Yep, until 1952 each of the states differed widely in the methods used to collect, compile and publish the data from mines.

What was termed the "defective" nature of Australian mineral statistics was first raised at the 1945 conference of Australian statisticians.

In 1948 the matter was taken up again at a meeting of officials from the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics with representatives of state mines departments and the state and federal statistics organisations.

By 1950 they had hammered out a plan for standardisation and it was decided to apply the rules in 1952, a move the yearbook noted was "now considered to be adequate for present needs".

It was a different mining world in Australia is 1952 from what we see now. Silver production was 10 times greater than gold output, iron ore production had not quite reached 2 million tonnes, and copper, zinc and manganese were the only other minerals of note in production quantities.

Coal was being dug, of course, and no-one minded.

Incidentally, in 1949 - according to the last year under the old system of accounting - Australia produced only 2.9% of the world's gold, and its output was puny beside that of South Africa's, which was the largest. by far, in the world and followed in pecking order by the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Canada and the US.

The British Empire was still a significant force the mining world back then. In 1952 statistics published by the Colonial Office showed the then Malaya produced two-thirds of the world's tin, the Gold Coast - now Ghana - was the world's largest supplier of manganese, Northern Rhodesia - now Zambia - accounted for a third of the world's copper and British Guiana - now Guyana - was North America's main source of bauxite.

And for those with a Biblical interest, British Somaliland was the world's dominant source of frankincense and myrrh.  

All in

First it was all-in sustaining cost, then environmental, social and governance. Now comes all-in emissions costs, or AIEC.

Liechtenstein fund manager Incrementum is warning that the mining sector ought to prepare itself for companies being held responsible for their emissions, which it says will translate into financial, actionable costs for investors.

"For gold miners, we believe AIEC will be adopted widely throughout the industry in short order," it writes.

And AIEC will not be included in AISC but stand alone as a metric.

The new measure will indicate exposure and allow investors to translate easily the company's carbon dioxide emissions in US dollar amounts and include them in financial models.

On the bright side, Incrementum says the third level of an AIEC - that is Scope 3, or transformation of the metal into a finished product - will be almost non-existent for the gold producer.

Apart from jewellery making and possibly coins, gold does not equate with the transformation of other metals.

Incrementum does not use examples, however, nickel into stainless steel or lead into batteries would come to mind.

No, much of gold remains static as gold bars.

However, I am afraid the boys in Liechtenstein have caught of a variety of what I would call "Mad Teal" disease.

"By committing to phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible, these [gold] companies will be seen as agents for change in their communities, setting an example of responsible behaviour and avoiding a massive increase in the price of carbon credits," they argue.

It reminds me of the woman standing next to me at the counter many years ago who asked for vegetarian sausages.

The butcher stared for a moment, then said: "Love, this is a butcher's".

Now are we to demand mining with zero impact on the environment?

Chinese reality

While this environmental-emission hen frenzy continues in the West, China remains living in the real world.

Coal production in the country posted double-digit growth (10.5%) in the first four months of 2022, the government urging higher output - mainly to reduce dependence on imports, which seems to have been effective with imports down over the same period by 24.5%.

Caveat: these are Chinese figures and have to be treated with caution.

So that was the January-April action, and then at the beginning of May China announced it would provide 100 billion yuan (A$20.8 billion) in relending facilities to support coal mining development and storage.

The People's Bank of China said the money would be used to support modern coal mine construction, green and efficient technology application, as well as supporting guaranteed supplies of thermal coal to power companies.

In 2021 China derived 60% of its electricity from coal, and the PBOC said it hoped output of coal mines could by increased by 300 million tonnes a year.

Fu Linghui of the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing said China possessed the ability to guarantee "a secure, reliable and stable supply of energy".

If only Australian government officials could offer the same reassurance.