Stephenson, P R. and Lee, G., 2003.

The Application of the JORC Code to

the Public Reporting of Industrial Minerals, in Extended Abstracts of
Australian Industrial Minerals Conference, Brisbane, March 2003
(Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Bulletin No 38).

The Application of the JORC Code to the

Public Reporting of Industrial Minerals
By P R Stephenson 1 & G Lee 2

Summary
The 1999 JORC Code implicitly covers the public reporting of most industrial minerals. Whilst it
does not currently provide specific guidance on this issue, appreciation of the purpose of the Code
and application of its principles will guide those seeking to report industrial mineral deposits in
accordance with industry best practice. The differences between the characteristics of most
metalliferous and the characteristics of many industrial mineral deposits should not hinder the
application of the JORC Code to industrial minerals, and the authors would encourage its use for all
forms of public reporting, not just for share market purposes.

Introduction The purpose of the JORC Code is to provide a minimum

The Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and
Ore Reserves (the “JORC Code”) has been operating
successfully for 13 years, and has an ancestry dating back over
30 years. Together with complementary developments in stock
exchange listing rules, the Code has brought about substantially
improved standards of public reporting by Australasian mining
and exploration companies. The Code is regarded as a world
leader in its field, and has been used as a basis for the
development of resource/reserve reporting standards in other
countries. The reasons for its success are varied, foremost
amongst them being its adoption in full by the Australian and
New Zealand Stock Exchanges, and the ability and willingness
of mining industry organisations to bring Competent Persons to
account when necessary.
The latest revision of the JORC Code was undertaken in 2002,
based in part on releases of upgraded reporting standards in
Canada, United Kingdom/Western Europe and South Africa,
and the 2003 edition is expected to be released mid-year. Two
of the more significant changes are: introduction of a
requirement for a Competent Person to be responsible for the
documentation upon which Exploration Results are reported;
and inclusion into the definition of a Competent Person of a
reference to “Recognised Overseas Professional Organisations”
(“ROPOs”). Further and more detailed information on the
JORC Code review, ROPOs and related matters is available on
JORC’s web site, www.jorc.org.
As a preamble to a discussion on the issue of industrial
minerals and the JORC Code, it is worth re-stating the purpose
and principles that underlie the Code, as observance of the
fundamental philosophy will usually guide users of the Code in
situations where its application may not be clear-cut.
standard for reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves in Australasia, and to ensure that
public reports on these matters contain all the information which
investors and their advisers would reasonably require for the
purpose of making a balanced judgement regarding the results and
estimates being reported.
The principles of the JORC Code can be summarised as
Transparency, Materiality and Competence. “Transparency”
requires that a public report contains sufficient information,
presented clearly and unambiguously, so that a reader is able to
understand the report and is not misled. “Materiality” requires
that a public report contains all the relevant information which
a reader could reasonably be expected to need in order to make
a balanced judgment about the matters being reported upon.
“Competence” requires that the public report be based on work
which is the responsibility of a suitably qualified and
experienced person who is subject to an enforceable
professional code of ethics, i.e. that public reports are based on
work undertaken or supervised by a Competent Person.
Industrial Minerals and Coverage by the
JORC Code
In this paper, industrial minerals are broadly defined according
to Harben and Bates (1990) as “… all those materials that man
takes out of the earth’s crust except for fuels, metallic ores,
water, and gem stones.” Industrial minerals are commonly
synonymous with the term “non metallics”. Harben and Bates
list more than 50 rocks and minerals, which range from the low
value, high volume sand, gravel and crushed stone used in
construction through to the low volume, high value materials
such as industrial diamonds (the latter is explicitly covered by
the JORC Code). A number of the minerals are the primary
ores of metals but have a number of significant uses as non-
metals in industry, for example bauxite and manganese ores.

