Minerals4EU - Delivering the European Minerals Yearbook Stakeholder Workshop

1 of 23

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP2-CA-2013-608921

Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe – Minerals4EU

Report for Deliverable 4.2 Stakeholder Workshop

Title of the project: Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe – Minerals4EU Grant Agreement number: 608921 Funding Scheme: FP7-NMP-2013: 4.1-3 –CSA (COORDINATING) Start date: 01.09.2013 Duration: 24 months Document title: Report for Deliverable 4.2 Stakeholder Workshop Work package: WP4 Date and location of the meeting: 03 December 2014; Hotel Bloom, Brussels, Belgium Chairperson: Teresa Brown, British Geological Survey Author(s): Teresa Brown, British Geological Survey Date of delivery: 12 January 2015 Annexes: Annex 1 Programme; Annex 2 Participant list; Annex 3

BGS standard list of commodity names; Annex 4 Mineral-based waste categories; Annex 5 Images of draft layout for the digital yearbook

Dissemination level: PU/PP/RE/CO1

Reviewed by: Gus Gunn and Joseph Mankelow, British Geological Survey

Status of the document: Draft/Final Project web site: http://www.minerals4eu.eu

1 PU=public, PP= Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services), RE= Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services), CO= Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

http://www.minerals4eu.eu/�

2 of 23


1. Introduction to the Minerals4EU project and Work Package 4 Teresa Brown (BGS) opened the workshop with a brief introduction to the Minerals4EU project in case any attendees were not already familiar with the project. She outlined the main aims of the project, described briefly the six work packages to demonstrate how Work Package 4 complements work being undertaken by the other WPs and provided some information on the project such as its duration and number of partners. Following that, Teresa introduced Work Package 4 by describing its main, i.e. the development of a new European Minerals Yearbook, together with its scope and the main data types to be included. She outlined the tasks within the Work Package, identified the partners involved with those tasks and listed the deliverables with their expected timescales.

2. Initial survey results and data gaps In the second section of the day, Teresa Brown provided information relating to the data collection methodology, initial results and data gaps for primary minerals and then Evi Petavratzi (BGS) outlined the same for secondary raw materials.

2.1 Primary minerals For primary minerals there are four data types in scope: a) Production data BGS has collected, analysed and published production data for more than 70 different mineral commodities, by country around the world, annually from 1913 to present. A few copies of the ‘Centenary edition’ of the BGS publication ‘World Mineral Production’ were made available for the workshop participants. As a consequence of this experience, it made sense for the existing BGS procedures for collecting production data to be used for the Minerals4EU project. These procedures involve writing to request data from primary providers in each country (including national statistical offices, government departments, geological surveys, or other providers as appropriate). Returned data are assessed for quality, standardised to an established set of rules and stored in the BGS World Mineral Statistics database. Standardisation of data includes adherence to a specified list of commodities (see Annex 3) and the use of particular units (metric tonnes for most commodities; kilograms for precious metals, bromine, iodine, mercury; and carats for diamonds). Gaps in production data are filled using the experience and knowledge of BGS staff in the following order:

1) As much data as possible is collected from primary sources (e.g. statistics offices, government departments, geological surveys, companies, etc);

2) Data is sought from ‘secondary sources’ such as international trade associations;

3) BGS staff will consult the publications of other organisations undertaking similar work (e.g. the USGS or the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy who produce a book called ‘World Mining Data’);

3 of 23


4) Any remaining data gaps are filled, where possible, with BGS estimates based on trends in data or other non-statistical information (e.g. information that a new mine has opened or an existing one closed). Only as an absolute last resort is a data gap left as “not available”.

At the time of the workshop, collection of production data for 2013 was nearing completion, see Figure 1, and Teresa was confident that the final loose ends would be finished off in the coming days. Country Percent complete

