Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presents scientific quality, but has a deficit in thinking about sustainable development that can be easily remedied:

1. Add a future scenario on the decommissioning of mining activity that includes technical, environmental, and social aspects.
2. Indicate how mining activity can leverage Colombia's technological development so that it is not just a supplier of commodities to developed countries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very good article. Please cite more references. Linguistic correctness should be checked by an English native translator.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.
Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript the authors' main goal is to carry out a mining approach of the prospective areas of Colombia with strategic minerals for the energy transition and climate change, analyzing the geospatial location, mining ownership, mineral extraction, and royalty collection.

In general, the structure of the manuscript is good but the quality of Figures is really low. My suggestion is to improve them.

Results and discussion are motivated and can be acceptable after an English review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The results and discussion section need to be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.
Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper entitled "Strategic minerals for climate change and the energy transition of Colombia: A mining approach" constitutes a good review paper of the situation in Colombia regarding the strategic mineral resources related to the so-called energy transition.

Some strong points of the paper are:

1-Good literature review of studies focusing on energy transition minerals, including considerations in the different National Development Plans.

2- Very detailed and updated data collection, covering national-level areas with a breakdown by departments, during the past ten years.

3-Interesting methodology to analyse data and to identify the potential mining areas in Colombia, depicted brilliantly in figures 6 to 11 and tables 1 to 3.

However, the following recommendations must be made:

1.       Title: The title does not reflect accurately the content of the paper. The manuscript's title raises the expectancy of Colombia's energy transition and how mining activities can contribute to it. However, the actual content is more aligned with reviewing the mining potential in Colombia related to energy-transition minerals. Some options are "Mining potential of strategic minerals in Colombia" or "Strategic minerals for climate change and the energy transition: the potential contribution of Colombia."

2.       Several times throughout the manuscript appears, "mining titles" when should better use "mining rights" or "mining permits". Same with "mining entitlement".

3.       In the review of studies on minerals criticality, some reference should be made to the contribution of the European Union, which has published periodic studies since 2011.

4.       Line 87: "is made of nickel"; some verb or word is missing; please rewrite the entire phrase for clarity.

5.       Table 3: figures can be simplified if expressed in millions (MCOP); also, to help international readers understand, please include a column with the average yearly conversion rate USD/COP

6.       Discussion starting in Line 436: Although authors mention the possibility of a combination of open pit + underground mining, they state that "open pit mining is consolidated as the best alternative for the development of new large-scale projects" in Colombia. Authors know that some of the biggest open pit mines, like Chuquicamata, finished their open pit life, and only with a transition to underground could they extend their operations, increasing their LOM, reserves, NPV, etc. So this discussion must be performed more deeply, considering pros and cons and not only economic indicators, especially when discussing sustainability concepts in mining.

7.       Conclusions: Please review this section according to previous comments, particularly the last phrase.

 

8.       Line 494: Patents? Probably, this remained from the template; please correct it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor mistranslation, already included in the comments for authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed properly, and the new version of the manuscript has been improved.