

3/se

c) Solvent extraction (Sx):

Increase of copper concentration in electrolyte

EW c

ath

od

es

(FM

T) Electrowinning (Ew):

Production of cathodes

Energy in the Mining Industry

Fuels:

Diesel

Enap 6

Kerosene

Liquefied gas

Natural gas

Gasoline

Others

Electricity

Central Interconnected

System (SIC)

Northern Interconnected System (SING)



the amount of mineral processed and concentrate produced, also with their respective grades. For each

production process, the survey includes questions about the amount of electricity consumed and quantities

of fuels (in physical units, for example, m3 of diesel) and about water consumption and recycling.

In 2017, a total of 56 mining operations were surveyed, including mines, smelters and refineries, and

represented 100% of the fine copper produced by Chile (a complete list of the operations is provided in the

Appendix). This was the first time that the EMPAE had achieved 100% coverage and reflected the well-

established commitment of the large-scale copper mining industry to the survey and the development of

closer ties with the medium-scale segment.

Tables with the detailed information used in calculations, graphs and analysis for this report are available on

COCHILCO’s website (http://www.cochilco.cl) in the Statistics, Energy and GHG section.

2.2. Analysis of the data

In the case of fuels, the physical units of consumption reported in the survey must first be converted into

energy units - in this case, megajoules. Each fuel whose consumption is reported in the survey is converted

into energy equivalent units considering the state of the art of technology in the mining industry and a fuel’s

energy factor as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Coefficients of conversion of physical units of fuels into energy

Fuel Unit Quantity Useful energy in megajoules (MJ)

Coal kg 1 29 Gasoline m3 1 34,208

Diesel m3 1 38,309 Enap 6 t 1 43,932

Kerosene m3 1 37,618 Liquefied gas kg 1 51 Natural gas m3 1 39 Firewood kg 1 15 Butane lts 1 29

Petroleum naphtha m3 1 34 Propane m3 1 26

Escaid 110 t 1 36,028

Source: World Nuclear Organization.

The principal indicators used for energy consumption in the form of fuels and electricity are presented below.



2.2.1. Fuels

The energy consumed by the industry in the form of fuels corresponds to the sum of the consumption of the different mining operations surveyed as expressed in (3.1).

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑠 = ∑ 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑖 (𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠) (3.1)

where i corresponds to the mining operation.

Unit fuel consumption measured as the energy used to produce a ton of fine copper content per process per

mine/plant is calculated as fuel consumption converted into energy units divided by the fine copper content

in the product of the process (3.2). To calculate the industry’s unit fuel consumption per ton of fine per

process, the unit consumption of a mine/plant is weighted by its contribution to national output of fine

copper according to the process in question (3.3).

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢𝑖𝑗 =𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽)

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝐹𝑀𝑇)(𝑀𝐽/𝐹𝑀𝑇) (3.2)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 = ∑ 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢𝑖𝑗 ×𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑗

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑗𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽/𝐹𝑀𝑇) (3.3)

where i corresponds to the mine/plan and j to the production process.

In the case of unit energy consumption in the form of fuels according to the material processed, the unit consumption per mine/plant is first calculated, taking the energy in fuels used in the processes divided by the total material processed (3.4). To calculate the industry’s unit consumption of fuels by material processed, the unit values are weighted according to the material processed per mine/plant as a percentage of the total processed by the industry in a specific process (3.5).

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑗 =𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽)

𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝑇 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙)(𝑀𝐽/𝑀𝑇) (3.4)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 = ∑ 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑗 ×𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑗

𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑗𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽/𝑀𝑇) (3.5)

where i corresponds to the mine/plan and j to the production process.

2.2.2. Electricity

The methodology used to calculate the indicators of industry and unit electricity consumption is shown in (3.6), (3.7), (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10), using the same nomenclature as above.



𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = ∑ 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑖 (𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠) (3.6)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐. 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢𝑖𝑗 =𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽)

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑗 (𝐹𝑀𝑇)(𝑀𝐽/𝐹𝑀𝑇) (3.7)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐. 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 = ∑ 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐. 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢𝑖𝑗 ×𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑗

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑗𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽/𝐹𝑀𝑇) (3.8)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐. 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑗 =𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽)

𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝑇 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙)(𝑀𝐽/𝑀𝑇) (3.9)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐. 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 = ∑ 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐. 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑗 ×𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑗

𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑗𝑖𝑗 (𝑀𝐽/𝑀𝑇) (3.10)



3. Energy consumption of the Chilean copper mining industry

3.1. Total energy consumption of the copper mining industry

Total energy consumption in copper mining increased from 168,487 TJ in 2016 to 169,923 TJ in 2017,

representing a year-on-year increase of 0.9%, while the country’s output of mine copper dropped by 50

thousand tons of fine copper, equivalent to a reduction of 0.9%1. This is a sign of the energy pressure being

felt in the industry.

Figure 3 shows copper production and energy consumption in the form of electricity and fuels since 2001,

indicating that while copper output has varied, energy consumption has increased in practically every year.

Figure 3: Total energy consumption in copper mining vs. production of fine copper, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

3.2. Energy consumption by production process

At the industry level, electricity consumption and consumption of fuels are relatively similar, accounting for

51.8% and 48.2% of energy consumption, respectively, in 2017. However, at the level of individual processes,

they vary significantly. The operation of open-pit mines, for example, accounts for 77% of fuel consumption,

followed by smelters with 9% and services with 5%. For electricity consumption, on the other hand, the

concentration process accounts for 57% of the total, followed by electrowinning with 22%, and services with

8% (Figure 4).

1 The drop is explained principally by lower output at Escondida (-7.6% as compared to 2016), due to a strike there in

the first quarter of 2017.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mill

ion

s o

f FM

T

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Fuels Electricity Copper production



Figure 4: Electricity and fuel consumption by copper mining process, 2017

Source: COCHILCO.

When analyzing the evolution of the two processes that dominate consumption – open-pit mining in fuels

and concentrators in electricity – it can be seen that both have become progressively more energy-intensive,

even in relation to the other processes. Fuel consumption in the operation of open-pit mines increased from

55.6% of total fuel consumption in 2001 to 76.7% in 2017, while electricity consumption in concentrators

increased from 42.6% of total electricity consumption in 2001 to 56.6% in 2017 (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Evolution of share (%) of fuel and electricity consumption by process, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Open-PitMining

UndergroundMining

Concentration Smelting Refining Sx-Ew Services

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Fuels Electricity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Fuels

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Electricity



Historically, copper production and energy consumption have shown a positive correlation. However, this

has changed in recent years and, while copper production fell from 5.78 million metric tons in 2013 to 5.50

million metric tons in 2017 (-4.7%), energy consumption rose from 155,000 TJ to 170,000 TJ in the same

period (+9.7%).

This increase in the intensity of the copper mining industry’s energy use is explained mainly by structural

changes in different phases of the mining process, including principally:

Drop in ore grades. The average ore grade in Chile dropped from 1.08% in 2001 to 0.64% en 2017 (-40%).

Moreover, the average grade of mineral for concentration, a process that is very intensive in electricity,

dropped from 1.24% to 0.8% over the same period (-36%).

Harder rock. This phenomenon is associated with the aging of mines and an increase in their depth.

Increase in transport distances. As mines age, the rock not only becomes harder but it is also necessary

to move down to more remote seams, increasing the distance over which the mineral must be

transported from its point of extraction to where it will be processed.

Shift to production of concentrate. While production of Sx-Ew cathodes remained relatively stable

between 2001 and 2017 at around 1.5-1.6 million metric tons, production of concentrate (including that

smelted locally and externally) increased from 3.2 million metric tons in 2001 to 3.9 million metric tons

in 2017. Given that the production of concentrate is very intensive in electricity, this has pushed up

energy use in general.

Trend towards use of seawater. Due to the scarcity of water in northern Chile where most mines are

located, a number of operations have begun to use seawater. This implies increased energy consumption

for the desalination process and, particularly, for pumping the desalinated water up to the mine site.

