ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE KOMI REPUBLIC ARCTIC TERRITORIES

The Arctic zone of the Timan-North Ural Region, to which the Komi Republic belongs, has a rich resource potential that is underdeveloped and ecologically vulnerable. The article presents the results of the economic evaluation of mineral resource potential of the Region Arctic zone, which show its high potential cost and an insignificant share of resources involved in industrial development. The authors base the assessment on their methodology, which includes the identification of the most economically promising mineral objects, an estimation of the gross value of resources, an evaluation of deposits via the net present value method with determination of the budget efficiency of the projects. The authors consider environmental risks by calculating the value of environmental services and analyzing their consumption and benefits. They calculate the cost of the mineral resource potential, taking into account the factor of ecosystem services, on the example of the Nechensky lignite deposit assessment. They outline that the assessment of the mineral potential of the region due to be based on the most significant objects, take into account types of raw materials, the size of deposits and technological features of development, and include the analysis of economic and geographical factors when choosing objects. The key indicator is the net present value of reserves taking into account the estimated resources of the prospection phases. The calculation of ecosystem services should also be included into the overall assessment of the raw material potential.

1. Accounting and evaluation of ecosystem services (ES) — Experience, especially Germany and Russia / K. Gruneval’d, O. Bastian, A. Drozdov, V. Grabovskij (comp.). Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Bonn, 2014. Available at: http://www.kulunda.eu/sites/default/files/BfN_Skript_373.pdf. (In Russian).
2. Costanza R., Groot R. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 2017, vol. 28, pp. 1—16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
3. Ecosystem services of Russia: Prototype national report. T. 1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Services. Ed. by E. N. Bukvareva, D. G. Zamolodchikov. Moscow, Izd-vo Tsentra okhrany dikoi prirody, 2016, 148 р. (In Russian).
4. Burgess N. D., Darrah S., Knight S., Danks F. S. Approaches to mapping ecosystem services. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2016, 68 р. Available at: https://www.unepwcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/431/original/2560_Mapping_Eco_Services_Report_RU_WEB.pdf?1485866039.
5. Geijzendorffer I. R., Roche P. K. The relevant scales of ecosystem services demand. Ecosystem Services, 2014, vol. 14, pp. 59—61.
6. Peh K. S.-H., Balmford A., Bradbury R. B., Brown C., Butchart S. H. M., Hughes F. M. R., Stattersfield A., Thomas D. H. L., Walpole M., Bayliss J., Gowing D., Jones J. P. G., Lewis S. L., Mulligan M., Pandeya B., Stratford Ch., Thompson J. R., Turner K., Vira B., Willcock S., Birch J. C. TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosystem Services, 2013, vol. 5, pp. 51—57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.003.
7. de Groot R., Brander L., van der Ploeg S., Costanza R., Bernard F., Braat L., Christie M., Crossman N., Ghermandi A., Hein L., Hussain S., Kumar P., McVittie A., Portela R., Rodriguez L. C., ten Brink P., van Beukering P. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 2012, vol. 1, pр. 50—61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
8. Sklyarova G. F. Systemically-step analysis of resource potential of mineral resources of the Far Eastern region of Russia in quantitative, qualitative and valuation. Nedropol’zovanie XXI vek, 2016, no. 1, pp. 128—135. (In Russian).
9. Gal’tseva N. V., Sharypova O. A., Golubenko I. S., Grigor’eva I. N. Cost estimate of mineral resources in Magadan region: methodology, tools and results. Gor. zhurn., 2016, no. 3, pp. 27—32. (In Russian).
10. Nikiforova V. V., Romanova E. R., Grigor’eva E. E. Appraisal and prospects for practical use of mineral resources in Western Yakutia. Gor. zhurn., 2018, no. 3, pp. 41—46. (In Russian).
11. Kryukov V. A. Features of national management of mineral and energy resources. EKO, 2016, no. 4, pp. 24—43. (In Russian).
12. Kryukov V. A., Sevast’yanova A. E., Tokarev A. N., Shmat V. V. Substantiation of Resource Territories Development: Complex “Meso-Level” Problem. Ekonomika regiona, 2015, no. 4, pp. 260—274. (In Russian).
13. Miller M. H., Upton C. W. A test of the Hotelling valuation principle. J. of Political Economy, 1985, vol. 93, iss. 1, pp. 1—25.
14. The wealth of the subsoil of Russia. Mineral raw materials and value analysis. 3d ed. St. Petersburg, Izd-vo VSEGEI, 2008, 484 p. (In Russian).
15. The wealth of the subsoil of Russia. Mineral raw materials and value analysis: Explanatory note to geological and economic maps. St. Petersburg, Izd-vo VSEGEI, 2007, 550 p. (In Russian).
16. Krinochkin L. A., Golovin A. A., Gulyaeva N. G., Trefilova N. Ya. Assessment of investment attractiveness of areas promising for mining development. Razvedka i okhrana nedr, 2004, no. 11, pp. 8—15. (In Russian).
17. Yagol’nitser M. A. Comparative economic assessment of mineral deposits in the region. Miner. resursy Rossii: Ekonomika i upravlenie, 2004, no. 4, pp. 35—39. (In Russian).
18. Nezhenskij I. A., Pavlova I. G. Russian Mineral Resources Economics and Management. Miner. resursy Rossii: Еkonomika i upravlenie, 1995, no. 4, pp. 13—18. (In Russian).
19. Neklyudov I. A. Environmental and economic assessment of the water-regulatory role of forest-covered catchments of the Middle Urals. Problemy obespecheniya razvitiya sovremennogo obshchestva: Sbornik trudov Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. UFU im. B. El’tsina. Ekaterinburg, IE UrO RAN, 2014, pp. 199—208. (In Russian).
20. Yurak V. V. Methodological recommendations on economic assessment of regulatory and social ecosystem services. Ekaterinburg, In-t ekonomiki UrO RAN, 2018, 55 p. (In Russian).
21. Koshy A., Raynaud J., Ozdemiroglu E., Provins A. Natural Capital Statements: a case study on SCA, a Swedish paper and pulp company. J. of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2019, vol. 8, pp. 394—412. DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1635917.
22. Dobrovol’skii G. V., Nikitin E. D. Soil ecology. Teaching about the ecological functions of soils: Textbook. 2d ed. Moscow, Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 2012, 412 p. (In Russian).
23. Kasimov D. V., Pinaev V. E. Theory and practice of calculation and minimization of damage to forest resources: rare plant species, wood and food resources, medicinal raw materials. Moscow, Mir nauki, 2015, 95 p. (In Russian).
24. Titova G. D. Assessment of ecosystem services: potential for implementation. Vestn. ZabGU, 2015, no. 3 (118), pp. 179—191. (In Russian).
25. Zagorodnikh P., Mikhailova A., Khudalov M., Baranova V. Pay carbon tax and breathe calmly. AKRA. Available at: https://www.acra-ratings.ru/research/1736/. (In Russian).