Although the above definition includes mineral sands, in the

1. Principal Geologist, AMC Consultants Pty Ltd, 19/114 William Street, interests of space this paper does not specifically address these
Melbourne Vic 3000 Email: pstephenson@amcconsultants.com.au types of deposits. The authors have previously published a
2. Principal Consultant, Graham Lee and Associates Pty Ltd paper on the topic (Lee and Stephenson, 1999) that addresses
The Application of the JORC Code to the Public Reporting of Industrial Minerals
the subject in some detail. The paper is available from the
authors or from the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.
The issue of industrial minerals and the JORC Code has a
history dating back several years, during which time JORC has
tried, with limited success, to involve relevant industry
organisations in the JORC Code process. The current situation
(1999 JORC Code) is that industrial minerals are covered by
the JORC Code if they meet the criteria set out in Clause 6,
which states “The Code is applicable to all solid minerals,
including diamonds, other gemstones and coal, for which
Public Reporting of exploration results, Mineral Resources and
Ore Reserves is required by the Australian and New Zealand
Stock Exchanges”. It is recognised that a more explicit
coverage would be desirable, but a relative lack of progress in
discussions between JORC and industry organisations has so
far prevented this development.
In the United Kingdom/Western Europe, a reporting code for
resources and reserves1 based on the 1999 JORC Code was
released in 2001, and in this code, industrial minerals are
explicitly covered. Clause 5 of the Reporting Code states: “The
Code is applicable to all solid minerals for which Public
Reporting of Mineral Exploration Results, Mineral Resources
and Mineral Reserves may be required, including metals,
gemstones, bulk commodities such as coal and iron ore,
industrial minerals, stone or aggregates”. Clause 43 states:
“With respect to modifying factors, the normal geological
parameters may be less important in the case of industrial
minerals, stone and aggregate. Such factors as quality and
marketability are important and should be carefully considered
before declaring Mineral Reserves”. Clause 44 states: “In
certain cases commercial sensitivity may prevent the
publication of quality parameters, but in such cases this should
be clearly justified in the report”. It is relevant to note that
these clauses are the only ones that comment specifically on
industrial minerals, indicating that there are few additions
required to expand a reporting code’s explicit coverage to
industrial minerals, and that those additions are largely
common sense.
Developing these points further in the Australian context, when
reporting information and estimates for industrial minerals, the
fundamental principles of the JORC Code apply, with similar
requirements of sampling and geological interpretation and
factors such as continuity etc. However, while the underlying
requirement for a Mineral Resource to have “reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction” still applies, the
key characteristics or qualities may be different for industrial
minerals, and will sometimes include physical properties such
as a product specification(s) and/or factors determined by the
end use customer. Examples include: (1) kaolin deposits:
grainsize, brightness, calcined brightness, colour, viscosity,
opacity, iron content, etc.; (2) filtration sand deposits: grainsize
and distribution, grain shape, composition, proximity to market,
transportation, etc.; (3) dolomite deposits: purity, chemical
composition (SiO2 content and Ca/Mg ratio), proximity to
market and transportation, etc.
Other standards may also be applicable. For example, in the
case of many construction materials, matters relating to quality
and grade might relate to a product specification standard such
1. Code for Reporting of Mineral Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and
Mineral Reserves (the Reporting Code), prepared by the Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy Working Group on Resources and Reserves in
conjunction with the European Federation of Geologists and the Institute of
Geologists of Ireland
AMC Reference Library – www.amcconsultants.com.au
as Australian Standard 2758.1-1998, “Aggregates and Rock For
Engineering Purposes, Part 1 Concrete Aggregates”. This
Standard encompasses such matters as size grading, durability
and organic content amongst other factors. As an example of
applying this standard for resource classification, a sand deposit
containing two quality types may have X tonnes of sand
suitable for concrete fine aggregate (according to AS 2758.1),
and Y tonnes which do not meet AS 2758.1, but which could be
suitable for fill sand. Each type could be classified as a Mineral
Resource under JORC in accordance with the ultimate use.
In assessing Ore Reserves contained within a Mineral
Resource, the JORC Code “modifying factors” can still be
applied, with slight changes in emphasis on factors such as
product qualities, customer specifications, proximity to markets
etc. In the conversion process from resources to reserves, there
may or may not be some losses during mining, and the mined
material may or may not need treatment to produce a saleable
product. For example, sand may require screening and washing
to yield a saleable specification product suitable for fine
aggregate and there will be some losses resulting from the
washing process that need to be accounted for in determining
Ore Reserves. As another example, a leucogranite might be
capable of producing feldspar and quartz of high purity for use
in glass and ceramic applications and a white muscovite mica
for use in a range of applications including fillers, insulators,
and decorative. Only that part of the resource capable of
yielding the finished marketable products should be considered
in determining the reserves, and then allowances have to be
made for recoveries after a complex series of processes
Reserves determination would be highly dependent on the
metallurgical process developed for the deposit.
One difference between reporting of metalliferous deposits
under JORC and reporting on some industrial minerals may be
in the area of a recoverable product. Metalliferous Ore
Reserves are reported prior to the application of process plant
recoveries. For some industrial minerals, it is common practice
to report the saleable product. If the JORC Code were to be
amended to explicitly cover the reporting of industrial minerals,
consideration would have to be given as to whether reporting of
the saleable product should be permitted in addition to the as-
mined Ore Reserves (as is the case for coal under Clause 40 of
the 1999 JORC Code), or instead of the as-mined Reserves.
The debate would need to focus on which style of reporting
would provide the most useful information to the reader, and it
would be important for the compiler of the report to make it
very clear what was being reported.
The contract-traded nature of some industrial mineral
commodities, and the often small numbers of producers, may
result in confidentiality requirements limiting the information
being reported. Under a JORC Code environment, the compiler
of the report would need to balance such restrictions with the
Transparency and Materiality principles of the JORC Code and
(if applicable) the relevant requirements of stock exchange
listing rules.
A number of companies listed on the ASX report industrial
minerals under the JORC Code with no apparent difficulties,
for example, bauxite, chromite, kaolin, diamonds, feldspar,
garnet, lithium minerals, mica, phosphate rock, rare earth
minerals, talc, titanium/zirconium minerals and wollastonite,
are all minerals or commodities listed by Harben and Bates
(1990) which are currently being reported. However, a perusal
by the authors of other publicly available documents, for
example environmental impact statements and court case
reports, reveals limited compliance with the Code. While it is
2
The Application of the JORC Code to the Public Reporting of Industrial Minerals

