JORC Competent Person — Study Guide

JORC Competent Person — Study Guide

Designation: Competent Person (under the JORC Code) Defined by: The JORC Code (2012 Edition) — Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves; prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (AusIMM, AIG, Minerals Council of Australia) Jurisdiction: Australia and New Zealand (mandatory under ASX Listing Rules Appendix 5A and NZX rules); CRIRSCO-family equivalents accepted globally Level: Professional designation with listing-rule force (statutory-equivalent) Prerequisites: Member or Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG), or a Recognised Professional Organisation (RPO); minimum 5 years of experience relevant to the style of mineralisation or type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken; subject to an enforceable disciplinary process. Renewal: No fixed renewal — Competent Person status is assessed per disclosure, conditional on current membership in good standing and on meeting Clause 11's relevance test for that specific project and activity.

Why this designation matters

The JORC Code is the world's most widely imitated mineral-reporting code — the template from which the CRIRSCO family (NI 43-101, S-K 1300, PERC, and others) descends. On the ASX, no public report of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, or Ore Reserves may be issued unless it is based on, and fairly reflects, information compiled by a Competent Person who has given prior written consent to the form and context of the disclosure. The Competent Person is personally, professionally accountable for the technical content — the Code's ethics clause (Clause 11) makes integrity and competence, not just membership, the test.

Pathway

1. Join AusIMM or AIG (or an RPO). Membership with an enforceable code of ethics is the foundation. (Note: SME Registered Member is not a JORC RPO — a US-based professional wanting JORC Competent Person status typically joins AusIMM as an international member.)
2. Accumulate relevant experience. 5+ years relevant to the style of mineralisation and the activity. Relevant means: an open-pit gold geostatistician cannot automatically be the Competent Person for an underground narrow-vein resource, and a resource geologist cannot automatically sign off on metallurgical modifying factors.
3. Act as Competent Person. For each public report: compile or supervise the technical information, ensure Table 1 disclosure ("if not, why not"), and give prior written consent to the exact form and context of the public report.
4. Maintain standing. Membership, CPD, and an unblemished disciplinary record — the status evaporates with the membership.

Knowledge domains

Domain 1 — Clause 11: the Competent Person definition

The heart of the Code. Three cumulative requirements: (a) membership of AusIMM/AIG/RPO with enforceable disciplinary processes; (b) minimum five years experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and the activity undertaken; (c) the overarching professional obligation — a Competent Person must be able to face their peers and demonstrate competence in the commodity, deposit type, and situation. The Code explicitly contemplates team efforts: different Competent Persons take responsibility for different parts (geology, resources, reserves), each consenting to their section.

Domain 2 — Table 1: "if not, why not"

JORC Table 1 is a checklist of disclosure criteria across five sections: sampling techniques and data, reporting of exploration results, estimation and reporting of mineral resources, estimation and reporting of ore reserves. For each criterion the public report must comment — or explain why not. This is the Code's genius and its burden: boilerplate Table 1 appendices that say "not applicable" without explanation are the single most common ASX compliance failure. A Competent Person treats every "why not" as a professional judgment requiring a sentence of reasoning.

Domain 3 — Exploration Results (Clauses 16–19)

Exploration Results are not resources — the Code forbids presenting drill intercepts in a way that implies economic significance (no "ore-grade" language, no selective highlighting without balanced reporting of all material results). True widths vs down-hole lengths must be distinguished. The Competent Person ensures intercepts are reported with all material information: location, spacing, orientation relative to mineralisation, sampling method, and assay QA/QC.

Domain 4 — Mineral Resources (Clauses 20–32)

Reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE) is the gate: a resource must have a credible path to economics, demonstrated via cut-off grades, conceptual mining parameters, or analogues — not merely anomalous geochemistry. Classification (Inferred/Indicated/Measured) reflects geological confidence; Inferred resources carry prescribed cautionary language and cannot underpin ore reserves. Rounding: report to appropriate significant figures — "1,234,567 tonnes at 1.234 g/t" from wide-spaced drilling is a compliance red flag.

Domain 5 — Ore Reserves (Clauses 29–36)

Reserves derive only from Measured and Indicated resources via a pre-feasibility or feasibility-level study applying the modifying factors. Probable reserves come from Indicated (and in limited circumstances Measured); Proved from Measured. The Code requires disclosure of the study level, the modifying-factor assumptions (costs, prices, recoveries, permits, social licence), and — critically — that the reserve is economically mineable at the time of reporting. Metal-price decks must be disclosed or their basis stated.

Domain 6 — Consent and liability (Clauses 8–9)

Prior written consent to the form and context of the public report. The Competent Person reviews the actual announcement — not just the technical appendix — because selective quotation by the company is the failure mode. ASX Guidance Note 31 sets out the exchange's expectations; breaches lead to price queries, trading halts, and referral to ASIC. The Competent Person's professional reputation is the collateral.

