1 / 49

RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS

RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS. GAA TALK PERTH, WA MAY 10, 2004. RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS BECOMING INCREASINGLY COMMON. TYPES OF AUDITS Review of Methodology (“Fatal Flaw”) Due Diligence – (“Sign Off”) Endorsement – (“QA-QC”) SUGGESTED STANDARDS IN RED. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY (1).

enoch
Download Presentation

RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS GAA TALK PERTH, WA MAY 10, 2004

  2. RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS BECOMING INCREASINGLY COMMON TYPES OF AUDITS • Review of Methodology (“Fatal Flaw”) • Due Diligence – (“Sign Off”) • Endorsement – (“QA-QC”) SUGGESTED STANDARDS IN RED

  3. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY (1) • 1-2 Days • Site Visit Preferred • Adequacy of Database to Support Resources and Reserves • Identify Risk Areas

  4. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY (2) • Review Geological Controls • Review Selectivity of Mining Operation • Problem: Time or Scope Sometimes Insufficient to Find Fatal Flaw

  5. DUE DILIGENCE (1) • Duration Typically Several Weeks • Review Procedures • Database Check • Implementation Check • Suitable to Support Project Financing, CP, 43-101,10-K and 20-F Reports, etc.

  6. DUE DILIGENCE (2) • Site Visit Mandatory • Field Check Hole Locations (5-10%) • Verify Down-hole Surveys (5%) • Verify Assays (5% Routine, Others That Appear Anomalous) • Data Entry Error Rate < 1%

  7. DUE DILIGENCE (3) • Review Sampling Procedures, Core Recovery, RC Weight Recovery • Check Grade Versus Recovery • Check for Down-hole Contamination • Check Density Determinations (Number, Method)

  8. DUE DILIGENCE (4) • Visit Assay Laboratory, Submit Checks • Review QA-QC • Coarse Rejects (1:20) • Pulp Duplicates (1:20) • Standard Reference Materials (1:20) • Blanks (1:20)

  9. DUE DILIGENCE (5) • Is Sampling and Assaying Protocol Reasonable? • Check for Bias (Ideally < 5%) • Check for Precision • 90% within +/- 20% for Coarse Rejects • 90% within +/-10% for Pulps

  10. DUE DILIGENCE (6) • Logging Suitable, Consistent • Geological Interpretation is Reasonable • Supported by Plans and Sections That Reconcile • Ore Controls Clear • Compare to Similar Deposits

  11. DUE DILIGENCE (7) • Check Choice of Rocktypes for Modeling (Particularly Ore Controls) • Check Grade Distributions • Check Domaining (Get Coefficient of Variation Down, Below 1 if Possible) • Check Compositing (Consider Length versus Geological Variability, Mining Selectivity)

  12. DUE DILIGENCE (8) • Check Frequency Distributions (Histograms) for Outliers • Check Capping or Outlier Restriction: Adjust Risk to 20th Percentile for High-Grade Population

  13. DETERMINATION OF METAL-AT-RISK MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

  14. DETERMINATION OF METAL- AT-RISKRISK ADJUSTMENT

  15. DETERMINATION OF METAL- AT- RISK

  16. DUE DILIGENCE (9) • Check Variography – Have Variograms Been Computed in Down-hole Direction? Has Lag Been Adjusted to Composite Length? • Are Models Consistent in 3 Dimensions? • Do Variogram Domains Reflect Zoning?

  17. DUE DILIGENCE (10) • Check Interpolation Plan – Is There Stationarity of Mean Within Selection Neighborhood? Are Soft, Firm, Hard Boundaries Reasonable? • Is There Overprojection of High-Grade Due to Increased Data Density?

  18. DUE DILIGENCE (11) • Verify Interpolation Program: Composite Selection, Weights • Validate With Simple Model (Nearest Neighbor – Swath Plots • Check Selective Mining Unit Distribution Versus Grades; SMU Consistent with Production Rate?

