4
H. Roberts
globally from sources other than lead and bulk concentrates in 2018, almost 50%
higher than the total in 2010. In contrast, the International Lead and Zinc Study
Group (ILZSG) reports a figure of only 7.3 Mt for secondary lead production in
2018, a total only 25% more than in 2010 and far short of CHR Metals’ estimate. A
difference of this scale requires explanation, especially as the ILZSG is considered
by most in the industry to be the source of reliable, official data.
There are several reasons for the discrepancy between CHR Metals’ figure for
lead recovered from secondary sources, and that published by the ILZSG. As an
international, inter-governmental organisation, the ILZSG relies, in the first instance,
on data provided to it by its member states. However, not all countries that produce
lead are members of the ILZSG and, even for countries that are members, collection
of domestic data may, in some instances, be incomplete and/or inaccurate. For nonmember countries, we understand that the ILZSG, aided by advisory committees,
will make its own estimates of secondary lead production.
Collection of accurate data about secondary lead production is handicapped owing
to the large number of enterprises that are involved in the industry, the almost complete lack of output data published by individual enterprises, even if they are public,
listed companies with an obligation to release financial data and the fact that, in many
countries, lead recycling may be undertaken within the informal sector. Appropriate
government departments may collect production data from operations that are correctly registered and active in the formal sector and are able to report these figures to
an organisation such as the ILZSG for collation and publication. By their very nature,
informal operations do not report output and are likely to come to the attention of the
authorities only when they are found to be a source of excessive pollution. At that
point, they may be closed or move to a more remote location. In such cases, none of
this output is captured in official data.
Another issue that complicates the collation of data for secondary lead production, and is a further reason for the difference between CHR Metals’ figures and
those published by the ILZSG, is one of definition, and in particular, as it relates to
international trade in lead metal. CHR Metals make extensive use of official trade
data to track flows of material and as an aid to identifying where lead is being produced and consumed. If a country providing accurate and timely trade data reports
imports of lead metal from another country, it is assumed, all other things being
equal, that this lead is being produced in the exporting country and, therefore, should
be counted as lead production. Given that there are currently few primary smelters
outside China and, for most of these, output is reported accurately, the trade data can
assist in estimating the amount that could be categorised as secondary output in the
exporting country. What may not be known from the trade data is the purity of this
lead, especially if it is shipped under codes used for “other alloys” (78019990/1/9).
The ILZSG in its definition of refined lead excludes, “remelted lead and lead alloys
recovered from secondary materials without undergoing a full refining process.” The
problem with this quite clear definition is that this unrefined material can be legitimately shipped using the trade code 78019990 which is also used for lead alloys, such
as lead–tin and lead–calcium produced from refined lead and today used extensively
in the manufacture of maintenance free lead–acid batteries. Trade in lead-antimony
H. Roberts
globally from sources other than lead and bulk concentrates in 2018, almost 50%
higher than the total in 2010. In contrast, the International Lead and Zinc Study
Group (ILZSG) reports a figure of only 7.3 Mt for secondary lead production in
2018, a total only 25% more than in 2010 and far short of CHR Metals’ estimate. A
difference of this scale requires explanation, especially as the ILZSG is considered
by most in the industry to be the source of reliable, official data.
There are several reasons for the discrepancy between CHR Metals’ figure for
lead recovered from secondary sources, and that published by the ILZSG. As an
international, inter-governmental organisation, the ILZSG relies, in the first instance,
on data provided to it by its member states. However, not all countries that produce
lead are members of the ILZSG and, even for countries that are members, collection
of domestic data may, in some instances, be incomplete and/or inaccurate. For nonmember countries, we understand that the ILZSG, aided by advisory committees,
will make its own estimates of secondary lead production.
Collection of accurate data about secondary lead production is handicapped owing
to the large number of enterprises that are involved in the industry, the almost complete lack of output data published by individual enterprises, even if they are public,
listed companies with an obligation to release financial data and the fact that, in many
countries, lead recycling may be undertaken within the informal sector. Appropriate
government departments may collect production data from operations that are correctly registered and active in the formal sector and are able to report these figures to
an organisation such as the ILZSG for collation and publication. By their very nature,
informal operations do not report output and are likely to come to the attention of the
authorities only when they are found to be a source of excessive pollution. At that
point, they may be closed or move to a more remote location. In such cases, none of
this output is captured in official data.
Another issue that complicates the collation of data for secondary lead production, and is a further reason for the difference between CHR Metals’ figures and
those published by the ILZSG, is one of definition, and in particular, as it relates to
international trade in lead metal. CHR Metals make extensive use of official trade
data to track flows of material and as an aid to identifying where lead is being produced and consumed. If a country providing accurate and timely trade data reports
imports of lead metal from another country, it is assumed, all other things being
equal, that this lead is being produced in the exporting country and, therefore, should
be counted as lead production. Given that there are currently few primary smelters
outside China and, for most of these, output is reported accurately, the trade data can
assist in estimating the amount that could be categorised as secondary output in the
exporting country. What may not be known from the trade data is the purity of this
lead, especially if it is shipped under codes used for “other alloys” (78019990/1/9).
The ILZSG in its definition of refined lead excludes, “remelted lead and lead alloys
recovered from secondary materials without undergoing a full refining process.” The
problem with this quite clear definition is that this unrefined material can be legitimately shipped using the trade code 78019990 which is also used for lead alloys, such
as lead–tin and lead–calcium produced from refined lead and today used extensively
in the manufacture of maintenance free lead–acid batteries. Trade in lead-antimony