JORC Table 1 Checklist for Indonesian Geologists

JORC Table 1 is where good resource reports stand up and weak ones collapse. It’s the structured disclosure framework that forces you to address every part of the data and methodology that an investor needs to see. Most rejection-grade audit findings I’ve seen in the last few years trace back to a Table 1 section that was skipped, hand-waved, or copied from a previous project without checking whether it still applied.

This post is the pre-audit checklist I use on Indonesian projects. It walks through every Table 1 section, what auditors actually look for, the Indonesian-context gotchas (translation, QC convention, density assumptions), and the KCMI 2017 equivalent for each item. Use it as the final review before signing.

For the broader context on JORC vs KCMI alignment, see JORC 2012 vs KCMI 2017.

What Table 1 actually is

JORC 2012 Table 1 is split into four sections:

• Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data
• Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results
• Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
• Section 4: Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Each section has a list of “criteria” and an “explanation” column that you must address. Either you describe what was done, or you state explicitly that the criterion isn’t applicable and why.

KCMI 2017 has equivalent tables (Tabel 1 in Lampiran), with closely matching structure. The criteria are aligned about 95% one-to-one. The differences are mostly around Indonesian-specific permit and disclosure requirements.

The most common Table 1 failure isn’t a wrong answer. It’s a blank cell where the explanation should be. “Not applicable” without a reason is treated as missing information.

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

This is where auditors spend the most time, and where junior teams underestimate the depth of disclosure required.

1.1 Sampling techniques

What auditors look for:

• The sampling protocol per drilling type (DDH, RC, AC, channel)
• Sample size, sample preparation chain, sub-sampling at the lab
• Whether sampling is industry-standard for the deposit style
• Whether changes in protocol mid-project are disclosed

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Old projects often have multiple sampling campaigns spanning a decade. Protocols changed, often without documentation. Auditors will ask “why is the sample interval different in 2008 versus 2018?”
• Translation issues in legacy logs: “channel sample” in old Bahasa logs sometimes refers to chip sampling, sometimes true channel. Verify with the original geologist if possible.
• Free gold deposits in Kalimantan and Sulawesi often have sample sizes that are too small for the grain size. Disclose the Gy fundamental sampling error if you have it. If you don’t, disclose that you don’t.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Teknik pengambilan contoh.”

1.2 Drilling techniques

What auditors look for:

• Drilling type, bit size, recovery method
• Casing protocols, mud or air, water sampling
• Operator and rig type if relevant to recovery quality

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• RC drilling in tropical, deeply weathered profiles can have systematic loss in the regolith. Recovery numbers below 80% in the top 30m are common. Disclose explicitly.
• Diamond drilling contractors in remote IUP areas sometimes use older rigs with different bit specs than the project intended. Verify what was actually drilled, not what was specified.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Teknik pemboran.”

1.3 Drill sample recovery

What auditors look for:

• Recovery percentage per hole, per interval
• Relationship between recovery and grade (low recovery = grade bias?)
• Action taken on low-recovery intervals

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Lateritic Ni profiles in Halmahera and Sulawesi can have recovery issues in the limonite zone where the rock is essentially dust. Disclose the recovery distribution and the cutoff used to exclude low-recovery samples.
• Old logs often report recovery as a single number per drilled run (3m or 6m), not per sampled interval. The translation to per-sample recovery is approximate.

A scatter plot of grade versus recovery, per domain, takes 10 minutes to produce and answers the auditor’s question before they ask it.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Perolehan contoh dari pemboran.”

1.4 Logging

What auditors look for:

• Logging detail (lithology, alteration, mineralization, structure, weathering)
• Whether logging is qualitative, quantitative, or both
• Logger qualifications and supervision
• Logging consistency across the project

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Multi-language logs are real. Older holes might be logged in Bahasa with English summary. The translation between the two often has terminology drift (e.g., “lapuk” mapped to “weathered” but with different sub-categories).
• Lithology code dictionaries that aren’t documented are an audit flag. If the database has 47 unique codes and no one can explain what GR-X-2 means, that’s a finding.
• Alteration logging in porphyry systems is often inconsistent across loggers. Have one geologist re-validate a sample of holes for alteration consistency.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Logging.”

1.5 Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation

What auditors look for:

• Sub-sampling protocol at the lab (riffle splitter, rotary, scoop)
• Crush and pulverize specifications
• Pulp pulverization to industry standard (typically 85% or 90% passing 75 microns)
• Sample preparation contractor and certifications

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Some smaller Indonesian labs still use scoop subsampling (a known biased method). If your project has lab-prep done by a smaller domestic lab, verify the protocol.
• Pulp granulometry checks (the 85% passing 75 micron requirement) are often skipped. Auditors will ask for evidence.
• Reference samples and round-robin testing across multiple labs is rare on smaller Indonesian projects but increasingly expected for bankable studies.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Teknik sub-sampling dan persiapan contoh.”

