Tenure Management Gap Assessment

Share

Mining and exploration tenure is a critical corporate asset. Even minor lapses including application errors, missed rent payments, delayed statutory reports, expenditure deficits, spatial inaccuracies, or inadequate renewal controls can trigger tenure forfeiture.

Veev Group’s Tenure Management Gap Assessment applies a structured, compliance‑driven framework to benchmark your current processes against legislative requirements and industry best practice, identify weaknesses, and deliver a rigorous remediation program.

Key outcomes

End‑to‑end obligation traceability from legislative requirement to internal controls and verifiable evidence

• Quantitative risk register and exposure heat mapping by title and theme

• Detailed remediation program: immediate corrective actions (0–90 days) and long‑term control enhancements (up to 12 months)

• Process and data architecture that reduces single‑point failure risk

Scope

Tenure types: Prospecting, exploration, retention, mining licences/leases, miscellaneous licences, general purpose leases, heritage and land access agreements.

Jurisdictions: National, Australian

Value chain coverage: Tenure strategy, acquisition, maintenance, compliance, variations/transfers, renewals, relinquishment, rehabilitation/closure.

Methodology

Discovery & data intake

Collect and validate title registers, regulator holdings, compliance evidence, and relevant correspondence.

Obligations mapping

Construct a jurisdiction‑specific obligation library and map current controls, roles, and systems.

Evidence testing

Conduct sampling and reconciliation of payments, lodgements, and spatial boundaries.

Expenditure compliance review

Implement a forensic review of minimum expenditure obligations per title, tracking trends against statutory thresholds, identifying systemic shortfalls, and assessing whether expenditure classification aligns with legislative definitions. This includes:

• Cross‑checking reported expenditure in Form 5 (WA) or equivalent against financial records and supporting invoices.

• Analysing carry‑forward and exemption use to assess sustainability and compliance risk.

• Flagging titles with consecutive deficits or marginal compliance that could trigger forfeiture actions.

• Evaluating expenditure allocation across exploration, development, and overhead categories to ensure defensibility in the event of regulator audit or Application for Forfeiture.

• Identifying undeclared allowable expenditure.

• Evaluating the exemption processes and applications
  

Plainting risk analysis

Examine vulnerability to plaint actions (applications for forfeiture) by reviewing historical compliance records, correspondence with regulators, and any prior objections. This process includes:

• Identifying titles with a history of late payments, expenditure deficits, incorrectly applied expenditure, or incomplete reporting that could be grounds for plaint.

• Reviewing competitor and third‑party activity to detect potential strategic plainting risks.

• Assessing the organisation’s capability to respond to plaints, including evidence readiness, legal escalation protocols, and decision‑making pathways.

• Recommending preventative controls to reduce exposure to plaint‑related tenure loss.

Risk quantification

Apply inherent and residual risk scoring; identify control gaps and single‑point vulnerabilities.

Remediation planning

Develop a technically detailed roadmap, aligned with operational capacity and compliance risk appetite.

Deliverables

Project plan & timeline (12 weeks)

Weeks 1–2: Kick‑off, data intake, scoping, and sampling framework

Weeks 3–8: Process mapping (approx. 6 weeks), control testing, GIS verification, expenditure mapping, interim reporting

Weeks 9–10: Draft report, technical review workshop

Weeks 11–12: Final deliverables, training, and handover

Portfolios spanning multiple jurisdictions or complex joint venture structures may require adjusted sampling and extended timelines.