The Qualified Person and Competent Person: The People Behind the Reports

Every mineral resource, reserve and feasibility study rests on the judgement of one person whose signature is on the report — the Qualified Person or Competent Person. Understanding who they are, what they certify, and who pays them is essential to knowing how much to trust the numbers.

Mining investment has always occupied an awkward spot for investors. Projects and their deposits are often buried deep underground, years away from production, and heavily dependent on geological interpretation. In other words, it is not something you can see with your own eyes, and is often shrouded in uncertainty.

Unlike a manufacturer, an explorer cannot simply show you last year's revenue or a physical asset like a factory. The investor is instead reliant on technical information — exploration results, mineral resource and reserve estimates, feasibility studies and, for early-stage projects, geophysical and geochemical datasets.

Exploration is an information game, and it is critical that the information is trustworthy. Yet who is responsible for ensuring it is correct? That falls to the Qualified Person or the Competent Person.

1. Who the QP and CP are

Under the JORC Code (Australasian), the Competent Person (CP) is defined as a person with a minimum of five years' experience working with the particular style of mineralisation or type of deposit under consideration, relevant to the activity they are undertaking. The CP must also be a member or fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, or a Recognised Professional Organisation.

Under the NI 43-101 Code (Canadian), the Qualified Person (QP) serves essentially the same role. The QP is defined as an engineer or geoscientist with a relevant degree or equivalent accreditation, five years of industry experience — including experience specific to the relevant mineral project — who is in good standing with a relevant professional association.

The QP/CP is like the "auditor" of the mining industry, although the role extends beyond simply checking compliance. They do not merely "approve" a report; they play an active part in preparing and writing it, applying their own professional judgement to determine whether the geological interpretation and technical conclusions are reasonable. Their signature confirms that they accept professional responsibility for the technical disclosure and believe it represents a reasonable and balanced interpretation of the available evidence, in accordance with the relevant reporting code.

2. Who actually writes the technical report

Many investors assume that because the QP/CP signed the report, they must have written it. In reality, that is almost never the case. A technical report — whether JORC or NI 43-101 — is a highly collaborative document produced by an entire multidisciplinary team, each member contributing the expertise of their own field.

The exact composition depends on the project's stage and complexity, but it usually includes exploration geologists, resource geologists, geostatisticians, mining engineers, metallurgists, environmental specialists, surveyors and other technical experts. Non-technical personnel handle financial modelling, economic analysis, report preparation and document management.

Exploration geologists, for instance, plan drill programs, log drill cores, and interpret structures and mineralisation — providing the very geological foundation of the deposit and the report. Metallurgists estimate metal recovery rates, processing challenges and methods, and determine the viability of extraction. Even a large mineral resource can be of little value if the metal cannot be recovered economically.

The QP or CP reviews and integrates the technical work performed by these professionals, challenges assumptions as necessary, and can request additional analyses if they find the available evidence insufficient. They ensure the conclusions are well supported by the data, and often format the report and write the select sections that require their expertise.

3. Who the QP/CP works for

A common misconception is that the QP/CP is a government inspector or auditor enforcing compliance with official codes. In fact, the QP/CP is either an employee engaged directly by the company or, more commonly, an independent consultant — and they are paid by the company whose project they are assessing.

The obvious question an investor would ask is: isn't this a clear conflict of interest? After all, why wouldn't someone paid by the company be expected to provide a positive assessment?

The reality is that the QP/CP's primary responsibility is to adhere to the relevant reporting codes — not to management. They cannot simply endorse whatever the company wants published. Their signature is a personal declaration that the technical information represents a reasonable and balanced interpretation of the available evidence, and they are personally liable for inaccuracies or the deliberate manipulation of data. If they believe the geological interpretation is unsupported, the resource classification overly optimistic, or the data insufficient, they are professionally expected to require further work — and can simply refuse to sign the relevant sections of the report.

A QP/CP who repeatedly signs poor-quality or misleading reports may face disciplinary action from their professional organisation, significant reputational damage within what is often a relatively small professional community, and potentially even legal consequences if investors suffer losses through their negligence. Good QP/CPs therefore have every incentive to remain objective and protect their professional credibility.

4. What the QP/CP is actually certifying

Perhaps the most important point for investors to understand is what the QP/CP is not certifying.

The QP/CP is responsible only for the technical information that falls within their area of expertise, and is strictly not certifying the work of disciplines outside their competence. This is critical when reviewing technical reports, which also contain figures such as NPV, IRR, capex and opex — generally prepared by financial specialists rather than the geologist responsible for the resource estimate.

A report can have one or more QP/CPs. Larger, more developed projects generally involve several, because separate specialists are required to competently assess each aspect of the project. A geologist may be qualified to evaluate the geological interpretation and resource estimate, but not necessarily the metallurgy. Instead, each section is reviewed and signed by the specialist with the relevant experience, ensuring that every part of the report is certified by someone competent in that particular discipline. Early-stage exploration projects typically require fewer QP/CPs because the technical disclosure is narrower in scope.

A technically sound report with few flaws can still describe a project that fails — even if the deposit is well defined, the mine plan well designed and the metallurgy well tested. Many other factors determine whether a project succeeds, including financing, permitting delays, changes in commodity prices and government policy.

5. How to judge the person behind the report

Not all QP/CPs are made equal. There are minimum competency requirements under the codes, but experience varies considerably between individuals. A careful investor spends as much time understanding the people behind a report as the report itself. Some questions that are always useful to ask:

• What is their background? Are they a geologist, mining engineer, metallurgist or another specialist — and does that align with the section of the report they are responsible for?
• Do they have relevant experience? Someone who is an expert on copper porphyries might not be as appropriate to evaluate a lithium brine project.
• Are they independent? Consider whether any relationships exist that could influence the author's judgement.
• Have they worked on similar projects before, and how many? Experience with comparable deposit styles, jurisdictions and stages of development can provide additional confidence in the quality of the work.

In summary, investors evaluating junior explorers should pay extra attention to the experience and reputation of the QP/CP, as the technical disclosure often forms the very foundation of the investment case.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal or professional advice. Although reasonable care has been taken in preparing it, no warranty is given as to the completeness or accuracy of the information, and readers should rely on their own independent assessment and professional advisers before acting on any information contained herein.