PAN-EUROPEAN RESERVES COMMITTEE (PERC)
MINUTES
FIFTH MEETING, WEDNESDAY 10THJANUARY 2007, 2pm
CURZON ROOM, Institute of Materials Minerals and Mining
1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB
Present
Steve Henley, Niall Weatherstone, John Clifford, Euan Worthington, Eddie Bailey, Juan Alvarez, Gordon Riddler, Duncan Campbell, Paul Gribble
Apologies
Ruth Allington, Bill Gaskarth, Dan Germiquet, Kerr Anderson, John Barry and Richard Chase, Ross Gordon
1. Welcome and introductions
Steve Henley welcomed everyone to the meeting, in particular Gordon Riddler.
2. (CODE revision meeting, no guest speaker)
3.Agree the Agenda
The agenda was agreed.
4. Minutes of 4th October meeting / 5. Matters arising
Item 4, a representative from EuroGeoSurveys: JC suggested contacting Patrice Christmann as a possible representative.
Action: JC to email SH with Patrice Christmann’s contact details
Action: SH to contact Patrice Christmann regarding EGS representation
Item 5. JA asked what would happen should a local (NRO) code introduce a feature that CRIRSCO did not agree with.
NW replied that it would not be included as the CRIRSCO template reflects international, not local, reporting. A comment by CRIRSCO might be relevant and welcomed debate on such issues with and between NROs.
GR added that CRIRSCO co-ordinates codes and has no mandate to dictate local needs. Additionally, CRIRSCO does not need to react to every local code change; rather achieve commonality in the principal areas of reporting.
Item 8, AIM. The revised draft relating to reserves and resources is still not available.
Action: EW to call Ray Knowles for update on status of draft revision
6. Administrative matters
a)Election of permanent Chairman of PERC
The committee again discussed the role of the Chairman. In the longer term a person representing Europe would be preferred to move away from the UK/Ireland “club”. Representation of eastern Europe was needed and it was agreed that this should be an aspiration. A revolving Chairman was suggested, but this was not agreed as continuity, credibility and knowledge were seen as a requirement. It was felt that the Chairman should be located reasonably close to London as the link with the regulators was a prime raison d’etre for PERC.
NW recommended that terms of reference and scope needed to be set up for PERC before structures.
NW and JC proposed that the Chairman be transitional whilst promotion in Europe continued.
On this basis SH was willing to continue as Chairman until the end of 2007.
The committee agreed that a plan for PERC for 2007 should be made so that progress and achievements could be mapped.
It was agreed that aims for 2007 should be:
1)Completion of the PERC 2007 Code and acceptance, at least in principle, by UKLA and AIM.
2)Completion of “translation/harmonisation” of Russian reserves project.
3)Development of business plan and PERC structure; procedure for selection of chairman, committee and etc.
NW noted that natural resources are a large part of UKLA business and it was important that the old code be replaced.
Action: GR to establish new contact for UKLA following Bill’s (who please?) departure.
b)Election of permanent Secretary of PERC
A two year transitional period was suggested. JC felt that a complete change at the end of 2007 was undesirable. PG to continue in this role.
c)New CRIRSCO representative from PERC
With the retirement of GR a new PERC representative is needed. NW has taken over the Chair of CRIRSCO with the departure of Pat Stephenson.
NW: CRIRSCO has two members per constituency/region to allow for sharing of workload and responsibility. It was important to remember that this work is voluntary. Ideally there should be two for the UK and two for Europe. Currently NW and JC are the representatives for these two constituencies respectively. Once again, when a funding mechanism for CRIRSCO had been finalised, structure could be put in place. Currently, constituencies do not vote but work on majority acceptance.
GR agreed that at least one more UK representative was needed since as chairman NW could not be an independent representative. A relationship with London was also important in the general perspective of the UK mining scene, including industrial minerals, with which PERC has wide representation.
NW: A balanced view was needed to avoid bias towards major mining companies. The current bias towards technical disciplines also needed to be considered. CRIRSCO would benefit from the membership of someone with e.g. accounting/IFRS experience to deal with SEC and business aspects. It was important that CRIRSCO were not just custodians of the Code but could be seen by industry as being able to discuss and potentially change or act.
NW requested names from the financial community who might be prepared to become a CRIRSCO representative. Membership of PERC would automatically follow. The following names were suggested:
Mike Jones
Tim Williams
Chris Hall
Gerard Keesby-Green
(corrections of (phonetic only) spelling given above and affiliations please)
d)Committee membership – update
(EGS representation etc)
SH reported that this was ongoing but there was no progress to describe.
e)Funding (CRIRSCO & PERC)
NW reported that CRIRSCO’s application to the ICMM for Task Force status and associated funding would be resolved at a meeting in Tokyo on 15th January. While previous presentations to the ICMM were well received there remains a level of doubt among ICMM members on the value of the proposed association.