Country Percent complete

Albania 100%

Latvia 90% Austria 88%

Lithuania 100%

Belgium 100%

Luxembourg 100%

Bosnia & Herzegovina 100%

Macedonia (TFYR of) 100% Bulgaria 100%

Malta 100%

Croatia 100%

Montenegro 100% Cyprus 100%

Netherlands 100%

Czech Republic 95%

Norway 100% Denmark 60%

Poland 100%

Estonia 100%

Portugal 96% Finland 100%

Romania 97%

France 100%

Serbia 100% Germany 98%

Slovakia 90%

Greece 100%

Slovenia 100% Greenland 100%

Spain 100%

Hungary 100%

Sweden 100% Iceland 100%

Switzerland 100%

Ireland 100%

Turkey 25% Italy 48%

Ukraine 100%

Kosovo 100%

United Kingdom 90% Figure 1: Compilation of production data as at 1 December 2014. An example of how the production data may look was provided to the Workshop. Participants were informed that it is intended the Yearbook will include 10 years of production data; the first nine of these will come from the existing BGS database, with the most recent year (2013) collected by BGS in parallel to the Minerals4EU project. b) Trade data (imports and exports) Again BGS has collected, analysed and published import and export data for a long time. From 1913 to 2002 the BGS database contains trade data for every country of the world and thereafter for the majority of European countries. The latter is published annually in the BGS ‘European Mineral Statistics’ publication. Because of this existing experience the BGS procedures were also used to collect trade data. The data collection method is slightly different to that used for production data because BGS purchases trade data in bulk from an agency and then carries out

4 of 23


extensive assessment of the data against various sources including the United Nations Commodity Trade database and Eurostat. Additional data, where required, is obtained from national statistical offices or other relevant data providers. Again BGS has developed a system of quality control to ensure the data are as good as they can be. At the time of the workshop, the compilation of trade data for the majority of countries ‘in scope’ was complete and undergoing quality control. However there are five countries where additional data are required, as shown in Figure 2. Country Current status

Country Current status

Albania

Latvia Austria

Lithuania

Belgium

Luxembourg Bosnia & Herzegovina

Macedonia (TFYR of)

Bulgaria

Malta Croatia

Montenegro

Cyprus

Netherlands Czech Republic

Norway

Denmark

Poland Estonia

Portugal

Finland

Romania France

Serbia

Germany

Slovakia Greece

Slovenia

Greenland

Spain Hungary

Sweden

Iceland

Switzerland Ireland

Turkey

Italy

Ukraine Kosovo

UK

Figure 2: Compilation of trade data as at 1 December 2014. Green are complete, yellow are partially complete and white are ‘work in progress’. An example of how the import and export data may look was provided to workshop participants. It is intended that the Yearbook will include 10 years of trade data; the first nine of these will come from the existing BGS database, with the most recent year (2013) collected by BGS during the Minerals4EU project. c) Resources and reserves data It was emphasised to the workshop participants that inclusion of these data types in the proposed Yearbook involves the collection of completely new datasets. Currently the only organisation that publically releases resource and reserve data are the USGS and the data they publish contains many data gaps, estimations or other issues. In order to collect these data, BGS developed some completely new questionnaires. These were tested by the WP4 partners using real data from their own countries and

5 of 23


this enabled significant improvements to the questionnaires. The 40 countries to be included in the Yearbook were divided amongst the WP4 partners and each partner took on the responsibility of contacting those countries to request data. The European Commission kindly provided an introductory letter to assist the process. All completed questionnaires were returned to BGS for collation and assessment. At the time of the workshop a total of 23 of the 40 countries contacted had returned completed questionnaires, with a further 8 expected to arrive shortly – see Figure 3. Some of the questionnaires were known to contain only partial data, for example some data are confidential and for at least one country only data for metals are available (not industrial minerals). Country Current status


Albania

Latvia Austria

Lithuania

Belgium


Macedonia (TFYR of)

Bulgaria

Malta Croatia

Montenegro

Cyprus


Norway

Denmark

Poland Estonia

Portugal

Finland

Romania France

Serbia

Germany

Slovakia Greece

Slovenia

Greenland

Spain Hungary

Sweden

Iceland

Switzerland Ireland

Turkey

Italy

Ukraine Kosovo

United Kingdom

Figure 3: Returned questionnaires for resource and reserves data as at 1 December 2014. Subsequent to this chart being drawn, the questionnaires for Kosovo were received. Green = questionnaire returned, yellow = questionnaire promised but not received, orange = questionnaire not returned or no response. A few examples of sections from the completed questionnaires were provided to the workshop participants. The list of metadata questions that were included in the resources and reserves questionnaire were also presented. The majority of the returned questionnaires have these questions completed and as a consequence the Yearbook will be able to provide some contextual information alongside the statistics. Despite the best efforts of the WP4 partners, some data gaps remain in the resources and reserves dataset. Three key reasons for these were identified as (i) no response

6 of 23


from the country concerned to the request for data; (ii) data are collected but are confidential; and (iii) data are not collected centrally within the country concerned. d) Exploration data The methodology for collecting data relating to exploration was identical to that for resources and reserves. At the time of the workshop at total of 23 of the 40 countries contacted had returned completed questionnaires, with a further 8 expected to arrive shortly – see Figure 4. Some of the questionnaires were known to contain only partial data, for example some data are confidential or not collected centrally. Country Current status


