| 4. |
|
Rule 18.03(2) states that "A Mineral Company must:—
...
|
| (2) |
|
establish to the Exchange's satisfaction that it has at least a portfolio of:-
|
| |
(a) |
|
Indicated Resources; or
|
| |
(b) |
|
Contingent Resources,
|
| |
identifiable under a Reporting Standard and substantiated in a Competent Person's Report. This portfolio must be meaningful and of sufficient substance to justify a listing;"
|
|
| 5. |
|
Rule 18.01(3) defines "Reporting Standard" as:
a recognised standard acceptable to the Exchange, including:
| (1) |
|
the JORC Code, NI 43-101, and the SAMREC Code, with regard to mineral Resources and Reserves;
|
| (2) |
|
PRMS with regard to Petroleum Resources and Reserves; and
|
| (3) |
|
CIMVAL, the SAMVAL Code, and the VALMIN Code, with regard to valuations."
|
|
| 6. |
|
Rule 18.29 states that "A Mineral Company must disclose information on mineral Recourses, Reserves and/or exploration results either:
| (1) |
|
under:
(a) the JORC Code;
(b) NI 43-101; or
(c) the SAMREC Code,
as modified by this Chapter; or
|
| (2) |
|
under other codes acceptable to the Exchange as communicated to the market from time to time, provided the Exchange is satisfied that they give a comparable standard of disclosure and sufficient assessment of the underlying assets.
|
| Note: |
|
The Exchange may allow presentation of Reserves under other reporting standards provided reconciliation to a Reporting Standard is provided. A Reporting Standard applied to specific assets must be used consistently."
|
|
| 7. |
|
As to the issue on the acceptance of other reporting standards, paragraph 5.14 of Consultation Paper on New Listing Rules for Mineral Companies published in September 2009 states that: "We propose to recognise Russian and Chinese standards when they are more widely accepted. The current concerns over comparability of these standards with those internationally recognised and a lack of global recognition necessitate a transitional period where reconciliations to JORC-type codes will protect the interests of investors." As set out in paragraph 77 and 81 under Part B of the Consultation Conclusions published in May 2010 (the Consultation Conclusions), the Exchange decided to implement the proposal to request reconciliation to one of the Reporting Standards where information is presented in accordance with Russian or Chinese standards, until such time as they achieve widespread recognition or efforts at convergence between these standards and JORC-type codes are sufficiently advanced.
|
| 8. |
|
Paragraphs 83 under Part B of the Consultation Conclusion further states that "The crucial difference between Chinese or Russian standards and the JORC-type Codes is that the former standards are based on in-situ estimates, while the latter are focused on commercial extractability, taking account of mining dilution and losses. Listing applicants should be cautioned that owing to the difference between Chinese/Russian resource estimates and those estimated under JORC, a resource under Chinese/Russian standards may not be categorized as such under a JORC-type Code. A "Reserve" referred to by a Russian or Chinese estimate is only a Resource under the JORC Code as it does not include economic and technical factors."
|
| 9. |
|
Paragraph 4 under the Executive Summary of Consultation Conclusions elaborated our view on early stage exploration company: "Given the importance of retail investors in the Hong Kong IPO market and the significantly higher investment risks involved in investing in early stage or pure-play exploration companies, we consider it is not appropriate to list early stage exploration companies at this time."
|
| 10. |
|
Paragraph 224 under Part B of Consultation Conclusions further states that "Early stage exploration companies are considered speculative by nature. The requirement for Indicated or Contingent Resources together with a production plan should also ensure that the market is less susceptible to potential abuse."
|