Both desalination and pumping are classified as services.

3.3. Energy consumption in copper mining as share of national energy consumption

The mining industry is one of the country’s most important consumers of energy. Based on data for national

energy consumption from the National Energy Commission (CNE), COCHILCO estimates that the mining

sector directly accounts for 14% of total energy consumption, a figure that has, in general, been rising steadily

since 2006 (Figure 6). Over this period, the industry’s electricity consumption has remained relatively stable

at around 33% of national consumption while consumption of diesel, the main fuel used in mining, has

increased significantly from 11.5% of national consumption in 2006 to 23.5%.



Figure 6: Copper mining energy consumption as share of national consumption, 2006-2017

Source: COCHILCO based on own data and the 2017 Energy Statistics Yearbook (National Energy Commission 2018).

Note: The energy consumption of the copper mining industry as a percentage of national consumption in 2017 is not shown because, as of publication of this report, figures for national consumption were not yet available.

3.4. Energy consumption by region

As shown in Table 2, the Antofagasta Region (Region II) is the region with by far the highest consumption of

fuels (46 thousand TJ, equivalent to 58.2% of the industry’s total consumption in 2017) and electricity (47.6

thousand TJ, equivalent to 52.2% of the total). This reflects not only the Antofagasta Region’s level of copper

production (52.5% of the total) but also, as indicated above, the geographical restrictions it faces, particularly

as regards water scarcity, which means that many operations have opted to use seawater, implying the need

for very electricity-intensive pumping and desalination processes.

Table 2: Share (%) of energy consumption and copper production by region, 2017

XV-I II III IV-V Stgo-VI

Electricity consumption 6.7 52.2 11.6 14.9 14.6

Fuel consumption 11.6 58.2 11.1 10.7 8.5

Total energy consumption

9.1 55.1 11.4 12.9 11.6

Copper production 11.2 52.5 8.8 13.6 14.0

Source: COCHILCO.

The Antofagasta Region’s energy consumption has risen in recent years, from 81,900 TJ in 2013 to 93.6

thousand TJ in 2017 (+14%). The Atacama Region (Region III) has also seen an increase in its energy

consumption from 13.9 thousand TJ in 2013 to 19.3 thousand in 2017 (+39%). In the Coquimbo and

Valparaíso Regions (Regions IV and V), there was a marginal increase from 21.5 thousand TJ to 21.9 thousand

TJ (+1.9%). Similarly, in the Santiago and O’Higgins (VI) Regions, the increase was from 19.5 thousand TJ to

19.8 thousand TJ (+1.5%). On the other hand, the Tarapacá and Arica y Parinacota Regions (Regions I and XV)

saw a decrease from 18.2 thousand TJ to 15.4 thousand TJ (-15%).

10,3 11,0 11,3 12,6 12,8 13,0 13,9 13,3 14,0 14,5 14,1

32,8

19,4

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

%

Copper mining energy consumption as % of national energy consumption

Copper mining electricity consumption as % of gross national electricity generation

Copper mining diesel consumption as % of national diesel consumption



Figure 7: Energy consumption in copper mining by region, 2013-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

3.5. Energy consumption by size of operation

As shown in Figure 8, the large-scale private copper mining sector accounted for two-thirds of consumption

of both electricity and fuels in 2017, while the large-scale state sector, represented by Codelco, accounted

for 30% of fuels and 28% of electricity. The medium-scale private segment, in turn, accounted for 3% of fuels

and 4% of electricity and the medium-scale state segment, represented by ENAMI’s plants, for around 1% of

both fuels and electricity.