Albania

Latvia Austria

Lithuania

Belgium


Macedonia (TFYR of)

Bulgaria

Malta Croatia

Montenegro

Cyprus


Norway

Denmark

Poland Estonia

Portugal

Finland

Romania France

Serbia

Germany

Slovakia Greece

Slovenia

Greenland

Spain Hungary

Sweden

Iceland

Switzerland Ireland

Turkey

Italy

Ukraine Kosovo

United Kingdom

Figure 4: Returned questionnaires for exploration data as at 1 December 2014. Subsequent to this chart being drawn, the questionnaires for Kosovo were received. Green = questionnaire returned, yellow = questionnaire promised but not received, orange = questionnaire not returned or no response. Again examples of sections from completed questionnaires were provided to workshop participants. This questionnaire also contained some metadata questions and these have been completed by the majority of respondents and therefore the Yearbook will be able to provide this contextual information in addition to the statistics. As for resources and reserves data, gaps also remain for exploration data. The same three key reasons have been identified as for resources and reserves. The workshop participants were asked to identify any other reasons and present their ideas for filling those data gaps during a round table discussion (see section 2.3).

7 of 23


2.2 Secondary raw materials It was known even before the Minerals4EU project commenced that data availability for secondary raw materials was going to be an issue. After considerable discussion it was decided to address this in two ways. Firstly a ‘top down’ approach using statistical data on waste flows available through Eurostat; and secondly a ‘bottom up’ approach developing ‘case studies’ for a limited range of commodities. a) Waste flows Statistical data on waste flows for the majority of European countries are available through Eurostat. However, these data are presented according to segments within the European Waste Classification Scheme and these are too coarse to identify individual mineral commodities of interest. But it was still considered to be useful to include these data within the Yearbook. Recommendations could then be made to improve the resolution of the data in future. By examining the category descriptions in this Scheme, BGS staff have been able to identify those which are predominantly ‘mineral based’ waste (see Annex 4). These have been extracted for 2010 and will also be included for 2012. For countries not currently included within Eurostat statistics, attempts are underway to fill data gaps using data from national statistical offices or other sources. At the time of the workshop, the current status of this work was as shown in Figure 5. Country Current status


Albania

Latvia Austria

Lithuania

Belgium

Luxembourg Bosnia & Herzegovina 2012 statistics only

Macedonia (TFYR of)

Bulgaria

Malta Croatia

Montenegro 2012 statistics only

Cyprus


Norway

Denmark

Poland Estonia

Portugal

Finland

Romania France

Serbia

Germany

Slovakia Greece

Slovenia

Greenland

Spain Hungary

Sweden

Iceland

Switzerland Ireland

Turkey

Italy

Ukraine Kosovo 2012 statistics only

UK

Figure 5: Compilation of waste flow statistics as at 1 December 2014. Green = data available from Eurostat, yellow = data available from other sources, white = work in progress.

8 of 23


Some examples of the available data were provided to workshop participants in both tabular form and as a flow diagram. The key reasons for data gaps in waste flows were identified as:

(i) data resolution; (ii) no requirement for some countries to report to Eurostat; and (iii) data withheld for confidentiality reasons.

Again the workshop participants were asked to identify any other reasons and present their ideas for filling those data gaps (see section 2.3). b) Case studies highlighting the potential recovery of specific commodities from key waste steams The commodities selected for this part of the work are: dysprosium, yttrium, indium, platinum, palladium, silver, gold, aluminium, copper and steel/iron. The first step involves selecting the products that cover two-thirds of the demand for those commodities and the quantification of their content within those products. Next the actual post-consumer recycling rates for those products are being reviewed and estimations made of stocks, lifespans and flows of those products. After that estimations are being made of the waste generated by country and this will lead to a discussion of the resource potential for the commodities selected from end-of-life products and therefore their potential to replace primary minerals. Some examples of the data available so far were provided to workshop participants.

