You are here:   SEEA >> SEEA Revision >> Issues - Central Framework
 Home
 SEEA
      SEEA Revision
      Energy
      Water
      Land and Ecosystems
 SEEA Briefing Notes
 Publications
 Meetings
 Technical Cooperation
      Workshops
      Global Assessment
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Categorization of mineral and energy resources

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:24/12/2010
Number of comments:22
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
19/01/2011France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology5. Any other comments?
ADDENDUM: Additional information to the response sent on the 12/23/2010 The outcome paper only refers to UNFC classification while the issue paper written by Statistics Denmark called to mind other classifications. According to different stakeholders the UNFC classification is not adapted to the mineral industry and is not being used in most of the Western countries for such purpose as to categorize mineral resources. None of the largest databases of the mineral industry (MineSearch, Raw Materials Data) are based on the UNFC. On the contrary, the CRIRSCO system coordinates all of the national systems in order to ensure the interoperability of their data, which is essential to the transparency of the mineral industry. The website of the CRIRSCO (http://www.crirsco.com) develops this viewpoint as quoted below. France would therefore welcome any initiative to enhance compatibility between the UNFC and the devoted international classification on mineral resources. Although agreement was reached with the UN-ECE in 1999 to incorporate CRIRSCO definitions into the UNFC for those categories of resources and reserves used for market-related reporting, an updated UNFC produced in 2004 with input from the hydrocarbon industry failed to recognize the differences between the hydrocarbon and solid mineral industries in the way they report resources and reserves. As a result the updated UNFC does not serve the minerals industry well. In response, CRIRSCO has re-engaged with the UNECE, and has committed to lead efforts to produce definitions and guidelines based on the CRIRSCO Template that are compatible with the needs of the users of the UNFC. Work continues on this project with the recent release of a UN Task Force report recommending that the UNFC should adopt generic definitions that would cover oil and gas and solid minerals, and that it should be re-drafted as a simpler ‘umbrella’ reporting standard which would encompass other systems including the CRIRSCO Template and the Petroleum Resource Management System (PRMS). The concept of "Recoverable Resources" which appears in the definition of the classes "Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A)" and "Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B)" should be explicitly defined by comparison with the concept of "in situ resource". It is important to point out that a mineralization is generally not confined in natural limits; consequently, the resources level rely on the arbitrary choice of a support and a "cut-off grade". The actors of a project thus have full discretion to estimate resources and are not likely to be contradicted by reality since the resources are neither exploitable, nor verifiable. Thus, the level or degree of knowledge of the deposit, on which this classification is based, incontestably comprises some subjectivity. It would be advisable to reduce it by quantifying the estimation errors on the tonnages and the contents (by a geostatistics approach for example).
11/01/2011Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
No comment.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment.
  5. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised in issue 11: Categorization of mineral and energy resources. Relevant agencies were contacted but were not in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
28/12/2010Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment.
28/12/2010Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
No. Only classes A and B should be included, as it would make both physical and monetary accounts consistent with each other. A broader physical asset boundary could be defined by including class C.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes. Classes A and B are the components of natural resource wealth; therefore a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2 is a must. Inclusion of G3 (low level of confidence) rated reserves would make the wealth estimate inconsistent with the other components of the national balance sheet—such as produced assets and land, which are measured with a very high degree of certainty.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. This classification is based on physical characteristics of the resource—petroleum (liquid, gaseous), metallic (uranium, gold) and non-metallic (coal, potash). Perhaps classifying based on economic and environmental characteristics would be more consistent with resource valuation and would better fulfil users’ needs. The substitutability between coal and crude oil (as well environmental characteristics such as GHG emissions), would be higher than that of coal and potash.
28/12/2010Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment.
  5. Any other comments?
No
28/12/2010Jordan\Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
yes
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
yes
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
no comment
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
yes
23/12/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. We agree that the final classification of mineral and energy resources will develop taking into accounts all the elements identified in para 26. With regard to the current structure (Table 2) there may be an issue in including NGL within the category of Natural Gas. The world Energy Council (WEC), for example, publishes figures for reserves of crude oil and NGL together. The current structure needs further considerations.
23/12/2010France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology – Statistical department1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes. However, there should be a short explanation in the paper to justify why the "Field project status and feasibility" dimension cannot be taken into account or is considered lower priority.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No. We appreciate that this classification gives a more disaggregated information level than the one presented in annex 1 in the SEEA 2003.
