The JORC Code

As the JORC Code nears its final stages of review, AMC Consultants is well-placed to provide the latest advice on how and where changes will likely affect the mining industry. With significant AMC representation on the Committee, our team of experts maintains a granular understanding of the present Code and updates proposed.   

Code compliance can be the difference between investors opting into or walking away from a mine feasibility study. As a JORC Code expert, our team of specialist mining consultants advises clients on guidelines as they stand and evolve.

What is the JORC Code and its purpose?

A professional mining Code of Practice in Australia and New Zealand, JORC outlines the minimum standards required for Public Reporting of Mineral Resources, Exploration Results and Ore Reserves. These public documents capture annual and quarterly company reports, information memoranda, technical details, media releases and website activity. The JORC Code is incorporated in the Australian and New Zealand Stock Exchanges Listing Rules. As such, public companies operating in both countries must demonstrate Code compliance.

• AMC Principal Geologist, Peter Stoker OAM, is JORC Code Deputy Chair (AusIMM nominee) 
• AMC Chief Executive Manager, Andrew Hall is a JORC Committee non-executive (AusIMM nominee) 
• AMC Geology Manager, Tracie Burrows is a JORC Committee non-executive (AIG nominee) 
• AMC General Manager, Roderick Carlson, is a JORC Committee ex-officio member
  

Since its inception in 1971, the Code has typically been reviewed every five to seven years. However, the last round of changes took place in 2012, meaning the present Code is no longer keeping pace with the industry. 

Broadly speaking, revisions occur because the world changes; society evolves, global priorities shift, mining technologies advance. Updates are not intended to reflect the last decade but to inform the one that follows. 

Crucially, these reviews enable the mining industry to drive its own change rather than have regulators at the helm (as is now the case in Canada, for example). Australian regulators are becoming increasingly observant. If they don’t see rules introduced to reflect change, they will move to introduce them. As most operators within our industry agree, our institutes - not our regulators - should own our environment.

More specifically, the Code is under review to address particular shortcomings, which include: 

ESG investor expectations 

Social and investor expectations are now an entrenched part of the mining permit process. Investment funds require evidence that a mining operation is doing all it can to reduce its carbon footprint and minimize adverse environmental risk. Any such risk must be transparently communicated. Traditionally, this was achieved through classification, which, in isolation, is now deemed insufficient. As such, we anticipate some of the most concentrated Code updates to take place around ESG. Understanding and advising benchmark communication of ESG considerations and risk will be a focal part of this round of updates.

Competent Person guidelines 

Changes here are expected to help mitigate risk to the Competent Person by spreading responsibility. 

Whereas presently, a Competent Person might be required to sign off on documentation for which they do not have the highest level of expertise, Code changes will defer to the specialist in each field. Ultimately, it will still fall on the Competent Person to provide the final sign-off. However, they will do so based on the official assurances provided by peers who are experts in the relevant fields. 

These updates are intended not to disempower the Competent Person but to protect them and prevent them from overstretching their expertise. We also anticipate revisions to the Competent Person selection criteria (for example, years of relevant experience). Again, this is to ensure individuals do not find themselves advising or approving beyond their abilities, thus safeguarding not only the individual but the integrity of the entire mining operation.

Public report formatting 

Also under review is the way in which public reports are formatted, with particular attention paid to Table 1.

Complaints review process 

The general consensus agrees that clearer processes and faster assessment are required in response to  Code transgressions and Competent Persons complaints. For example, a compulsory CV of Record before a complaint arises would help make initial investigations more efficient (instead of investigators resorting to LinkedIn for their research). 

JORC Committee membership 

Current membership qualification requires a relevant tertiary degree and referrals. As such, the Committee is exploring changes to how prospective members are vetted, assessed and approved. 

Who is responsible for suggesting JORC Code changes, and how are proposals made? 

Initially, the process was to involve a series of face-to-face consultations. However, the global pandemic and subsequent nationwide lockdowns across Australia and New Zealand prevented this from happening. As such, the process pivoted to an online survey system. As a result, the Committee received more than 500 submissions from a combination of individuals, consulting groups and representatives from Australian companies operating worldwide but still referring to JORC as their primary Code of Practice. 

Sub-working groups (each involving at least one or two Committee members) were then formed and tasked with a specific theme emerging from the submissions.

Contact AMC Consultants, your JORC Code expert

Failing to grasp and comply with the JORC Code can mean failing to find investment. 

For smart mining solutions that understand and adhere to the Code now - and into the future - speak to AMC Consultants. With our team members on the Committee frontline, nobody knows this space better than us.