From this AMC presentation:
https://www.ausimm.com.au/content/d..._JORC_Reporting_Session1_M_Berry_P_Stoker.pdf
Clause 51 of the JORC Code, 2012 Edition, introduces a new prohibition on the publication of in situ or ‘in ground’ financial valuations in a Public Report. In situ or ‘in ground’ financial valuations are inconsistent with the requirements of the Code as they do not take account of the Modifying Factors and are incompatible with the Code’s reporting terminology (as set out in Figure 1, and throughout the Code). This new clause is based on information previously included in ASX Companies Update 03/08, also prepared jointly by ASX and JORC.
And from this SRK Presentation:
https://www.srk.com.au/files/pdfs/AusIMM_June_2014_SRK_Consulting.pdf
• JORC Code, 2012. Clause 51 - “…in ground financial valuations must not be reported by companies in relation to Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or deposit sizes.”
Its all about how the ASX interprets the JORC 2012 code, seems that the problem here could be an "implication" of an in-ground value with $$ in it in an announcement of
Exploration Results - nothing wrong with reporting grades of Au Cu or indeed W - its when you put some $$ values on the value of the ore in ground
without modifying factors - i.e. at least a prefeas study showing tonnes, grades, resource model, pit shell designs, extraction processes etc etc - that's what trips you up. Note that there is no law that says you aren't allowed to talk about metal prices, you just aren't allowed to have them as part of some inground valuation which spits out a convenient $$ per tonne figure without reference to all the other prefeas stuff.
So the following is "naughty" according to the JORC 2012 stardards:
“Mt Scheelite has never previously been drilled yet the first two drill holes completed by the Company have produced excellent grades near surface including up to 0.4% Tungsten with gold. With Tungsten prices currently sitting at AUD$ 40,000 per tonne, 0.5% could possibly contain up to AUD$2,000 per tonne of material. These grades have the potential to significantly add to the economics of any shallow surface gold mineralisation and reflect the previously untested prospectivity identified by Ausmex within the Golden Mile and the Mt Freda Complex.”
But this would be fine/allowed.
“Mt Scheelite has never previously been drilled yet the first two drill holes completed by the Company have produced excellent grades near surface including up to 0.4% Tungsten with gold. With Tungsten prices currently sitting at multi-year highs, the inclusion of tungsten values in assembling a future potential JORC compliant gold resource may improve the economics of any future operation if further resource calculations and metallurgical and mining pre-feasibility studies are conducted . These grades have the potential to significantly add to the economics of any shallow surface gold mineralisation and reflect the previously untested prospectivity identified by Ausmex within the Golden Mile and the Mt Freda Complex.”
Please someone pick me up here if I have mis-understood this or not got it totally right....