2.3 Round table discussion on ideas to fill data gaps The workshop participants were asked to consider three questions during this first round table discussion:

• Are there reasons for data gaps that have not already been identified? • Should attempts be made to fill data gaps or should they be displayed as “not

available”? • For each data types (production, trade, resources/reserves, exploration,

secondary raw materials), what are your ideas for filling data gaps? Several useful and interesting discussions took place and the key conclusions were as follows: i) Reasons for data gaps In addition to those already identified by the WP4 team (i.e. no response, confidentiality, not collected centrally, poor resolution), the workshop participants suggested that data gaps could be caused by political issues or conflicts, some governments may not appreciate the benefits of central data collection, differences in the requirements according to specific groups of commodities, increased nationalism leading to a reluctance to share data, limited resources within organisations resulting in a lack of time to complete the questionnaires, feelings that efforts are being duplicated by multiple EU projects ongoing at the same time, market sensitivities or the requirement that provision of such data should incur a charge.

9 of 23


Some additional contacts for data providers were suggested and where possible in the remaining time of the project these will be followed up. ii) Should data gaps be filled or displayed as ‘not available’? The general consensus with regards to the new datasets for resources/reserves and exploration is that, for the first edition of the Yearbook data gaps are not an issue providing we know why those data gaps exist. It was considered that showing a gap in data would be better than attempting any kind of estimate for these data types. It was felt that some data gaps would fill naturally in future versions of the Yearbook as non-responding countries would see their data as missing and might be keen to correct that. Clearly additional work will be required in the future to establish contact and a dialogue with the non-responding countries. iii) Ideas for filling data gaps A wide range of additional types of organisation were identified that could potentially provide data in the future, including: companies, industry associations and regional or local government bodies. For production data many of these are already approached by BGS as part of its normal procedures, but it may be that they can also provide data for resources and reserves. Other ideas included setting up formal agreements with organisations to allow them to provide data in return for specified assurances as to the use of that data; or purchasing data from commercial data organisations (although copyright would represent a considerable issue). It was suggested that confidentiality issues at national scale could be resolved by amalgamating groups of countries together in the presentation of statistics. Some additional points were made in the discussions that were not directly related to the above questions. All points were noted and will be assessed for their relevance to the first edition of the Yearbook. Many points will be relevant to future editions.

3. Issues and challenges (other than data gaps) After the tea/coffee break, Gus Gunn (BGS) presented the next section describing the key issues and challenges identified so far, other than the considerable challenge provided by gaps in the data. There may be additional issues and challenges that emerge as the returned data are assessed. Some of the identified issues are long term challenges that will take longer than the lifetime of the Minerals4EU project to resolve.

3.1 Standardisation The procedures used by each country have developed independently from each other

and therefore they are, to a greater or lesser extent, unique to that country. Some items are relatively easy to standardise, such as the units used for reporting data, others are much more difficult, such as the reporting requirements or methods.

For production data, BGS has developed a set of rules or guidelines to which all BGS

staff members adhere when compiling these data. For example, data are reported in metric tonnes for all commodities, except precious metals, bromine, iodine and

10 of 23


mercury which are reported in kilograms and diamonds which are reported in carats. For most metallic commodities, mine production is reported as metal content, except for iron, manganese and bauxite which are reported as gross weight of ore.

For data types such as resources and reserves, standardisation is more complicated for

a variety of reasons. This is not just due to the systems of reporting (see section 3.2) but is also caused by different purposes of the reporting (e.g. for investors on stock exchanges or to public authorities), different cut-off grades used, issues surrounding how polymetallic deposits are reported, variations over time as economic aspects change, variations in requirements depending on the commodity type (i.e. requirements for metals different to industrial minerals), etc.

The second round table discussion returned to this subject, amongst others.

3.2 Systems of reporting The initial results from the data gathering survey reveal a wide range of reporting

codes are currently in use throughout Europe. Many of those used are of the ‘CRIRSCO’ family of reporting codes (e.g. JORC, NI 43-101) and are therefore essentially comparable. However, others are unique to individual countries and many data are historical estimates which do not accord with any system of reporting.

The questionnaires used for the data gathering survey was clearly set out to capture the

systems of reporting information, rather than just the numerical figure. This was deliberate to make sure that the statistics are as transparent as possible and to ensure the figures are not simply added up inappropriately (i.e. adding apples and oranges and pears). It does, however, present problems with regards to how the statistics are displayed in the yearbook and the figures will need careful handling.

3.3 Terminology and language For production data BGS has a standard list of commodity names that are used in its

current publications ‘World Mineral Production’ and ‘European Mineral Statistics’ (See annex 3). Data are requested for these specific commodities but are not always supplied in accordance with what is required; the experience of BGS staff is essential for understanding the data received. Although, data for other commodities are sometimes supplied during BGS’s normal collection procedures, these are not currently used in the books.

