JORC Code, 2012 Edition Table 1 Report Template

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
Criteria
Sampling
techniques

Drilling
techniques

Drill sample
recovery

Logging

JORC Code explanation

Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or
specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate
to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma
sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should
not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.
Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity
and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems
used.
Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the
Public Report.
In cases where industry standard work has been done this would be
relatively simple (eg reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1
m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge
for fire assay). In other cases more explanation may be required,
such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling
problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg
submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air
blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple
or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other
type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).
Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries
and results assessed.
Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure
representative nature of the samples.
Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade
and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential
loss/gain of fine/coarse material.
Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and
geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate
Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical
studies.
Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or
costean, channel, etc) photography.

Commentary
Insert your commentary here

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.
Sub-sampling If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core
techniques
taken.
and sample
If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and
preparation
whether sampled wet or dry.
For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the
sample preparation technique.
Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to
maximise representivity of samples.
Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the
in situ material collected, including for instance results for field
duplicate/second-half sampling.
Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the
material being sampled.
Quality of
The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and
assay data
laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered
and
partial or total.
laboratory
For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments,
tests
etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including
instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors
applied and their derivation, etc.
Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks,
duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels
of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.
Verification of The verification of significant intersections by either independent or
sampling and
alternative company personnel.
assaying
The use of twinned holes.
Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data
verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
Location of
Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and
data points
down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations
used in Mineral Resource estimation.
Specification of the grid system used.
Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Data spacing Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.
and
Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the
distribution
degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and

Commentary

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

classifications applied.
Whether sample compositing has been applied.
Orientation of Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of
data in
possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering
relation to
the deposit type.
geological
If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation
structure
of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a
sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample
The measures taken to ensure sample security.
security
Audits or
The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.
reviews

Commentary

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Mineral
Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including
tenement and
agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint
land tenure
ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,
status
historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental
settings.
The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any
known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Exploration
Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.
done by other
parties
Geology
Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.
Drill hole
A summary of all information material to the understanding of the
Information
exploration results including a tabulation of the following information
for all Material drill holes:
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level elevation above sea level in
metres) of the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of the hole
o down hole length and interception depth
o hole length.
If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the
information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from

Commentary
Insert your commentary here

Criteria

Data
aggregation
methods

Relationship
between
mineralisatio
n widths and
intercept
lengths
Diagrams

Balanced
reporting

Other
substantive
exploration
data

Further work

JORC Code explanation

the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
explain why this is the case.
In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,
maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high
grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.
Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade
results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used
for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of
such aggregations should be shown in detail.
The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values
should be clearly stated.
These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of
Exploration Results.
If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole
angle is known, its nature should be reported.
If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there
should be a clear statement to this effect (eg down hole length, true
width not known).
Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of
intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being
reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of
drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.
Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not
practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades
and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
Exploration Results.
Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported
including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical
survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples size and
method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,
groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential
deleterious or contaminating substances.
The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral
extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,
including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,
provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

Commentary

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)
Criteria
Database
integrity

Site visits

Geological
interpretation

Dimensions

Estimation
and
modelling
techniques

JORC Code explanation

Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for
example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection
and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
Data validation procedures used.
Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and
the outcome of those visits.
If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.
Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological
interpretation of the mineral deposit.
Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource
estimation.
The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource
estimation.
The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.
The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as
length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below
surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.
The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)
applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade
values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance
of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation
method was chosen include a description of computer software and
parameters used.
The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine
production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes
appropriate account of such data.
The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.
Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of
economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage
characterisation).
In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to
the average sample spacing and the search employed.
Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.
Any assumptions about correlation between variables.

Commentary
Insert your commentary here

Criteria

Moisture
Cut-off
parameters
Mining
factors or
assumptions

Metallurgical
factors or
assumptions

Environmental factors or
assumptions

Bulk density

JORC Code explanation

Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control
the resource estimates.
Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.
The process of validation, the checking process used, the
comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation
data if available.
Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural
moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.
The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters
applied.
Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum
mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining
dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider
potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding
mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources
may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be
reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions
made.
The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical
amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of
determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction
to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions
regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made
when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.
Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of
the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.
Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue
disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of
determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction
to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and
processing operation. While at this stage the determination of
potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project,
may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of
these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where
these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with
an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.
Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the
assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the
frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and

Commentary

Criteria

Classification

Audits or
reviews
Discussion of
relative
accuracy/
confidence

JORC Code explanation

representativeness of the samples.
The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by
methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity,
etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones
within the deposit.
Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the
evaluation process of the different materials.
The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying
confidence categories.
Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors
(ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of
input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values,
quality, quantity and distribution of the data).
Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Persons
view of the deposit.
The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.

