Resource Model Peer Review

The purpose of resource model peer review within Newmont is to ensure that
resource models meet quality standards required to support and deliver on business
plans, operations planning, Mineral Resources and Reserves reporting, and the Investment System. All resource models used for either business planning and/or resource/reserve reporting are required to be peer reviewed.
Resource model peer review is an internal review process intended to enhance
resource model quality and provide assurance that the model meets specified requirements. Peer reviews add value and reduce risk through expert knowledge infusion,
confirmation of approach, identification of deficiencies or flawed assumptions, and
provide specific suggestions for improvement. Identification of deficiencies early in
the modeling process prevents their propagation through later modeling phases and
into downstream mine plans.
A model peer review covers the entire modeling cycle from data selection through
risk analysis. The peer reviewer ensures that an appropriate approach is used; that
assumptions are sound and defendable; that the procedure is reproducible; and that
validation studies support the results.
In most instances, there is a peer reviewer for the geologic model and one for
the resource model. The geologic model is the foundation of, and supports, the subsequent resource model. Newmont’s Resource Modeling Standards and Guidelines
form the basis for all reviews.
The geologic and resource model peer reviewers participate in relevant crossfunctional meetings, conference calls and/or discussions. Formal cross-functional
meetings in the modeling process include:
• The model planning meeting that includes geology, resource modeling, mine engineering, geotechnical, and metallurgy (and if relevant, hydrology and environmental) functions. This meeting must be held and documented prior to starting the
geological modeling process and include all items in the Resource Modeling Planning Meeting Agenda. Meeting documentation will include model purpose, schedule milestones, design criteria of the geological features to be modeled, composite
length, composite method, thresholds for grade shells (if used), all model variables
to be estimated, assigned or calculated, the model block size, selective mining unit
(SMU) size, model dimensions, and details of the final database extraction to be
used for resource estimation.
• Interim review meetings between geology and resource modeling concerning the
data extraction, data QA/QC, geological interpretation and modeling methodology.
• A geological model handover meeting with documentation that includes all the
modeled features, and support for model features volume changes, and their importance to downstream users.
• A resource model handover meeting with documentation.
• A cross-functional review of the model comparison.
• The model risk assessment workshop.
After the hand-off of the respective models, the geologic and resource model peer
reviewers write reports that document their review of the modeling process and ensure that lessons learned during the construction of the respective models are captured in a concise manner, including conclusions and recommendations.
Key Words: Geologic Model, Resource Model, QAQC