Escondida is the worlds largest producer of copper concentrates and cathodes. (Image: BHP.)

Ore is every miners paydirt, and the more ore a natural aggregation of one or more minerals that can be mined, processed, and sold at a profit the bigger the paycheque.

The number of tonnes extracted from the earth in a day can be vast at the worlds largest mines. It is no coincidence that number one on the list is the worlds biggest copper mine, owned by the worlds biggest mining company, BHP.

The majors are the ones with the means to move the most ore, and all ten companies on our top ten list, compiled with data from our sister company Miningintelligence, are majors or mid-tiers, and eight out of ten on our list are on MINING.coms list of the worlds top 50 mining companies.

In first place is the Escondida copper mine in the worlds biggest producer, Chile, operated by BHP. Rio Tinto, the worlds second-largest miner holds a 30% stake in the mine that churns out a whopping 360,000 tonnes per day on average. Based on production figures for the first three quarters, Escondida is projected to mine 130.78 million tonnes (mt) of copper, silver and gold ore in 2021.

In second place is Anglo American and Glencores jointly owned Collahuasi mine, also in Chile. Projected for the year is 104.65mt of copper, gold and silver ore mined, a big jump from 71.9mt mined in 2020. Check out 21 years of mining at Collahuasi here.

Taking third place spot is First Quantum Minerals Cobre Panama mine, where 96.24mt of copper, silver gold and molybdenum ore is likely to be mined based on reported production figures from the Vancouver-based companys year-to-end Q3 this year. Cobre Panama alone contributes 3.5% of the countrys gross domestic product, according to government figures.

Fourth place goes to Southern Coppers Buenavista mine in Mexico, the worlds top silver producer. Southern Copper spent some $1 billion expanding its flagship copper-molybdenum-zinc-silver mine a few years ago.

MMGs Las Bambas mine Peru is fifth place, with 65.26mt of copper, silver gold and molybdenum ore projected for 2021. The mine has faced community opposition this year, as residents living nearby blockaded a key transport route. Communities agreed to lift the road blockade last month, following a public meeting with Prime Minister Mirtha Vasquez.

Sixth spot goes to First Quantum Minerals Sentinel copper-nickel cobalt mine in Zambia. The company has shelved plans to sell a stake in its Zambian copper mines,and Sentinel is projected to mine 56.69mt of ore this year. In seventh place is Kaz Minerals Aktogay copper, silver gold and molybdenum mine, where 53.6mt of ore will be mined for the year.

Kinross Golds Paracatu mine in Brazil is in eighth place, projected to mine 52.46mt of ore this year, and BHP and Glencores Antamina copper-lead-zinc-molybdenum-silver mine in Peru comes in at ninth place with a very close 52.45mt of mined ore.

Rounding out the top ten is Anglo Americans Los Bronces copper-molybdenum mine in Chile, with 43.64mt of ore projected to be mined in 2021.

Honourable mentions go to Newcrests Tefler copper-gold mine in Australia with 40.26mt of ore projected for this year and Newmonts Pensaquito gold-silver-lead-zinc mine in Mexico with 38.40mt of ore estimated.

More data is available at Miningintelligence.

Read more here:

RANKED: World's top 10 biggest mines by tonnes of ore mined - MINING.COM - MINING.com

Since the 5th of November, more and more devastating details have emerged about the casualties that occurred at Travis Scotts Astroworld event. So far it is known that 10 people were killed after a surge broke out at the festival, the most recent being that of a 9-year-old boy, Ezra Blount. A reported 300 more people have been injured.

While Scott has faced severe criticism for not stopping the show sooner; for ignoring festivalgoers desperate cries for help; and for tweeting before the show that even those without tickets should force their way into the festival, he is now facing more critique following the announcement that he is partnering with BetterHelp to offer traumatised festivalgoers one month of free counselling.

BetterHelp describes itself as the worlds largest online portal that connects therapists with individuals struggling with mental health issues, all for free. You may be thinking that this sounds like a lovely gesture from a grieving Travis Scott. However, not only have BetterHelp been drowning in controversy for the last few years, but Scott is said to be profiting off this deal, and therefore profiting from the trauma some say he has inflicted upon his fans.

