minerals4eu - delivering the european minerals yearbook

Minerals4EU – WP4 WorkshopDelivering the European Minerals Yearbook

Wednesday 3 December 2014

Outline of the day - morning

09.30 – 10.00 Introduction to Minerals4EU project & Work Package 4

10.00 – 10.20 Data collection methods, initial results and data gaps

10.20 – 10.50 Round table discussion on ideas to fill data gaps10.50 – 11.00 Feedback to the whole group

11.00 – 11.30 Break – tea & coffee

11.30 – 11.50 Issues and challenges (other than data gaps)

11.50 – 12.20 Round table discussion on issues and challenges12.20 – 12.30 Feedback to the whole group

12.30 – 13.00 Lunch

Outline of the day - afternoon

13.30 – 13.50 Preliminary ideas for the European Minerals Yearbook

13.50 – 14.40 Round table discussion on European Minerals Yearbook (structure, layout, functionality)

14.40 – 14.50 Feed back to the main group

14.50 – 15.00 Wrap up of Work Package 4 session


15.30 – 16.30 Work Package 2 session including stakeholder consultation on the scope of the network and its membership

16.30 END

Introduction to Minerals4EU

Mineral Intelligence Network for Europe

7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development

“The Minerals4EU project is designed to meet the recommendations of the Raw materials Initiative and will develop an EU Minerals Intelligence Network structure delivering a web portal, a European Minerals Yearbook and foresight studies.”

(First sentence of the Description of Work)

Introduction to Minerals4EU

Duration: 2 years

Start date 1st September 2013

A consortium of 31 partners: 25 National Geological Surveys EuroGeoSurveys, Joint Research Centre, Fraunhofer,

Wuppertal, Raw Materials Group, Selor

6 work packages, 34 deliverables, 9 milestones

Minerals4EU – Key points

The establishment of a sustainable network structure with a permanent body (WP2) so that the work does not end when the project finishes

Three main products: A European Minerals Yearbook (WP4) A Knowledge Data Platform (WP5) Foresight Studies (WP6)

For more information, please visit the website: http://www.minerals4eu.eu/

WP1 – Project Management & Scientific Co-ordination (GTK)

WP3 – Knowledge Management (RBINS)

Summary WP4, 5 and 6

Work Package 4 Work Package 5 Work Package 6

Mineral Statistics Knowledge Data Foresight StudiesPlatform

Gathering Architecture to To use the datastatistical data collect spatial data to study a range of

at national scale on deposit scale topics related to and presenting and development security of supply

them in a digital of a portal and sustainabilityYearbook issues

Introduction to Work Package 4

Aim: to develop the structure and datasets for a European Minerals Yearbook

Scope: non-energy, non-agricultural raw materials, primary and secondary

Tasks: Task 4.1 – the preparation phase Task 4.2 – the data gathering survey Task 4.3 – assessment of data availability and quality Task 4.4 – developing the Yearbook

Work Package 4 Partners

The National Geological Surveys of: Austria Norway

Croatia Portugal

Czech Republic Slovakia

Denmark Spain

Finland Sweden

Greece Switzerland

and United Kingdom

Wuppertal Institute

Work Package 4 Deliverables

5 Deliverables:

Report on the data gathering methodology and network (an internal report delivered in February 2014)

Stakeholder workshop to assist with the data gathering and collation process (today!)

Report on the availability of mineral statistics (scheduled for March 2015)

Draft European Minerals Yearbook (scheduled for April 2015)

Final European Minerals Yearbook (scheduled for August 2015)

WP4 – Six data types

Primary minerals1. Production

2. Trade – imports and exports

3. Resources and reserves

4. Exploration

Secondary raw materials5. Waste flows

6. Case studies highlighting the potential recovery of specific commodities from key waste streams

Methods, initial results & data gaps

Primary minerals

WP4 data collection methods 1

Primary minerals – production data

BGS has been collecting, analysing and publishing these data for >100 years

Existing BGS procedures have been used

Includes written data requests to primary data providers in each country

Standardisation and data gap filling using BGS staff knowledge and experience

Extensive quality control procedures


Primary minerals – trade data

Again BGS has been collecting, analysing and publishing these for many years

Existing BGS procedures have been used

Import and export data are purchased in bulk from an agency

Assessed against UN, Eurostat or national Statistical Offices’ published figures

Extensive quality control procedures

WP4 data collection methods 3&4

Primary minerals – resources and reserves, exploration

Two completely new datasets

Questionnaires developed and tested

40 European countries divided amongst the WP4 partners

Each partner contacted organisations within each country using the questionnaires and an accompanying letter from the EC

