I have real conversations about mining and metals (the most expensive hobby that isn't all that fun to begin with).
Joined March 2018
- Tweets14.3K
- Following260
- Followers15.1K
- Likes32.1K
Pinned Tweet
The 6 Junior Mining Companies I Spoke With Last Week.
I send a free weekly newsletter containing a 5-minute summary of each Resource Talks interview from the previous week.
Below is the lineup from week 41:
1️⃣ New Gold Discovery in Suriname, But Will the System Hold Together?
> @Miata_Metals with Jacob Verbaas $MMET.V
2️⃣ Gold, Antimony, Tungsten in Idaho, But Can They Really Mine It?
> @Resolution_LTD with Craig Lindsay $RML.AX
3️⃣ Niobium, Scandium and Rare Earths in the US, But Can They Fund The Capex?
> @NioCorp with Mark A. Smith $NB
4️⃣ Gold-Silver Resource in Argentina, But Can the Grade Hold?
> Fredonia Mining with Estanislao Auriemma $FRED.V
5️⃣ Gold Project Next to AngloGold in Nevada, But Is There a Real System?
> @BFROGGold with Ian Slater $FROG.V
6️⃣ New Copper Discovery, But Is the Grade There?
> @StormExInc with Bruce Counts $STRM.V
--- --- ---
Full interviews + a free newsletter listed below.
I asked @CompassGoldCorp, a gold developer close to cash flow from their Mali project, why they had to re-assay some of the coarse gold material, after the new results came back quite different from the initial assays, and whether that says anything about the reliability of the drilling before they go into production.
Coarse gold is hard to sample.
When re-assays of the same material come back meaningfully different, it should make you ask the question how representative the original drill samples were, and how much confidence can be placed in the grade model.
For a company that is about to start producing, that is not just a small detail either and it can affect grade control, the mine plan, how predictable the early ounces are, etc.
What else could/should I have asked $CVB.V here?
I asked @CanterraC, a copper-zinc company with a VMS project in Newfoundland, after they reported 55% growth in the deposit, whether that was genuine resource growth or whether it was because the copper price used in the copper-equivalent calculation is higher, given that the average copper-equivalent grade is actually down.
Tonnage can rise for two different reasons.
More material can be added to the system, or a higher metal price can pull lower-grade rock into the resource and make the total look bigger on a copper-equivalent basis.
When the average CuEq grade falls while the tonnage rises, it is worth asking which of those two things is driving the number.
The answer helps you see if the deposit is actually getting larger, or if the growth is mostly an effect of the price deck.
What else could/should I have asked $CTM.V here?
Free newsletter containing a 5-minute summary of each Resource Talks interview from the previous week: substack.com/@resourcetalks
I asked @StormExInc, a company that recently made a new VMS discovery in Ontario, how they know they are not just drilling the same layer, when they say there could be several separate layers of VMS stacked on top of each other.
In folded (or structurally complex) VMS systems, multiple intercepts can look like stacked lenses when they are actually the same horizon repeated.
That distinction can eventually change the size of the system.
Asking management how they know the intercepts are separate layers can get them explaining the geology instead of assuming every new hit is additive.
What else could/should I have asked $STRM.V here?
I asked @BFROGGold, a gold-silver explorer that is about to drill a new target in Nevada, whether they are already going for market success, or whether they are mainly hoping for a geological success.
Those are not the same thing.
A hole can be geologically interesting and still fail to move the stock if the grade, width, depth, or style of intercept does not match what the market expects in Nevada.
Asking which outcome management is actually targeting helps you understand what they think will count as a win .. and whether the program is designed around what the market (you, if you own the stock) is likely to reward.
What else could/should I have asked $FROG.V here?
I asked Fredonia Mining, a company with a PEA-stage gold-silver asset in Argentina, how clean the ownership title is right now, and whether there is any risk of someone coming out of the woodwork to claim part of the deposit as the project grows.
Title issues often stay quiet while a project is small but then once it moves forward and the value becomes more visible, historical claims, old option agreements, or third parties can surface.
Asking how clean the ownership is today (and whether management sees any residual risk from past happenings) is important.
What else could/should I have asked $FRED.V here?
I asked @NioCorp, a critical minerals and rare earths developer with a project in Nebraska, why they've had to complete 4 feasibility studies since 2017, and what has held them back from a production decision.
One feasibility study is normal, two is tolerable.
The moment you see more is the moment you need to start asking some questions.
It doesn't mean it can't work. More drilling can change the picture and if the deposit turned out larger (or better) than the earlier studies had shown, updating the study can make sense.
At the same time, four studies over that span still raise the question of what has shifted in the strategy and what still needs to be done before a production decision.
What else could/should I have asked $NB here?
I asked @Resolution_LTD, a company exploring a project with gold, antimony, and tungsten potential in Idaho, how nobody beat them to it, given that even the stockpiles they want to reprocess have already sat there for decades.
Ground that stays open for that long usually has a reason.
It can be metallurgy, scale, commodity prices at the time, access, or simply that previous operators never saw a workable path.
Asking why no one else took the project forces the company to explain what has changed, and whether the current thesis actually addresses the reason the ground was left alone.
What else could/should I have asked $RML.AX here?
I asked @Miata_Metals, a gold explorer with multiple recent gold discoveries in Suriname, whether the system they're chasing typically underdelivers or overdelivers.
Some deposit types have a pattern.
In some deposits, early holes can look better than the system turns out to be but, in others, initial results can understate what comes with more drilling.
Asking which way this system usually behaves forces management to talk about their wholistic view on the geology they're putting your money in.
What else could/should I have asked $MMET.V here?
The 6 Junior Mining Companies I Spoke With Last Week.
I send a free weekly newsletter containing a 5-minute summary of each Resource Talks interview from the previous week.
Below is the lineup from week 40 and the links to the full interviews:
1️⃣ $12M Gold Revenue in Q2, But Can it Grow Without The Cost Blowing up?
> @GolcondaGoldLtd with Ravi Sood $GG.V
2️⃣ 13.4 g/t Gold in Quebec, But Is There a Real System?
> @bulliongoldca with Simon Britt $BGD.V
3️⃣ Gold Developer Plans Q4 Production in Mali, But Will There be Delays?
> @DesertGoldVentr with Jared Scharf $DAU.V
4️⃣ 11-Year Heap-Leach Gold PEA in Nevada, But Can They Actually Build it?
> @BravadaGold with Paul West-Sells $BVA
5️⃣ Growing a Gold Mine in Tanzania, But Can They Do It Without Dilution?
> @TRXGoldCorp with Stephen Mullowney
6️⃣ High-Grade Tungsten in Canada, But Is There Enough of it for a Mine?
> @FoxTungsten with Stephen Gray
--- --- ---
Full interviews + a free newsletter listed below.
Upcoming interviews get announced at the bottom of the home page on resourcetalks.com.
If there are any questions you would like me to ask these companies, please send me an email or fill in the form at the bottom of the home page.
Free newsletter containing a 5-minute summary of each Resource Talks interview from the previous week: substack.com/@resourcetalks