For trade data, terms are defined by the coding systems used, albeit these need to be carefully interpreted by users to ensure the codes are used correctly.

By contrast, however, there is currently a wide variation between countries in the use

of the terms ‘resources’ and ‘reserves’ and as a consequence a high risk of misinterpretation of the data returned on questionnaires. Both terms are generally related to the level of geological knowledge and the degree of current economic viability but the separation of known deposits into ‘resources’ or ‘reserves’ is not carried out in the same way in different countries and the sub-division of these into sub-categories is even more problematic.

11 of 23


Furthermore, there is wide variability in the use of commodity names on the returned questionnaires for resources and reserves with, for example, numerous terms used for clay materials or sands according to their different end uses. Some countries make a distinction between limestone used for industrial purposes and that used for construction but other countries do not differentiate and simply refer to ‘limestone’.

Waste flow statistics, like trade data, have a classification system utilising ‘codes’ but

these also need careful interpretation by users. 3.4 Metrics for exploration As this is a new dataset and it was not clear at the outset which data would be

available most frequently, the questionnaire for exploration included six different metrics. Initial results show that the available data is variable between and within countries.

Although expenditure might be the most useful parameter, especially for comparing countries against each other, in reality this metric is most frequently confidential. Not all countries have universal licensing systems for exploration and therefore cannot provide complete figures for the number of licences issued or active in a given year. Data for the size of area under exploration or the number of companies undertaking exploration are also patchy in the responses although the number of companies was most frequently known. The activity summary free text box was only completed in half the returned questionnaires. In most questionnaires, however, the metadata questions have been completed so the information provided here should, at least, provide a clearer picture of the current situation in each country.

3.5 Data resolution for waste statistics Waste flow statistics, available from Eurostat for most countries, were developed for

the purpose of waste control and management rather than identifying commodities that could be recovered and recycled. Although the European waste codes (known as EWC-STAT) follow a material-based classification, they tend to aggregate different waste materials under a single category (e.g. metal waste ferrous, which will ferrous waste from any manufacturing process irrespective of their actual metal content, physical form or usefulness as a recycled metal). This categorisation does not provide any indication of the resource potential of the waste materials.

3.6 Second round table discussion The workshop participants were asked to consider four questions for this second round

table discussion: • What level of standardisation can realistically be carried out for the first edition

of the Yearbook? • What recommendations should be made with regards to standardisation of data

in future? • Should we standardise on a commodity list for resources/reserves? Or should

we include all the variations country by country? • Which metrics should be used for exploration data?

12 of 23


As with the first round table discussion, several useful and interesting points were raised and the key conclusions were as follows: i) Level of standardisation for the first edition of the Yearbook There was a general agreement that the first edition of the Yearbook should only consider standardisation of units for resources/reserves data because the issues surrounding systems of reporting can only be resolved in the long term. It was also agreed that the glossary developed by the Minventory project should be used for the Minerals4EU project, albeit with additional terms added as necessary. ii) Suggestions for recommendations with regards to standardisation in future The standardisation of systems of reporting for resources and reserves will take some considerable time and it would be preferable if this was a voluntary process rather than a mandated one. The first step towards this would be for all reporting codes/standards used in European countries to be ‘mapped’ to an internationally accepted system of reporting thus enabling some comparisons to be drawn, albeit some background skills and knowledge are still likely to be required. iii) Commodity list for resources/reserves data It would be preferable to move towards a standardised list of commodity names for each type of data. This will take some considerable time as it will involve all the countries agreeing to some key definitions for particular commodity names. Consequently the first edition of the Yearbook will not be able to achieve this in the time available. Some suggestions were made by the workshop participants including the grouping of commodity names together as ‘sub-commodities’ under a more general ‘family’ name. For example all commodities relating to general ‘clay’ (i.e. excluding the more specialist kaolin or bentonite clays) could be grouped under just that term with the more detailed breakdown by end use available for individual countries where it is specified. iv) Metrics for exploration data The general consensus was that all six metrics should continue to be collected for the foreseeable future due to the difficulty of obtaining expenditure data consistently across all countries. It was felt that the other metrics at least gave a feel for the level of exploration work currently underway. Additional suggestions were made by the workshop participants during the discussions on all four questions. All points were noted and will be assessed. Some of the suggestions cannot be incorporated into the first edition of the Yearbook but may be relevant for future editions.