  19. DUE DILIGENCE (12) • Review Sections and Plans Showing Block and Composite Grades • Assess Risk, Need for Drilling

  20. DUE DILIGENCE (13) • Review Classification of Blocks as Measured, Indicated, Inferred • Measured = +/- 15% with 90% Confidence on Quarterly Basis = Confirm Continuity • Indicated = +/-15% with 90% Confidence on Annual Basis = Assume Continuity

  21. KONIAMBO NICKEL – ORE THICKNESS

  22. EXAMPLE CONDITIONAL SIMULATION

  23. QUARTERLY CONFIDENCE LIMITS

  24. ANNUAL CONFIDENCE LIMITS

  25. DUE DILIGENCE (14) • Check Resource Statements • Check Final Model for Mine Planning: External Dilution Factors Reasonable? • Mining (Ore) Recovery Reasonable?

  26. EXTERNAL DILUTION SIMULATION

  27. DUE DILIGENCE (15) • Geotech/Hydrogeology in Hand to Support Slopes, Stope Design? • Metallurgical Data Representative, Sufficient? • Prices, Costs Reasonable? • Cutoff Grade Reasonable? Assess Risk • Mine Design Refined, Annual Production Schedule? Assess Risk

  28. DUE DILIGENCE (16) • Review Past Production Versus Models Ideally Within 5% (Cu), 10% (Au) • Grade Control to Model – Check Planned Dilution/Ore Loss (Aim for 0%) • Plant to Model – Check Unplanned Dilution/Ore Loss (Within 5-10%) • If You Do Not Measure It, You Cannot Control It!!!!!!!!

  29. DUE DILIGENCE (17) • Review Other Factors: Legal, Environmental Permits, Socioeconomics, Sales Contracts

  30. ENDORSEMENT • Same Procedure as Due Dilligence • Responsible for QA-QC of Entire Data Entry, Resource Modeling, Reserve Conversion • Anticipate Needs of Future Auditors

  31. CONCLUSIONS • Resource and Reserve Modeling is a Serial Process • Even Small Errors (10%) Can Make Big Impact on Profits; Nearly Everything is Potentially Material • ASSUME NOTHING; CHECK EVERTHING • TRUST NO ONE

  32. PARALLELISM TO FINANCIAL AUDITS (1) • Based on Discussions with: • Matthew Hird (Deloitte & Touche) • Jason Burkitt (PricewaterhouseCoopers)

  33. PARALLELISM TO FINANCIAL AUDITS (2) • Financial Audits: Follow the Money • Resource/Reserve Audits: Follow the Metal

  34. PARALLELISM TO FINANCIAL AUDITS (3) • Same General Steps • Planning • Field Work • Check Correctness of Presentation

  35. DIFFERENCES • Financial Audits Rely More on Test of Controls; Procedures are Routine; Are They Followed? • Emphasis on Risk Areas That Could Affect Viability of Business, Incorrect Statement of P/L, Balance Sheet • Analytical Review a Major Tool

  36. DIFFERENCES • Codified Industry Standards for Accounting and Audits • Working Papers Highly Structured • Extensive Internal and External Peer Review

  37. WHERE WE MUST GO • Better Definition of Best Practice • Publication of Audit Standards • Corporate and Regulatory Policies on When Audits Required

  38. SEC/SME RESERVES WORKING GROUP • Commodity Prices (3 year average versus ?) • Definition/Declaration of Resources • Definition of Feasibility Study - Base Case Versus Optimization • Permitting Requirements • Competent Person

  39. JORC CODE VERSUS CIM 43-101 AND SEC • JORC Code is a Minimum Standard • Contains Loopholes or Loosely Interpreted - Geological and/or Grade Continuity - Inferred Resources Given Positive Value to Support Pit Designs Used to Declare Reserves • Measured Resources Much More Restrictive in Canada, not Used Much in USA • SEC More Active, Strict than In Past but Selective Enforcement • Regulatory Pressure to Upgrade Standards

  40. CHALLENGES • Fast-track Drilling and Resource Modelling • Increasing Optimization in Engineering • Declining Cutoffs Increase Risk of Failure • Pigrooting in Sparsely Drilled High-Grade Areas • Narrow Cuts to Minimise Stripping • GPS Controlled Mining, Robotics

  41. MEETING THE CHALLENGES • Increased Education and Training • Take Back R+D from Vendors • Conditional Simulation to Become Routine Tool • Increased Drilling Density to Support Design • More Focus on Reconciliation and Improvement • Standards, Professionalism and Audits

More Related