In the chaotic theatre of global mining, where fortunes are built on bedrock and vaporized by missteps, regulation is the backstage manager keeping the performance on script. Enter two formidable characters in the governance of mineral resource reporting: Canada’s NI 43-101 and Australia’s JORC Code. They’re the twin sentinels standing guard over truth in the resource world—but while they have similar goals, their methods are as distinct as maple syrup and Vegemite.
Whether you’re an investor trying to avoid being hoodwinked by overblown gold dreams or a geologist trying to navigate the labyrinth of feasibility studies, understanding these two systems is critical. So, grab your PPE and steel-toed boots—we’re going digging.
Chapter 1: Setting the Stage – The Origins
Let’s start with a bit of mining folklore.
NI 43-101 was born of scandal. In the late 1990s, Bre-X Minerals infamously claimed a gold deposit in Busang, Indonesia, that turned out to be more fictional than a Tolkien map. Billions evaporated. Canadian regulators responded with NI 43-101 in 2001, a rule with a bureaucratic name and a crusader’s mission: protect investors with strict, qualified reporting.
Meanwhile, JORC—short for the Joint Ore Reserves Committee—came into existence in Australia in 1989. Less of a panic button, more of a pre-emptive strike, the JORC Code was created by industry associations in partnership with the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) to standardize mineral reporting in a country where mining is practically a national sport.
Chapter 2: Who’s in Charge?
NI 43-101 is a legal instrument governed by Canadian securities regulators, specifically under the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). It’s enforceable, inflexible, and often unforgiving. If you lie—or even embellish—under NI 43-101, you’re not just out of a job. You might be in court.
JORC, on the other hand, is a professional code. It’s overseen by industry bodies like the AusIMM, AIG, and the Minerals Council of Australia. While it’s binding for ASX-listed companies, it’s enforced through the ASX Listing Rules, not statutory law. The consequence for violations? Think professional embarrassment and regulatory slapdowns, not necessarily a courtroom.
So in brief: NI 43-101 is the sheriff; JORC is the scoutmaster.
Chapter 3: Competent vs. Qualified – Who Gets to Talk?
In mining, not everyone is allowed to speak with authority. Both codes demand experts, but they define them differently.
Under NI 43-101, only a Qualified Person (QP) can sign off on resource estimates and technical disclosures. This person must be a member of a recognized professional body and have at least five years of relevant experience. Most importantly, the QP is personally responsible—by name—for the report’s content.
The JORC Code uses a Competent Person (CP). The experience threshold is similar—five years minimum—but the definition is slightly more relaxed, and the emphasis is on peer recognition within professional societies like AusIMM or AIG.
In essence: QP wears a lab coat and carries liability insurance; CP wears a high-vis vest and carries a reputation.
Chapter 4: Language of Resources – Apples to Apples?
Both frameworks rely on the three-step hierarchy of:
- Inferred Resources
- Indicated Resources
- Measured Resources
…followed by economic classifications of:
- Probable Reserves
- Proven Reserves
So far, so good. But dig deeper and divergences appear.
NI 43-101 does not allow the disclosure of “Preliminary Economic Assessments” (PEAs) as if they were equivalent to Feasibility Studies. There’s a clear firewall between early-stage speculation and real economics.
JORC allows a bit more wiggle room. Terms like “Scoping Study,” “Pre-Feasibility Study,” and “Feasibility Study” are used more fluidly. This offers flexibility, but can sometimes cause confusion when reports are read by investors unfamiliar with the code’s nuances.
Also, under NI 43-101, QPs must explain exactly how they arrived at their conclusions. A JORC report might simply state that “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” exist, without as much required detail.
Chapter 5: The Reports Themselves – Who Wrote This Thing?
Under NI 43-101, all technical reports must follow a rigid format (Form 43-101F1), which includes up to 27 prescribed sections. It’s a bureaucrat’s delight—and sometimes an investor’s nightmare if they don’t have a geology degree. Still, it ensures no corner-cutting.
JORC reports, by contrast, come with a JORC Table 1—essentially a checklist that encourages transparency but offers some latitude in structure. This flexibility makes JORC reports more accessible and sometimes more digestible, but the trade-off is potential inconsistency.
Advantage: NI 43-101 for completeness; JORC for readability.
Chapter 6: Strengths and Weaknesses – Who Wears the Crown?
In a perfect world, these two codes would shake hands, merge their strengths, and ride off into a unified global standard. But until then, miners and investors must know their terrain.
If you’re operating in Canada, you’re in NI 43-101 territory—compliance is not optional.
If you’re listed on the ASX, JORC is your daily bread.
For companies dual-listed or operating globally, most opt to align reports to both, or use CRIRSCO-aligned templates, easing cross-border investor understanding.
Both codes ultimately serve the same goal: to keep mining honest. But while NI 43-101 is the stern schoolteacher with a red pen, JORC is the seasoned mentor nudging you toward best practices. Different styles, same classroom.
And for investors? The lesson is clear: read beyond the headline grades, understand the code behind the curtain, and always—always—check who signed the report.
Footnote: Always consult a technical professional before making investment decisions. Or at least someone who can pronounce “vanadium.”