1.6 Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

What auditors look for:

• Lab certifications (ISO 17025 or equivalent)
• Analytical method per element
• Detection limits
• QA/QC submission rate (blanks, standards, duplicates)
• QA/QC performance results

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• “QC blanks not actually blank” is the single most common Indonesian-project finding I see. Field blanks contaminated during transport, or coarse blanks that aren’t actually below detection. Run the blank performance summary. If the mean of your blanks is above detection limit by more than 2x, you have a contamination problem.
• Standards (CRMs) ordered locally from non-certified suppliers are a flag. Use commercial CRMs from established providers (OREAS, CDN, Geostats).
• Duplicates submitted at the same lab versus a different lab is a design choice that needs disclosing. Inter-lab duplicates are stronger evidence.

QC submission rate target (rule of thumb):
  - Blanks:     5% of samples (1 per ~20 samples)
  - Standards:  5% of samples (1 per ~20 samples)
  - Duplicates: 5% of samples (1 per ~20 samples)
  Total QC overhead: ~15% of samples assayed

Below 10% total QC: hard to defend at audit.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Kualitas data assay dan uji laboratorium.”

1.7 Verification of sampling and assaying

What auditors look for:

• Independent verification of sample IDs, intervals, and assay results
• Whether the CP or another senior geologist physically inspected core/drill samples
• Database verification (re-keying, automated checks)

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Site visits to remote IUP areas are sometimes “documented” with one photo and a date. Auditors will ask for the actual visit log: which holes inspected, which intervals, which findings.
• Re-assay of a subset (typically 5%) at a referee lab is best practice for bankable studies and often skipped on PEA-level work.

KCMI equivalent: Tabel 1 Bagian 1, kriteria “Verifikasi pengambilan contoh dan assay.”

1.8 Location of data points

What auditors look for:

• Survey method for collar (DGPS, total station, handheld GPS)
• Coordinate system disclosure (UTM zone, WGS84 vs local datum)
• Topographic control (DEM source, contour interval)

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Coordinate system errors are surprisingly common. UTM zones around the equator (zones 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 cover Indonesia) get mixed up between project areas. Verify zone explicitly per hole.
• Older projects used local grid systems (project-specific) that didn’t get tied back to UTM properly. Datum transformation errors of 100+ meters happen.
• Bakosurtanal vs WGS84 datum mismatches add up to about 4m horizontally in Sumatra. Not always disclosed.

1.9 Data spacing and distribution

What auditors look for:

• Drillhole spacing per area, per classification category
• Justification of spacing relative to deposit geometry
• Drill program plan diagrams

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Initial exploration drilling on lateritic Ni or sediment-hosted Au often used 100m or 200m spacing that’s too wide for Indicated. The fix isn’t to upgrade the classification; it’s to drill more.

1.10 Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

What auditors look for:

• Drill orientation relative to ore body strike and dip
• Whether drilling biases sampling (e.g., drilling parallel to a vein system)
• Sampling representativeness

1.11 Sample security

What auditors look for:

• Chain of custody from drill rig to lab
• Sample bag sealing, transport documentation, lab receipt confirmation

Indonesian-context gotchas:

• Sample transport across remote areas (Kalimantan to Surabaya, Sulawesi to Jakarta) often involves multiple trans-shipments. Documentation gaps are common. Best practice: sealed bags with serial numbers, photographed at each handover.

1.12 Audits or reviews

What auditors look for:

• Internal audits performed during the project
• External technical reviews
• Findings and resolutions

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

Most Indonesian projects with a Resource statement skip lightly through Section 2 because the focus is on Section 3. That’s fine if Section 1 is solid and the exploration history is short. For projects with a long exploration history, Section 2 needs more detail.

Key items:

• Mineral tenement and land tenure status (IUP/IUPK number, status, expiry, holder)
• Exploration done by other parties on the same tenement (historical reports)
• Geology summary
• Drill hole information (collar coordinates, dip, azimuth, hole length, intercept lengths)
• Data aggregation methods
• Relationship between mineralization widths and intercept lengths
• Diagrams (plan view, sections)
• Balanced reporting (high grades AND low grades, not cherry-picking)
• Other substantive exploration data
• Further work planned

Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

This is where the technical depth lives. The criteria below map closely to the variography, compositing, and top-cut workflows.

Key items and what auditors look for:

• Database integrity: see drillhole validation. Audit logs, exception reports.
• Site visits: CP physically visited site. Date, scope, findings.
• Geological interpretation: domain definitions, alternative interpretations considered.
• Dimensions: deposit extent in three dimensions.
• Estimation and modelling techniques: kriging vs IDW, search parameters, block model dimensions.
• Moisture: wet vs dry tonnage convention.
• Cut-off parameters: economic, technical justification.
• Mining factors or assumptions: even at Resource stage, RPEEE requires a notional mining method.
• Metallurgical factors: notional recovery assumption.
• Environmental factors: notional waste characterization.
• Bulk density: this is a major Indonesian-context gotcha. See below.
• Classification: Measured/Indicated/Inferred criteria with numbers, not adjectives.
• Audits or reviews: any external review of the estimate.
• Discussion of relative accuracy/confidence: quantitative if possible, qualitative at minimum.