Like many other companies, BetterHelp makes profits from data mining. They sell their users personal information to third-parties, like Facebook and Google. What makes BetterHelp distinct from other companies, however, is that they are dealing with highly sensitive information that usually would be protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. This would allow Facebook, for example, to sell you products based on your mental health and on any deeply personal information that patients disclose with BetterHelp. Even the general intake form, to express interest in BetterHelps services, is sold to corporate interests.

Moreover, in their terms of service, BetterHelp state that the company cant guarantee their counsellors are qualified professionals. The Atlantic found that in their terms of service, they state, We do not control the quality of the Counsellor Services and we do not determine whether any Counsellor is qualified to provide any specific service as well as whether a Counsellor is categorized correctly or matched correctly to you,.

Jeff Guenther, a Licensed Professional Counsellor from TherapyDen who has dealt with BetterHelp in a professional capacity numerous times, claims they only care about padding their bottom line, giving back to their investors, and making a ton of money.

While this alone is heinous, Travis Scott is allegedly profiting from his partnership with BetterHelp. While the terms of the deal are not public knowledge, BetterHelp in the past have offered their partners $300 to $1200 per referral. In 2018, Youtubers such as Philip DeFrancoandShane Dawson promoted BetterHelp to their fans, including a referral link at the end of their videos that earned them money every time a fan clicked the link and signed up. Scotts Astroworld referral code, therefore, could see the star capitalising off the PTSD that his teams gross negligence has inflicted upon his devoted fans.

Sadly, we have grown grossly accustomed to celebrities using trauma and disaster to make their millions. The Kar-Jenners alone are renowned for this; exploiting young peoples body dysmorphia to pawn off diet pills, promoting festivals that starved their attendees, and using slave labour to make their millions.

But Scott is taking it a step further than the Kardashian clan, taking advantage of the death, damage, and disability that his devoted fans have suffered at his teams hands. Perhaps Scott needs the money to pay off the $2 billion lawsuit that has been filed against him by 68 victims

Those attending AstroWorld were already put at extreme risk by corporate interests, who maximised their profits by minimising the safeguards in place at the festival. It is reported that security and medics walked out before the festival commenced as a result of dangerous working conditions. But by exploiting the trauma of his fans to make himself and BetterHelp money, Travis Scotts team are using catastrophe as a money-making opportunity.

This exploitation of a mass casualty event for elitist financial gain is, regretfully, not an anomaly. Making a killing out of catastrophe is a phenomenon epidemic to capitalism, journalist Antony Loewenstein claims. Corporate and governmental interests often use events of mass disaster and loss of life to further their interests and bank accounts, all the while dressing these acts up as humanitarian aid. This is exactly what we are seeing Scott do now, if the allegations are true.

Naomi Klein has coined this phenomena Disaster Capitalism. In her 2007 workThe Shock Doctrine, Disaster Capitalism Theory, Klein suggests that disasters are frequently exploited by capitalist economic interests, in order for a greedy few to grow their wallets and influence. Although originally predominantly focused on natural disaster and mostly applied to large corporations and governments, rather than to individuals, the approach of exploiting the opportunities provided by events of mass casualty and death follows the same (lack of) principles. Academics have identified a trend in which celebrities are becoming strategic and powerful actors capitalising off disaster. Like the macro instances of Disaster Capitalism, Scotts partnership with BetterHelp reveals his teams perception of disaster as a financial opportunity.

Travis Scott could have truly helped his victims. He could have provided a portal where people could submit their own therapy bills without going through BetterHelp, without reading as a big promotional opportunity, as Tanya Chen suggests. But Travis Scotts opportunistic act in the wake of the AstroWorld disaster are also representative of the wider capitalist culture that exploits the tragedy of the worlds downtrodden, for the profit of a few.

Thus, while Scotts actions are reprehensible and those involved must be held to account, we must also act to resist and dismantle this institutionalised and globalised culture of Disaster Capitalism as a whole, if we want to experience true systemic change.

Originally posted here:

Travis Scott's partnership with BetterHelp: The dark truth - The Mancunion

Digital transformations promise organizations faster innovation and increased competitiveness. As investments in data and analytics continue to grow, they are quickly becoming a cornerstone of digital enterprise strategies.

