Ann: Andover Project Update, page-253

@Gmeister

"The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the ‘JORC Code’ or ‘the Code’) sets out minimum standards, recommendations and guidelines for Public Reporting in Australasia of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves."

show me where "mimimum standards" specify the degree of rigour which one must apply or are strict, to use your word.
show me how "recommendations" are directives
show me how "guidelines" are directives

Which of your three posts contains evidence which refutes what I wrote?

First and foremost you must report what has been done transparently and comprehensively.

Secondly as a competent person you should ensure that good work is done.

If you don't do so there are penalties. So you can sign off on reports which not in conformance with JORC or are absolute rubbish and you might get a penalty.

I chose a ridiculous example (string and divining rod) on which you fixated. How about a few real examples...

I know of a recent resource estimate which was based on assays from an assaying method developed in-house. The company has stated that the assaying method doesn't give the correct results but the resource estimate is OK because the method appears to undercall grades. They now have a new "assay" method which they claim discovers grades at least five times higher than conventional assay methods.

Now this latter "assay" method I would argue is not being reported transparently and comprehensively but the resource estimate contains sufficient information to allow one to form a considered opinion and therefore conforms to JORC even if it is rubbish.

I know of another resource estimate based on half a dozen drill holes and a few surfaces samples. None of the drill holes reported grades higher than the average grade of the resource. None of the intercept lengths supported the resource widths implied by the tonnages and long-sectional wireframe areas. Widths implied were up to twenty times intercept true widths.

How many exploration results ASX releases do you read where cross-sections of the holes drilled are not included despite that being expressly directed by JORC? It is common to publish only those wonderful long sections which give you little if any idea of resource shape and orientation. For those who wish to be more opaque publish a long section showing contoured length-weighted grades. The CP is supposed to ensure that cross-sections are included. If the company doesn't want to publish cross-sections then the CP shouldn't sign off.

How many exploration results ASX releases do you read where true widths are not published despite the resource being sufficiently understood or where headlines trumpet long intercepts of reasonable grade which are actually short intercepts of high grade and the balance just fluff? JORC is explicit about such things.

I know of a company which published cross-sections giving a new and fanciful interpretation to what was a simple steeply-dipping vein. The interpretation was only achievable by the omission of a number of drill holes, none of which carried any grade, and the incorrect positioning of the holes which were used. When challenged the company's response was that the sections were only schematic.

I read a few releases from a company about the prospectivity of their claims...looked like BS to me. I checked out the CP and found him to be an inexperienced coal geologist (his linked-in profile was detailed) signing off on base metal stuff. I made comment on Hot Copper about this situation and within half an hour his linked-in CV had changed. Next he was on HC trolling me. The JORC guys finally told him he'd been a naughty boy.

The complaints processes are there in the ASX, ASIC and JORC but the processes are opaque and once your complaint has been lodged you are no longer part of the process. You get a final email telling you of the outcome but you've no idea of what went on, if anything, in the background.