Worked examples

Example 1 — Relevance test. Geologist with 8 years in WA gold — 6 in open-pit oxide/supergene, 2 in underground. Asked to be Competent Person for an underground narrow-vein high-grade gold resource. Assessment: the style of mineralisation (orogenic gold) is relevant, but the activity (underground narrow-vein resource estimation with its specific geostatistical and mining-selectivity challenges) is only partly covered by 2 years. Defensible answer: act as Competent Person for the geological interpretation and exploration results, with a second Competent Person (underground resource specialist) taking the resource estimate — or decline until experience is sufficient. Clause 11's peer test: "could I defend this estimation methodology to a room of resource geologists?"

Example 2 — Table 1 "if not, why not". A company reports a maiden resource from historic drilling with no QA/QC data. The Table 1 entry cannot say "no QA/QC available" and stop — it must explain what the Competent Person did about it (twin holes, umpire assays, database validation) and why the data is nevertheless considered reliable enough for the stated classification (likely Inferred only). Silence is non-compliance.

Example 3 — RPEEE check. A deep (800 m) low-grade copper intercept is modeled as an inferred resource with no conceptual mining study. The Competent Person must demonstrate reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction: at 800 m depth, that means block-cave parameters — drawpoint spacing, caveability, capital intensity — or an analogue operation. Without it, the material is an exploration result, not a resource.

Example 4 — Consent in practice. The company's draft ASX announcement quotes the resource table but omits the Competent Person's cautionary paragraph on metallurgical testwork being preliminary. The Competent Person withholds consent until the paragraph is restored in full context. This is the job — consent is leverage for technical integrity.

Example 5 — Classification judgment. Porphyry copper, 100 m drill spacing, strong variography (range 150 m), 10% QA/QC, bulk density measured on 500 samples. Indicated is defensible (spacing within range, good data quality); Measured would require infill to ~50 m or production reconciliation. The Competent Person documents the reasoning in the report — classification is judgment with evidence, never a spacing formula alone.

Standards/regulations cross-reference

• JORC Code (2012) — the operative code; read Clauses 8–11, 16–36, and Table 1 in full.
• ASX Listing Rules Chapter 5 / Appendix 5A — the listing-rule force behind the Code.
• ASX Guidance Note 31 — the exchange's interpretation (what triggers a price query).
• VALMIN Code — for technical assessments and valuations (the companion code when the report feeds a valuation).
• CRIRSCO International Reporting Template — the family resemblance to NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.
• AusIMM/AIG Codes of Ethics — the enforceable disciplinary backbone.

Pitfalls and trap patterns

1. "Competent Person" ≠ any AusIMM member. Membership alone is insufficient — Clause 11's relevance test is per-project and per-activity.
2. Consent to form and context, not just content. Reviewing the technical memo but not the announcement is the classic failure.
3. Exploration Results dressed as resources. "10 m at 5 g/t Au" with no widths context, no balanced reporting, no QA/QC — the Code's most enforced prohibition.
4. Inferred resources in reserve statements. Never. Inferred converts to nothing; only Indicated/Measured feed the modifying-factor analysis.
5. Stale consent. Consent given for a draft does not cover a materially altered announcement — re-consent is required.

Practice problems

1. State the three cumulative Clause 11 requirements.
2. A company announces "maiden JORC resource" based entirely on historic 1970s drilling with no QA/QC and no site visit by the Competent Person. Identify the compliance issues.
3. When may an Inferred resource be included in a mine plan disclosed to the market, and what language is required?
4. A Competent Person consents to the resource table but the announcement's headline reads "Company confirms 2 Moz high-grade gold mine." What's wrong, and what should the CP do?
5. Compare the JORC Competent Person with the NI 43-101 QP on: (a) who defines them, (b) personal inspection, (c) consent mechanics.

Answers

1. (a) Member/Fellow of AusIMM, AIG, or an RPO subject to enforceable disciplinary processes; (b) minimum 5 years experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and the activity undertaken; (c) the professional peer test — demonstrable competence and integrity in the specific situation.
2. (a) No QA/QC → Table 1 "if not, why not" must explain verification work; without verification the classification is unsupportable. (b) No personal inspection — while JORC doesn't use NI 43-101's inspection language, the CP must have sufficient familiarity with the project; signing off unseen historic data with no verification fails the competence test.
3. Inferred resources may be included in a scoping-level assessment only, with explicit cautionary language that they are geologically speculative and there is no certainty the outcome will be realized; they cannot support ore reserves or a feasibility study.
4. "Confirms" and "mine" imply reserves/economic certainty the resource statement doesn't support — the headline misrepresents the CP's work. The CP must withhold or withdraw consent until the announcement fairly reflects the technical content.
5. (a) QP: defined by securities statute (NI 43-101); CP: defined by industry code given force through listing rules. (b) NI 43-101 mandates personal inspection with limited exceptions; JORC requires the CP to be sufficiently familiar but states it as professional judgment rather than a prescriptive inspection rule. (c) Both require consent to disclosure; JORC's "prior written consent to form and context" is the more explicitly articulated mechanism, while NI 43-101 requires QP approval of disclosure plus filed consents for technical reports.

Original ETS reference writing, verified against public sources on 2026-09-30. Thin sourcing is flagged inline. Not legal advice — confirm current editions with the issuing body.