Commentary

Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and

confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach

or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For
example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to
quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated
confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate,
a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative
accuracy and confidence of the estimate.
The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local
estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be
relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
include assumptions made and the procedures used.
These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate
should be compared with production data, where available.

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section.)
Criteria
Mineral
Resource
estimate for
conversion to

JORC Code explanation

Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the
conversion to an Ore Reserve.
Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported
additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.

Commentary
Insert your commentary here

Criteria
Ore
Reserves
Site visits

JORC Code explanation

Study status

Cut-off
parameters
Mining
factors or
assumptions

Metallurgical
factors or
assumptions

Commentary

Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and

the outcome of those visits.
If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.
The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources
to be converted to OreReserves.
The Code requires that a study to at least Pre-Feasibility Study level
has been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves.
Such studies will have been carried out and will have determined a
mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and
that material Modifying Factors have been considered.
The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.

The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility

or Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore
Reserve (i.e. either by application of appropriate factors by
optimisation or by preliminary or detailed design).
The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining
method(s) and other mining parameters including associated design
issues such as pre-strip, access, etc.
The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (eg pit
slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling.
The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for
pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate).
The mining dilution factors used.
The mining recovery factors used.
Any minimum mining widths used.
The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in
mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion.
The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.
The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that

process to the style of mineralisation.

Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel
in nature.
The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work
undertaken, the nature of the metallurgical domaining applied and the
corresponding metallurgical recovery factors applied.
Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements.

Criteria

Environmental

Infrastructure

Costs

Revenue
factors

Market
assessment

JORC Code explanation

The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the
degree to which such samples are considered representative of the
orebody as a whole.
For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve
estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the
specifications?
The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining
and processing operation. Details of waste rock characterisation and
the consideration of potential sites, status of design options
considered and, where applicable, the status of approvals for process
residue storage and waste dumps should be reported.
The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for
plant development, power, water, transportation (particularly for bulk
commodities), labour, accommodation; or the ease with which the
infrastructure can be provided, or accessed.
The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital
costs in the study.
The methodology used to estimate operating costs.
Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements.
The source of exchange rates used in the study.
Derivation of transportation charges.
The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges,
penalties for failure to meet specification, etc.
The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and
private.
The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors
including head grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange rates,
transportation and treatment charges, penalties, net smelter returns,
etc.
The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s),
for the principal metals, minerals and co-products.
The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity,
consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand
into the future.
A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of
likely market windows for the product.
Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts.
For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and
acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.

Commentary

Criteria
Economic

Social
Other

Classification

Audits or
reviews
Discussion of
relative
accuracy/
confidence

JORC Code explanation

The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value
(NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic
inputs including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc.
NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant
assumptions and inputs.
The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading
to social licence to operate.
To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project
and/or on the estimation and classification of the Ore Reserves:
Any identified material naturally occurring risks.
The status of material legal agreements and marketing
arrangements.
The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the
viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and
government and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable
grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be
received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or
Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss the materiality of any
unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party on which
extraction of the reserve is contingent.
The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying
confidence categories.
Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Persons
view of the deposit.
The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived
from Measured Mineral Resources (if any).
The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.

Commentary

Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and

confidence level in the Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or

procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For
example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to
quantify the relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confidence
limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative
discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy and
confidence of the estimate.
The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local
estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be
relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
include assumptions made and the procedures used.

10

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific
discussions of any applied Modifying Factors that may have a
material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which there are
remaining areas of uncertainty at the current study stage.
It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all
circumstances. These statements of relative accuracy and
confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data,
where available.

