JORC 2025: What we know so far

The Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee is soon expecting to publicly release its revised code for public feedback in a long-awaited and critical juncture of the JORC 2012 review.

Developed by mining experts for greater clarification and reporting requirements in the wake of a spurious string of “discoveries” during the 1970s nickel boom, the evolving JORC code is something of a living document.

It is a vital one to an Australian industry which recently contributed a record $455 billion in export revenue, and is either used in, recognised by, or has influence on or serves as a foundation for multiple international mining codes.

There are concerns over whether the JORC code is losing its relevance, but given it plays such an important part in the mining industry it is bound to have criticisms in all its iterations.

The last revision, in 2012, brought in added requirements for reporting on an if-not, why-not basis, competent person attributions, pre-feasibility requirements for ore reserve declarations, metal equivalents, and in situ or in-ground values.

The next update is slated to feature a reduction in embedded guidance, a more comprehensive guidance document, the addition of specific features and clauses for risks and opportunity, and to allow for those specifics to be disclosed and discussed.

But of particular importance will be changes to reasonable prospects, environmental social governance, and competent person requirements.

While the code is largely focused on mineral resources and reserves, there is a needed overlap with mineral project design and evaluation.

The next edition is set to include an application of modifying factors throughout the lifecycle of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction – RPEEE – versus reasonable prospects of economic extraction – RPEE – and would include a competent person’s initial assessment of modifying factors.

A piece from the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy said that under current code, the flexibility afforded a competent person for commodity price reporting and cut-off grades was often leading to a less than rigorous application of the RPEEE principles.

The revision is expected to be an overhaul more stringent on exploration targets, as opposed to mineral resource estimates, meaning resources may either need to be reworked or that future resource upgrades will require substantially more labour input.

ESG reforms are likewise expected to be of significant consequence, though the latest review presentation mentioned little more than the addition of specific environmental, social, and governance clauses within modifying factors.

A source close to the process last year told Fairfax’s The Australian Financial Review that in the case of an ESG reform, the skills of a competent person would likely need to be expanded beyond the necessary geology and metallurgy.

The source said geologists were not the ones you want sorting out your ESG, suggesting that specialists in the field would be required, a notion supported by the addition of a specialist role to assist competent persons with skills coverage.

On the other hand, some geologists believe the 2012 code revision already left too much in the hands of the lawyers, with a consequence of empty buzzwords, dishonest reporting, and other concerns of bad actors in junior resources.

In a relatively new but important field, there is no ESG degree, and concerns persist that the influence of large consulting firms and the snapping up of the limited numbers of available ESG specialists by the major miners could leave junior explorers stranded with high consultancy fees.

Previously speaking to MarketOpen, managing director of full-service leader Parvate ESG Jim Allenby said the reform was a heated topic of discussion with his clients in the sector, and that competent persons and directors would likely need at least some education and competency capability in ESG.

Another objective is to align better with global body, the Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards, with the United States’ S-K 1300 reporting standards held by some as a better example of unambiguous definitions regarding the accuracy of estimates and studies.

One noted difference between S-K 1300 and JORC is their respective focuses subtle differences between protecting investors and informing them, with the US code criticised for unnecessary requirements which may lead to greater confusion.

The revised JORC code might also feature updates on specialty commodities like diamonds and brine resources, and other additions.

But for now, a 90-day industry and public comment period is set to start this month and allow the inevitable grievances to be made known more publicly.

Please note the following valuable information before using this website. 

Independent Research 

Market Open Australia is intended to be used only for educational and informative purposes, and any information on this website should not be taken as investment advice or guidance. It is important to conduct your own research before making any investment decisions, which should be based on your own investment needs and personal circumstances. Any investment decisions based on information contained on this website should be taken in line with independent financial advice from a qualified professional or should be independently researched and verified.