Skip to content 
Set of materials for the state expertise of reserves - is not just a list of files, but an agreed evidentiary structure, where each conclusion is supported by verifiable source data and a unified methodology. In practice, most comments arise not because of «formalities», but because of violations in this construction: discrepancies in versions of source data, inconsistency of the model and calculation, lack of traceability from primary documents to summary tables, as well as inability to reproduce calculations from the provided files.
Below is a practical breakdown of the kit structure, requirements for reproducibility of materials, documents for different types of objects, and a checklist for self-checking before submission. The issues of technical formats and electronic signature are discussed in detail in a separate article of the series: «File formats and electronic filing.».
Table of Contents
- Completeness principle: chain of evidence
- Composition of materials: what must be reproducible
- Geology and model: typical controversies
- Counting and quality: checking the logic of the calculations
- Data sources and traceability
- Signatures and authorizations: formal requirements
- Pre-submission self-checklist
- FAQ
Completeness principle: chain of evidence
Expert review considers the materials as a system of evidence. For expert examination to be possible, the kit must provide three key features:
- verifiability - the expert can establish the origin of each key parameter (wells, sampling, assays, tests, technological characteristics, economic prerequisites).
- Consistency - text, tables, graphics and numerical models reflect the same object and the same version of data.
- Reproducibility - calculations and conclusions can be repeated on the submitted materials without «verbal explanations» and access to internal bases.
It is practically convenient to represent the set as a «chain» of five links:
| Chain link | The point for expertise | What it usually involves |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Basis and identification of the object | Understanding the legal and object contour | Information on the subsoil plot, basis of works, identifiers and links (including to fund data) |
| 2) Initial data | Control of quality and sufficiency of invoices | Primary materials (wells, samples, surveys), summary registers, references to stock materials |
| 3) Geologic interpretation | Logic of the model and object boundaries | Model/contours/sections/parameters, assumptions and assumption checks |
| 4) Calculation and justification of parameters | Verification of method and totals | Calculation algorithm, tables, ratios, condition/KIN (if applicable), balances and reconciliations |
| 5) Presentation of the result | Legally significant recording of findings | Stock/resource totals, appendices, digital files, signatures |
The legal basis and general rules of procedure are determined by the basic regulatory acts: the Law of the Russian Federation «On Subsoil» and the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 335 dated 01.03.2023. For convenience, they are posted on the OERN website (for legally relevant application, use official publications in the current edition):
- Law of the Russian Federation «On Subsoil» № 2395-1 (ed. of 31.07.2025) - PDF
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 335 of 01.03.2023 - PDF
- Organization of state expert review: background information - PDF
Official publications and up-to-date versions are on the resources of government agencies:
- Official Internet portal of legal information
- Rosnedra (official website)
- GKZ FBU: regulatory documents
Composition of materials: what must be reproducible
The composition of the kit is determined by the type of mineral and the type of expertise (reserve estimation, operational changes, write-off, feasibility study of parameters, etc.). At the same time, the logic of the requirements is the same: the expert should be able to go from the primary data to the final values without gaps and «gray zones».
Quick reference point: what is usually included
- Administrative part (filing and authority): the application is submitted via electronic services; confirmation of the authority of the person acting on behalf of the applicant; if necessary, additional supporting documents (e.g., a copy of the license) and documents specifying information on the object.
- The content part (what the expert committee actually checks): materials on calculation and justification of reserves/alterations/descriptions, source data and their registers, model/interpretation, calculation tables and reconciliations, summary statements and graphical appendices.
Key requirements for the composition of materials by type of facility are collected on DERN in separate files (it is convenient to use them as navigation through the requirements):
| Object / type of materials | Basic document with composition and design requirements | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Solid minerals | Order No. 378 - requirements to materials for estimation of TPI reserves (PDF) | «Classic» TPI outline: geology, estimation, conditions, technological and economic feasibility studies in applicable parts |
| Oil and combustible gases | Order No. 564 - materials on calculation of oil and combustible gas reserves (PDF) | Additionally, materials on extraction rates and complex statements are encountered |
| Groundwater (drinking, technical, mineral) | Order No. 569 - materials on calculation of groundwater reserves (PDF) | The water block has its own specific evidence (hydrogeology, quality, operating regimes) |
| Groundwater (industrial and heat energy) | Order No. 50 - industrial and thermal groundwater (PDF) | There are often separate requirements for parameters and process modes |
| Geological information on subsoil areas for non-mining purposes | Order No. 586 - geological information for underground facilities and special purposes (PDF) | The key focus is the suitability of the site for the stated purposes and evidence of that suitability |
Below is the universal semantic structure of the kit (suitable for most cases and helps you not to miss critical elements):
| The semantic block of the set | What the expert should be able to verify | As is usually confirmed |
|---|---|---|
| Initial data | Sufficiency and quality of evidence for the stated category of study | Primary data (wells/samples/tests), summary tables, protocols/results of studies, registers |
| Model/interpretation | Validity of geometry, parameters and assumptions | Sections/maps/models, descriptions of interpretation techniques, checking assumptions |
| Counting | Methodology and arithmetic of counting, stability of the result | Calculation tables, algorithms, coefficients, reconciliations, control samples |
| Parameters affecting industrial significance | Why are these restrictions/parameters adopted | Justifications (in applicable part): conditionality/coefficients/technological constraints/economics |
| Summary tables | Consistency of the results with the calculations and model | Summary sheets, appendices, references to calculation files and sources |
Geology and model: typical controversies
In the geological block, the most frequent comments occur where the geological interpretation is descriptive and the model «lives separately». The logic of the expert review is simple: if contours, parameters and classification change from section to section, the final reserves cannot be considered reliable, even if the quality of work performed is high.
