Development of decision-making tools to create a harmonised UK national mineral resource inventory using the United Nations Framework Classification

Abstract

The need to better understand how we source and consume the raw materials required for decarbonisation is driving a growing demand for data on mineral resources. A key application of these data is to understand resource potential, by evaluating known 'geological stocks' of raw materials based on estimates of mineral resources and reserves. However, the available resource data are often incomplete, totally lacking or compiled in different ways (i.e. industry reported data, which has significantly different user requirements to that of national level policy makers), making comparisons and aggregation near impossible.This study demonstrates the use of the United Nations Framework Classification (UNFC) to harmonise resource data for the UK. It highlights the benefits of this approach for improving the understanding of resource issues. Simple decision-making tools have been created, and are used to assist with classifying existing resource data using the three axes of UNFC, degree of confidence, technical feasibility and environmental socio-economic viability. These are designed to be applicable to a wide range of heterogenous datasets managed by national data providers. Their application to the UK, which has no system or national standard for collecting resource data, has served to highlight various issues relating to future mineral supply. These include variable data for deposits that may include multiple commodities such as co-and by-products, lack of data for minerals required for newly developing technologies and the variations in approaches for different commodity types.The compilation of standardised datasets can benefit national resource management, providing a 'snapshot' of the state of the UK minerals industry. For example, the results of this study facilitates inter-regional and international comparison and aggregations. In addition the consideration of the unique combination of geological, social and environmental factors by UNFC well as highlights where interventions may be needed if new projects to contribute to the green transition are to be developed. The use of the UNFC to classify mineral resource data, in a consistent way, by using the decision tools presented here, supports the creation and adoption of evidencebased raw material strategies. However, it is important to understand the limitations related to data gaps, consistency of approach and harmonisation of datasets from diverse sources.

Mass-Balance-Consistent Geological Stock Accounting: A New Approach toward Sustainable Management of Mineral Resources

“…Reported mine production data are commonly ingested by geological survey organizations (GSOs), mining directorates, and industry associations. Due to confidentiality concerns, these organizations usually only publish them as aggregated mineral production statistics. − , National mine production totals and global production estimates are used by a wide range of stakeholders, e.g., to evaluate markets for project development, assess raw material criticality, − investigate the long-run availability of metals, , and develop raw material policies and science-based resource efficiency targets . However, the published production statistics are often misinterpreted by data users that do not know their context.…”

“…However, the minerals and mining-related datasets are still mostly 2D, have coarse resolution, and mainly cover areas where publicly funded exploration campaigns have been conducted (“mapped areas” labeled ‘B’). National mineral inventories and mineral statistics combine such government data with mandatory company reporting, and occasionally also voluntary public disclosures and information from industry associations and commercial data providers. , Such data compilation and integration from sources that are poorly standardized, diverse, and can only be selectively sampled is time-consuming and costly . Moreover, nongeospatial “external” data cannot readily be integrated into existing geomodels, but rather only indirectly linked to administrative records (e.g., mapped concession areas ‘A’) or approximate locations of production sites (e.g., ‘ID1’).…”

“…The mineral depletion and sustainability debate continues unabated, and while neither the optimistic nor the pessimistic perspective is inherently contradictory or incorrect, neither has offered a unifying solution to reconcile the positions. ,− Notably, both resource optimists and resource pessimists base their claims on the same national and global mineral production statistics and estimates for mineral resources and reserves. − Whether these data are at all suitable for quantifying long-term mineral depletion is questioned by recent studies. ,− Various authors highlight significant uncertainties regarding conceptual methods for estimation, classification, and spatial aggregation of mineral resources and reserves across all data sources, particularly for critical raw materials. − Moreover, the general lack of systematic and standardized granular mine-site-level “bottom-up” information is a key concern for comparing, aggregating, and monitoring mineral resources and mineral reserves. ,, Poor data availability also hampers environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risk assessments, , sustainability analysis, , and raw materials scenario modeling. ,, Notwithstanding, there are few recommendations on how mineral-related data collection may be streamlined and industry-government integration facilitated to address data gaps and fragmentation. Here, we use material flow analysis (MFA) and mass-balance (MB) principles to review current mineral reserve accounting, mine production monitoring, and industry-government data integration.…”

Mapping Canada’s Green Economic Pathways for Battery Minerals: Balancing Prospectivity Modelling With Conservation and Biodiversity Values

“…The BlueCap simulator, a recent pre-scoping analytical tool deployed in Australia (Walsh et al, 2020), addressed that knowledge gap by allowing proximity to infrastructure, access to energy and water, tax schemes, and cover thickness to be considered during the mineral exploration targeting stage, focusing mineral exploration expenditures to the most geological and economically favourable areas (Figure 1). Environmental, ecological, and/or conservation priorities have, so far, not been included in these pre-scoping analytical tools or most previous national mineral potential assessments (Figure 1) (Lisitsin et al, 2013;Bide et al, 2022) although the approach adopted herein could similarly be applied in Australia, the U.S., and elsewhere. As discussed above, low ESG performance now presents significant financial cost and risk to the supply chains of critical minerals globally (Franks et al, 2014;Jowitt et al, 2020;Lèbre and Stringer.…”

“…Recent progress on incorporating environmental and other ESG factors into the definition of a mineral resource has the potential to change that trend, and potentially lead to a range of positive societal and environmental outcomes. For example, the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) considers ESG to assess the viability of any potential mining project through its life cycle (UNECE 2021a, b;Bide et al, 2022). Each ESG recommendation is linked to the United Nations sustainability goals, including the goal to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG15).…”