Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JORC 2012?
Outline
Time Presentation
13:00 Welcome (Graham Jeffress, AIG WA)
13:05 Overview and Background to JORC 2012 (Jill Terry JORC)
13:20 What’s changed in JORC 2012 (Chris Cairns JORC)
13:45 Competent Persons (Jacqui Coombes Coombes Capability)
14:15 JORC 2012 – ET & ER (Graham Jeffress AIG WA)
14:30 JORC 2012 – MRE & R (Matt Greentree AIG WA)
14:40 JORC 2012 – Ann Rpts, Etc. (Chris Cairns JORC)
15:00 Tea Break
15:30 ASX listing Rules and JORC 2012 (James Rowe ASX)
16:00 Moderated Panel Session and Question time (Rick Rogerson)
17:15 Sundowner & Informal discussions
Contents
Introduction
New terms
Changes to Figure 1
Table 1 Reporting – ‘if not, why not?’ reporting
Competent Persons requirements
Are you a Competent Person?
Exploration Targets
Exploration Results – Table 1 Changes and Drill hole information
Mineral Resources – Table 1 changes
Ore Reserves – Table 1 changes and minimum level of studies
Studies definitions
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves annual review
Metal equivalents
In ground valuations
Overview
Jillian Terry
Why were the JORC Code and ASX
Listing Rules updated?
Allowed for the inclusion of several Companies Updates since the
adoption of the 2004 version of the JORC Code including
Metal Equivalents, sampling and Inferred Resource classification
In-situ values
Historical or foreign estimates
ASIC wanted a rule to govern Production Target announcements
ASIC wanted annual review of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves
Brought most terms into alignment with the international CRIRSCO
reporting guidelines (Committee for Mineral Reserves International
Reporting Standards)
Wanted to reinforce equal importance of JORC principles of
Materiality, Transparency and Competence
Why were the JORC Code and ASX
Listing Rules updated?
Wanted to improve transparency for reporting of Exploration
Targets
Included a rule on extrapolation clarification for Inferred
Resources
Wanted to introduce requirements for minimum level of technical
studies to support Ore Reserve statements
Wanted to change the emphasis of Table reporting from just
‘material’ Table 1 criteria to all Table 1 criteria on an ‘if not, why
not?’ basis so investors cannot be mislead by a Public Report
remaining silent on a material issue
Additional Definitions i.e. studies, material or significant projects,
material change
Consultation Process
Early 2012 review process commenced with request for feedback
on ASX Listing Rules and JORC Code exposure documents
Public meetings by ASX, JORC, AIG, AusIMM
Meetings with industry and MCA
114 written JORC submissions received, 138 ASX written
submissions received (two rounds)
Co-operative liaison between JORC, ASX and ASIC to produce draft
JORC Code and draft ASX Listing Rules – released September 2012
for comment
81 written submission received for JORC Code, written
submissions received for ASX Listing Rules
Publishing and Transition Period
Submissions considered in final drafting of ASX Listing Rules and
JORC Code
ASX Listing Rules released November 8th 2012
JORC Code released December 20th 2012
Mandatory from Dec 1st 2013
Requirement for a Pre-Feasibility Study to support an Ore Reserve
mandatory from Dec 1st 2014
Benefits of High Quality Reporting
Accepted and compatible national (and international) public reporting
standards will:
Provide greater confidence to investors and thereby facilitate capital
raising
encourage siphoning of scarce risk capital from non-mining sources
Reserves
AND
Public
Reporting
that meets
ALL
requirements
New Terms
New terms introduced into JORC 2012
Code
Significant project
“An exploration or mineral development project that has, or could have, a
significant influence on the market value or operations of the listed
company, and/or has specific prominence in Public Reports and
announcements.”
(Appendix 1 Generic Terms and Equivalents)
New terms introduced into JORC 2012
Code
Material change
“A material change could be a change in the estimated tonnage or grade or
in the classification of the Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves.
Whether there has been a material change in relation to a significant
project must be considered by taking into account all of the relevant
circumstances, including the style of mineralisation.
This includes considering whether the change in estimates is likely to have a
material effect on the price or value of the company’s securities.”
(Guideline to Clause 5)
Is the project Material?
What is the market capitalisation of the company?
Will the disclosure of the information affect the price of the company’s
shares?
Does the company spend a significant proportion on this project?
Does the company earn a significant amount from this project?
Will the project be an asset in the medium to long term?
Has the company made specific announcements about this project?
How prominently does the company promote this project (website,
quarterlies, annual reports, presentations, etc)?
New terms introduced into JORC 2012
Code
‘if not, why not?’
