NZSX/ NZDX Listing Rules APPENDIX 1 Part A (Rules 10.4.2 ... - NZX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE 2004 AUSTRALASIAN CODE FOR REPORTING EXPLORATION RESULTS, MINERAL RESOURCES AND ORE RESERVES (THE JORC CODE) Criteria Data aggregation methods. Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths. Diagrams. Balanced reporting. Other substantive exploration data. Further work. Explanation Reporting of Exploration Results (criteria listed in the preceding group apply also to this group) • 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. ‘downhole length, true width not known’). • Where possible, maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any material discovery being reported if such diagrams significantly clarify the report. • Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practised 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). Database integrity. Geological interpretation. Dimensions. Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources (criteria listed in the first group, and where relevant in the second group, apply also to this group) Estimation and modelling techniques. • 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. • 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, maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. • 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 (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). Note: Code is in normal typeface, guidelines are in indented italics, definitions are in bold. ~ 16 ~
THE 2004 AUSTRALASIAN CODE FOR REPORTING EXPLORATION RESULTS, MINERAL RESOURCES AND ORE RESERVES (THE JORC CODE) Moisture. Criteria Cut-off parameters. Mining factors or assumptions. Metallurgical factors or assumptions. Bulk density. Classification. Audits or reviews. Discussion of relative accuracy/confidence. Explanation • 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. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole 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 may not always be possible to make assumptions regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources. Where no assumptions have been made, this should be reported. • The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It may not always be possible to make assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters when reporting Mineral Resources. Where no assumptions have been made, this should be reported. • 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 representativeness of the samples. • The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors. i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade computations, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data. • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person(s)’ view of the deposit. • The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. • Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and/or confidence 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 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 or volumes, 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. Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves (criteria listed in the first group, and where relevant in other preceding groups, apply also to this group) Mineral Resource estimate for conversion to Ore Reserves. Study status. Cut-off parameters. • 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. • The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to Ore Reserves. • The Code does not require that a final feasibility study has been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves, but it does require that appropriate studies will have been carried that will have determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that all Modifying Factors have been considered. • The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. Note: Code is in normal typeface, guidelines are in indented italics, definitions are in bold. ~ 17 ~
Page 1 and 2: NZSX/ NZDX Listing Rules APPENDIX 1
Page 3 and 4: (iv) The results of segments that a
Page 5 and 6: (i) (ii) Name of the associate or j
Page 7 and 8: aggregate share of profits (losses)
Page 9 and 10: Net profit (loss) attributable to s
Page 11 and 12: 5 APPENDIX 5 PROVISIONS OF RULES EX
Page 13 and 14: !""#$%&'()(*($+,'(-./0.12(3456/ $70
Page 15 and 16: 7 APPENDIX 10 PROVISIONS FOR UNIT T
Page 17 and 18: 5. NON-CASH FINANCING AND INVESTING
Page 19 and 20: NOTES [Not to be faxed to NZX] [The
Page 21 and 22: THE 2004 AUSTRALASIAN CODE FOR REPO
Page 35: THE 2004 AUSTRALASIAN CODE FOR REPO
Page 41 and 42: APPENDIX 13 REQUIREMENT FOR THE LIS
Page 43 and 44: expectation that the instrument or,
Page 45 and 46: APPENDIX 14 RULES NOT APPLICABLE TO
Page 47 and 48: and (f) compliance with any other a
Page 49 and 50: 3.7 The Issuer should establish a r
Page 51 and 52: APPENDIX 17 PROVISIONS OF RULES EXC
Page 53 and 54: 6.2.2 Appraisal Reports This rules
Page 55: 8.3 Modification of Rights of Secur

NZSX/ NZDX Listing Rules APPENDIX 1 Part A (Rules 10.4.2 ... - NZX

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?