Figure 8: Energy consumption in copper mining by size of operation, 2017

Source: COCHILCO.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

XV-I II III IV-V RM-VI

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Fuels

0

10

20

30

40

50

XV-I II III IV-V RM-VI

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Electricity

66%

30%

3% 1%

Fuels

67%

28%

4% 1%

Electricity



3.6. Total unit energy consumption in copper mining

Unit energy consumption measures energy use intensity per ton of fine copper produced and serves to

analyze the trend of energy consumption in the mining industry, albeit without correcting for the structural

changes discussed above. In 2017, an average of 30.9 GJ was required to produce a ton of fine copper, up by

1.6% on 2016 and by 69.7% on 2001.

Most of this increase was in fuels whose unit consumption rose from 8.2 GJ/FMT in 2001 to 14.9 GJ/FMT in

2017 (+80.9%) while, in the case of electricity, the increase was from 10.0 GJ/FMT to 16.0 GJ/FMT (+60.4%).

The larger increase seen in fuels was mainly a result of the ever longer distances over which mineral from

older and deeper mines must be transported for processing. In the case of electricity, the increase was

explained principally by higher consumption at concentrators.

Ore grades are undoubtedly a crucial variable in determining energy requirements and an important part of

the increase in consumption reflects the need to offset drops in productivity due to lower grades. Figure 9

shows the inverse relationship between the evolution of unit energy consumption and average ore grade

between 2001 and 2017.

Figure 9: Unit energy consumption and ore grades in Chilean copper mining, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

Another way to describe this inverse relationship is through the coefficients of energy consumption per fine

copper produced versus average grades per mining operation in 2017 (Figure 10). Mining operations with

higher grades generally have a lower level of energy consumption per ton of copper produced, confirming

the importance of ore grades in energy consumption.

0,0%

0,2%

0,4%

0,6%

0,8%

1,0%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GJ/

TMF

Electricity (GJ/TMF) Fuels (GJ/TMF) Average ore grade (%)



Figure 10: Energy consumption per fine copper produced vs. average ore grades per mining operation, 2017

Note: The circumference of the dots indicates the fine copper equivalent produced in 2017.

Source: COCHILCO.

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

Ener

gy c

on

sum

pti

on

per

fin

e co

pp

er p

rod

uce

d (

TJ/t

ho

usa

nd

FM

T)

Average grade of mining operation (%)

Large-scale mining Medium-scale mining



4. Fuel consumption

In this section, information is presented about the year-on-year evolution of energy consumption in the form

of fuels, total fuel consumption by process and unit fuel consumption per fine copper produced and per

material processed.

4.1. Aggregate consumption

Figure 11 shows the evolution of energy consumption in the form of fuels in the copper mining industry

between 2001 and 2017. In 2017, total consumption of fuels reached 81,857 TJ, up by 1,623 TJ on 2016 (+2%).

The sustained increase in fuel consumption reflects generally rising output as well as the structural changes

in the copper mining industry discussed above - that is, lower ore grades and aging mines - which mean that

more energy is required to at least maintain an operation’s volume of output.

Figure 11: Energy consumption in the form of fuels in copper mining, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

Figure 12 shows the changes that have occurred in the matrix of fuels used in copper mining and the higher

relative weight that diesel has acquired (89% of the total in 2017 versus 63% in 2001), a trend that has

persisted in recent years. Indeed, out of the additional 1,623 TJ consumed in 2017 as compared to 2016,

diesel accounted for 1,347 TJ, or 83% of the increase.

In parallel, the use of other fuels has been declining. This is particularly the case of natural gas which, in 2001,

accounted for 28% of the fuels used by the industry but, by 2017, only 6%. Similarly, albeit less dramatically,

consumption of Enap 6, a fuel used principally in smelting and refining, dropped from 6% of the total to 4%

in 2017.

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

5,8

6,0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mill

ion

s o

f FM

T

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Copper production Fuels



In the latter case, this was largely a result of the country’s air quality regulation which sets upper limits on

emissions of particulate matter and visible smoke from refinery furnaces and has prompted a switch from

Enap 6 to natural gas as well as the replacement of conventional burners by high-efficiency alternatives that

consume less fuel.

Figure 12: Share of fuels in total fuel consumption, 2001 and 2017

Source: COCHILCO.