Central collation by BGS

WP4 Partner Geological Survey

Allocated countries

United Kingdom Ireland, Cyprus *

Portugal Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro

Czech Republic Germany, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands

Greece TFYR of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania

Spain France, Belgium

Norway Iceland, Ukraine

Slovakia Poland, Hungary

Finland Estonia

Austria Turkey

Denmark Greenland

Sweden Latvia, Lithuania

Croatia Bosnia & Herzegovina

Switzerland Italy

* In addition to their work collecting production and trade data for all countries and undertaking the central collation of exploration and resources/reserves data

Initial results 1- production data

Country Percent complete Country Percent completeAlbania 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%

Data complete (or nearly so)

Ongoing workto completethe data

Initial results 1- production data

Yearbook will include 10-years’ production data by country and by commodity

2013 data collected by BGS to ensure consistency with previous years

Commodity Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bentonite Tonnes 155,717 155,717 150,620 154,655 155,125 152,722 162,969 160,625 160,180 158,386

Cement (finished) Tonnes 1,688,917 1,688,917 1,786,488 1,872,531 1,913,620 1,480,843 1,328,763 1,206,786 1,080,019 854,778

Copper (mined)Tonnes (metal content)

0 0 900 3,012 2,986 2,380 2,595 3,660 4,328 3,631

Copper (refined) Tonnes 1,344 1,344 880 3,012 2,986 2,380 2,595 3,660 4,328 3,631

Gypsum Tonnes 255,000 255,000 270,000 330,000 412,000 317,000 333,000 335,000 327,800 315,000 Primary aggregates (crushed rock)

Tonnes 11,600,000 11,600,000 12,198,513 13,129,470 14,174,480 11,467,987 12,981,444 11,816,397 7,308,056 4,561,152

Example shown below: Cyprus

Initial results 2 – trade data

Country Current status Country Current statusAlbania LatviaAustria LithuaniaBelgium LuxembourgBosnia & Herzegovina Macedonia (TFYR of)Bulgaria MaltaCroatia Montenegro Cyprus NetherlandsCzech Republic NorwayDenmark PolandEstonia PortugalFinland RomaniaFrance SerbiaGermany SlovakiaGreece SloveniaGreenland SpainHungary SwedenIceland SwitzerlandIreland TurkeyItaly UkraineKosovo UK

Data almostcomplete

Partial data

Work inprogress

Initial results 2 – trade data

Yearbook will include 10-years’ import and export data by country and by commodity

2013 data collected by BGS to ensure consistency with previous years

Commodity Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aluminium (unwrought and alloys) Tonnes 10,858 9,898 12,481 13,868 13,413 8,761 9,225 7,104 6,458 4,768

Bentonite Tonnes 18,052 3,057 9,063 10,556 12,496 5,709 4,629 142 280 6,246

Cement clinkers Tonnes 28,622 43,375 17,819 17,498 66,787 15,455 29,579 69,780 6,498 10,100

Cement (Portland) Tonnes 2,092 2,339 1,241 1,017 29,311 249 2,512 545 416 466

Coal (including anthracite) Tonnes 108 3 23,473 56,896 46,258 28,911 7,714 129 164 386

Gypsum (crude and calcined) Tonnes 74 3,501 9,849 12,932 15,045 10,807 9,292 6,461 5,165 3,061

Salt Tonnes 8,650 13,795 13,647 12,208 13,445 16,822 23,836 20,998 20,470 16,683

Example shown below: Cyprus

Initial results 3 – resources/reserves

Country Current status Country Current statusAlbania LatviaAustria LithuaniaBelgium LuxembourgBosnia & Herzegovina Macedonia (TFYR of)Bulgaria MaltaCroatia Montenegro Cyprus NetherlandsCzech Republic NorwayDenmark PolandEstonia PortugalFinland RomaniaFrance SerbiaGermany SlovakiaGreece SloveniaGreenland SpainHungary SwedenIceland SwitzerlandIreland TurkeyItaly UkraineKosovo United Kingdom

