The current classification standard for solid mineral resources/reserves in China (GB/T 17766—1999, hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Classification Standard) has been in effect for nine years. Thanks to its adoption of the three-dimensional classification framework used by the United Nations International Reserves/Resources Classification, this standard has strengthened the economic significance of mineral resource reserves, enhanced the role of feasibility studies, and reinforced the alignment with international practices. Moreover, it has unified the terminology and criteria across different types of minerals, making an indispensable contribution. However, the 1999 Classification Standard also suffers from significant shortcomings: it diverges from the UN’s three-dimensional classification framework and has lost some of the original essence of China’s previous classification and grading system, leading to certain confusion during implementation. Therefore, a revision is urgently needed. As a general rule, technical standards should be dynamic and open-ended; especially given that the 1999 Classification Standard has been operating with inherent flaws for nine years, the timetable for its revision can no longer be delayed.
　　The crux of the 1999 classification standard lies in its lack of alignment with the United Nations’ three-dimensional classification framework. Take, for example, a mining area that has already completed the exploration phase: If the exploration work was properly planned, the resource reserve report has been reviewed and approved, a feasibility study has been conducted by a qualified design institute, all the resource reserves are deemed developable and exploitable, and the economic evaluation indicates a profitable outlook—then, according to the UN’s three-dimensional classification framework, the resource reserve category would be entirely classified as 111. However, under the 1999 classification standard, this mining area’s resource reserves are categorized separately as 111, 122, and 333. What’s alarming is that this situation is not an isolated case—it’s a widespread phenomenon. On average, among exploration reports reviewed over the past two years and verified reports reaching the exploration stage, Class 111 accounts for about 40%, Class 122 for about 50%, and Class 333 for about 10%. As a result, China’s Class 111 exploration reserves have been devalued by more than half. Whether at the national statistical level or in corporate financing, IPO processes, and mineral rights transactions, the consequences of this misalignment are severe. The nationwide reserve conversion results, which required considerable effort to achieve, are incompatible with the UN’s three-dimensional classification framework. Moreover, the ongoing nationwide verification of the current status of mineral resource reserves, if the issue of the 1999 classification standard remains unresolved, will also lead to results that fail to align with the UN’s three-dimensional classification framework.
　　Adapting to the market economy and aligning with international standards were the driving forces and guiding principles behind the development of the 1999 classification criteria. The technical approach of adopting the United Nations’ three-dimensional classification framework was entirely appropriate. However, the problem arose from a misinterpretation of the geological reliability—represented by the G-axis—in the UN’s three-dimensional classification framework. As the drafters explained, “There were differing views within the drafting group regarding the interpretation of geological reliability classifications: some considered it to be reserve levels, others saw it as exploration stages, and still others equated reserve levels directly with exploration stages. To avoid this contradiction,” the 1999 classification adopted the approach of “separating reserve classification from exploration stages, thereby avoiding any direct linkage between the two.” As a result, the classification deviated from the original intended meaning of the G-axis in the UN’s three-dimensional framework, leading to confusion in domestic understanding and application. How can geological reliability be aligned with international standards? Should we align it with exploration stages, or with block-level reserve categories? During the process of converting reserves into standardized categories, different individuals held varying views, and local practices differed significantly, resulting in a lack of nationwide uniformity in classification. Due to this mismatch in hierarchical alignment, 18 code numbers ended up exceeding the standard requirements, necessitating the introduction of additional “classification codes.” These “classification codes” do not retain the original reserve-level designations, effectively erasing the distinctions among block-level reserve categories—a situation that affected as many as 10 different categories. After the publication of the mineral resource specifications, through various interpretative measures, today most contexts tend to align China’s block-level reserve categories with the exploration stages defined in the UN’s three-dimensional classification framework. This is akin to a surgeon connecting a blood vessel to a nerve instead of its intended target.
　　To align with international standards, we must both carefully study and thoroughly understand the international standards and deeply analyze the domestic standards, meticulously comparing their similarities and differences to identify corresponding relationships.
　　On the international front, the superiority of the UN Classification Framework lies not merely in its three-dimensional structure and coding system, but most importantly in its framework nature. The framework was designed with the explicit purpose of providing an internationally recognized comparative framework while preserving each country’s unique characteristics. This spirit—repeatedly emphasized by the UN Classification Framework Task Force—is crucial because “national terms in different countries have complex economic, historical, ethnic, and cultural origins,” and thus it is essential to seek common ground while respecting differences. Building on past experiences and lessons learned, this approach has become a successful path for international standardization efforts. In practical terms, what we strive to create is a universally recognized framework that facilitates easy communication and comparison among countries. Within this framework, however, ample room is left for each country to further classify its data according to its own national conditions and distinctive features. The secondary-level “National Systems” included in the recommended tables represent precisely such gray areas reserved for individual countries. Many scholars who have attempted to impose global uniformity through the classification systems of certain major powers have failed. By contrast, the UN Classification Framework has received formal endorsement from the United Nations Economic and Social Council and has been adopted by more than 60 countries, thereby becoming a genuine international standard. Thus, it is precisely the framework nature of the UN Classification that has been the key to its success. It was precisely because I praised its framework principle and confirmed its compatibility with China’s own classification and grading system that I joined the UN Classification Framework Task Force.