CRIRSCO has marshalled strong support for its proposals from major mining companies, to CEO level, and it is hoped that this will enable the proposal to be accepted in Tokyo.
SH reported that DG was continuing with representation for PERC funding. JC added that he was not encouraged by his experience, but suggested that the planned workshop might target the accession countries that would lead to funding. SH suggested that research into extension of the PERC Code into the accession countries might prove a source of funding and widen the PERC remit. A budget needs to be established so that any request for funding is realistic.
Action: ALL – submit average attendance costs to SH as a starting point. Costs should include physical costs of travel plus opportunity cost to sponsoring company.
f)Russian sub committee - update
SH reported that the sub committee was in place with Sigmund Jacubiak (spelling please) making a good contribution. Progress was otherwise slow with Mike Armitage (MA) unable to make a significant contribution to date. It was suggested that MA might hand over his responsibilities to Kirill (details, spelling please) as the process needs to be driven forward. Kirill is well known and supported by SH and other members of the committee.
The work of the sub committee is in translation/comparison of the Russian Code with the CRIRSCO template, not convergence of codes. The principal aims of the sub committee are:
(i) Establishment of Competent Persons
(ii) Establishing the reasoning behind the Russian definitions with a view to comparison and translation.
The GKZ are “on board” and keen to progress.
The committee approved the work that was being carried out and agreed that it should be moved forward.
Action: None recorded.
On a similar note NW reported that a similar CRIRSCO/JORC initiative had recently commenced with the Chinese under the direction of Peter Stoker. It was hoped that this work could be co-ordinated with the work with the Russians and lessons learned.
Action: NW to contact Peter Stoker to co-ordinate activities and working methods.
7. Current Issues
a) EFG workshopb) SGA meeting Dublin 2007– update
JC described the resource and reserve reporting session of the workshop, emphasising that the focus was on geology rather than geostats. Papers are invited, with case histories preferred. Presentations anticipated from John Ashton, Simon Dominy, Steve Kesler (spelling), Ed Sides, NW/PG. DC has submitted a “lessons learned” paper from experiences at Lisheen.
NW/GR suggested members of the financial community, as had been successful at previous meetings, possibly a representative of the CIM, as possible contributors.
JC suggested a one day workshop prior to the SGA meeting to potentially discuss reporting practice from different constituencies e.g. PERC / JORC / 43101.
NW suggested that reporting in London might be considered as an alternative, comparing with other areas, possibly dealing with s404 compliance.
DC recommended the incorporation of the new PERC code as a driver. This was generally discussed and it was felt that August was too early for the code to be complete.
JC emphasised the teaching aspect of the meeting with expected representation from lectures and students.
JC gave notice of a resources and reserves meeting in Arizona in August 2008 that might afford another opportunity for publicity for the PERC code.
c) LSE chapter 19/AIM Guidelines update
See item 4. above.
d) Reporting Code review and update
SH proposed that the time remaining at the meeting was insufficient for substantive discussions. He would therefore assemble the received spreadsheets for comment by all for the next meeting.
Action: SH to circulate merged sheet to all for comment and discussion.
NW recommended that the code update be seen as a challenge: other codes are not perfect; make this code better, demonstrating what it means to list in London. We need to look for interlocking of the code and regulations as we see elsewhere. In this example we need the link to AIM and chapter 19 of the LSX listing. There is a great need to impress upon UKLA that reporting codes have moved on, with all codes now post 1999.
A discussion as to whether a 43-101 style code might be produced; in that this is a statutory instrument, PERC would be a guideline.
The problems of the UN code were briefly discussed.
Action: ALL – complete outstanding contributions to SH by 19th January.
Action: SH distribute merged sheets by month end.
Action: ALL – review and comment on merged sheet by next meeting.
A general timetable of the presentation of an exposure draft of the new code six months after the publishing of the new SAMREC code was agreed, being September/October.
8. Any Other Business
Farewell to Gordon! NW offered tributes to Gordon for his major contribution as “father of CRIRSCO”, expressing great appreciation for all Gordon’s efforts and tenacity in setting up CRIRSCO and the templates and also recognising the great support of Gordon’s wife and family.
SH offered thanks in a similar vein to Gordon, as he was also the “father of PERC”.
Gordon thanked NW and SH, and responded that time inevitably moves on and the family were taking precedence. It was time to move out of the day to day work, and whilst urging that the work was continued, he would always be happy to contribute.
9. Date and Place for next meeting
A provisional date of 28th March at this venue was proposed.