The challenges that many enterprises face in achieving the full value of their investments have more to do with human behavior than with data and technologies.

Data-driven companies are becoming more prevalent. With technology, we can now track unlimited amounts of data, and that data can now be used to drive everything from product innovation to employee engagement.

Theres no surprise that more and more companies are introducing Chief Data Officers (CDOs)(1) to their executive teams since data is playing a bigger role in driving strategy and business success.

In the early 2000s, the Chief Data Officer (CDO) was first introduced. Originally, the CDO was responsible for data governance and compliance, but these days, the role uses data to drive business outcomes.

Chief Data Officers (not to be confused with Chief Digital Officers) have many responsibilities in relation to data, including:

Data governance and usage are the responsibilities of the CDO. CDOs understand both strategy and how to use data to drive a business in the right direction. Investors and stakeholders can then justify this direction to the best of CDOs.

Good data operations, or DataOps, are supported by the Chief Data Officer. Process-oriented, automated, and collaborative DataOps take a structured approach to design, implement, and manage data workflows and distributed data architectures.

In every case, however, the Chief Data Officer must use the companys data to achieve broader business goals. Examples include:

To perform these tasks, the CDO uses a variety of technology systems, such as business intelligence platforms and advanced analytics programs.

It is equally important for the CDO to build a team of data professionals who know the companys industry, the company itself, and its objectives, so that they can apply data analysis to resolve any concerns, challenges, risks, or opportunities.

As part of the position, the CDO is also responsible for developing and maintaining the organizations data governance policy and procedures, as well as managing data across its lifecycle.

For as long as organizations have existed, they have gathered and compiled data. With the rise of computers in the second half of the 20th century, however, data volumes and opportunities for analysis grew exponentially.

Data processing managers and others in the IT department initially handled the data and data analysis, and CIOs were typically responsible and overseen the data programs within their companies.

However, it wasnt until the first few years of the 21st century that the chief data officer role was created to manage and oversee data.

After the great recession of 2007, compliance regulations increased and the CDO position evolved further. A large part of a CDOs job at that time was to assist organizations in developing data governance policies to minimize compliance burdens.

Currently, the position focuses on assisting organizations in recognizing the benefits of big data in identifying revenue opportunities and reducing operating costs.

In recent decades, there has been an explosion of data generated by society, which provided organizations of all types with the opportunity to mine both structured and unstructured data for insights about their business, their industry, their customers, market dynamics, and consumers in general.

Leaders realized that these insights could be used to boost productivity and efficiency in the organization, as well as better connect with customers and create new products and services.

Data mining and analytics have recently become critical to driving digital transformation and to competing in the digital marketplace, according to enterprise leaders.

A CDO can be beneficial to any organization that has evolved to the point where it views data as an asset.

Due to the importance of data to organizational success, leadership has begun to see the need for data strategy to be owned by an executive.

An increasing number of organizations have taken on the position attests to this. In 2012, only 12% of large companies had a CDO. As of 2018, this figure was 63%, up from 56% in 2017. By the end of 2019, most large global companies will have established CDOs.

The Chief Information Officers (CIOs) job is to select, implement, and manage a companys technology systems so that it can function at its best.

Some believe that CDOs should report to the CIO, while others see the two roles as a kind of partnership, with the CIO being responsible for the technology infrastructure, and the CDO is in charge of connecting the data and insights collected by the infrastructure to the business priorities.

In the early 2000s, Chief Digital Officers became popular. In various roles, they are responsible for driving digital innovation in the business leading the charge in digital transformation or running the digital side of the company. By 2023, Gartner predicts 50% of chief digital officers without a chief data officer counterpart will have to assume those responsibilities.

According to whom you ask and the nature of your company, there is no difference between a Chief Analytics Officer and a Chief Data Officer. Many consider the CDO role to be a natural evolution of the CAO role, which traditionally has focused on data analysis and business intelligence.

However, some organizations still differentiate between the two, having the CDO focus on higher-level business objectives based on insights gleaned from the CAO.