Questionnairereturned

Questionnairepromised but not yet received

Questionnairenot returnedor no response

Examples extracts from completed questionnaires – Resources

SECTION 2 MINERAL RESOURCE DATA Code+resource type Weighted

average grade

Code+resource type Weighted

average grade


average gradeCommodity UNITS Reporting Code Quantity Quantity Quantity

Copper (Cu)Million tonnes NI43-101

(NI 43-101) Measured 1.68%

(NI 43-101) Indicated 1.18%

(NI 43-101) Inferred 1.34%

33.946 112.18 54.973

Zinc (Zn) Million tonnes

NI43-101(NI 43-101) Measured 5.51%


(NI 43-101) Inferred 2.72%

33.946 112.18 47.197

Lead (Pb) Million tonnes

NI43-101(NI 43-101) Measured 1.40%


(NI 43-101) Inferred 0.64%

33.946 112.18 47.197

SECTION 2 MINERAL RESOURCE DATA Code+resource type Weighted

average grade


average grade


average gradeCommodity UNITS Reporting Code Quantity Quantity Quantity

Graphite Thousand tonnes

National reporting code

Potentially economic

P1 P2

10 447 3 997 5 279

Gypsum Thousand tonnes



P1 P2

82 137 ZERO ZERO

Industrial sands – glass sand

Thousand tonnes



P1 P2

145 040 ZERO 14 927

e.g. Portugal

e.g. Czech Republic

Example extracts from completed questionnaires – Reserves

SECTION 3 RESERVE DATA Code+reserve type Code+reserve typeIs this quantity

included within the resources stated

above?

Commodity UNITS Reporting Code QuantityWeighted average grade

QuantityWeighted average grade

Graphite Thousand tonnes


Economic explored

Economic prospected

No1 106 2 606

GypsumThousand

tonnesNational

reporting codeEconomic explored

Economic prospected

No

119 100 302 990 Industrial sands – glass sand

Thousand tonnes


Economic explored

Economic prospected

No84 755 25 077

SECTION 3 RESERVE DATA Code+reserve type Code+reserve typeIs this quantity

included within the resources stated

above?

Commodity UNITS Reporting Code QuantityWeighted average grade

QuantityWeighted average grade

Copper (Cu)Million tonnes JORC

(JORC) Proved0.80%

(JORC) Probable1.40%

Yes1.5 5.3


(NI 43-101) Proven0.27%

(NI 43-101) Probable0.41%

Yes189 77


(NI 43-101) Proven1.00%

(NI 43-101) Probable0.17%

No7.5 1.5

e.g. Finland

e.g. Czech Republic

Initial results 3 – resources/reserves

Questionnaires also included metadata questions, e.g. Is there a central body responsible for collating these data? Who is responsible for collecting and collating the data? Is the data provision a statutory requirement? How often are the data collected? Are all commodities treated the same? What are the sources for the data? Do the figures include marine or offshore deposits?

The majority of returned questionnaires have also answered these questions

Initial results 4 – exploration

Country Current status Country Current statusAlbania LatviaAustria LithuaniaBelgium LuxembourgBosnia & Herzegovina Macedonia (TFYR of)Bulgaria MaltaCroatia Montenegro Cyprus NetherlandsCzech Republic NorwayDenmark PolandEstonia PortugalFinland RomaniaFrance SerbiaGermany SlovakiaGreece SloveniaGreenland SpainHungary SwedenIceland SwitzerlandIreland TurkeyItaly UkraineKosovo United Kingdom