4.2. Consumption by process

As shown in Figure 5, fuel consumption in the operation of open-pit mines increased from 55.6% of aggregate

fuel consumption in 2001 to 76.7% in 2017. This was due principally to lower ore grades, implying the

transport of larger quantities of mineral, and the aging of mines, which implies that the mineral has to be

transported over longer distances.

However, fuel consumption in smelters, which are the second most important source of demand, dropped

from 23.6% of aggregate consumption in 2001 to 8.9% in 2017. This reflects the fact that smelter output

remained quite steady over this period in absolute terms whereas the output of other processes, such as the

operation of open pits, has increased over time.

Fuel consumption in processes other than the operation of open pits and smelting remained at less than 5%

of total consumption for each process during the period studied.

4.3. Unit consumption

Figure 13 shows unit fuel consumption per ton of fine copper content. Important increases are seen in

smelting (11.8%), refining (20.4%) and services (44.9%) in 2017 as compared to 2016. However, given their

limited importance in fuel consumption as compared to the operation of open pits, where there was a drop

of 2%, the aggregate impact of these increases is not significant. In the operation of open pits, unit fuel

consumption has increased practically every year, rising from 4,308 MJ/FMT in 2001 to 9,620 MJ/FMT in 2017

63%6%

28%

0% 3%

2001

89%

6% 4%0% 1%

2017

38,962 TJ 81,857 TJ



(+123%), providing further evidence of the impact of lower ore grades and the increase in the distances over

which the mineral has to be transported.

Figure 13: Unit fuel consumption per ton of fine copper content (MJ/FMT), 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

Figure 14 shows unit fuel consumption per ton of material extracted or processes. This implicitly excludes

the impact of lower ore grades and is a better indicator than unit consumption per ton of fine copper content

since it considers the primary input in each process. Measured in this way, unit consumption in the operation

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Open-pit mining

700

1.200

1.700

2.200

2.700

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Underground mining

150

200

250

300

350

400

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Concentration

4.000

4.500

5.000

5.500

6.000

6.500

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Smelting

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Refining

2.200

2.700

3.200

3.700

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Lx/Sx/Ew

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Services



of open-pit mines increased by 3.1% in 2017 as compared to 2016 and showed an increase of 44% since 2001.

In this case, the increase is due partly to the longer distances over which the mineral must be transported

from the mine itself to the processing plants.

Figure 14: Unit fuel consumption per ton of mineral extracted/processed (MJ/MT), 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

30

40

50

60

70

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Open-pit mining

5

10

15

20

25

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Underground mining

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Concentration

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

2.200

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Smelting

4

9

14

19

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Lx/Sx/Ew



5. Electricity consumption

This section analyzes electricity consumption and its annual variations in the copper mining industry as a

whole and by process and unit consumption per ton of copper produced and per ton of mineral treated for

each process.

5.1. Aggregate consumption

In 2017, the copper mining industry consumed a total of 88,066 TJ in the form of electricity. This represented

a drop of 0.4% on 2016. However, as shown in Figure 15, the industry’s electricity consumption has, in

general, been rising since 2001, due principally to an increase in concentrator capacity and the use of

electricity to produce desalinated seawater and pump it up to mine sites.

Figure 15: Electricity consumption in copper mining, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

5.2. Consumption by system

In 2017, integration of Chile’s two main electricity systems – the Central Interconnected System (SIC) and the

Northern Integrated System (SING) – began in order to create a single system covering the north and center

of the country. However, by the end of the year, the integration was not complete and, although the Average

Market Price (PMM) in the two systems tended to converge, some differences persisted (Figure 16).

The copper mining industry’s electricity consumption in the SING reached close to 52 thousand TJ in 2017,

43% higher than its consumption in the SIC. In recent years, the PMM in both the SIC and the SING has

remained relatively stable and well below the high prices seen a decade ago, particularly in the SING.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mill

ion

s o

f FM

T

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Copper production Electricity



Figure 16: Electricity consumption in copper mining, SIC and SING, 2001-2017, and PMM SIC and SING 2006-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

5.3. Consumption by process

As shown in Figure 17, the highest consumption of electricity is in concentrator plants, which accounted for

56.6% of total consumption in 2017, up from 42.6% in 2001. This increase reflects a shift towards the

production of concentrate which represented 45.9% of Chile’s total copper output in 2017 as compared to

35.8% in 2001.

