Just consider three recent expropriations: Repsol in Argentina, Rio Tinto in Guinea and First Quantum Metals in Democratic Republic of Congo – representing a total loss to investors of $US13 billion ($A14.3 billion).

Then consider the labyrinth of taxes.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London looked at what the total effective tax rate would be if you built a hypothetical copper mine in any one of 24 jurisdictions.

The lowest was Sweden (28.6%), the highest Ontario (63.8%).

The good news is that the second-lowest was Western Australia (36.4%), while the others in the lowest quartile were Chile, Zimbabwe, Argentina and China.

In the highest, just behind Ontario came Ivory Coast, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Ghana and Indonesia (non-contract of work).

Through its Chatham House arm, the institute today unveiled its Conflict and Coexistence in the Extractive Industries report.

Everyone knows dealing with governments anywhere is tricky – this report shows just how tricky.

As the report notes, a decade of high commodity prices and fast-growing global demand has triggered a new generation of mineral mega-investments.

While many of these are located in countries with long mining histories (Australia, Chile and Canada), we have the “emerging producers”, countries such as Mozambique and Mongolia.

Yet, as the authors go on, poorer countries are not necessarily more prone to conflict.

Even in long-established producer states, resource issues are subject to political pressures.

Guess what the prime example is: yes, the 2010 Australian super-profits tax debate.

“At the same time, companies from emerging economies confront similar investment risks to those of their Western counterparts,” Chatham House says.

“The multi-billion dollar loss that Vale, the state-backed Brazilian company, faces in Argentina and Guinea is a case in point.”

But where the poorer countries do figure highly is in community-based disputes.

This situation is exacerbated where there is weak environmental protection regulations, high social and economic inequality and insecure water rights and land tenure.

One assessment identified 126 active local conflicts in Peru related to the mining industry – and that was in just in mid-2013.

Environmental challenges, though, are not the preserve of the Third World.

The report’s citations of recent cases show how these disputes affect both rich and poor countries.

There was Papua New Guinea’s Ok Tedi and its 90 million tonnes of mine tailings and waste rock, of course.

A bauxite project in India has hit a snag in the form of a Supreme Court ruling in favour of an indigenous tribe complaining the mine would affect a sacred peak (10km from the minesite).

As of January 2013, 135 mining projects with a total value of $7.5 billion were on hold while the environmental ministry examined their projects.

In Oregon, the moratorium on gold mining was lifted in 2002 – and that set off 10 years of legal challenges.

In California, an appeals court last year overturned two previous court rulings and came down against the approval of mining operations on the Klamath River, noted for its fish migration.

And Non-governmental organisations are still working against uranium mining in New South Wales and Queensland even after the state governments lifted their bans.

Yet even in developing countries, there is room to move with governments.

Chatham House argues that the extreme positions taken by Argentina and Zimbabwe are likely to remain the exceptions rather than the rule.

Most producer governments remain wary of deterring foreign investment.

Where governments have announced new ownership requirements or taxation regimes – notably in Peru, Mozambique, Mongolia, Zambia and Guinea – these proposals are often watered down or reversed under industry pressure.

Going back to the theoretical copper mine noted at the beginning, taxes are the other big issue.

In 2010 and 2011 alone, 25 governments (including most major mining countries) announced or implemented tax or royalty increases.

The report identifies one of the main problems: in theory, governments should focus on capturing resource rents in excess of normal profits.

In practice, distinguishing objectively between rents and profits is extremely difficult, with the outcomes depending on the relative bargaining power of each party.

The report warns that a capital strike by major investors – triggered by growing uncertainty about future prices and demand – is a significant risk for some countries, especially those whose budgets rely on a continuing boom in resource investments and exports.

They don’t name names, but Australia certainly comes into that category.