Density assumption gotcha

Bulk density is the single most under-disclosed item in many Indonesian Resource statements. The common patterns:

• Single density value per ore type without measurement evidence. “Sulfide = 2.7 t/m³, oxide = 2.3 t/m³” with no measurement data.
• Density measured on dry samples but tonnage reported on a wet basis (or vice versa) without a moisture conversion.
• Lateritic Ni profiles with highly variable density (1.2 to 1.8 t/m³ in limonite, 1.6 to 2.4 t/m³ in saprolite) reported as a single average.

The fix is straightforward: measure density on a representative sample (50+ samples per domain minimum), report the distribution, and use a domain-specific or block-by-block density rather than a global value. Document the measurement method (water displacement, caliper, gamma-gamma).

Section 4: Ore Reserves (when applicable)

For Reserve reporting, all the Resource criteria still apply, plus:

• Mining method and modifying factors
• Metallurgical recovery from test work (not assumption)
• Cut-off grade economics
• Permits actually held (IUP, IUPK, AMDAL, IPPKH if applicable)
• Infrastructure (port, road, power)
• Marketing studies
• Economic assumptions (commodity price, FX, costs)

KCMI requires explicit reference to the IUP holder and IUP/IUPK number for any reported Reserve. This is non-negotiable. Verify with corporate before submission.

The pre-audit checklist

Print this. Use it the week before the report goes out.

Section 1 (Sampling and Data)

• Sampling protocol documented per drilling type
• Drilling techniques disclosed including bit size and recovery method
• Recovery distribution per domain, low-recovery handling documented
• Logging dictionary attached, multi-language consistency verified
• Sub-sampling protocol disclosed per lab
• Lab certifications attached (ISO 17025)
• QA/QC submission rate ≥10% of total samples
• Blank performance: mean below 2x detection limit
• Standards: bias and precision per CRM, within ±10%
• Duplicates: half-relative-difference distribution analyzed
• Coordinate system explicit (UTM zone, datum)
• Drill spacing justified per classification category
• Sample security and chain of custody documented
• Independent verification documented (re-assay subset, site visit log)

Section 3 (Resource Estimation)

• Database validation report attached (see drillhole validation)
• Geological domains defined with section views
• Top-cut decision per domain, three-method comparison documented
• Compositing protocol documented, mean preservation verified
• Variogram parameters per domain (range, sill, nugget, model type, anisotropy)
• Search ellipsoid parameters (orientation, ranges, min/max samples, octant)
• Block model dimensions and sub-blocking strategy
• Bulk density measurement method, sample count, distribution per domain
• Moisture convention (wet/dry) explicit
• Estimation validation: cross-validation, swath plots, visual inspection
• Classification criteria with numerical thresholds (drill spacing, kriging variance)
• Cut-off grade with economic basis
• RPEEE statement
• CP consent letter signed and dated

Indonesian-specific items

• IUP/IUPK number, status, expiry verified
• AMDAL status documented
• Bahasa Indonesia executive summary (for KCMI)
• CPI co-signature obtained (for KCMI submission)
• Domestic lab certifications verified

Where Orebit Geotools fits in

The toolkit phases produce JORC- and KCMI-aligned outputs by design:

• Phase 01 (Drillhole Prep): validation report, QA/QC summary, lithology dictionary, all formatted as Section 1 attachments.
• Phase 02 (Drilling EDA): top-cut analysis per domain (three methods compared), compositing log with mean preservation report, BDL handling documentation.
• Phase 03 (Resource Estimation): variogram parameters table, search ellipsoid disclosure, kriging validation pack (cross-validation + swath plots + global mean check), classification criteria documentation.

Every output is exportable as PDF + CSV. Attach directly to Table 1. The deterministic, reproducible nature of the workflow means an auditor can re-run any step from your inputs and get the same numbers.

See the toolkit → · Buy on Lynk.id → (Bundle IDR 99K, single modules IDR 49K, lifetime access)

Bottom line

Table 1 isn’t bureaucracy. It’s the structured way of saying “here’s everything I did, here’s the evidence, here’s where it fits in the standards.” Done well, it’s the strongest defense against audit findings. Done poorly, it’s the auditor’s roadmap to your weak spots.

The Indonesian context adds specific gotchas around translation, QC blanks, density, and permits. None of them are exotic. All of them are checkable in advance with the right discipline.

Run the checklist. Fix the gaps. Sign with confidence.

Reviewing a Table 1 before submission and want a fresh pair of eyes? Email hello@orebit.id with the section that worries you most. I read everything.