Questionnairereturned

Questionnairepromised but not yet received

Questionnairenot returnedor no response

Example extracts from completed questionnaires – Exploration

Commodity Group Commodity Expenditure €

Total number of exploration licence(s)

active during 2013

Total number of exploration licence(s)

issued during 2013

Total size of area (km2)

under exploration

licence(s) at the end of

2013

Total number of companies exploring for

this commodity

Non Ferrous Base Metals e.g. Cu, Pb, Zn, Sn Sn-W ores N/A 5 - *14,52 4Industrial Minerals e.g. Potash, Fluorspar, Gypsum, Kaolin Kaolin N/A 4 - 6.15 2Industrial Minerals e.g. Potash, Fluorspar, Gypsum, Kaolin Bentonite N/A 6 2 3.80 2Industrial Minerals e.g. Potash, Fluorspar, Gypsum, Kaolin Feldspar N/A 2 2 4.80 4Industrial Minerals e.g. Potash, Fluorspar, Gypsum, Kaolin Silica minerals N/A 1 - 0.17 1Industrial Minerals e.g. Potash, Fluorspar, Gypsum, Kaolin Graphite N/A 2 2 2.51 1

Activity summary

no known exploration activity

But, where no exploration was undertaken in 2013 …

… this is still a valid return.

e.g. Czech Republic

e.g. Luxembourg

Initial results 4 – exploration

Questionnaires also included metadata questions, e.g. Is the exploration licensing system the same for all

commodities? How are exploration licenses granted in your country? Who grants the exploration license? Are companies required to meet certain criteria? Which organisation monitors exploration activity? Is there a required minimum spend under the terms of the

exploration license? Is there a requirement to report on exploration activities?

Data gaps 1&2 – production/trade

There will be very few

How do we fill them? As much data from primary data providers as possible Seek out alternative contacts (primary data providers) Data from secondary sources Other organisations who do similar work (e.g. USGS) BGS staff estimates, based on trends and non-statistical

information (e.g. a mine closed during the year)

Only as a last resort are figures left as “not available”

Data gaps 3&4 – resources/reserves and exploration Unsurprisingly there are more of them!

Key reasons No response to the request for data Data are confidential No requirement to report data to a central organisation

Questions Are there other reasons? How should we attempt to fill the gaps?

Methods, initial results & data gaps

Secondary raw materials


Secondary raw materials – waste flows

Data availability was known to be an issue

Decision taken to collect statistical data on waste flows from particular segments of European Waste Classification scheme representing mineral waste

Data for most countries extracted from Eurostat, examined in detail by BGS staff

Attempts to fill data gaps for countries not on Eurostat via national Statistics Offices and other sources


Commodity

Example: Iron/steel

Sectors

Example: construction; automotive; transportation

2/3 of

Estimate recycling rate in key applications

Recycling rate

demand in

Stocks, lifespan, flows Estimate

resource potential and substitution potential for end-of life products

Step 1

Estimate metal content, lifespan and flows for key applications

Resource potential

Step 2 Step 3 Steps 4 &5

-commodities considered: dysprosium, yttrium, indium, platinum, palladium, silver, gold, aluminium, copper, steel/iron

-37 products and applications

Initial results 5 – waste flows

Country Current status Country Current statusAlbania LatviaAustria LithuaniaBelgium LuxembourgBosnia & Herzegovina 2012 statistics only Macedonia (TFYR of)Bulgaria MaltaCroatia Montenegro 2012 statistics only Cyprus NetherlandsCzech Republic NorwayDenmark PolandEstonia PortugalFinland RomaniaFrance SerbiaGermany SlovakiaGreece SloveniaGreenland SpainHungary SwedenIceland SwitzerlandIreland TurkeyItaly UkraineKosovo 2012 statistics only UK

Data available from Eurostat

Data availablefrom other sources

Work inprogress

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

Metallic waste mixed

Other mineral waste

Combustion waste

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

metallic packaging, mixed metallic wastes

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

flue gas purification waste, slags and ashes

Mineral-based waste categories (EWC-Stat classification)

Dredging spoil dredging spoil (hazardous and non-hazardous)

Discarded equipment

Batteries and accumulators

Glass waste

end-of life vehicles

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

glass packaging waste, other glass waste

Mineral-based waste categories (EWC-Stat classification)