What is usually looked at when checking for consistency:
- Single object contour in all views: text, maps, sections, tables, digital model.
- Uniform definitions of types/grades/categories (in applicable classifications) and their invariability throughout the set.
- Convergence of key metrics: volumes, average contents/parameters, densities, ratios - without «floating» values in different sections.
- Transparency of assumptions: where interpolations, analogies, statistical assumptions have been applied - and what tests support them.
Counting and quality: checking the logic of the calculations
The requirements for reproducibility are most strict in the calculation block. The examination evaluates not only the final values, but also the possibility to repeat the calculations according to the tables and appendices provided.
Which improves the quality of the counting unit:
- Explicit algorithmFrom the raw data to the calculation blocks and then to the final tables - without «jumps» through undescribed transformations.
- Control reconciliations: balances, amounts by category/block, comparison of alternative methods (if applicable), explanation of reasons for discrepancies.
- Uniformity of measurement units and rounding, no «hidden conversions» between tables and text.
- Calculation tables in auditable form (not in image format) so that the examiner can see the structure of the calculation and can check the logic.
If numerical models and specialized formats are used, it is critical to ensure the connection: «model → upload → calculation → result». It is at these transitions that reproducibility issues most often arise.
The technical side (formats, editable, duplicate tables, electronic signature, etc.) is dealt with separately: «File formats for state stock assessment: requirements and frequent mistakes».
Data sources and traceability
Modern expertise is focused on source management: not only the content of the report is important, but also the documents underlying each key statement. Therefore, the materials are required to indicate the register numbers of documents in the Federal Geological Information Fund System (FGIS «EFGI») - this reduces the risks of version disputes and simplifies the verification of the underlying facts.
What «tractability» means in practice:
- for each major block (source data, model, count) there is a list of sources with identifiers and versions;
- references to primary materials or their register numbers are given in the text and tables;
- totals can be traced back to the source (without manually searching through folders and corresponding with authors).
If exploration work has not yet been completed, materials can be generated on a stage-by-stage basis (e.g., annual or quarterly) - provided that the original geological information has already been submitted to the funds and accounted for in the system. This is important for both compliance and project manageability: interim decisions should be based on identified sources, not on «workloads» of an unknown version.
Signatures and authorizations: formal requirements
Formal requirements in the examination have an applied meaning: if the authority of the signatory or the legal correctness of the submission is not confirmed, the content part may not reach the full consideration. Therefore, the formal part should be managed as carefully as the geological part.
What to look out for:
- Authorization of the person, acting on behalf of the applicant: where appropriate, a power of attorney or other document confirming the right to sign and submit materials.
- Electronic signature: electronic documents are duly signed; a certificate file is additionally used for some scenarios.
- Materials with state secrets: when there is information related to state secrets, the procedure for submission is different and requires a separate regime (as a rule, on paper in compliance with legal requirements).
The applicant may attach some of the documents on their own initiative (e.g., a copy of the license, payment documents, clarification letters, and materials to reduce uncertainty). This does not replace the mandatory elements of the kit, but often helps to speed up the contextualization of the site.
Pre-submission self-checklist
Before uploading to the electronic service, it is recommended to perform an internal check of the set. Below is a checklist covering the most frequent reasons for comments and returns.
- Completeness: all mandatory blocks are present; there are no «empty links» to appendices; folder structure and file names are clear.
- Unified version of the data: model, tables, graphics and text correspond to one version of the source data; edits are synchronized across the entire set.
- Traceability: sources of key indicators are identified; register numbers of documents (where applicable) are indicated; the relationship «source → calculation → total» is clear.
- Reproducibility: calculation tables are verifiable; control reconciliations agree; assumptions are listed and justified.
- Legal part: signatory and credentials verified; supporting documents attached if necessary.
- Technical part: files open without errors; no corruptions, passwords or «heavy» files unnecessarily; tables are available in editable form.
| Checking | How to execute quickly | What's most commonly found |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency of outcomes | Reconcile summary tables with calculation sheets and key charts | Different values of the same indicators in different places of the set |
| Data versions | Check dates/versions of models and uploads, check against report date | «Mixed versions»: the model is updated, but the applications are old |
| Traceability | Select 10 key parameters and go «backwards» to the source | No reference to the primary source or it is not clear which version is used |
| Reproducibility | Ask an independent colleague to repeat the calculation on the files | Calculations are not «lifted» without internal explanations or hidden data |
| Formal part | Check authorizations, signatures, correctness of submission attributes | Signer/authorization not confirmed or signature is incorrect |
FAQ
1) Can the kit be supplemented during the examination if something is missing?
Technically, there are mechanisms for clarification and revision, but strategically it is not optimal: you lose the project calendar and increase the risk of repeated comments due to uncoordinated revisions. It is a strong practice to put together a chain of evidence before submission and check reproducibility in advance.
2) Which is more important: the full scope of applications or their verifiability?
Verifiability. A large volume of files does not compensate for lack of traceability and inability to reproduce calculations. The expert review assesses the quality of the evidence base and the consistency of the set, not the «thickness of the report».
3) Do materials need to include fonds and identifiers (EFGI)?
Yes, the rules provide for the indication of register numbers of documents recorded in the federal system of the geological information fund. This is critical for source discipline and to reduce the risk of discrepancies between data versions.
4) Which two actions have the maximum effect before pitching?
(1) «Dry run» of the kit by an independent specialist for reproducibility of the count; (2) a register of source data and versions (what was used, where it lies in the kit, what identifier/registry number). These actions quickly identify breaks in the chain of evidence.