Mining Project Timelines Tell the Story

Date: July 29, 2026 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

How long does it take to turn a mineral discovery into a producing mine. Also how long does permitting really take? These are questions that I see asked frequently in mining circles. The answer often thrown around is “18 years.” Is that really true or is it just a much-repeated industry myth?

Answering these questions is one reason we created a new online App called Timeline Viewer, hosted on the Drilling Down website (https://sites.google.com/view/drillingdown).

What Is the Timeline Viewer

The Timeline Viewer is a online application where anyone can take a look at the milestone history of selected mining projects. Key milestones are laid out chronologically from initial exploration, through studies, permitting, and sometimes even up to production.

The Viewer puts it all in one place: a visual, browsable record of what happened and when. This information is derived from corporate press releases, and weblinks are provided.

This App was vibe coded using the Zite platform (https://www.zite.com/). Just explain to the AI what you want to create, and it then writes all the code for you. Very simple to use and fast.

Let’s look at some Viewer output. The example below is the standard timeline view for the Brucejack Project in BC. One can see the sequence of activities that occurred over time as the mine moved into production. A details table (not shown) provides a brief description of each event. Hover over a point to see the details.

An alternate way to examine the same timeline is to view the development progress in stages. In the Viewer app, we loosely use the term the “Lassonde Stages”, related to the Lassonde Curve (for more info). The Timeline Viewer lets you toggle on a view of the stages over time. Is it advancing towards production or flat lining at the same Stage.

For example, the image below shows the same Brucejack project with the Stages on the right side and milestones on the left axis. One can see the rapid rise as the project accelerates from exploration & studies (Stage II) to construction, commissioning, and production (Stage V). For comparison, the next image after Brucejack is the chart for the KSM Project. Do you notice any difference in the profile of the Stages?

The Viewer also allows one to see only the “permitting” events to focus on those. When was permitting initiated and when were approvals received? As an example, the timeline below is for the Generation Mining Marathon project, permitting activities only. They started the process in 2021 and received their federal final permit in 2025. The ball is in their court now.

Getting Started: The List of Projects

Before diving into an individual timelines, the obvious starting point is the List of Projects (https://jcrkyl7eju.zite.so/). This list gives you an overview of every project currently logged in the database (over 90 as of today).

You can browse the list in either Grid view or List view. Once you find a project of interest, clicking on it takes you to its timeline in the Viewer.

In the Viewer, (https://sites.google.com/view/drillingdown/timeline-viewer) you can trace the entire arc of a project’s development: when exploration drilling began, when a resource estimate was published, when studies (Preliminary Economic Assessment, Prefeasibility, Feasibility) were completed, when permits were approved, and when construction and commissioning eventually led to production. It’s a straightforward way to answer that “18 years” question for yourself, project by project.

Every milestone is categorized. The available categories cover the full lifecycle of a mining project: Exploration, Mineral Resource Estimate, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Prefeasibility Study, Feasibility Study, Permitting Activity, Permit Approval, Construction Start, Commissioning, Production, and a catch-all “Other” category for things like metallurgical testing, mergers, or partnerships that don’t fit neatly into the technical stages but are still significant to a project’s storyline.

All of the companies currently in the database (as of July 2026) are TSX listed. Many of their projects are in Canada, since government websites provide additional permitting timeline information as a backup. I noticed that some companies are much better at disclosing permitting steps than others. Its not often that I saw a company announce when public meetings were being held or when the public review period starts. I wonder why.

Why The Timeline Matters

For anyone following the mining sector, whether as an investor – analyst – geologist -engineer, the value of the Timeline Viewer is that it simplifies a series of press releases into a visual record.

You can look at different projects and start to notice patterns: which companies moved efficiently through permitting, which projects stalled for years at the exploration or pre-feasibility stage, and which ones sailed from discovery to production. Are there lifestyle companies out there in no hurry to get anywhere?

The Viewer is a tool for answering the “how long does it really take” question with actual information.

The Companion Piece: The Timeline Editor

The Timeline Viewer database is fed by a companion tool called the Timeline Editor, which is what allows the database to keep growing and stay current. The Editor is where the content gets compiled and maintained
If you’ve been following a specific project that isn’t in the database yet, you can add it yourself. Just send a message to KJKLTD@gmail.com to get access to the Editor. There is even a blank template available in Excel CSV format, so you can organize the project milestones on your own time and then upload them in the Editor.

One important thing to understand about this system is that it’s intended to be open source. Anyone who is given Editor access can modify a project’s timeline, which means there’s no absolute guarantee of accuracy on every entry. The information should be treated as crowdsourced rather than officially verified. Do not make investment decisions based on what you see here – this is for entertainment purposes only.

If you encounter a bug, issue or inaccuracy, please flag it by email (KJKLTD@gmail.com). We’re open to hearing comments, since nobody expects AI-written code to be 100% perfect.

Conclusion

The Timeline Viewer is a simple tool for seeing how mining projects actually move (or don’t move) from discovery through to production. Over time as more projects get logged, the database becomes a richer resource for answering that original question honestly: does it really take 18 years to build a mine or how long does it take to permit? With enough timelines in the database, you can decide for yourself.