Commentary

Section 5 Estimation and Reporting of Diamonds and Other Gemstones

(Criteria listed in other relevant sections also apply to this section. Additional guidelines are available in the Guidelines for the Reporting of Diamond Exploration Results
issued by the Diamond Exploration Best Practices Committee established by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.)
Criteria
Indicator
minerals
Source of
diamonds
Sample
collection

Sample
treatment

Carat
Sample
grade

JORC Code explanation

Reports of indicator minerals, such as chemically/physically
distinctive garnet, ilmenite, chrome spinel and chrome diopside,
should be prepared by a suitably qualified laboratory.
Details of the form, shape, size and colour of the diamonds and the
nature of the source of diamonds (primary or secondary) including
the rock type and geological environment.
Type of sample, whether outcrop, boulders, drill core, reverse
circulation drill cuttings, gravel, stream sediment or soil, and purpose
(eg large diameter drilling to establish stones per unit of volume or
bulk samples to establish stone size distribution).
Sample size, distribution and representivity.
Type of facility, treatment rate, and accreditation.
Sample size reduction. Bottom screen size, top screen size and recrush.
Processes (dense media separation, grease, X-ray, hand-sorting,
etc).
Process efficiency, tailings auditing and granulometry.
Laboratory used, type of process for micro diamonds and
accreditation.
One fifth (0.2) of a gram (often defined as a metric carat or MC).
Sample grade in this section of Table 1 is used in the context of
carats per units of mass, area or volume.
The sample grade above the specified lower cut-off sieve size should
be reported as carats per dry metric tonne and/or carats per 100 dry
metric tonnes. For alluvial deposits, sample grades quoted in carats

11

Commentary
Insert your commentary here

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary
per square metre or carats per cubic metre are acceptable if
accompanied by a volume to weight basis for calculation.
In addition to general requirements to assess volume and density
there is a need to relate stone frequency (stones per cubic metre or
tonne) to stone size (carats per stone) to derive sample grade (carats
per tonne).
Reporting of
Complete set of sieve data using a standard progression of sieve

Exploration
sizes per facies. Bulk sampling results, global sample grade per
Results
facies. Spatial structure analysis and grade distribution. Stone size
and number distribution. Sample head feed and tailings particle
granulometry.
Sample density determination.
Per cent concentrate and undersize per sample.
Sample grade with change in bottom cut-off screen size.
Adjustments made to size distribution for sample plant performance
and performance on a commercial scale.
If appropriate or employed, geostatistical techniques applied to model
stone size, distribution or frequency from size distribution of
exploration diamond samples.
The weight of diamonds may only be omitted from the report when
the diamonds are considered too small to be of commercial
significance. This lower cut-off size should be stated.
Grade
Description of the sample type and the spatial arrangement of drilling
estimation for
or sampling designed for grade estimation.
reporting
The sample crush size and its relationship to that achievable in a
Mineral
commercial treatment plant.
Resources
Total number of diamonds greater than the specified and reported
and Ore
lower cut-off sieve size.
Reserves
Total weight of diamonds greater than the specified and reported
lower cut-off sieve size.
The sample grade above the specified lower cut-off sieve size.
Value
Valuations should not be reported for samples of diamonds

estimation
processed using total liberation method, which is commonly used for
processing exploration samples.
To the extent that such information is not deemed commercially
sensitive, Public Reports should include:
o diamonds quantities by appropriate screen size per facies or
depth.
o details of parcel valued.

12

Criteria

Security and
integrity

Classification

JORC Code explanation

o number of stones, carats, lower size cut-off per facies or depth.
The average $/carat and $/tonne value at the selected bottom cut-off
should be reported in US Dollars. The value per carat is of critical
importance in demonstrating project value.
The basis for the price (eg dealer buying price, dealer selling price,
etc).
An assessment of diamond breakage.
Accredited process audit.
Whether samples were sealed after excavation.
Valuer location, escort, delivery, cleaning losses, reconciliation with
recorded sample carats and number of stones.
Core samples washed prior to treatment for micro diamonds.
Audit samples treated at alternative facility.
Results of tailings checks.
Recovery of tracer monitors used in sampling and treatment.
Geophysical (logged) density and particle density.
Cross validation of sample weights, wet and dry, with hole volume
and density, moisture factor.
In addition to general requirements to assess volume and density
there is a need to relate stone frequency (stones per cubic metre or
tonne) to stone size (carats per stone) to derive grade (carats per
tonne). The elements of uncertainty in these estimates should be
considered, and classification developed accordingly.

13

Commentary