7 January 2009
Dear Colleagues,
Having reviewed the current status of the UNFC draft, I would like to add my support to the criticisms of the Explanatory Notes paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 raised by CRIRSCO in their 12 December 2008 commentary.
Whilst the current draft is without doubt an improvement over earlier versions, in my professional opinion it will be extremely difficult to achieve any sort of enthusiastic reception of the UNFC by most of the private-sector companies involved in the extractive industries. As it is now, there are repeated problems in ensuring that the already-established professional vocabularies are employed by these companies in documents such as their statements to shareholders. UNFC, with its added complexities, will inter alia create further headaches for regulatory agencies.
None of the above is news. In closing, I do feel that the systematic avoidance of the word "reserves" is idiosyncratic and should be reconsidered.
Cordially,
William G Prast, PhD
Member, UNECE Ad Hoc Group of Experts
Dear Colleagues,
Having reviewed the current status of the UNFC draft, I would like to add my support to the criticisms of the Explanatory Notes paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 raised by CRIRSCO in their 12 December 2008 commentary.
Whilst the current draft is without doubt an improvement over earlier versions, in my professional opinion it will be extremely difficult to achieve any sort of enthusiastic reception of the UNFC by most of the private-sector companies involved in the extractive industries. As it is now, there are repeated problems in ensuring that the already-established professional vocabularies are employed by these companies in documents such as their statements to shareholders. UNFC, with its added complexities, will inter alia create further headaches for regulatory agencies.
None of the above is news. In closing, I do feel that the systematic avoidance of the word "reserves" is idiosyncratic and should be reconsidered.
Cordially,
William G Prast, PhD
Member, UNECE Ad Hoc Group of Experts