
How long will it last? Graphic shows number of years left of various materials [pic] - soundsop
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg
======
taylan
Here is a simple reason why these type of graphs are flawed: they ignore
economics. If you've taken Econ 101, you'll know that the demand is sensitive
to price and scarcity drives up prices. Present demand is meaningless while
making forecasts, since future demand is a function of future prices. Plus,
increasing demand would also enlargen reserve base, since operating certain
low-yield mines would become profitable.

~~~
jules
If the price is so high that we can't use the stuff do do things we do now,
isn't that essentially the same problem?

~~~
billswift
No because that drives substitution where people find substitutes for the
material or for the process the material is used for.

------
dazzawazza
I can't wait for when we start mining land fills looking for all the stuff
we've thrown away.

I've heard of plans for robots or even bacteria to be engineered to gather the
materials together.

I've even heard the argument that it will be more environmentally friendly to
NOT recycle directly but to landfill and use 'agents' to gather the elements
we need.. time will tell.

------
miked
There are any number of which we have "only X years of proven reserves left",
for which we've had X years left for 3X years. That's because mining companies
only prove out reserves for many ores only as far in advance as necessary to
show they are a viable concern to invest in.

99.99% of the earth's crust has never been explored. When oil got scarce on
land in temperate climates, companies began looking -- and finding -- oil in
cold, tropical, and ocean environments.

Then there's the very real possibility of substitution by other technologies.
No doubt there were those who predicted the world would run out of silver for
developing photos. Now we have digital photography getting better all the
time.

And dont' get me started in carbon nanotube technology.

And finally, why didn't they include the numbers for iron? (Over 1,000 years
worth proven.)

------
nopassrecover
Irrelevant note but as nice as this graph is (and it's clear plenty of thought
went into it) why does it include materials they didn't have information on?
For instance, Hafnium.

~~~
jodrellblank
Agreed, and moreso why _don't_ they have information on Hafnium? Is it a
secret? Does nobody have an estimate of how much there is scattered about? Are
mining companies busy digging for diamonds or copper and _oops_ a lump of
hafnium pops up ('ooh what luck, I know a power station owner who will want
that!')?

I do hope there's some big Hafnium mining monopoly conspiracy behind this! ;)

~~~
cschneid
I'm the type of guy who goes and googles this kind of thing..... It looks like
halfnium is a byproduct of zirconium production (1:50 ratio is what the pdf
says), and that we have a decent chunk of reserve (worldwide), compared with
the rate it's mined.

It's a riveting read:
[http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zirconium/m...](http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zirconium/mcs-2009-zirco.pdf)

------
milarepa
Two investment opportunities:

Gold Canyon Resources - has a US property that contains what might be the only
mineable deposit of gallium (other than as a byproduct of other mines) which
is used in solar panels and other high tech stuff.

Geodex Minerals - Has perhaps the world's largest deposit of indium (plus lots
of tungsten, moly etc) in New Brunswick, Canada

The bad news is that both are a long way from production and the economic
climate is not helping. The good news is they are dirt cheap. They're both
traded on the Toronto Venture exchange.

