draft JORC Code 2024 - a super quick look.

draft JORC Code 2024 - a super quick look.

As at the 1st August 2024, the JORC website provides a link to the 2024 draft JORC code survey / feedback. See; Draft JORC Code Survey (alchemer.eu) This site provides further links to;

·        Draft JORC Code – summary of proposed changes

·        Draft JORC Code

·        Draft JORC Code Table 1 documentation check list

·        Draft JORC Code Table 1 Exploration (targets & results)

·        Draft JORC Code Table 1 mineral resources

·        Draft JORC Code Table 1 ore reserves

·        Draft JORC Code guidance notes.

·        Pluss link to download the survey information and guide.

It’s probably best to read over the summary of proposed changes, plus the guidance notes before delving into the draft JORC Code (53 pages) and last the Table 1 material. Along the way there are links to related material. There is a lot to take in.

The draft JORC Code has many improvements and good points. A first pass reading picked up a number of concerns for myself;

  1. notice some minor typing & grammar apparent errors.
  2. Could definitely do with comprehensive & straight forward definitions at front / back.
  3. Apparent inconsistencies on reporting obligations between competent person & director, and need clearer distinction between "reader", investor and public.
  4. Ongoing lack of focus on surveying, sample integrity etc.
  5. Much seems to have come out of the ASX, and the relationship to New Zealand & Papua exchanges not well covered.
  6. The Code only briefly mentions there is a complaints system. Indeed, this was one of the key concerns in undertaking this JORC review. Now that ESG has been added to the Code, we may expect a massive bloom in complaints, and gearing up to manage such complaints is another dimension yet to be tackled.
  7. Now require the AusIMM / AGC to certify the competent persons that will need to go through some formality stage and be publicly registered.

·        The proposed public register may have a conflict of interests to those who wish to restrict their public profile.

·        Probably $$$ windfall for AusIMM / AGC in setting up such acceptance / training system

·        There will need to be a system to get all X,000+ Members / Fellows run through the new training / induction programs within the 1-year transition period.

JORC engagement events will be held in major centres and online from mid-August to end of September. The schedule of events is available here Draft JORC Code Consultation Events

The Guidelines mention Reporting in Other Jurisdictions; -

It is recognised that companies can be required to issue reports into more than one regulatory jurisdiction, with compliance standards that may differ from this Code. It is recommended that such reports include a statement alerting the reader to this situation. Where members of The AusIMM and the AIG are required to report in other jurisdictions, they are obliged to comply with the requirements of those jurisdictions including the reporting code in use. This however cannot extend to the issue of a report purported to comply with JORC Code (2024) that does not meet all elements of the Code.

And on; - Do Public Reporting Requirements Apply to Unlisted Entities?

If an unlisted Company states, or states or infers that is reporting in accordance with the JORC Code or states or infers that an estimate is in accordance with JORC, then all requirements of the JORC Code apply. For example, if an initial Mineral Resource is estimated, both the Technical Summary and the relevant Table 1 sections must be generated and be prominent in the Competent Persons Documentation. Should the unlisted entity engage in public reporting through a website or is considering an IPO that lists Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves claimed to have been generated according to the JORC Code, then the Technical Summary, Table 1 and Competent persons compliance statement should be provided in support of this information, in order to comply with the Code

Keith Whitchurch

President Director PT SMG Consultants

3mo

Table one seems to be following an evolutionary path from being a check list to and “if no it why not” basis s and now to a fairly detailed summary. In my mind it would be easier to folllow that evolutionary path to its logical conclusion and just disclose the whole damn report like they do in Canada and USA. It greatly improves transparency and greatly aids analysis of companies. It also removes the need to effectively double effort - write the report. Then write a summary that simply can’t disclose all material aspects transparently

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Ian Wollff

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics