Key Regulatory Standards for Mineral Project Reporting

JORC CODE REPORTING The JORC Code, is a professional standard used to report Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves. It ensures that reports are clear, honest, and reliable for investors and regulators. It’s built on three key principles: Transparency – clearly explain data, methods, and assumptions. Materiality – include all important information that affects understanding. Competence – reports must be signed by a Competent Person (a qualified geologist or engineer with at least 5 years’ relevant experience). Reporting Levels Exploration Results – raw data (drilling, sampling, assays) Mineral Resources – identified mineralization with potential for economic extraction Inferred, Indicated, Measured (increasing confidence) Ore Reserves – economically mineable part of a resource Probable, Proved Main Steps in JORC Reporting Data Collection & QA/QC Gather samples, drilling, assays Apply quality control (blanks, standards, duplicates) Geological Interpretation Build 3D geological model showing rock types, structures, and mineralization. Resource Estimation Use geostatistical methods (kriging, IDW) to estimate grades and tonnages. Resource Classification Classify as Inferred, Indicated, or Measured based on data confidence. Apply Modifying Factors Assess mining, metallurgy, economics, environment, legal, and social aspects. Convert Resources → Reserves. Validation and Peer Review Check for errors and reasonableness. Peer or independent review is often required. JORC Table 1 and Report Preparation Complete the checklist (sampling, drilling, estimation methods, assumptions). Sign off by the Competent Person. Key Points Always report data honestly and completely. Use reliable and verifiable methods. Never upgrade classification without evidence. Keep all assumptions and limitations clear. In short: The JORC Code turns exploration data into credible, investor-trusted reports by ensuring quality, confidence, and responsibility at every step — from the first drillhole to the final reserve statement.

📘 Guidelines for Technical Studies in Mining Projects A structured framework for de-risking and advancing mining projects This document presents a disciplined approach to mineral project development through the three key study phases: Scoping Study, Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), and Feasibility Study (FS). Each phase progressively enhances the level of geological confidence, engineering definition, cost accuracy, and investment readiness. 🔍 Key areas covered: ▪️ Resource classification: Inferred → Indicated → Measured ▪️ Mine design & scheduling: From conceptual layouts to detailed monthly plans ▪️ Geotechnical & metallurgical inputs: Including pilot-scale testing ▪️ Capital & operating cost estimation: In line with AACE RP 47R-11 standards ▪️ Financial analysis: Includes Cut-Off Grade, NPV, IRR, and Break-Even Grade ▪️ Permitting, ESG & stakeholder engagement: Embedded throughout all phases ▪️ Full alignment with JORC (2012), NI 43-101, SAMREC/SAMVAL, VALMIN This guideline supports the delivery of technically robust, economically defensible, and internationally compliant studies—serving as a vital reference for geologists, mining engineers, analysts, and decision-makers. 📎 PDF attached for industry professionals involved in advancing mining projects from concept to execution. #MiningProjects #FeasibilityStudy #TechnicalStudies #ScopingStudy #PFS #JORC #NI43101 #VALMIN #AACE #MineDesign #NPV #IRR #CutOffGrade #CostEstimation #ResourceEstimation #Geology #MiningEngineering #MineralValuation #ESG #ProjectDevelopment

One mining scandal wiped out $6 billion in investor money. Here's how: In 1997, Bre-X Minerals claimed to have found the "gold discovery of the century" in Indonesia. Their stock exploded from $0.50 to $286 in just 3 years. When independent verification finally happened, they found "insignificant amounts of gold." The gold didn't exist. Core samples had been "salted" with gold dust bought from local Indonesian panners. $6 billion vanished overnight. The smoking gun was hiding in plain sight – in technical reports most investors couldn't understand. This scandal forced Canada to create NI 43-101 – strict standards for mineral project disclosure. But the jargon in these reports can still make or break your investment. Here's what you need to know: 1. Understand mineral resource estimates These come in 3 categories of increasing confidence: • Inferred - Based on limited sampling, lowest confidence • Indicated - More exploration, reasonable confidence • Measured - Most reliable, based on detailed data Resources ≠ guaranteed money. 2. Know the difference between "reserves" and "resources" • Resources = What might be in the ground • Reserves = What's economically mineable Reserves have 2 critical categories: • Probable - Lower confidence • Proven - Highest confidence 3. Grade determines profitability It's the concentration of valuable mineral within the ore. Bre-X reported consistently high gold grades across large areas – which almost never happens naturally. Watch for these warning signs: • Lack of visible minerals despite high reported grades • Unrealistic (and increasing) projections • Suspicious consistency in samples • Unusually perfect conditions Before investing, ask: • Are resource estimates compliant with standards like NI 43-101? • What percentage is classified as Measured vs. Indicated vs. Inferred? • Has an independent qualified person verified the estimates? • Does management have a successful track record? At Power Metallic, transparency is our foundation. Our nickel reports use the NI 43-101 standards created post-Bre-X. For our Lion Zone copper discovery, we're publishing drill collars, assays, and geophysical data in real time – allowing independent analysts to model the deposit as it expands. A formal 43-101 for copper is coming in H2 2026. - Thanks for reading. I’ve spent decades in the trenches—building companies, making discoveries, and fighting for fairness in the markets. Follow me, Terry Lynch for straight talk on exploration, capital markets and creating real value in mining.

JORC vs NI 43-101: What Every Geologist and Investors Should Know After 22 years in mineral resource evaluation, I’ve worked extensively with both JORC and NI 43-101 reporting codes. While they share the same goal—transparent, reliable disclosure of mineral projects—they differ in structure, terminology, and regulatory oversight. 🔍 JORC (Australia) Principles: Transparency, Materiality, Competence Flexible language, often used in early-stage exploration Strong emphasis on the Competent Person’s judgment 🧾 NI 43-101 (Canada) Legally binding under Canadian securities law Requires strict formatting and disclosure standards The Qualified Person must be independent in many cases 💡 My Take: Understanding both codes isn’t just about compliance—it’s about building trust with investors, regulators, and communities. I’ve seen projects succeed or stall based on how well these frameworks were applied. ✅ Tip for juniors: Learn the nuances early. Your technical skills are only as valuable as your ability to communicate them clearly and credibly. 💼 Tips for Investors: Don’t just look at the numbers—look at the reporting code behind them. A JORC Inferred Resource is not the same as a NI 43-101 Measured Resource. Ask who the Competent or Qualified Person is. Their experience and independence matter. Be cautious with early-stage reports that lack rigorous disclosure. Transparency is key to long-term value. I'm curious to hear from others: 👉 What’s your biggest challenge when working with JORC or NI 43-101?

🪨 GEOLOGICAL REPORT PREPARATION – Field Rules under JORC & NI 43-101 Codes A true geological report is not a theoretical document — it’s the story of the earth told with evidence, structure, and integrity. Whether under JORC (Australasia) or NI 43-101 (Canada), every report must reflect what was actually seen, measured, and validated in the field. JORC CODE – Field-Based Geological Reporting Rules 1️⃣ Log what you see, not what you think. Record lithology, texture, structure, color, and mineralization as observed. 2️⃣ Maintain strict chain of custody for all samples with GPS, signatures, and photos. 3️⃣ Use consistent lithological codes across logs, maps, and sections. 4️⃣ Accurate coordinates and RLs are critical — use differential GPS. 5️⃣ Show field evidence for each geological boundary or contact. 6️⃣ Verify core recovery and RQD; photograph every box with hole ID. 7️⃣ Mark sample intervals clearly on core and confirm before dispatch. 8️⃣ Include QA/QC checks – blanks, duplicates, standards. 9️⃣ Provide local geological context, not textbook terminology. 🔟 Report must be signed by a Competent Person (CP) with ≥5 years’ relevant experience. NI 43-101 CODE – Field-Based Geological Reporting Rules 1️⃣ All observations must be verifiable – field photos, GPS logs, and raw sheets. 2️⃣ Describe exploration methods – drill type, diameter, recovery %, sampling spacing. 3️⃣ Keep hand logs consistent with digital data; no mismatched entries. 4️⃣ Record true structural readings with measured bearings and dips. 5️⃣ Report all results, including barren or failed holes – transparency is key. 6️⃣ Describe alteration and mineralization in field terms, not academic phrases. 7️⃣ Validate data through QA/QC summaries (duplicates, standards, blanks). 8️⃣ Maintain geospatial consistency – all holes and samples properly plotted. 9️⃣ Present interpretations backed by field sketches and photos. 🔟 Report must be certified by a Qualified Person (QP) who approves public disclosure. Field Realities to Always Remember 🪶 Describe before you interpret. 📸 Support everything with photos. 📏 Keep data consistent across logs, assays, and coordinates. 🧪 Include QA/QC results transparently. 🌍 Match your deposit model with real field evidence. 📚 Use metric units consistently and maintain raw field data. 🧑🏭 No anonymous reports — sign-off by CP or QP is mandatory. 💎 Materiality & Transparency are your guiding principles. In exploration, credibility begins at the outcrop and ends with accurate reporting. The best reports aren’t written in offices — they’re born in the field. #Geology #ExplorationGeology #JORC #NI43101 #FieldGeology #MiningStandards #GeologicalReporting #CoreLogging #MineralExploration #Geoscience #QAQC #CompetentPerson #QualifiedPerson #MiningIndustry #TransparencyInMining #GeologicalData #MineralResources #GeologistLife #FieldBasedKnowledge #geologistjobs #miningjobs #engineeringjobs #australia #canada #india #africa #mining #geology

Reading the #JORC2024 update last night from the POV as someone who has 20 years experience, and currently would be a CP for exploration results, and wants to understand what JORC24 is bringing over the horizon and whether I should engage with JORC24 next year, or just wash my hands of public reporting as too risky and hazardous. One thing stands out, to me; documentation. The Code repeatedly references Competent Person's Documentation, which as members of AusIMM and/or AIG, must be prepared according to the JORC24 Code. All Public Releases must have underlying CP Documentation. CP Documentation must be prepared with an accompanying Table 1. This means that all work underlying a Public Release must be up to Code. I infer, this means all work from the underlings up to the Exploration Manager must be; * documented well, clearly, and concisely * include legible maps, plans, of sufficient quality for publication * prepared by a member of the AusIMM or AIG (for non-members cannot, therefore, be presumed competent at preparing a CP's documentation) * fairly represent the geology and Mineral Asset being discussed * discuss the SWOT principles now entering JORC parlance It also means, by default, that a Public Release of any results, must therefore have Documentation, which addresses the Table 1 criteria, on an 'if not why not' basis. This Documentation must be signed off by the CP, preferably a second Peer practitioner, and records must be kept. The CP isn't liable (under JORC) for variance between their Documentation and the ultimate Public Disclosure (that's the Directors' risk) but nevertheless, the CP has to Table 1 if-not-why-not even an email to the Directors informing them of, eg; a material drill result visual estimate. Having worked for >30 small companies in the past ~20 years, there is one thing they almost all do very, very badly on, and that is documentation and internal processes which, from 2025 onwards, will become a requirement of Public Reporting.

From 1 January 2026, mining companies reporting under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) will be required to use GRI 14: Mining Sector Standard, the most comprehensive, stringent, and value-chain-focused mining disclosure framework ever released. This is the first update of this magnitude in more than a decade, and it marks a decisive shift in how sustainability performance is assessed, measured, and communicated across the entire mining value chain. And one message is clear: Value chains are now at the centre of mining disclosure. GRI 14 raises expectations across critical impact areas: ✔️ Upstream & downstream Scope 3 emissions ✔️ Water quality, water discharge & hydrogeology impacts ✔️ Tailings governance, stability & integrity ✔️ Indigenous Peoples’ rights & community impacts ✔️ Human rights due diligence across suppliers ✔️ Closure planning, rehabilitation & long-term land use ✔️ Biodiversity, & nature dependencies ✔️ Worker well-being, labour rights & grievance mechanisms This is no longer a reporting exercise —it is an operational exercise. Key Insights 1️⃣ Mine-Site Level Reporting Becomes Non-Negotiable For the next five years, the strongest trend will be site-level data scrutiny from investors, regulators, and buyers. GRI 14 requires site-specific data, not just corporate-level rollups. This means mine general managers and site leadership teams must now be capacitated to: ✔️sign off data, ✔️own performance, and ✔️lead progress on emissions, water, tailings, safety, closure, and community impacts. This will be one of the biggest capability gaps across the sector. 2️⃣ Materiality Must Be Structured, Defensible & Aligned GRI 14 identifies 25 likely material topics, all of which must be assessed using the GRI 3 materiality process. ✔️Non-material topics must be disclosed and justified. ✔️Mining companies and suppliers will need to conduct structured Materiality Refresh Exercises to ensure alignment and avoid credibility risks. At RR Sustainable Mining Consultants, we choose the pace and intention of the tortoise , steady, deliberate, purpose-driven progress that builds impact and moves our clients efforts forward. Our work supports companies and suppliers to embed sustainability in a way that is: ✔️ strategic ✔️ operationally grounded ✔️ value-chain aligned ✔️ tailored for long-term impact For more insights, visit our page RR Sustainable Mining Consultants and explore our recent GRI 14 post. Join our upcoming workshop The Scope 3 Reality Check: Why Mining Companies and Suppliers Must Act Now ,next week Tuesday right here on Linkedin Live. We will unpack the full integrated disclosure and cover GRI 14 Readiness in terms of scope 3. Event Link: https://lnkd.in/d_-FYffB Register here: https://lnkd.in/dU-B3Vn7 Making mining responsible and sustainable one value chain at a time. Itumeleng Mogatusi-Sekgota Founder & Mining Technical Lead- Sustainable and Responsible Value Chains RR Sustainable Mining Consultants

Exploration Reporting: Key Points from #Table_1, #Section_1 of the JORC Code 2012 The #JORC Code 2012 sets clear guidelines for reporting Exploration Results, with Table 1, Section 1 focusing on the Sampling Techniques and Data. This section emphasizes transparency, reliability, and accuracy in reporting exploration data. Key aspects to consider: 🔹 Sampling Techniques: Describe the methods used, ensuring representativity and reliability of the samples. 🔹 Drilling Techniques: Provide details on drilling methods, core recoveries, and data quality. 🔹 Sample Recovery: Discuss how recovery rates are managed and their impact on the results. 🔹 Logging: Explain how geological and geotechnical logging is conducted. 🔹 Sub-sampling and Preparation: Ensure samples are appropriately reduced for lab testing, maintaining representativity. 🔹 Assay Quality: Outline the assay methods and QA/QC processes in place. 🔹 Verification: Describe how sampling and assay data are verified for accuracy. 🔹 Data Location: Provide details on how locations are surveyed and the grid systems used. 🔹 Data Distribution: Ensure sample spacing is adequate for meaningful resource estimation. 🔹 Orientation: Ensure sampling aligns with the geological structure to avoid bias. 🔹 Sample Security: Explain how samples are secured during transport and storage. 🔹 Audits/Reviews: Share any third-party reviews or audits of the data. By meeting these criteria, companies demonstrate transparency and competence in their reporting, ensuring stakeholders can trust the data. Adhering to these standards helps build credibility in the mining and exploration sectors. #Mining #Exploration #JORCCode #Geology #MiningIndustry #Source: The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC)

For those that have to deal with National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, this is something you should pay attention to. As reported in this Canadian Mining Journal article, Canada’s securities administration is attempting to clarify, harmonize, and streamline Canada’s mining disclosure regime without introducing any new onerous requirements. They intend to update and enhance the standards for disclosing scientific and technical information about mineral projects, addressing evolving disclosure practices and policy considerations identified by CSA staff, and reflecting changing industry and investor expectations. The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) have requested feedback on proposed amendments to National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The CSA has initiated a sweeping effort to reform disclosure requirements in the mining sector by launching a consultation on proposed amendments. These reforms aim to reduce compliance costs for mining issuers while enhancing the quality of information available to investors. By addressing outdated definitions, simplifying disclosure requirements, and improving alignment with both industry and investor expectations, the CSA seeks to modernize regulations in line with international standards. The proposed changes, which result from extensive feedback received during the 2022 consultation, emphasize regulatory certainty and risk assessment for issuers, potentially lowering the cost of capital and fostering capital formation. The proposed amendments are being published for a 120-day comment period and are available on CSA member websites. I don't claim to be a NI 43-101 expert, but my take on this is it is difficult to have "sweeping reform" and not introduce any "new onerous requirements". The discussions I have had around this convince me that these are not just housekeeping and in some cases, are an attempt to codify CSA staff policies (i.e. not actual law in some cases) to make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to resist these staff preferences. I encourage everyone to read these amendments. https://lnkd.in/dQyeCuZ5

When I sign a resource statement as a Competent Person, I am not certifying a number. I am putting my name against someone else's capital decision. That distinction is easy to miss from the outside. A resource estimate looks like a technical output — tonnes, grade, a classification. But under the JORC Code, a Competent Person is personally accountable for the judgment behind those figures: the quality of the data, the geological interpretation, the assumptions, and whether the stated confidence actually exists. It is accountability in writing. My name, my professional standing, and my membership of bodies like the AusIMM and the Geological Society of South Africa sit behind it. This is why I am cautious when a project treats reporting as a commodity to be bought at the lowest price. A cheaper report from an unaccountable author does not remove geological risk. It simply moves that risk downstream — to the board approving capital, the bank lending against the asset, or the partner relying on the statement to commit. The risk does not disappear. It just surfaces later, and usually larger. A credible resource statement is not paperwork that satisfies a process. It is the bridge between a deposit in the ground and the money required to develop it. Boards, financiers, and partners never see the orebody. They see the reporting. That is precisely why the person who signs it should be someone prepared to stand behind every line. #JORC #MiningInvestment #ResourceEstimation