　　The G-axis of the UN Classification Framework is categorized as follows: Stage 1—Exploration, Stage 2—General Exploration (Detailed Exploration), Stage 3—Prospecting, and Stage 4—Pre-exploration. This categorization is clearly defined at the mine-site level (including mining fields and projects). As a three-dimensional classification system, it is well known that feasibility studies and economic evaluations must also be conducted at the mine-site level (including mining fields and projects) as a whole. At the November 2001 meeting held by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, a Key was issued specifically designed for non-professionals to use the UN Classification Framework. With this index, even ordinary investors can determine the resource-reserve classification of their selected projects and decide whether or not to invest. Thus, the UN Classification Framework is accessible, rough, and concise—not intended to cover every single issue. For instance, resource-reserve levels measured separately by block segments have been left to each country’s “national systems.” Therefore, when applying the UN Classification Framework, there is absolutely no need to abandon your country’s fine traditions and unique characteristics.
　　Now, turning our attention to the domestic situation—though we’re right in the middle of it—we can recall a famous saying by Mao Zedong: “What we feel we cannot immediately understand; only what we understand can we truly and deeply feel.” Therefore, we must also take a serious look at this issue. In China, the classification of geological reliability is structured around two levels. The first level uses mining areas (exploration zones) as units of measurement—a stage that corresponds to the exploration phase, progressing sequentially from prospecting through detailed exploration, general survey, and preliminary survey, with each subsequent stage representing progressively lower levels of certainty. The preliminary survey identifies target areas; the general survey uncovers mineral deposits; detailed exploration evaluates their industrial value; and prospecting provides data for mine design. Each stage has clearly defined tasks, jointly stipulated by the former National Reserve Commission, the State Planning Commission, and the State Economic Commission. At the end of each stage, a set of resource reserves can be submitted. In China’s regulatory framework, coal mines are classified into “detailed exploration reserves” and “precise exploration reserves,” while other mineral types are similarly categorized according to the exploration stage specified in projects and reports—each categorization being remarkably clear and well-defined. The United Nations’ three-dimensional classification framework selects the exploration stage as the indicator for geological reliability—the G-axis—intending to use projects (mining areas, mine fields) as the unit of measurement and thereby providing investors with a straightforward and unambiguous signal. It is precisely at this level that China’s classification system demonstrates compatibility and alignment.
　　The second level of geological reliability classification in China is the reserve classification system based on block units, with the levels A, B, C, D, and E decreasing in order of reliability. Over the past 50-plus years since the founding of New China, China’s vast number of mineral geology professionals have devoted tremendous effort to studying the reserve classification at the block-unit level. They have conducted painstaking research into every aspect—from the conditions for each reserve level and the degree of geological study to the extent of engineering control; from the exploration grid density and exploration type classification for different mineral types at various levels, to the proportion of reserves at each level in different exploration stages and the matching between high-grade reserves and priority mining areas; from the role of reserves at various levels in design to the upgrading of production exploration reserves. Through repeated cycles of rational exploration-degree studies, comparison between exploration and mining, reserve evaluations, and integration of internal and external approaches, China has gradually developed its own distinctive classification system—divided into two hierarchical levels, four stages, and five grades—based on its unique geological conditions. This rigorously structured classification system is grounded in China’s actual circumstances and represents a synthesis of long-term exploration practice, including abundant experience gained from both production exploration and mining verification. It embodies the essence of China’s reserve management and is far more sophisticated than certain foreign reserve classification systems. It is important not to uncritically adopt the Soviet model. The symbols A, B, C, D, and E used to denote reserve levels are not inherently tied to a planned economy. Technical tools are classless; just like ordinary measuring instruments, they can be used under both planned and market economic systems.
　　Our country divides geological reliability into two levels. The second level—reserves classified by block segments—is characterized by relatively high technical complexity and should not be expected to be fully mastered by non-specialists. Moreover, international comparisons in this regard are also quite intricate. In contrast, the first level—exploration stages measured by projects (mining areas or mine fields)—is comparatively straightforward and easy to grasp for non-specialists, investors, and management personnel. It is precisely this simpler level that was chosen in the United Nations’ three-dimensional classification framework. The 1999 classification inadvertently led to a misalignment of these levels, resulting in the consequences described in the second paragraph of this article.
　　Revising the 1999 classification aims to restore the original integrity of the three-digit coding system and clearly define the geological reliability level of the third digit—G-axis—based on exploration stages: 1 for exploration, 2 for detailed investigation, 3 for general survey, and 4 for preliminary investigation. The classification is conducted at the mine area (mine field or project) level as a whole, placing it at the first hierarchical level, fully consistent with the United Nations classification framework and ensuring alignment with international standards. At the same time, a second hierarchical level should be established (retaining and restoring) to classify resource reserves based on individual blocks, reflecting the differences in geological reliability among these blocks and thereby meeting the specialized technical requirements of geological exploration, mine design, and production management. As a nationally specific term unique to China, the second hierarchical level should maintain its distinctive character and remain firmly grounded in practical applicability. This approach corrects the tendency to forcibly align national terms with those in the UN classification framework. By resolving this primary contradiction, other issues—such as cumbersome procedures, classification challenges, feasibility studies, and management system problems—may well be addressed with ease.