Thread: "Инвестиции в вопроизводство минерально-сырьевой базы"

Asking here is probably a long shot, since it is a rather specialized subject, but let's give it a try

In Russian, we have an official term "вопроизводство минерально-сырьевой базы." It can be literally translated as "renewal of the base of raw mineral resources." The effect it produces on a layman who finds it in his or her company's balance sheet is about the same as if it is said "investment in construction of a perpetuum mobile", since all economy text books say that mineral resources are non-renewable, period.

"But," explain quill-drivers, "we never said anything about investing in renewal of mineral resources. We are talking about renewing the mineral resource base." And indeed, the term "raw mineral resource base" as used in official documents (but not necessarily in media) refers to the entirety of found, explored, and assessed deposits that are on the books. "In other words," continue the quill-drivers, "if a deposit is depleted, but someone finds and assesses another one, which results in its being entered in our books, then our mineral base is renewed! Do you understand now?"
*****
Okay, the descriptive part is over. Here comes the question:
If I say "investment in replenishing the mineral resource base," what exactly will it communicate to an English-speaking person? It is clear enough, or should I add a footnote or something?

As far as I know searching out new raw materials in the mining and fossil fuels industries is always called simply "exploration", and that term covers everything from area selection right up until the start of production. I reckon "investment in exploration" would be totally unambiguous.

Of course it's possible that the industry uses a different term or peice of jargon internally, but my guess would be that if so it will something just as snappy. "Investment in replenishing the mineral resource base" is clear enough, I just think it's too literal and explanatory for corporate use.

I think you'll need to consult with a specialist on this one!

Originally Posted by translationsnmru

If I say "investment in replenishing the mineral resource base," what exactly will it communicate to an English-speaking person? It is clear enough, or should I add a footnote or something?

The phrase sounds so bureaucratic that an average reader would ask himself, "What they heck are they talking about?" So if you have to use this phrase, yes, I would footnote it. I would be tempted instead to say "investment in developing additional natural resources."

On another point, "quill-drivers" is an odd term. I can't say I've ever heard it before in English. I assume you mean "pencil-pushers"? I'd stick a definite article before the phrase in either case.

Thanks guys.

Originally Posted by scotcher

I reckon "investment in exploration" would be totally unambiguous.

I was tempted to use "investment in exploration" in the first place, but then I was pointed out that the Russian term also covers development of previously explored deposits that were found unsuitable for development at the time because they were either too hard to develop with then-current technologies or hard to access (located in areas without roads or any other infrastructure). If now their development becomes commercially feasible, it also comes under "replenishing the resource base."

Originally Posted by doninphxaz

The phrase sounds so bureaucratic that an average reader would ask himself, "What they heck are they talking about?"

That's how the entire paper sounds in Russian .

Originally Posted by doninphxaz

I would be tempted instead to say "investment in developing additional natural resources."

That would probably work, but I have sent in the translation already.

Originally Posted by doninphxaz

On another point, "quill-drivers" is an odd term. I can't say I've ever heard it before in English. I assume you mean "pencil-pushers"?

Hehe. I guess it is too obsolete, but I couldn’t think of any other phrase. The phrase was quite common in English literature in 19th century.

Originally Posted by doninphxaz

I'd stick a definite article before the phrase in either case.

Okay