  5. Any other comments?
The “annex 1” mentioned in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 does not appear in the outcome paper. In which paper this annex is included?
23/12/2010USA/Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes. But there should also be emphasis on the feasibility dimension (F)
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No.
23/12/2010Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes, seems useful.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Don’t know enough about such ratings to give an opinion
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Could there be a category of “other minerals and solid energy resources”
23/12/2010Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment.
23/12/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes. The ABS supports London Group’s decision to align the classification of mineral and energy resources with UNFC. We strongly agree that focus should be on criteria related to economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G). If there is appropriate geological assurance on the existence of a mineral/energy resource, and if its extraction is economically/socially viable, then we consider it to be an economic asset (assuming it satisfies other SNA tests of an ‘economic asset’ i.e. it is owned, ownership can be transferred etc. etc.). We do not see field project status (criteria F, in the UNFC) as an important factor in this decision.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
No. SEEA physical asset boundary would extend to all ‘Known deposits’. But for monetary assets - mineral and energy resources, the scope is narrower and we suggest that the SNA asset boundary applies. We acknowledge that non-commercial projects (Class C) have no economic value and that therefore monetary value of mineral and energy resources is unaltered by a decision to include or exclude Class C resources. Comments below relate to monetary assets. UNFC Criterion F ‘Field project status’ is not relevant; a resource can be an asset in absence of any extraction activity (whether actual or planned). Key criterion in UNFC appears to be G ‘Geological knowledge’; and scope of assets should extend to high (G1) and moderate (G2) levels of geological confidence. UNFC Criterion E ‘Economic and social viability’ is also relevant. Resources meeting either of criteria E1 (extraction and sale confirmed as viable) and E2 (extraction and sale viable in foreseeable future) should qualify as assets.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. We note the various dependencies affecting finalisation of SEEA asset classification of mineral and energy resources. The ABS would want to use a more detailed asset classification than that presented in Table 2. For example, to show brown coal separately from black coal; and possibly to separately identify coal seam gas.
23/12/2010Norway/Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes. If same terminology is in use in SEEA and in UNFC, the definitions should be the same.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. Some initial comments to the preliminary version of the classification of mineral and energy resources: We would recommend that if the table only will include the natural resource category EA.11, the title of the table should be equal to the name of EA.11. It should be better clarified what kind of mineral and energy resources that are included in EA.11, i.e. “selected” must be better defined and reflected also in the name of EA.11, not only the title of the table. The present footnote explaining “selected” is too vague. EA.11 now seems to include a mix of various types of products/resources: - All components of EA.11 seem to be of fossil origin, except EA.113.1 Uranium ores. Uranium is not a fossil fuel although it is a non-renewable fuel. - The terminology in use should better reflect the actual energy resource that is extracted. - The inclusion of NGL and condensate in the classification and as part of natural gas has to be explained. - The correct terminology of oil shale and “sand oil” has to be clarified. In IRES, oil shale is defined as “Oil shale: A sedimentary rock which contains organic matter in the form of kerogen. Explanation: Kerogen is a waxy hydrocarbon-rich material regarded as a precursor of petroleum. Oil shale may be burned directly or processed by heating to extract shale oil”. Use of the terminology “Sand oil” is confusing. Hard to find “sand oil” in literature. “Oil sand” however, seems to be the resource and is included as part of “other hydrocarbons” (Non-conventional oils and hydrogen) in SIEC/IRES.
23/12/2010Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
No comment.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment.
  5. Any other comments?
Statistics Sweden does not compile asset accounts. However, as with our general approach we are interested in providing statistical information that is accessible and easy to understand. It is also important that the SEEA does not only propose to follow internationally agreed standards but explain what the value added is with regards to additional information.
23/12/2010United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment.
  5. Any other comments?
None.
23/12/2010Finland / Geological Survey of Finland1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. Additional classes for mineral resources are important and required (compatible with UNFC and Cricisco)
21/12/2010Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes. Since this classifier is an outline of international agreement and implementation, as well as its scope extends beyond the extraction activity, and also reflects the conditions in the economic and social, and technological and industrial development too.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes. Contribution of the UNFC is that classifies on the basis of three main types of deposits: Class A, which considers the economic and social conditions to establish commercial viability (proven reserves), the Class B, favorable grade to be confirmed, is expected that it extraction and sale are economically viable in the near future (probable reserves), the Class C, its extraction is not economically viable in the near future (potential reserves). It is worth mentioning that according to international classifications of oil resources, as well as into the SEEA, the total reserves of oil are divided into proven, probable and possible, allowing it compatible with the classification of mineral resources and energy proposal.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes. Once the class A and B have been identified and their economic, social and business viability have been established as a pro, it is necessary that the quantities associated with a known deposit is estimated with the proposed geological criteria, ie: with a high level trust (G1), or with a moderate confidence level (G2). The problem is the issue of the availability of geological surveys on the overall level of reserves of resources. In addition, having a geological knowledge will strengthen the classification of mineral and energy resources can be exploited.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Kinds of mineral and energy resources presented disaggregated thematic coverage reflected in the SEEA, which will allows more specific analysis.