Go here to see the original:

What is The Role of Chief Data Officers (CDOs) - TechFunnel

Just over 13 years ago a tsunami was silently and slowly building from the force of Satoshi Nakamotos newly released paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. At the time only a handful of cryptography enthusiasts were aware of Bitcoin, and even they were grappling with its viability. And since the source code was still being refined and the genesis block had yet to be mined, Satoshi was grinding away in obscurity oblivious to the havoc Bitcoin was about to unleash on the world.

Any Bitcoin enthusiast knows that a fundamental element of Satoshis Bitcoin architecture is the selection of Proof-of-ork (PoW) as a consensus mechanism. Today when most people think of PoW, they immediately think of Bitcoin mining, and when they think of Bitcoin mining they garner images of ASIC-based mining servers lining a warehouse. But while Satoshi made analogies to gold mining, he never publicly used the word miner. The closest he (or she) probably came was the phrase proof of worker. He also talked about things like your computer's heat is offsetting your baseboard electric heating regarding the cost of running a node and implying that he viewed the PoW function as something that would be performed largely by individuals in homes. The Satoshi of 2008 would likely have found the direction of the Bitcoin mining infrastructure baffling, and, maybe, like me, a bit concerning. The basis of my concerns are the emerging trends for the Bitcoin mining network to lack diversity in the scale of operations and toward a dependence on third-party controlled energy sources.

To illustrate this situation lets look to the animal world. Consider three animals and their key characteristics: elephants, horses, and rabbits. Elephants are very large and mighty, slow to move over distance, hard to hide, reproduce slowly and are somewhat rare. Horses are powerful, can move quickly even over long distances; they can be difficult to find, theyre plentiful but building their population takes time. Rabbits are small and extremely quick over short distances, and fairly easy to spot individually; however, they are innumerable and can multiply at an astounding rate. Like all animals, some live in captivity and some in the wild. With this in mind, consider that the elephants are like the very large Bitcoin mining sites, that the rabbits are like the home miners, and that the horses are like the small to medium-sized mining operations. Regardless of the site size, those reliant on the grid for power are captive animals and those which produce and control their own power are wild.

In the beginning, Bitcoins mining infrastructure was all captive rabbits, just PCs running in offices, spare bedrooms, dorm rooms and garages. Over the first few years it was only the captive rabbits forming the network, but slowly a few captive horses started to appear as larger commercial efforts started to take over in back rooms, small warehouses, and old data centers. While there are plenty of captive rabbits and horses now, we are moving squarely into the era of the captive elephant. Bitcoin news feeds are littered regularly with announcements of new facilities which will house thousands of mining servers (ASICs), consume dozens or even hundreds of megawatts of electricity and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to bring online.

wild and captive animals as bitcoin minersCaptive elephant sites are very important as they bring massive computing power and security to the Bitcoin network, and in many cases, they are designed in partnership with utility companies to provide the stability and economic incentive to expand grid capacity. But there is danger in the growing trend for the Bitcoin network to become more dependent on them.

If you think of the mining servers as the food for the mining community then the elephants have a preferred seat at the dining table. Right now, server supply is extremely tight and unfortunately the elephants voracious appetites are leaving the horses and the rabbits to fend for scraps. It is certainly understandable that manufacturers like Bitmain, MicroBT and Bitfury give preference to the elephants given their limited production capacity and that the elephants simplify business for them. This is because they can make commitments to inventory months (or even years) in advance, they have the capital to make large deposits on their orders, and it is easier for the sales and support teams to deal with just a few elephant-class clients instead of a plethora of rabbits and horses. As a result, for the past few years rabbits and horses have largely been forced to buy products at a premium on the gray market, or use older technology, and in many cases, theyve been left out entirely.

The elephants have been getting fatter and fatter by consuming such a massive portion of the food supply and this has created a famine for the rabbits and horses. Since technology refreshes are ultimately mandatory for all miners, if the food supply for the rabbits and horses does not improve soon it will result in death by starvation for many. Should that occur, the entire Bitcoin ecosystem takes on a large vulnerability. If a large super majority of the global hash were owned by the elephants, and given that elephants are easy to find(hunt) and slow to reproduce, then a targeted effort to impair them and compromise the networks integrity takes on a realistic possibility. This could be from a coordinated effort involving legislation and regulation, directed attacks to physically destroy the sites, and/or even attacks at the elephants power sources. Such an attack against the Bitcoin network was initiated by China in the spring of 2021, so we must consider the possibility of another attack in the future. The next one might be larger, better funded, might involve arms and could even involve the confiscation and directed usage of the mining sites against the network. The more likely that such an attack would be successful, the more likely it is to occur especially as Bitcoin has become a growing threat to the global financial infrastructure and to government power.