Figure 17: Concentrate production and electricity consumption in concentrators, 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

Electricity consumption in leaching, the process with the second highest consumption, has increased in

absolute terms but dropped as a percentage of total consumption from 31.0% in 2001 to 22.4% in 2017.

In response to the scarcity of water in northern Chile, the use of electricity to desalinate seawater and pump

it to mine sites has increased rapidly. As shown in Figure 18, although electricity consumption for these

processes dropped in 2017 as compared to 2016 (-12%), it practically quintupled in six years from 829 TJ in

2012 to 4,047 TJ in 2017, equivalent to 43% of electricity consumption in services and 4.6% of the industry’s

0

20

40

60

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f TJ

Electricity consumption, SING and SIC

SING SIC

0

20

40

60

80

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

CLP

/KW

h

PMM, SIC and SING

SIC SING

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Mill

on

es d

e TM

F

Pet

ajo

ule

s

Concentrate production and electricity consumption in concentrators

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

%

Concentrate and electricity consumption in concentrators as % of total production and

electricity consumption, respectively



total consumption. Desalination represents a solution to the water shortage that affects most of the country

where mining takes place and calls for deeper analysis by the authorities as regards public policies and

development plans for these systems since it is necessary to align and include elements such as electricity

supply and land use for pumping infrastructure and, on the coast, desalination plants.

Figure 18: Seawater desalination and pumping systems, 2012-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

5.4. Self-generation

In response to rising demand for energy, some companies have opted for self-generation in the form of either

their own diesel-fired generating plants, non-conventional renewable energy (NCRE) plants or the reuse of

energy from their own production processes. Self-generation reached an estimated 434 TJ in 2017,

equivalent to 0.5% of the copper mining industry’s total electricity consumption (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Self-generation of electricity, 2012-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

TJ

Desalination and pumping

57%

43%

Electric consumption in Services, 2017

Desalination and pumping Others

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0

100

200

300

400

500

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

%TJ

Self-generation Self-generation as % of total electricity consumption

7,044 TJ



5.5. Unit consumption

Figure 20 shows unit electricity consumption per ton of fine copper content. There has been an important

increase in concentrator plants where it rose by 2.4% in 2017 as compared to 2016, giving an accumulated

increase between 2001 and 2017 of 102.4%. A sustained increase has also been seen in Lx/Sw/Ew processes

where it rose by 0.9% in 2017 as compared to 2016, with an accumulated increase since 2001 of 30.3%.

Figure 20: Unit electricity consumption per ton of fine copper content (MJ/FMT), 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

400

500

600

700

800

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Open-pit mining

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Underground mining

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Concentration

3.400

3.600

3.800

4.000

4.200

4.400

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Smelting

1.200

1.250

1.300

1.350

1.400

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Refining

9.500

10.500

11.500

12.500

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Lx/Sx/Ew

400

900

1.400

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Services



Finally, Figure 21 shows unit electricity consumption per ton of mineral extracted or processed. As in the case

of fuels, this comparison based on the mineral worked is a better indicator since it considers the primary

input of each process. The concentration process once again stands out for the increases seen in most years,

although these are smaller than when measured against fine copper content. The increase in 2017 was 2.3%

while, between 2001 and 2017, it reached 25.7%. Unit consumption in Lx/Sx/Ew processes, albeit increasing

by 9.8% in 2017 as compared to 2016, has generally fallen, largely because mineral extraction has grown

more quickly than electricity consumption associated with leaching and electrowinning to obtain cathodes

whose production has remained relatively stable over time.

Figure 21: Unit electricity consumption per ton of mineral extracted/processed (MJ/MT), 2001-2017

Source: COCHILCO.