Mineral waste from waste

treatment and stabilised waste

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

Discarded vehicles

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

Mineral-based waste flows

Waste generation

Waste management

Recovery – except backfilling

Recovery – backfilling

Incineration- energy recovery

Incineration- disposal

Deposit into/onto land (e.g. landfill)

Recovery operations Disposal operationsImports

Land treatment and release into

water bodies

Exports

Residual

Initial results 5 – waste flows

Total NACE_R2

EWC-STAT code

Waste generated (tonnes)

Waste imported (tonnes)

Waste exported (tonnes)

Waste treated (tonnes)

Metal wastes, ferrous 06.1 1,197,721 2,760 7,782 1,427,171Metal wastes, non-ferrous 06.2 222,013 860 29,811 256,510Metal wastes, mixed 06.3 0 0 0 0Mineral waste from construction and demolition 12.1 5,478,631 3,337 41,090 5,908,180Other mineral wastes

12.2+12.3+12.5 321,305 1,509 885 210,720

Combustion wastes 12.4 677,382 11,778 104,471 673,650

Dredging spoils 12.7 0 0 0 0

Example shown below: Austria (2010 data shown)

Example: Austria waste flows (2010 data)

Waste generation Waste management- treatment

Imports

Exports

10,203,630t 9,583,543t

Incineration/ energy recovery

Recovery except backfilling (other than energy recovery)

Incineration/disposal

Deposit onto or into land (landfill)

1,353,571t

223,034t

8,161,468t

2,788t

4,329t

Residual/ secondary waste

1,544,379t

Residual waste

Deposit onto or into land

101,175t

Product / Application Commodity

Indium Yttrium

Desktop PCs Laptops (LED)

Laptops (CCFL) LCD TV (LED)

LCD TV (CCFL) LCD Monitor (LED)

LCD Monitor (CCFL) CRT TV

CRT Monitor Smartphones

Large LCD Video Screens (CCFL) Large LCD Video Screens (LED)

Large LED Video Screens LED Lamps

Fluorescent Lamps

Specific material content or range

Imprecise or incomplete

dataNo data

Example 2: Quantification of indium and yttrium in EEE products

39 mg (per product)

258.4 mg (per product)

32.15 mg per product

Product / Application Commodity

Aluminium Copper

Electric Vehicles Hybrid Electrical Verhicles

Non-electric vehicles Trucks Busses

Trains / subway 100 - 145 kg (per

vehicle)

22.7 - 25.0 kg (per vehicle)

Example 1: Quantification of aluminium and copper in automotive

Initial results 6 – case studies

Data gaps 5&6 – Secondary RMs

Gaps in statistical data used to calculate stocks of products/ applications (Prodcom codes, Trade statistics).

A few gaps on data for countries that do not show on Eurostat, especially for past years (<2010).

Key reasons Data resolution is poor or data are unavailable No requirement to report them to Eurostat Data withheld for confidentiality reasons

Questions: How could we fill these gaps now and in the future?

A reminder of timings







12.30 – 13.00 Lunch

Questions for first table discussion

Are there reasons for data gaps that we have not already identified?

Should we attempt to fill data gaps or merely display them as “not available”?

For each data type (production, trade, resources/reserves, exploration, secondary raw materials), what are your ideas for filling data gaps?

Please include both primary minerals and secondary raw materials in your consideration.








12.30 – 13.00 Lunch

Issues and challenges

Aim: National-level statistics that are comparable across the countries of Europe

Standardisation of data presentation

Systems of reporting for resources/reserves

Terminology and language used

Metrics for exploration

Data resolution for waste statistics

Some of these will take longer than the lifetime of the project to resolve

Standardisation

There are many differences between countries:

Units used Form in which figures are reported Reporting requirements Reporting methods Procedures for estimating production Procedures for revisions in subsequent years (production) Precision (degree of rounding of figures) Fiscal years vs calendar years (mainly production)

Standardisation1&2

How do BGS staff standardise production data? Conversion of units Standardisation of form (metal content or gross ore) Seek out additional data sources Requests for multiple years’ data to capture revisions Where we show totals they will be rounded to an

appropriate level of precision All fiscal years are footnoted

Trade data are reported to international systems of trade codes, greater level of standardisation