4. The European Minerals Yearbook – structure, layout and functionality

After the lunch break, Joseph Mankelow (BGS) presented the final section of the WP4 session relating to the initial ideas that have been developed in conjunction with BRGM for the structure, layout and functionality of the Yearbook.

13 of 23


He began by reminding the audience that the Yearbook will be digital in form, not printed in paper copy. It will be delivered online via a web portal with open access to all the data. It will contain statistical data on a national scale, with accompanying notes, explanations and metadata. There would also be a glossary. BRGM has developed a prototype of the Minerals4EU portal and has incorporated onto the front page a button for the “Minerals Yearbook” (see annex 5 figure A5.1). Once the user has selected this option they will be taken to a ‘front page’ of the Yearbook which will eventually contain some explanatory text. This page will give the user three options: to view the statistics by country; to view the primary minerals data by commodity; or to view the waste flow statistics by waste category (annex 5 figure A5.2). If the user chooses to view data ‘by country’ they will see a screen with a series of ‘tabs’ along the top; with each one containing a different data type (annex 5 figure A5.3). The example provided to the workshop was of the view for production data. On this tab the user will see a table with ten years of production data; they will be able to scroll horizontally to see additional years of data, or vertically to see additional commodities and the appropriate accompanying notes below the table. The user will also be able to filter the commodities shown using a search box, or sort any of the columns into ascending or descending order using up/down pointing triangles in the heading of each column. If the user chooses to view data for primary minerals ‘by commodity’ they will see a screen with similar ‘tabs’ along the top; again with each one containing a different data type (annex 5 figure A5.4). The example provided to the workshop was of the view of export data. This time the user will see a map of Europe identifying which countries export the commodity concerned. Alongside this could be placed a graph showing the trend in export of this commodity from Europe over a period of ten years. Selecting a country, or multiple countries, would change the graph to show the data just for the country/countries selected. The data would be available to view or download in table format using a button. Additional functions that will be included in the first edition of the Yearbook include a link to the front page of the Minventory portal and links to National Geological Surveys or other relevant data providing organisations. Some initial ideas for the future development of the Yearbook include rankings of top producing countries, typical end uses of commodities, increased numbers of interactive charts or diagrams, more analysis of the data and increased case studies relating to the recovery of commodities from waste streams.

4.1 Third round table discussion The workshop participants were asked to consider the following four questions for this

round table discussion: • What are your views on the proposed layout and structure of the digital

Yearbook? • What specific information do you consider to be essential for your needs?

14 of 23


• What specific functions would you like to see in the first edition of the Yearbook?

• What specific functions would you like to see in the future?

Again there were a large number of useful and interesting points raised during the discussions and the key conclusions were: i) Views on the proposed layout and structure In general the opinions of the workshop participants were very favourable, although several mentioned that they would like to see the draft version for testing before making a final judgement. There are several months (April to August) built into the schedule for the Work Package to enable exactly this testing phase to take place and it is intended that some or possibly all of the workshop participants will be asked to participate in this testing phase. A comment was made that there are benefits to having a printed hard copy, e.g. that it would act as promotional material for the portal and that it is sometimes easier to flick between pages and quickly compare data with a paper copy. However, there are no funds within the project budget for printing the Yearbook. ii) Specific information considered to be useful In addition to that already proposed, workshop participants commented that they would like to see: a country’s production as a percentage of the EU total and possibly of the world; a clearer distinction between mine production and metal production from smelters; country summaries; links to various organisations; and production and trade data for some additional commodities (e.g. silica sand, industrial limestone). As many of these items as possible will be included in the first edition of the Yearbook, but some will have to be left until future editions. iii) Functions requested for the first edition It was generally agreed that the data should be presented in graphical form as much as possible, with the option of the user being able to subsequently obtain the data in a table if they require it. Additional suggestions for functions or content included: statistics on the use of the website for internal purposes; a disclaimer explaining to investors that they should not base their decisions wholly on the Yearbook but use it as a starting point instead; concise, high-level summaries for use by policy-makers; hotkey pop up definitions for terms (rather than the user having to refer to the glossary); navigation buttons within the site rather than relying on browser back and forward buttons; the option of providing feedback should a user wish to query the data; the inclusion of the BGS ‘relative supply risk index’ and active marketing of the Yearbook to raise awareness of its existence. iv) Functions suggested for future editions There was a wide range of suggestions for functions and content that could be added in future, forming an extensive ‘wish list’. Not all suggestions are practical but some realistic ones for future editions included: A button to enable the user to download the entire Yearbook; greater options for the user to define the specific data they wish to see; a glossary of end products; data on net exports; more graph types; maps of active exploration and mining licences; origins of imports and destinations of exports; price

15 of 23


information or values associated with production and trade; links to government policies and procedures; lists of operating companies; number of employees directly employed by the industry and different levels of functionality to take account of different users and their requirements.