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Open-pit mining

12

17

22

27

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Underground mining

60

70

80

90

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Concentration

1.000

1.100

1.200

1.300

1.400

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Smelting

30

40

50

60

70

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Lx/Sx/Ew



6. Expenditure on energy

Having calculated consumption of energy in the form of electricity and fuels, it is possible to estimate the

cost of this energy based on market prices. In the case of electricity prices, the Average Market Price (PMM)

in the SIC and the SING are used as estimates2 and, in the case of fuels, international hydrocarbon prices. All

costs and prices are adjusted using the Chilean Production Price Index (IPP) for mining so as to permit

comparison over time.

In 2017, the SING accounted for 57% of the copper mining industry’s expenditure on electricity. This reflects

higher consumption in the system (43% higher than in the SIC in 2017 as seen in Section 5.2), although prices

in the SING were some 7% below those in the SIC. Higher spending on electricity in the SING as compared to

the SIC is usual in the copper mining industry but, as shown in Figure 22, the difference tended to be larger

before 2011, due to relative variations in price. In 2008, for example, the PMM in the SING was more than

30% higher than that in the SIC and the industry’s expenditure in the SING was over twice that in the SIC.

Figure 22: Total expenditure on electricity in copper mining, 2007-2017

Source: COCHILCO based on own data and data from the National Energy Commission.

In the case of expenditure on fuels, Figure 23 shows that, in line with the growing use of diesel in the copper

mining industry, expenditure on this fuel rose from 86% of total expenditure on fuels in 2006 to 95% in 2017.

In other words, diesel accounts for practically all the industry’s spending on fuels, implying that its energy

costs depend heavily on international hydrocarbon prices.

2 It should be noted that the PMM is not exactly the price that mining companies pay in each momento since they

usually maintain long-term contracts for their electric supply. However, it is used as an estimate.

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

20

17

US$

/TJ

Mill

ion

s o

f 2

01

7 U

S$

Expenditure SIC Expenditure SING PMM SIC PMM SING



Figure 23: Total expenditure on fuels in copper mining, 2007-2017


Taking energy spending as a whole, Figure 24 shows that expenditure on electricity reached US$2,155 million

in 2017 as compared to US$918 million on fuels and was, in other words, almost 2.5 times higher. Expenditure

on energy per ton of copper produced dropped to ¢US$25.3, down by 21% from ¢US$31.9 in 2015, due

principally to a reduction in electricity prices.

Figure 24: Total expenditure on energy in copper mining, 2007-2017


When measured in TJ, the industry’s consumption of fuels and electricity are relatively similar but average

expenditure per TJ on fuels reached an estimate of US$ 11,216 while, for electricity, it reached US$ 24,474.

As a whole, energy represents 11-12% of the costs of the Chilean copper mining industry.

300

500

700

900

1100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Pri

ce o

f d

iese

l (2

01

7 U

S$)

Mill

ion

s o

f 2

01

7 U

S$

Grade B diesel Others Price of diesel (2017 US$/m3)

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

¢¢U

S$/p

ou

nd

Mill

ion

s o

f 2

01

7 U

S$)

Electricity Fuels Expenditure on energy/production (¢US$/pound)



7. Final comments

The sustained increase in energy consumption ahead of the increase in copper output is a result of structural

and production factors. The structural causes include the aging of mines which, in turn, means lower ore

grades, harder rock and the transport of mineral over longer distances, situations that make for higher

consumption of energy and, particularly, fuels. In addition, the scarcity of water has led a number of

companies to install seawater desalination plants and pumping systems that are extremely intensive in

electricity. The factors related to production include principally a sustained shift towards the production of

concentrate, which also increases the need for energy and, above all, electricity, both directly, because the

concentration process is itself intensive in electricity and indirectly because of the greater use of water in this

process, which reinforces the tendency to use desalination.