Bitcoin defended itself marvelously in the China attack of 21, but it would be foolish to assume that future attacks could be so easily turned back. For instance, imagine the impact of a subtle change in Chinas strategy; instead of simply demanding all mining stop, what if China had confiscated all the hash rate and directed it against the network. If so, wed be having very different discussions today about the state of mining and might even find ourselves in the middle of the first world war in the digital space. To be certain that Bitcoins defense systems remain at full readiness, it is crucial that a robust population of rabbits and horses, both in and out of captivity, exists to provide a reliable base layer of hashing power.

When the China attack of 21 occurred, the Bitcoin network withstood the resulting 50-60% decrease in hashing power quite well. Because we now have the benefit of understanding that the network can maintain itself with this level of impairment, and that we want to remove the possibility of a hostile party confiscating enough hash power to wage a 51% attack, this gives us a good approximation of the maximum amount of ecosystems hash power that should be in elephant sites, especially captive elephant sites. The Bitcoin community should monitor these levels and never allow them to drift too far from 51%. Of course, the hashing power of the elephants will be split between wild and captive sites but because captive sites present a higher risk, setting an upper threshold to the amount of hashing power there is very important.

Before determining the appropriate split of captive and wild power sources for the elephants, lets first delve deeper into the definitions of wild and captive sites. A captive site is one in which the sites power is provided by an external, trusted third-party, or power master. This would typically be a utility company via a connection to a public power grid. Captive sites are usually in the vicinity of population centers as the economics of a grid power generally require a significant population and commercial activity to justify their existence.

A wild site is one in which a miner generates electricity on-site and that electricity moves to the mining equipment without passing through an intermediary. This would typically be implemented by using energy sources like flared gas, stranded gas, steam from geo-thermal sources, or small-scale hydroelectric solutions. Wind and solar power sources are possible as a portion of a mining sites power solution, but their intermittent nature means that they are typically accompanied by a parallel and supporting grid solution. Wild sites require more technical ability to build and maintain, have higher capital costs, need more space, and often have special safety requirements. Wild sites are possible even in the most remote areas, under the harshest environmental conditions and do not require the economic impact of also supporting others. An extreme example of a wild site would be a satellite containing mining equipment launched into earth orbit and powered by an on-board nuclear reactor. There are an infinite number of possible locations for wild sites, while the number of possible captive sites is finite. Finally, because generating extremely large amounts of consistent, reliable energy is hard in remote locations, wild elephant sites are, and will be, somewhat rare.

There are no metrics currently available showing the split of captured hash power from wild hash power; however, wild sites of any size are currently very unusual, and it can be said with certainty that wild hash rate makes up well less than 10% of the global total, and it could easily be as low as 1%. This means that at least 90% or more is captive and reliant on a power master a dangerous spot to be in. Obviously, allowing anyone to gain control of 51% of the network is dangerous, and since wild hash power is very difficult to secure through legislation or force, ideally 50% or more of the global hash power should be wild. However, for the next few years we will continue to have a huge and widening gap because massive increases in captive elephant hash power are already in motion. Our best hope in the near term (current halving cycle) would be to simply maintain something close to the present level and then strive for a 20% wild hash rate in the following halving cycle, and 50% in the subsequent one. Hitting these targets on the nose isnt crucial, it is important only that we be in the rough vicinity.

If we were able to achieve a split like the one in the target chart shown above, then 50% of the hash would be overseen by elephants and 50% by rabbits and horses, and 55% of the hash would be captive and 45% would be wild. Assuming that that this hash is also spread out in a geographically balanced manner, it would make it impossible for any bad actor, or even a group of bad actors, to compromise the mining ecosystem.