5. Wrap up of Work Package 4 session and next steps Teresa Brown thanked all the workshop participants for attending and sharing their

views and ideas. Additional thoughts and suggestions are welcomed and can be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected].

Next Steps

Task Responsible person(s) Deadline 1. Make WP4 slides from the workshop available to the participants via the project website

Teresa Brown (BGS) in conjunction with Jussi Pokki (GTK)

As soon as possible

2. Assessment of points from round table discussions to identify which ones can be incorporated into the Yearbook

BGS staff 12 Dec 2014

3. Continued discussion with BRGM regarding the development of the digital Yearbook, including a meeting in January

Teresa Brown (BGS) to arrange date for meeting

19 Dec 2014

4. Continued assessment of data received and preparation of Yearbook content.

BGS staff with the assistance of WP4 partners

April 2015

5. Testing of draft digital Yearbook All WP4 partners and other interested parties who attended the workshop

April to August 2015

6. Closing of the Meeting Teresa Brown closed the WP4 part of the day, exactly on schedule, at 15.00. After a tea/coffee break the last session of the day was conducted by the WP2 team.

mailto:[email protected]�



16 of 23


Annex 1: Workshop Programme

Workshop Programme Work Package 4 – Mineral statistics

09:00 – 09:30 Registration Registration and tea/coffee

09:30 – 10:00 Introduction to the Minerals4EU project and Work Package 4 Introductions to the Minerals4EU project, Work Package 4 and the data collection methodology

10:00 – 11:00 Initial survey results and data gaps Presentation of initial survey results and data Round table discussion on ideas to fill data gaps

11:00 – 11:30 Break – tea & coffee

11:30 – 12:30 Issues and challenges Presentation of issues and challenges (other than data gaps) including data harmonisation and standardisation, confidentiality issues, quality control, others Discussion on issues and challenges

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 15:00 The European Minerals Yearbook – structure, layout, functionality Presentation of the preliminary European Minerals Yearbook structure Round table discussion on the European Minerals Yearbook structure and the future of the Yearbook Wrap up on WP4 session

15.00 – 15.30 Break – tea & coffee

Work Package 2 – Sustainable Minerals Intelligence Network

15.30 – 16.30 Work Package 2 session – The European Minerals Intelligence Network Presentation on the scope of the Minerals Intelligence Network and on the membership of the proposed permanent body Stakeholder consultation on the scope of the network and its membership

17 of 23


Annex 2: Attendance list

18 of 23


19 of 23


Annex 3: BGS standard list of commodity names The list shown is for production data; an increased number of sub-commodities are included in trade statistics.

British Geological Survey - List of commodity names used for production statistics

Commodity Name Sub-commodity Name Units Notes Aggregates, primary Sand and gravel Tonnes Aggregates, primary Crushed rock Tonnes Alumina

Tonnes Al2O3 content

Aluminum Primary metal Tonnes Antimony, mine production

Tonnes Metal content

Arsenic, white

Tonnes Asbestos

Tonnes

Barytes

Tonnes Bauxite

Tonnes Gross weight Bentonite & Fuller's Earth Fuller's Earth Tonnes

Bentonite & Fuller's Earth Attapulgite Tonnes Bentonite & Fuller's Earth Bentonite Tonnes Bentonite & Fuller's Earth Sepiolite Tonnes Beryl Tonnes Some forms are calculated to their equivalent in this form, not just gemstones

Bismuth, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Borates

Tonnes

Bromine

Kilograms Cadmium Metal Tonnes Cement clinker

Tonnes

Cement, finished Tonnes Chromium ores & concentrates

Tonnes Gross weight Cobalt metal Tonnes Cobalt, mine production


Copper, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Copper, refined

Tonnes Primary and secondary

Copper, smelter production

Tonnes Primary only Crude steel

Tonnes

Diamond Carats Natural not synthetic Diatomite

Tonnes

Feldspar

Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-aluminium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-chromium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-manganese Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-molybdenum Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-nickel Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-niobium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-silicon Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-silico-chromium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-silico-magnesium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-silico-manganese Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-titanium & Ferro-silico-titantium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-tungsten & Ferro-silico-tungsten Tonnes Ferro-alloys Ferro-vanadium Tonnes Ferro-alloys Other ferro-alloys Tonnes Ferro-alloys Silicon metal Tonnes Fluorspar

Tonnes Gallium, primary

Tonnes

Germanium metal Tonnes Gold, mine production

Kilograms Metal content Graphite

Tonnes Natural not synthetic

Gypsum

Tonnes Excluding desulphogypsum (synthetic gypsum) Indium, refinery production

Tonnes

Iodine

Kilograms Iron ore

Tonnes Gross weight

Kaolin Tonnes also called china clay, we try to exclude "other kaolinitic clays".

