Answer
The apparently contradicting statements from the mining geologist and the spokesperson for the mine owner can be explained by the difference in their perspectives and definitions of what constitutes "ore."
The mining geologist, who is knowledgeable about the geology of the deposit, is stating that there is still plenty of copper-bearing rock remaining at the mine site. From a geological perspective, the concentration of copper in the rock may be uniform and of equal quality to what has been mined in the past. This means that there is still a significant amount of copper present in the rock, and it could be potentially economically viable to extract it in the future with advanced mining technologies or improved market conditions.
On the other hand, the spokesperson for the mine owner might be referring to the immediate economic feasibility of mining at the current stage. They might be indicating that the remaining copper-bearing rock is not economically profitable to mine at the moment due to factors such as declining copper prices, high extraction costs, or the exhaustion of easily accessible and high-grade ore zones. Thus, from a financial and operational perspective, the mine may no longer be able to extract copper economically, and they consider that "no ore remains" in the context of the current mining operations.
So, both statements can be true, but they are referring to different aspects: the geologist's statement highlights the geological potential for future mining, whereas the spokesperson's statement reflects the current economic and operational limitations that prevent further copper extraction at the present time.
Work Step by Step
Refer to the answer.
