Solutions
The JORC 2012 Table 1 workflow for your situation
The process looks different depending on who is drafting, who is reviewing, and how many projects are running at once. TableOne Flow is a Windows desktop application at launch (macOS and Linux planned). On the Solo tier, your project data stays on your device.
What a Table 1 looks like
Quinn Downs Mining Ltd
ASX: QDM · ASX Announcement
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect — Exploration Results
Table 1 — prepared under the JORC Code, 2012 Edition
Section 1 — Sampling Techniques and Data
Sampling techniques
Diamond drill core was sampled in nominal 1 m intervals, half-core split with a diamond saw, and submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory. Sample representivity was assured through documented protocols and routine insertion of certified reference materials and field duplicates.
Drilling techniques
Diamond core (PQ/HQ/NQ) drilling was used throughout the programme, oriented where structural data was required…
Drill sample recovery
Core recovery was logged for every run and averaged above 95 % across the programme; no relationship was observed between recovery and grade…
Logging, and the remaining Section 1 criteria follow — each addressed, or documented “if not, why not” — ahead of Section 2, Reporting of Exploration Results, and the Competent Person’s Statement.
An excerpt of a finished JORC 2012 Table 1 in publication form — whatever your situation, the same structured output. · Sample data — not a real JORC report.
Section 1
Sampling Techniques and Data
- 1 Sampling techniques Addressed
- 2 Drilling techniques Addressed
- 3 Drill sample recovery Addressed
- 4 Logging Addressed
- 5 Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation Addressed
- 6 Quality of assay data and laboratory tests Addressed
- 7 Verification of sampling and assaying Addressed
- 8 Location of data points Addressed
- 9 Data spacing and distribution Addressed with Explanation
- 10 Orientation of data in relation to geological structure Not yet addressed
- 11 Sample security Not yet addressed
- 12 Audits or reviews Not yet addressed
Whatever the situation, the same structured Table 1: every JORC 2012 criterion tracked to completion before it reaches CP review. · Sample data. · Scroll to see the full width.
Solo Competent Person
You draft, you sign, you own the record. A structured drafting environment where evidence is attached to the criterion it justifies and every version is preserved.
Solo CP →
Contract CP
You sign for clients who don’t have a CP on staff. Each engagement is a separate record — you deliver a structured package to the client and keep your own defensible copy.
Contract CP →
CP & Drafter Team
One CP with geologists and engineers contributing section by section. Criterion assignment, named edits, CP review queue — without the Sunday-night Word document reconciliation.
CP & Drafter Team →
Consulting Practice
Multiple CPs, multiple clients, multiple reports running concurrently. Practice-level portfolio visibility and structured client delivery.
Consulting Practice →
In-house Resource Team
Multiple projects, multiple geologists, one company. A consistent drafting process across every deposit and every report — with a portfolio view and a complete audit trail from first draft to published record.
In-house Resource Team →
Not sure which fits? Register interest and describe your situation — we will point you to the right tier.