The current national standard, “Classification of Solid Mineral Resources/Reserves” (GB/T 17766-1999), has been in effect for nearly ten years since its promulgation and implementation in 1999. The “General Rules for Geological Exploration of Solid Minerals” (GB/T 13908-2002), revised according to the classification criteria, along with the standards for 17 categories of mineral resources, have also been in place for more than six years. Looking back at the last round of revisions to the mineral resource reserve standards, these efforts have played a significant role in advancing the reform of China’s mineral resource management and in establishing and improving a mineral resource reserve management system that is compatible with the socialist market economy.
　　The current standards for mineral resource reserves have shifted away from the previous approach under the planned economy, in which geological exploration was merely one component of the national economic planning system and was entirely managed by the government. Instead, these standards now align with the characteristics of China’s ongoing reform of the market economy, reflecting that mineral exploration has become a commercial geological activity—a market-oriented investment endeavor that emphasizes the integration of economic and technological factors. As technical standards, the current mineral resource reserve standards to some extent embody the will of diversified investors and facilitate the seamless connection between exploration and development. From a technical standpoint, these standards also reflect the transformation of the government’s role—from a past model of directive technical management to one of guiding technical management—thereby strengthening the government’s oversight and regulation of mineral resource exploration. Moreover, the current mineral resource reserve standards are themselves a product of China’s reform and opening-up policy. They have enabled China’s reserve standards to gradually shift from primarily referencing the reserve standards of the former Soviet Union toward alignment with those of major market economies internationally, thus establishing a technical platform for international dialogue on mineral resource reserves. The promulgation of China’s classification standards for solid mineral resource reserves has made China the first country within the former “Eastern” reserve system to align its standards with the United Nations Framework Classification for Reserves. This has played a positive示范 role in promoting the reform of reserve standards in countries formerly part of the “Eastern” reserve management system, including Russia.
　　While it is important to view the current mineral resource reserve standards in their historical context, we must also recognize that, over the years since these standards were implemented, certain issues have become apparent in their practical application—issues that warrant careful study and resolution. It is precisely these issues that have affected the effective use and enforcement of the reserve standards in geological exploration work. Moreover, China’s economic system reform is still ongoing and being continuously refined and improved. As a geological technical standard, the reserve standards will inevitably undergo a process of adaptation, deepened understanding, and gradual adjustment and refinement. Furthermore, in line with the natural evolution of standards themselves, every 5 to 10 years, based on thorough research and summarization, a new round of revision should be initiated. Following a recent survey of the implementation status of the current standards, geological exploration units in the field, geological exploration management agencies, mineral resource reserve evaluation bodies, mining enterprises, and design institutes have all put forward numerous constructive suggestions and comments on the existing standards, with the majority expressing support for necessary revisions. Therefore, revising the current mineral resource reserve standards has become an imperative necessity. The decision made by the Reserve Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources to launch a new round of revision of the mineral resource reserve standards is entirely justified and correct.
　　From a technical perspective, the main comments received during the implementation of the current standards have been relatively concentrated. First, the three-axis classification system upon which the national standard for solid mineral resource reserve classification is based should be simplified to a two-axis classification. Specifically, the F-axis—representing the feasibility assessment axis—only reflects the process underlying the classification and could thus be omitted. The resulting economic implications can instead be reflected directly in the classification table. Therefore, a two-axis classification system—one that considers both the degree of geological exploration and economic significance—could be adopted. Second, the current mineral resource reserve classification standard includes too many categories. It would be desirable to reduce the number of categories from the current 16 types, with category names being simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, thereby making the classification system easier to grasp and use. Third, the delineation of various stages of mineral exploration is not sufficiently clear and specific in the general provisions of geological exploration standards, particularly at the reconnaissance stage, where it is even more difficult to define precisely. Moreover, from the perspectives of mining administration and practical application, it would be helpful to clarify the proportions of resource reserves corresponding to each stage of exploration work. Fourth, the spacing of exploration drilling required for inferred internal economic resources (333) should be explicitly specified in the standards. Fifth, regarding feasibility assessments, the current regulatory framework still lacks operational clarity. Sixth, there are issues concerning the placement of certain resource reserves within the existing classification standards. For example, the off-balance-sheet mineral resources delineated at various exploration stages prior to conducting feasibility or pre-feasibility studies currently lack a designated classification position. Similarly, in mine production exploration, it remains unclear whether the classification positions for third-level mineral resources should be taken into account. Seventh, there are questions about the determination and application of industrial indicators. It would be beneficial to clarify the regulatory provisions governing industrial indicators, promptly revise mineral industry indicators, and specify the scope and requirements for the general use of these indicators.
　　Based on the survey results, opinions on revising the standards can be broadly categorized into three main types. The first is to accelerate alignment with the practices of internationally developed market economies, which would facilitate the opening up of the mineral exploration sector to foreign investment and enable China’s mineral resource reserve standards to fully align with international norms. This would also help China gain recognition from relevant international coordinating bodies for its mineral resource reserve standards, thereby enabling China to directly participate in and be recognized by international geological exploration activities—including gaining recognition for Chinese professionals qualified in geological exploration. The second type of opinion holds that China’s current standards for mineral resource reserves are the result of years of practical experience and possess distinctive features suited to China’s national conditions. From the perspective of exploration outcomes, our achievements are no less impressive than those of developed countries; therefore, there is no need to align with the exploration standards of developed nations. The third type falls somewhere between these two views—namely, adopting a limited degree of alignment with the practices of internationally market-oriented economies. This view represents the majority opinion.
　　Considering the historical development of geological exploration in our country and the ongoing reform process of mineral resource reserve standards, we must strive to refine the standard system under the conditions of a socialist market economy. We cannot simply copy the “mature” market economy countries’ mineral resource reserve standards, nor can we cling to the standards established during our planned economy era. The space between these two extremes is precisely the area that calls for our exploration and innovation. We should carefully identify those aspects of past regulations that have contributed to deepening the reform of geological exploration, ensuring and promoting higher quality outcomes from exploration efforts—these are the elements that deserve to be retained. At the same time, among internationally accepted norms, those that align with the reform of the market economy system in China’s mineral resource exploration sector are precisely the ones we should absorb and learn from. This could well prove to be a shortcut in this round of revising mineral resource reserve standards.