There is current sense that advanced mining studies are suffering from a lack of credibility with investors. Curiously it seems to me that many feasibility study documents are getting smaller at the same time. Might there be some link between the two?
My personal exposure to feasibility studies extends from managing them, participating in them, and undertaking due diligence reviews of them. Earlier in my career mining feasibility studies typically consisted of comprehensive documents, often contained in several binders of information. The study could generate a lot of paper. However currently it seems that often (not always) the 43-101 Technical Report can be the “final” feasibility study document.
In the past there would be binders with detailed calculations and backup for the different parts of the study. Typically there was a binder for the Executive Summary and separate sections (i.e. binders) for Geology, Mining, Processing, Infrastructure, Capital Cost, Operating Cost, Environmental, Project Execution, and Economic Analysis, etc.
The comprehensive report normally had both the report text and the details of the work done. This might include hand sketches, haul cycles, vendor price quotes, spec sheets, email correspondences, the WBS cost estimate detail, and so on.
The section appendices also included 3rd party reports like pit slope geotechnical studies, hydrogeological analysis, tailings dam designs, etc. The feasibility document might have included CD’s with the entire study in electronic format.
Generally all the supporting information for the study was in that comprehensive document. They were great. You knew you were somebody if you were given a personal copy of the entire report for your office.
43-101 Technical Report
The original intent of the 43-101 Technical Report was for it to be a summary document, only about 80-150 pages in length. The intent was to simplify all the technical work for the benefit of non-technical investors. Currently I have noticed that in many cases the 43-101 report is now the entire feasibility study document.
These 43-101 reports contain a fair amount of detail and they can exceed 400 pages in length. I’m not sure how many non-technical people actually read them beyond the Executive Summary or even read them at all.
Unfortunately if one is undertaking a due diligence review of a project, the 400 page Technical Report won’t contain the detail needed for a proper technical review. When more detail is requested, we are usually provided with a series of production and cost spreadsheets that need to be deciphered. Furthermore the spreadsheets themselves don’t give the sources or basis for all the input data.
In my view the 400 page Technical Report is too confusing for the investing public and not detailed enough for technical review, thereby really satisfying no one.
Why aren’t the comprehensive feasibility study documents being completed all the time? I would suggest it is because of the effort and cost. It takes time to properly document all aspects of a study, creating legible tables, scanning files, and merging it all into a single PDF document. Preparing a 43-101 Technical Report can be a chore, as many of us have experienced in trying to meet the 45 day deadline. So who wants to take on the task of preparing an even larger document?
Recommendation
My recommendation is that, where budgets permit, mining companies return to the days of preparing the comprehensive feasibility study document. It’s the right thing to do.
One doesn’t need to print the entire report on paper since PDF files will work fine. Scanning of some sketches, vendor quotes may add an extra step, but that is hardly a momentous chore. Most 3rd party documents are already been submitted in PDF format so coordinating and merging will be the main task.
The 43-101 Technical Report could return to being a more investor friendly summary style document rater than a full study report.
This comprehensive document approach would apply to both pre-feasibility and feasibility studies that are used for advanced financing purposes. The re-adoption of the comprehensive report format should be consistent among both large miners and juniors.
What about the PEA
The preliminary economic assessment (PEA) likely does not warrant a comprehensive report. The PEA is not definitive. I have also heard that the PEA is losing some credibility with investors, with some people referring to it as mainly a sales document. I don’t necessarily agree with that sentiment, but I understand why some see it that way.
As an aside, an interesting panel discussion might be whether the PEA has actually lost credibility, and if so, how can we restore credibility. My thoughts on PEA’s were summarized in a previous blog “Not All PEA’s Are Created Equal”.
Conclusion
If any mining industry credibility has been lost, re-establishing it should be important. One way to start doing this is to focus on creating the type of reports that best serve the needs of the industry stakeholders.