Despite these challenges, the energy supply situation is more favorable for the development of copper

mining than in previous years in that the prices of fuel and electricity have remained relatively stable and

well below their high levels of ten years ago. In addition, the integration of the Central and Northern

Interconnected Systems, which is scheduled to be completed in 2018, will mean greater supply security.

This situation is propitious for the authorities to strengthen policies related to the use of seawater as a

solution to the lack of water seen in most of northern Chile. A rapid, but rigorous, discussion on this subject

would give Chile’s copper mining industry a robust tool for resolving conflicts with communities that have

their origin in water use. At the same time, advantage could be taken of the integration of the two electricity

systems to foster even greater use of non-conventional renewable energies as a means of reducing both

energy costs and pollution related to the use of fuels.

In this area, the commitment of mining companies and the state to energy efficiency and collaboration

between them are crucial in order to facilitate the transfer of best practices in this field to the benefit of the

mining industry’s sustainability.

As a result, the long-term development of the mining sector is closely linked to the development of the

energy sector, which has recently achieved a number of advances in terms of costs and the system’s security

that are, undoubtedly, positive for the mining industry. However, further progress is required in order to

address the specific challenges that a mature mining industry poses for the country.



8. Appendix: Operations surveyed

Table 3: Operations included in the 2017 EMPAE survey

Operation Region Electricity System Size

Cerro Colorado I SING Large min. Cu Collahuasi I SING Large min. Cu Quebrada Blanca I SING Large min. Cu Altonorte II SING Large min. Cu Antucoya II SING Large min. Cu Cenizas Taltal II SING Med. min. Cu Centinela II SING Large min. Cu Chuquicamata II SING State El Abra II SING Large min. Cu Escondida II SING Large min. Cu Franke II SING Med. min. Cu Gaby II SING State Lomas Bayas II SING Large min. Cu Mantos Blancos II SING Large min. Cu Mantos de la Luna II SING Med. min. Cu Michilla II SING Med. min. Cu Ministro Hales II SING State Salado Plant II SING Med. min. state Taltal Plant II SING Med. min. state Radomiro Tomic II SING State Sierra Gorda II SING Large min. Cu Spence II SING Large min. Cu Zaldivar II SING Large min. Cu Atacama Kozan III SIC Med. min. Cu Candelaria III SIC Large min. Cu Caserones III SIC Large min. Cu Mantoverde III SIC Large min. Cu Ojos del Salado III SIC Med. min. Cu Paipote III SIC Med. min. state Matta Plant III SIC Med. min. state Vallenar Plant III SIC Med. min. state Pucobre III SIC Med. min. Cu Salvador III SIC State San Andrés III SIC Med. min. Cu Carola III SIC Med. min. Cu Carmen Bajo III SIC Med. min. Cu Altos de Punitaqui IV SIC Med. min. Cu Andacollo IV SIC Large min. Cu Los Pelambres IV SIC Large min. Cu Delta Plant IV SIC Med. min. state Tambillos (Florida) IV SIC Med. min. Cu Tres Valles IV SIC Med. min. Cu San Gerónimo IV SIC Med. min. Cu Amalia Catemu V SIC Med. min. Cu Andina V SIC State Cenizas Cabildo V SIC Med. min. Cu Cerro Negro V SIC Med. min. Cu Chagres V SIC Large min. Cu El Soldado V SIC Large min. Cu La Patagua V SIC Med. min. Cu Ventanas V SIC State Don Alberto V SIC Med. min. Cu Los Bronces Stgo. SIC Large min. Cu El Teniente VI SIC State Valle Central VI SIC Med. min. Cu Pampa Camarones XV SING Med. min. Cu

Source: COCHILCO.



The report was prepared in the Research and Public Policy Department by:

Andrés González Eyzaguirre

Mining Market Analyst

Jorge Cantallopts Araya

Director of Research and Public Policy

June 2018

Documents

Energy consumption in the copper de Consumo de... · 2018. 11. 29. · In 2017, an average of 30.9 GJ was required to produce a ton of fine copper, up by 1.6% on 2016 and by 69.7%