not currently mandatory for such reports to comply with the

JORC Code, lack of compliance leads in the best case to
inconsistent reporting and in the worst case to misleading and
inaccurate reporting. This situation is similar to that prevailing
in the metalliferous mining industry prior to the development
and acceptance of the JORC Code.

For example, in a case before the New South Wales Land &
Environment Court, documents contained information prepared
by a number of writers about the same group of deposits.
Issues of concern included: the words “reserves” and
“resources” interchanged at random; the word “reserves”
applied to material which had not been drilled or tested; and the
use of a number of undefined qualifying terms peculiar to each
writer, e.g. “recoverable resources” and “inferred reserves”.

In the authors’ view, application of the JORC Code, recognised

for many years as representing the world’s best practice in
public reporting of mineral assets, to all forms of public
reporting for industrial minerals, can only be beneficial to
readers of the reports and therefore to owners of the assets.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge valuable discussions with
N Weatherstone and G Yeates in the preparation of this paper.
N Miskelly, P Stoker and N Weatherstone kindly reviewed a
draft of the paper.

Disclaimer
While one of the authors (PRS) is a member of JORC, the
views expressed in this paper are personal and should not be
taken as necessarily representing the position of JORC.

References
Harben, P W and Bates, R L, 1990, Industrial Minerals
Geology and World Deposits, (Industrial Minerals Division,
Metal Bulletin PLC, London).

Lee, G and Stephenson, P R, 1999. Observations on the

Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Sands, in Murray Basin
Mineral Sands Conference Extended Abstracts 1999,
(Australian Institute of Geoscientists Bulletin No 26).

AMC Reference Library – www.amcconsultants.com.au 3