Standardisation 3, 4, 5 & 6

More complicated for resources and reserves data Systems of reporting used Purpose of reporting Cut off grades Polymetallic deposits Economics Different requirements for different commodities

Exploration – different metrics used

Waste flows – less of an issue due to Eurostat coding system

Reporting codes for resources and reserves Varies between and within countries

JORC NI 43-101 Fennoscandian Review Board standard UNFC Russian system National reporting codes None

None of the replies so far are using PERC

Terminology / language 1&2

For production data:

BGS has a standard list of commodity names used in its current publications

Data for other commodities are sometimes received, but are not used

For trade data:

Terms are defined by the coding system, but need careful interpretation

Terminology / language 3

Variation between countries in the use of the terms “resource” or “reserve”

Variation generally expressed in terms of the degree of geological knowledge of a deposit

Variation generally expressed in terms of the degree of current economic viability of a deposit

e.g. ‘known resource’, ‘estimated reserve’

Terminology / language 3&4

Terminology issues surrounding the names given to commodities

Different types of clays used for different purposes Limestone used for crushed rock aggregates or industrial

purposes Construction sand, silica sand, quartz sand, foundry sand,

glass sand, backfilling sand…….

Should we standardise on a common list? Or should we include all the variations country by country?

Metrics – exploration data We were not sure what metrics would be available so we

requested six parameters(for 2013)

Of those returned: Expenditure – 9 (some of these are partly confidential) Number of active licences – 15 (1 in part only) Number of licences issued – 15 (2 in part only) Size of area under licence – 15 (2 in part only) Number of companies – 17 (2 in part only) Activity summary (free text) – 11 Zero activity - 2

How should we handle the exploration data, which is varied and patchy?

Statistics on waste

Waste framework legislation was developed for a different purpose

The categories used by Eurostat (EWC-STAT) are too broad to yield useful information for resource potential For example: “metal wastes, ferrous”, “metal waste, non-

ferrous”

Statistical data used to calculate stocks are not comparable








12.30 – 13.00 Lunch

Questions for 2nd table discussion

What level of standardisation can realistically be carried out this year? (For resources/reserves, we are proposing only to standardise units)

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 we use for exploration data?








16.30 END

European Minerals Yearbook

A digital yearbook

Delivered online via a web portal

Open access

National scale statistical data with accompanying notes, explanations and metadata

Glossary

Possibly some diagrams


Image is a draft version of the proposed project portal

Yearbook will be accessible via a link as shown


The user will then have three choices:To view the data by country (both for primary minerals and waste statistics)To view the primary minerals data by commodityTo view the waste statistical data by category


Example of how it might look – by country, production data


User can scroll to the right to see the remainder of the years

User can also reorder the columns using the small triangles


User can search for a commodity using the search box


Example of how it might look – by commodity, export data

There will need to be different colours for “no data” and “non-exporter”


There could be charts showing trends over ten years

The data can also be viewed in a table using the button


User will be able to select an individual country and see the detail just for that one country


The user will be able to select multiple countries


Tables (where available) will be viewed on screen with the option of opening them in Excel

Data relating to secondary raw materials presented alongside primary minerals

Additional functions that will be available A link to the front page of the Minventory metadata portal A link to a glossary The option of downloading an entire chapter to a pdf

document Links to National Geological Surveys or other data providers


Additional functions that could be available in future Top producing countries in the World/Europe ranked Typical end uses shown and/or described More interactive charts or diagrams More analysis of the data, for example pan-European

summaries by commodity or discussion on topics such as import dependence

Increased number of case studies relating to the recovery of commodities from waste streams








16.30 END

Questions for 3rd 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?

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

What specific functions would you like in future?

Wrap up of WP4 session

WP4 methods, initial results and data gaps Including your ideas for filling those gaps

Issues and challenges Including your ideas on standardisation, terminology and

the metrics for exploration data

Preliminary ideas for the Yearbook Including your views on the structure, layout and functions

Teresa Evi [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]










16.30 END

minerals4eu - delivering the european minerals yearbook

Data & Analytics

data gaps10

european minerals yearbook13

yearbookwork package

data gaps11

data collection methods

selor6 work packages

sustainable network

round table discussion