Lead, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Lead, refined

Tonnes Primary and secondary

20 of 23


Lithium minerals

Tonnes Magnesite

Tonnes

Magnesium metal

Tonnes Primary only Manganese ore

Tonnes Gross weight

Mercury

Kilograms Mica

Tonnes

Molybdenum, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Nepheline Syenite

Tonnes

Nickel, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Nickel, smelter/refinery production

Tonnes

Perlite

Tonnes Phosphate rock

Tonnes

Pig iron

Tonnes Platinum group metals, mine

production Platinum Kilograms Metal content Platinum group metals, mine production Palladium Kilograms Metal content Platinum group metals, mine production Other platinum metals Kilograms Metal content Potash

Tonnes K2O content

Rare Earth Oxides

Tonnes REO content Rhenium

Tonnes

Salt

Tonnes Selenium metal

Tonnes

Sillimanite minerals Andalusite Tonnes Sillimanite minerals Kyanite Tonnes Sillimanite minerals Sillimanite Tonnes Silver, mine production

Kilograms Metal content

Sodium carbonate, natural

Tonnes Strontium minerals

Tonnes

Sulphur & Pyrites Pyrites Tonnes Sulphur content Sulphur & Pyrites Sulphur, recovered Tonnes Sulphur content Sulphur & Pyrites Sulphur ore Tonnes Sulphur content Sulphur & Pyrites Frasch Tonnes Sulphur content Talc Pyrophyllite Tonnes

Talc

Tonnes Tantalum and niobium

minerals Columbite-tantalite Tonnes Tantalum and niobium

minerals Tantalite Tonnes Tantalum and niobium

minerals Columbite Tonnes Tantalum and niobium

minerals Pyrochlore Tonnes Tantalum and niobium

minerals Struverite Tonnes Tellurium metal

Tonnes

Tin, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Tin, smelter production

Tonnes

Titanium minerals Tonnes Tungsten, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Vanadium, mine production


Vermiculite

Tonnes Wollastonite

Tonnes

Zinc, mine production

Tonnes Metal content Zinc, slab

Tonnes

Zirconium minerals

Tonnes

21 of 23


Annex 4 Mineral-based waste categories Mineral-based waste categories (EWC-Stat classification) C & D waste concrete, bricks, ceramic tiles, track ballast, road surfacing waste

Metallic waste ferrous

mill scales, discarded moulds, filings and turnings, ferrous metal, iron and steel

Metallic waste non-ferrous

aluminium, copper, brass, bronze, zinc, tin, lead and other non-ferrous waste

Metallic waste mixed

metallic packaging, mixed metallic wastes

Other mineral waste

waste with asbestos, waste of naturally occurring minerals, artificial mineral waste, waste refractory materials

Combustion waste

flue gas purification waste, slags and ashes

Dredging spoil

dredging spoil (hazardous and non-hazardous)

Mineral waste from waste treatment and stabilised waste

waste treatment waste (i.e. ashes), solidified or stabilised waste, vitrified waste

Discarded vehicles

end-of life vehicles

Discarded equipment

discarded electrical and electronic equipment, other discarded machines and equipment components

Batteries and accumulators

alkaline batteries, lead batteries, Ni-Cd batteries, mercury containing batteries, other batteries and accumulators

Glass waste

glass packaging waste, other glass waste

22 of 23


Annex 5 Images of the draft digital Yearbook (under development)

Figure A5.1 Prototype Minerals4EU portal with Minerals Yearbook button

Figure A5.2 Front page of the Yearbook with options for the user to select how they wish to view the data

23 of 23


Figure A5.3 User has selected ‘by country’ and then the ‘production’ tab

Figure A5.4 User has selected ‘by commodity’ and then the ‘export’ tab

Minerals4EU - Delivering the European Minerals Yearbook Stakeholder Workshop

Documents

Transcript of Minerals4EU - Delivering the European Minerals Yearbook Stakeholder Workshop