As a consultant preparing public and private valuation and assessment reports since 1990, the writer has worked under the former NCSC guidelines and since 1995 under the original and modified (1998 edition) VALMIN Code. This paper highlights some of the more difficult and contentious practical issues resulting from that experience. The extent of site visits is an area of debate. Aspects of confidentiality can be difficult to resolve. Balancing the time available to prepare a report for Corporations Law purposes with the degree of due diligence required under VALMIN can be stressful, particularly when combined with arguably token adherence to the Code by the client.

This paper concludes that the VALMIN Code is a generally effective and pragmatic operating discipline. Recommended areas for future attention include the balance between the detail of reports and their readability and greater recognition that mineral asset values can vary significantly with both the market and the purpose of valuation. The reconciliation of Technical Value and Fair Market Value cannot always be addressed by application of an arbitrary premium or discount.

While in the writer’s belief, the VALMIN Code is enforceable while at the same time pragmatic, its detail means that there will always be scope for “nit picking”. It is hoped that in administering its enforcement, there will always be an emphasis on flexibility when good faith and care within the scope of the brief are obvious.