“means that each item listed in the relevant section of Table 1 must be
discussed and if it is not discussed then the Competent Person must explain
why it has been omitted from the documentation.”
(Guideline to Clause 5)
Relationship between Exploration
Results, Mineral Resources, & Ore
Reserves, Figure 1 of the JORC Code
Clause 4 2012 Code — Additional
Explanation of Principles
“Transparency and Materiality” are guiding principles of the Code,
and the Competent Person must provide explanatory comments on
material assumptions underlying the declaration of Exploration
Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves
In particular, […] the benchmark of Materiality is that which includes
all aspects relating to the Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or
Ore Reserves that an investor (or their advisers) would reasonably
expect to see explicit comment on from the Competent Person.
The Competent Person must not remain silent on any material aspect
for which the presence or absence of comment could affect the
public perception or value of the mineral occurrence”
This slide contains only extracts from Clause 4, 2012 JORC Code
Table 1 Reporting
Table 1 structure
This slide contains only extracts from the Introduction to Table 1, 2012 JORC Code
“2. In this edition of the JORC Code, important terms and their
definitions are highlighted in bold text. The guidelines are placed
after the respective Code clauses using indented italics. They are
intended to provide assistance and guidance to readers. They do
not form part of the Code, but should be considered persuasive
when interpreting the Code. Indented italics are also used for
Appendix 1 – ‘Generic Terms and Equivalents’ and Table 1 – ‘Check
List of Assessment and Reporting Criteria’ to make it clear that
they are also part of the guidelines, and that the latter is not
mandatory for reporting purposes.”
This statement (in green above), together with all of the examples
being negative, was taken by many Competent Persons as an
opportunity not to report all material information.
“Table 1 provides a [reminder] of criteria to be considered by the
Competent Person in developing their documentation and in preparing a
Public Report.
In the context of complying with the principles of the Code, comments
relating to the items in the relevant sections of Table 1 should be
provided on an ‘if not, why not’ basis within the Competent Person’s
documentation.”
This slide contains only extracts from Clause 5, 2012 JORC Code. Emphasis added.
Are You Competent?
2004 JORC Code Principles —
Competence Bias?
A common distortion of
Principles from Clause 4,
2004 JORC Code
had resulted in:
JORC
Compliant
Reports?
Competence
Based on work by
Competent Person
Competent Person’s Consent
[For] Public reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore
Reserves for significant projects for the first time or when there is a
material change, the company must include the following:
Competent Person’s name and the name of their employer
Any possible conflicts of interest for the Competent Persons?
Public report is based on documentation compiled by the Competent
Person. The Competent Person(s) must have given prior written
consent in regards to the “form and context” in which the public
report appears; and
Competent Person’s Consent
There are recent examples where this has not happened! Written
consent may be requested by ASX and placed on the Company
Announcements Platform.
JORC 2012 - Additional Provisions for
Competent Persons
Conflicts of interest
•Identifyand disclose potential conflicts of interest by the Competent
Person or a related party, such as:
• shares or options held in the Company, or
• performance-related bonus payments linked to the reporting of
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves
Previously Reported Results
Where the Competent Person(s) has previously given consent [a]
report can refer back to the original report.
However, the company must confirm that:
“It is not aware of any new information or data that materially
affects the information included in the relevant market
announcement.”
and
“In the case of estimates of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves, the
company confirms that all material assumptions and technical
parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market
announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed.”
Must include the warning statement within the same paragraph as the
first reference to the Exploration Target
Exploration Target – now defined (Clause 17)
Key points to remember (con’t):
Exploration Targets cannot be used in a ‘headline’ or highlights section
This slide contains only extracts from Clause 19, 2012 JORC Code
Exploration Results (Clause 19)
“As required under Clause 4 and 5, the Competent Person must not
‘remain silent on any issue for which the presence or absence of
comment could impact the public perception or value of the mineral
occurrence’.
For significant projects the reporting of all criteria in sections 1 and 2 of
Table 1 on an ‘if not, why not basis’ is required, preferably as an
appendix to the Public Report.
Additional disclosure is particularly important where inadequate or
uncertain data affect the reliability of, or confidence in, a statement of
Exploration Results; for example, poor sample recovery, poor
repeatability of assay or laboratory results, etc.”
This slide contains only extracts from Clause 19, 2012 JORC Code
Exploration Results
(ASX Listing Rule 5 and Guidance Note 31)
This slide contains extracts only of the ASX Listing Rules and Guidance Note 31
Exploration Results
(ASX Listing Rule 5 and Guidance Note 31 – cont’d)
5.7.1 As an appendix to the market announcement, a separate
report providing all information that is material to
understanding the exploration results, in relation to each of
the criteria in section 1 (sampling techniques and data) and
section 2 (reporting of exploration results) of Table 1 in
Appendix 5A (JORC Code).