  5. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
21/12/2010Eurostat1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes. Including geological knowledge ratings of greater uncertainty (i.e. G3 "low level of confidence") do not seem appropriate given that the class is "commercially recoverable resources".
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. In reference to the terminology "EA.111 Petroleum resources" Eurostat disagrees with this terminology because (1) it is not descriptive with regards to the categories under it ("crude oil and gas deposits" is perhaps a more accurate description); (2) "petroleum" is a product and not a resource and these should not be mixed together; and (3) The classification does not make much sense from an energy statistics perspective.
  5. Any other comments?
Although the SEEA is suggesting the alignment of the terminology to the UNFC, because the use of proven, probably and possible is so wide spread it might be a consideration to include a rough correspondence of these categories to Classes A, B, and C as was done in §6 of the global consultation paper when introducing this topic in the SEEA-rev: A. Commercially Recoverable Resources (“Proven”) B. Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (“Probable”) C. Non commercial and Other Quantities in Place (“Possible”)
17/12/2010Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes.
17/12/2010Malaysia/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
No comment
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment
  5. Any other comments?
1. The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) has no experience in developing any environmental account using the SEEA framework. However, DOSM is currently trying to develop one of the SEEA account (eg Water account) with the experience and knowledge gain while visiting Australia Bureau Statistics (ABS), and also with the guide of the SEEA 2003. However DOSM, experience constrains in developing this account with lack of expertise in this field, human resources and budget. 2. DOSM also wants to learn in detail how to develop the SEEA account. Please inform and include us if there is any training/workshop to be conducted in future. 3. Therefore DOSM is unable to contribute fruitful comments for the revision of the SEEA. However, DOSM would like to be involved in further development of this matter.
17/12/2010Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
Yes, however focus should of course also be on the feasibilty dimension (F)
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
Yes. It should be noted, however, that in order to be fully in line with the UNFC it is not appropriate to say that, for instance, Commercial Recoverable Resources is only those resources linked to G1 and G2. According to UNFC principles also G3 would be classifed as Commercial Recoverable Resources. The difference related to the G-dimension has to do with the certainty of the estimates. Thus, we are talking about the same deposits and extraction projects, but there may different estimates of the recoverable quantities. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is more correct to say that we are looking at the resources linked to the deposits/projects characterised as E1 and F1, and we are using the G1+G2 estimate.
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. The label for EA.11 is misleading since the class does not include all types of energy resources, only fossil energy. Therefore Mineral and fossil energy resources would be more appropriate. Peat is not always, but some times, regarded as a fossil fuel. However, it seems better to disregard this ambiguity, than to generally be misleading with regard to what the classification includes. EA.111.3 “Oil shale” should be “Shale oil”, since the resource is normally estimated and recorded as oil (fluid) and not as shale (solid). The same is the case for sand oil (not oil sand). The title of the table2 says “selected mineral and energy resources. However, the classification does include all minerals, allthough EA.112.1 and EA.113.2 is not specified in detail.
06/12/2010Bulgaria, National Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the categorization of mineral and energy resources should be based on the UNFC-2009 with particular focus on the criteria concerning economic and social viability (E) and geological knowledge (G)?
The proposed categorization seems to be too complicated. Its application could cause practical difficulties in mineral and energy resources’ allocation and some discrepancies between statistical categories and national balance of underground resources’ categories.
  2. Do you agree that the scope of mineral and energy resources included in the asset boundary of the revised SEEA should be Known deposits, consisting of Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) and Non-commercial projects (Class C)?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that deposits classed as Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class A) or Potentially Commercially Recoverable Resources (Class B) must have a geological knowledge rating of G1 or G2?
No comment
  4. Do you have any comments or feedback in relation to the suggested classes for the classification of mineral and energy resource by type of resource as presented in Table 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment
 

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2014