Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis Meeting Report First Expert Workshop

Transcription

1 Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis Meeting Report First Expert Workshop Project Event Date 19 May 2014 Location Participants Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis: Roadmap and Test of the Fully Operational MSA for Raw Materials (Contract no.: 30-CE /00-04) First Expert Workshop Indicators and Methodology DG Enterprise and Industry (DG ENTR) Avenue d'auderghem 45, 1040 Bruxelles, Belgium European Commission - Mattia Pellegrini DG ENTR - Slavko Solar DG ENTR - Claudia Wulz DG ENTR - Magnus Gislev DG ENTR - Helena Cavaco Viegas - DG ENTR - Raul Romero Valls DG ENTR - David Pennington JRC-Ispra Project team - Adrian TAN - BIO by Deloitte (BIO) - Charlotte PETIOT - BIO by Deloitte (BIO) - Jürgen GIEGRICH - IFEU - Christoph LAUWIGI - IFEU - Tomas HAK - Charles University Environment Center (CUEC) Experts - Corina Hebestreit Euromines - Daniel Cios Euromines - Emmanuel Katrakis - Euromines - Markus Reuter - Outotec - Jaako Kooroshy - Chatham House - Dominic Hogg - Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd - Dirk Fincke - European Aggregates Association (UEPG) - Dominic Wittmer - Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources (BGR) - Dominique Guyonnet - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM) - Luis Tercero -Fraunhofer ISI - Frederic Schumann - CEIS - Annick Carpentier - Eurometaux - Krysztof Szamalek - Polish Geological Institute - Sebastiaan Deetman - CML Leiden University - Hans Craen - EPBA - Nadia Vinck - Euroalliages 1 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis

2 Agenda General presentation of the project: context, objectives, tasks, timeline Presentation of the list of indicators for the Raw Material System Analysis Working session 1: Discussion on indicators relating to current/past material flows and stocks (group 1 indicators) Working session 2: Discussion on indicators relating to policy objectives (group 2 indicators) Working session 3: Discussion on indicators relating to future supply and demand changes (group 3 indicators) Conclusions and next steps Main points and comments that emerged from the 3 working sessions a) Scope and objectives of the study Many experts warn about the large scope of the study and the amount of work necessary to establish a RMSA for 22 materials or groups of materials. General consensus is to focus on MFA / Group 1 indicators (indicators relating to current/past material flows and stocks). Group 1 indicators are missing today whereas group 2 and 3 indicators are already partly covered. Many of the group 2 and group 3 indicators are interesting, but not always useful and/or reliable. The study should aim to make the data inventory simple and pragmatic to be feasible. The flexibility and future uses of the inventory should be considered. The study will provide a snapshot of the material flows and stocks at a given time. It is a starting point on which a time series could be established. The objective of the European Commission is to update the data inventory with regular intervals (1-3 years). b) Terms and definitions Many of the so-called indicators are not indicators, but more accurately information points and/or parameters. There are different terms and definitions used in different fields: EU resource policy, geological and mining industry, LCA The aim would be to use specific terms in the RMSA and to make links between similar terms and concepts. The expression indicators relating to policy objectives should be modified in order to be clearer. The indicators do not assess to what extent a policy objective is being achieved. The indicators could rather be considered as inputs in order to help defining policies to secure supply of resources. The study should use the term extraction instead of mining to be generic. It is necessary to have a common conceptual (and terminological) ground for both primary and secondary materials it might stem from a definition of the mineral resource: A mineral resource is a mineral concentration of both natural and anthropogenic materials. The expression processing of primary materials should be used instead of processing from mining production. 2 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis

3 The study should stick to the UNEP definitions of recycling (there is not a common terminology even in companies doing recycling business). The study should also take into account EU definitions if available. The term downcycling should be avoided. Other terms as open/closed loop recycling or dissipative uses should be well-defined and used carefully. The study should gather information on the fates of materials and call them what they actually are instead of trying to define generic terms. Some terms (as scrap for example) should be reconsidered for the specific case of aggregates. c) Reliability and information detail Uncertainties are an important aspect to take into account in the RMSA. In the ASTER project, a specific task focused on estimating uncertainty and providing intervals. The methodology developed in ASTER could be used as inspiration for this study. In cases where there is no data or good estimates, it would be preferable to say that the information is unknown instead of providing unreliable information. However, one of the tasks of the study is to close data gaps, which will have to rely on models. The level of detail of the data used for the RMSA will be determined on a case by case basis for each material. The approach is to identify the main applications (table linking materials and products) and then go into detail according to the share of the applications in the overall flow. The use of trade data and HS codes will follow from this. When selecting main product groups to examine in more detail, importance could be given to the ability to recover the substance/material at end of life. d) Data sources USGS data should be used with caution. European data should be used in priority. Standards from UN (Natural Resources and Environment Management Branch of the UN) could be used regarding secondary raw materials. It is being under development, the first available standard will cover the mining waste. The study should take into account standards fixed by EU waste legislation, where applicable and useful. Life cycle assessments of some product categories could be used as data sources. Such studies provide system models at the different life cycle steps of products and provide bills of material (concentration). The following studies could be investigated: Critical metals in strategic energy technologies (JRC, 2010), Environmental impacts of some raw materials through LCA methods (DG ENV, 2010). e) Links to other ongoing projects Several ongoing projects are directly or indirectly connected with the RMSA project and tackle similar issues: Minerals4U, Minventory, DESIRE (MFA of Tantalum), project in Germany gathering data concerning post-consumer waste including urban mining Collaboration between the ongoing projects is important in order to share information and to insure consistency. Organizing back-to-back meetings may be an effective option 3 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis

4 A specific workshop could be organised in order to facilitate collaboration between the ongoing projects. f) Specific comments on indicators relating to current/past material flows and stocks (group 1 indicators) Flows indicators: From a general point of view, the processing capacity and infrastructure should be taken into account for the estimation of the flow indicators (e.g. what can be actually recycled). Stocks indicators: A starting point (date) must be considered for the accounting of anthropogenic stocks. Concerning stock of manufactured products (E.1.1.), it will be necessary to determine right level of detail since some materials may be used for a high number of products Stocks indicators: Additional stocks indicators should be considered at various points throughout the life cycle. In particular, it is suggested to insert secondary reserves or anthropogenic stocks in the MFA (mining deposit, stock in landfill ). It is seen as an equivalent source to primary reserves. Reserves/resources: There should be a distinction between geological and anthropogenic reserves and resources, e.g. stocks in the natural environment and stocks in the economy. Reserves/resources: Ore grades and costs also define the economic feasibility of extraction from geological and anthropogenic resources. These parameters are taken into account in the definition of reserves and resources. Mining waste: According to experts from mining sector, the data for mining waste is unreliable. In particular, the definition of mining waste depends on local legislation. Indicators relating to processing and manufacture steps: The concentration of material in semi-finished products and products is often commercially sensitive for companies. Data on concentration could be difficult to obtain, in particular for Critical Raw Materials. g) Specific comments on indicators relating to policy objectives (group 2 indicators) Group 2 indicators should be considered in the context of what policy can do to influence the supply of materials and other issues. When possible, the drivers of the indicators should be analysed in this context. It is suggested to derive group 2 indicators (and group 3 indicators) from the MFA data. Ore grades: Data on ore grades would be difficult to acquire. Even if it could be possible to get an idea of the range of concentrations, it doesn t seem possible to collect data at a level of granularity where this information would be useful. Value of ore: The value of ore is site specific and is not really interesting in itself. Without any information on the cost of extraction, this information could be misleading. It is suggested to skip this indicator. Cut-off grade was suggested as a better indicator, and value of the metal. Industry structure: The number of companies does not seem to be sufficient information. More information on types of companies could be interesting. It was suggested to see which steps of the value chain actually take place in the EU. Risk supply indicators: Social risk should be considered, in addition to environmental and governance risk. 4 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis

5 Environmental risk supply: According to some experts, EPI (Environmental Performance Index) used in the CRM report (Study on critical raw material at EU level) are debatable and should not be considered as robust. All indicators relating to criticality: Experts suggest not spending too much time on indicators relating to criticality and reusing indicators and results of the CRM report. Recycling rate: Instead of an average recycling rate per material, it should be interesting to give different recycling rates for the main applications of each material. Price volatility: This indicator does not seem really useful and relevant. In general, price volatility of primary material and secondary material are really linked. Regarding the recycling step, it could be preferable to gather information on recycling processes and places (countries) where recycling is achieved. h) Specific comments on indicators relating to future supply and demand changes (group 3 indicators) Average time required to open a mine: There are important differences between countries and companies and it should be preferable to provide a range of topical time required. Past examples are a good basis in order to estimate this type of indicator. Average time required to open a mine / for mine production: There is no need to have two different indicators (time for opening a mine and time for mining production). The interesting data is the typical time required to open a mine and extract material. The definition of the indicator should be clear. Investment in exploration: Investment in exploration is important information. A split between investment in EU and investment in the rest of the world should be done. Future supply / Future demand indicators: From a general point of view, the future supply and demand is very difficult to assess. Changes of technologies are important parameters to take into account but they are often difficult to anticipate. Future supply / Future demand indicators: Indicators regarding demand seem more interesting than indicators regarding supply as demand is the main driver. Future supply / Future demand indicators: The timescale to consider is difficult to define. According to experts, it is hard to make projections beyond Future supply of mining production and processed material: Future supply from EU and future supply from rest of the world should be differentiated. Studies from USGS could be useful regarding future mining production. Future supply of secondary material: Regarding future supply of secondary material, it should be kept in mind that the main limiting factor is often the collection and not the recycling process. Conclusions of the workshop and next steps The project should focus on group 1 indicators in order to build reliable MFA for the different materials considered. Group 2 and group 3 indicators are interesting additional information, but not always useful and/or reliable. Experts suggest not spending too much time on these indicators and reuse and gather information already provided in other projects (CRM report in particular). 5 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis

6 In cases where there is no data or good estimates, it would be preferable to say that the information is unknown instead of providing unreliable information. However, one of the tasks of the study is to close data gaps, which will have to rely on models. Collaboration between the ongoing projects that tackle similar issues is important in order to share information and to insure consistency. The specific case of aggregate should be kept in mind and methodology should be adapted for this type of material. Next steps After this workshop, the objective is to finalise the list of indicators and the main methodological aspects of the RMSA by the end of June Complementary comments from experts on these aspects should be preferably provided until the end of May, even if comments are welcome all along the project. The RMSA for 22 materials or groups of materials will be achieved between June 2014 and May expert workshops will be organised during this period in order to support the development of the RMSA. Depending on the advancement and needs of the project, the objectives of these workshops would be: to provide with complementary data sources, to propose methods for filling the gaps, to validate hypothesis, calculation methods and results The workshops could be focused on: relevant groups of materials (by-products at the mining stage, materials used in similar applications ), specific types of indicators or specific life cycle steps. The dates for the workshops will be proposed as soon as possible. At the end of the project, a final task will be to make recommendations on establishing and maintaining RMSA. 6 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis

7 Additional remarks from experts sent after the workshop Regarding UNEP Definitions, there are two UNEP reports on recycling; the first one relies on one-dimensional metal centric definitions that will never be able to cover the detail of minor element recycling of complex products. The second report on recycling is a productcentric one that harmonises complex products and equates that with minerals. The type of data gathered by a MSA will not be of use especially for the critical elements. The use of MFA for this complex task is questionable. The task of linking materials and products is difficult, in a material-centric approach this will require a number of estimations and calculations. On the other hand, if a product-centric approach is used, this follows naturally. Trying to define the order of magnitude materials in EoL products is very difficult, because the decision of recovering materials from waste is taken based on mineral content and type, its monetary value and the possibility of extracting it with available technologies and their costs. Waste becomes valuable only if there is techno-economic feasibility to extract these from highly non-linear mixtures. This project faces this difficulty. The cut-off-grade can also be applied to EoL products. Not all elements can be recovered from EoL products for the same reasons as ores. The mining, minerals and metals industry has great tools, which deal with complexity of products and the content of valuable materials. The proposed MSA will have difficulties to capture the detail required to estimate "ore" body value in end of life products. Recycling rate is a very simplified parameter. Each mineral and product, depending on the metallurgical and recycling infrastructure will provide a different recycling rate. 7 First Expert Workshop DG ENTR - Study on Data Inventory for a Raw Material System Analysis