An entity that determines that one or more of those criteria
is not material for this purpose must identify each such
criterion and explain why it has determined that it is not
material to understanding the exploration results.
This slide contains extracts only of the ASX Listing Rules and Guidance Note 31
Exploration Results (ASX Listing Rule 5 and
Guidance Note 31 – con’t)
This slide contains extracts only of Rule 5.5 of the ASX Listing Rules Guidance Note 31
Reporting of
Minerals Resources
Additional Requirements for Reporting
Mineral Resources (Clause 27)
When reporting a Mineral Resource for a significant project for
the first time, or when those estimates have materially changed
from when they were last reported, the following must be
included:
A brief summary of the information in relevant sections of
Table 1 must be provided, or,
if a particular criterion is not relevant or material, a disclosure
that it is not relevant or material and a brief explanation of why
this is the case must be provided.
Additional Requirements for Reporting
Mineral Resources (Clause 27 – cont’d)
“For a significant project, when Mineral Resource estimates are first
Publicly Reported or when a material change occurs (including
classification changes), there is an increased need for transparent
discussion of the basis for the new Mineral Resource estimate in order
that investors are appropriately informed of the basis for the changes.
This slide contains extracts only of Clauses 29 and 37, 2012 JORC Code
Additional Requirements for
Reporting Ore Reserves (Clause 35)
“In a Public Report of an Ore Reserve estimate for a significant project
for the first time, or when those estimates have materially changed
from when they were last reported, a brief summary of the information
in relevant sections of Table 1 must be provided or, if a particular
criterion is not relevant or material, a disclosure that it is not relevant
or material and a brief explanation of why this is the case must be
provided.
For a significant project, when Ore Reserve estimates are first Publicly
Reported or when a material change occurs (including classification
changes), there is an increased need for transparent discussion of the
basis for the new Ore Reserve estimate in order that investors are
appropriately informed of the basis for the changes.”
This slide contains extracts only of Clause 35, 2012 JORC Code
Additional Requirements for Reporting
Ore Reserves (Clause 35 – cont’d)
“As noted in Clauses 4 and 5 the benchmark of Materiality is that which
an investor or their advisers would reasonably expect to see explicit
comment on from the Competent Person, thus the reporting of all
criteria in Table 1 on an ‘if not, why not’ basis is required.”
“The Technical summary based against Table 1 criteria should be
presented as an appendix to the Public Report.
Where there are as yet unresolved issues potentially impacting the
reliability of, or confidence in, a statement of Ore Reserves (for example,
limited geotechnical information, complex orebody metallurgy,
uncertainty in the permitting process, etc.) those unresolved issues
should also be reported.”
This slide contains extracts only of Clause 35, 2012 JORC Code
Additional Requirements for Reporting
Ore Reserves (Clause 35 – cont’d)
“If there is doubt about what should be reported, it is better to err on the
side of providing too much information rather than too little.
Uncertainties in any of the criteria listed in Table 1 that could lead to
under-or over- statement of Ore Reserves should be disclosed.”
This slide contains extracts only of Clause 35, 2012 JORC Code
Technical Studies Definitions in
2012 Code (Clauses 37 to 40)
Clause 37 describes what technical and economic studies are, and their
application under the JORC Code.
Scoping Study – Clause 38
The annual review must discuss any material changes from the
previously reported Mineral Resources and / or Ore Reserves
Other Code
changes —
Metal Equivalents
& In Situ Values
Reporting Metal Equivalents (Clause 50)
Panel
Deborah Lord, SRK Consulting
Jason Harris, Cube
Jeff Elliott, CSA Global
Richard Sulway, Snowden
John Hearne , Coffey
Dean Carville , AMC
Some Questions ?
Where can CPs find examples and advice about best practice and who
can CPs call for advice?
How do we deal with 2004 MRE in a 2012 world?
What is the difference between an aspiration & an Exploration Target?
Does at ET have an implication of being eventually economic? Must
there be on ground work done to define an ET?
How do people deal with reporting preliminary economic information
on ET or Inferred Res? Isn’t there a catch-22 between the Continuous
Disclosure provisions and the prohibition on reporting economic
modelling based on Inferred Resources or Exploration Targets?
How does VALMIN and JORC coexist?
How can we improve the ‘policing’ of the JORC code, will 2012 help?
Thank You
Remember to visit the JORC website
www.jorc.org for:
Copies of the 2012 JORC Code
Downloadable Table 1 template
Links to ASX Listing Rules, FAQs, &
Guidance Note 31
Other guidance material