To set a course to achieve these targets each animal type will need help. First lets examine the rabbits. Foremost for the rabbits is access to mining servers. People buying individual machines have no clout or priority with the existing base of suppliers, and there are presently no retailers or even large distributors acting as a consolidation point. This results in rabbits being forced to buy on the spot market, and usually at a considerable premium to the prices paid by the elephants. Companies like Compass Mining do provide some means for individuals to get into mining, but those folks arent really rabbits as their units are hosted at horse and elephant sites. For a larger mix of mining to migrate toward rabbits the supply base must allocate a higher percentage of their inventory to individual sales, or they must establish a relationship with large retailers or distributors to support this market. It is encouraging that Blockstream and Square have both announced initiatives to develop ASICs, and that Jack Dorsey, Squares CEO, has specifically commented on wanting to support further decentralization of the network, thus inferring support for the rabbits. As mentioned earlier, rabbits are likely to be predominantly captive because the difficulty of producing and maintaining power at a small scale is challenging; however, over time it is likely that in areas where residential solar power is popular there will be some proliferation of wild rabbits.

The course for elephants is somewhat the opposite of rabbits. There is such massive momentum in the development of captive elephant sites that they may be placing the integrity of the network at risk. For instance, Riot Blockchain, Inc. is in the process of expanding its site in Rockdale, Texas to 700MW. This is very impressive and the accompanying leap in hashing power will initially help further secure the network; however, if most network expansion comes through similar captive elephant sites, then collectively these sites have the potential to become an Achilles heel. This is exacerbated by the fact that these captive elephant sites are being developed by the small number of organizations which have access to the enormous capital and resource requirements. Certainly, there is no implication that organizations like Riot should scale back their expansion efforts but, hopefully they will see that continuing a strategy of only developing captive elephant sites exposes both them and the network.

As crucial as development of wild elephants is to the health of the Bitcoin mining ecosystem, over the next handful of years nothing is more important than the expansion of wild horse sites. There are already several companies like Great American Mining, Upstream Data, Digital Shovel and my company, Barefoot Mining, which are building infrastructure equipment or doing development for wild horse sites. Interestingly, rapidly increasing wild horse sites is not dependent on finding energy; known stranded and flared gas sources alone have the potential to meet all wild horse needs. Adding in small-scale hydro and geo-thermal sources makes energy supply essentially infinite. Development of these sites is mostly dependent on raising capital. For instance, a wild horse site of about 2MW requires capital of $5 million to $10 million depending on the energy source and the mining equipment selected. To date, traditional commercial money-lending sources have been largely uninterested in supporting projects like this, especially for the small to medium-sized companies typically behind them. As a result, this usually forces these companies into fund-raising mode, but this is a time-consuming and frustrating process. This is because by the time a business plan is created and money has been raised, mining equipment costs and availability, and market conditions usually have changed too. In turn this means that the capital needs and pro-forma of the deal have changed so that a return to the investors is required. This can become a vicious cycle.

The good news is that over the past few years Barefoot Mining and others have brought wild horse sites into the network proving their technical and economic viability. This is leading to more confidence from investors in wild horse sites and more flexibility in how deals are created. This gives me great optimism that we are on the cusp (or in the midst) of a boon in the development of wild horse sites. Interest in this segment should continue to skyrocket and attract the capital it needs to become a major segment of the mining community. The energy is just waiting to be put to use.

The Bitcoin mining ecosystem has proven itself to be incredibly strong. It has weathered an attack from one of the largest, most powerful nations on earth without missing a beat and sometime early next year it will achieve a new all-time high in hash rate. There is a massive amount of money flowing into mining and on the surface all is well. However, it would be foolish for the Bitcoin mining community to assume that it is infallible and growing ever stronger. There is clearly a possibility of the mining network growing too asymmetrically, too top-heavy, and too captive, resulting in an unbalanced and exposed ecosystem. Nature has already taught us a lot about balance and survival. When an apex predator becomes too dominant and the population below it dwindles too far, the entire ecosystem collapses upon itself. Lets encourage and support the rabbits, and especially the wild horses, so that the diversity of the Bitcoin mining ecosystem becomes its great strength instead of its greatest weakness.

This is a guest post by Bob Burnett. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Go here to see the original:

The Crucial Role Of Wild Horses In Bitcoin Mining - Bitcoin Magazine