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

For some free mining calculator apps, including project timelines and a simplified cashflow modeller, check out this website https://sites.google.com/view/drillingdown

In closing, here is a summary timeline of all the mines coming into production in Canada over the last decade (from what I could find). The link to the timeline is https://neeovjtd7t.zite.so/project/3cd8bd8a-148f-4bc9-9bc3-fa56617f12d8

The Surprising Parallels Between Junior Miners and Tech Startups

Date: March 22, 2026 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 2 Replies

Recently I’ve seen a few LinkedIn conversations about whether the mining industry is spending enough money on Research and Development (R&D). Usually when one thinks of R&D, one might envision the development of new technology, new drug, equipment or software.

I would suggest that mineral exploration should be viewed through the R&D lens. Exploration (or acquisition of explorers) is the most significant way that the industry can self-manage to grow revenues. If exploration is R&D, that then leads to the observation that Junior Miners are the precursors for today’s Silicon Valley startups.

Before venture capital and “startup culture” became a phenomenon, junior mining companies were already operating on the startup core principles. Small, capital driven explorcos were based on unproven assets, led by specialized technical teams. They were funded by investors accepting risk in the hopes for 10 bagger or 100 bagger upsides. This is effectively the same business model that Silicon Valley would build upon.

This blog post examines whether the junior mining industry was a leader in Tech Startup culture. Even things like the Lassonde Curve and the PEA have their comparables in the current tech world.

Are Junior Miners precursors to Tech Startups

Junior mining companies and Tech Startups share numerous similarities, although they operate in very different worlds. The following comments should recognize that junior mining ecosystem has been around for generations, long before the birth of tech ecosystems.

Junior mining companies and Tech Startups are both high-risk, high-reward ventures. Junior Miners and Tech Startups are early-stage companies where the vast majority fail. Investors accept enormous risk in exchange for the possibility of enormous returns if a discovery or product is a resounding success. Lets look at some of the similarities.

A startup spends years (and millions of dollars) building an MVP (Minimum Viable Product). If the market doesn’t want it or the tech fails to scale, the company goes to zero. Similarly if holes don’t hit or the metallurgy is too complex, the mining asset can face significant headwinds.
Both mining and tech are essentially “concept” or “pre-revenue” gambles. A Junior Miner typically has no producing mine, just exploration assets and the dream of an economic mineral deposit. Similarly, many Tech Startups have no revenue, just a product idea or some early traction. Investors in both cases are betting on the team and its future value, not on the non-existing cash flow.
Both burn through cash (lots of it) before generating revenue. Mining juniors need constant financing rounds (placements) to fund exploration; startups need financing rounds for R&D and growth. Neither can easily self-fund, although bootstrapping is more common in tech than in mining. Both may rely on exit strategies consisting of acquisition from larger industry players.
Both generate proprietary data. A Junior Miner’s most valuable asset is often its geological data (drill results, resource estimates, land tenure). A Tech Startup’s asset is its IP, code, or trade secrets. In both cases, the assets are largely intangible until proven economic.
Both rely on quality founders and management. A small, skilled team can make or break the company. A geologist or executive with a great track record (“the Midas touch”) is analogous to a serial tech founder. Often the investors are backing the person more than the project.
Both sectors are heavily sentiment-driven (mining likes 2025, tech not so much). A hot commodity cycle floods junior mining with capital. A hot tech cycle (AI, crypto, SaaS) floods startups. When investor sentiment reverses, funding dries up fast and many companies are left to die, possibly to rise again in the next cycle.
Both sectors can follow the “Lassonde Curve” (mining) or the “Hype Cycle” (tech). There is an initial surge of excitement during discovery/launch, followed by a “boring” period of technical de-risking (development/user acquisition), and finally a re-rating once they reach production or profitability. (More on the Lassonde Curve later in this blog post).
Both sectors require pitching their story to investors. The Tech Startups rely on pitching to angel investor via shows like Shark Tank, pitch summits (t) using 5 minute elevator pitches (“get to the point” pitches). The Junior Miners rely on the numerous mining conferences like PDAC, Mines & Money, Beaver Creek, Zurich, again relying on the PowerPoint pitch to gather eyeballs.

Obviously we should also point out there some differences between juniors and Tech Startups.

Juniors work with physical geological reality. You either find the ore body or you don’t. Startups can pivot; geology can’t.
Mining has far longer timelines; discovery to production can take 10–20 years vs. a startup’s typical 5–7 year VC cycle. Any longer than that, and a Tech Startups technology can become obsolete.
Regulatory, environmental permitting, and social license is a constraint for miners with no real startup equivalent. Viable exploration projects can get blocked through no fault of the miner itself.
Junior Miners are more commodity-price dependent. Even a great deposit can be uneconomic at the wrong metal price. Conversely a miner’s asset could become more valuable over time based on metal prices. Tech startup do not rely on a commodity price outside their control.
Junior Miners tend to rely on public capital markets for financing right from the start, although the trend toward private equity mining investment may be increasing. Conversely, at early stages, Tech Startups tend to be bootstrapped and financed via private equity, venture capital, and angel investors. Junior Miner investments can provide more liquidity and exit opportunities due to their public listing. Tech investors may be locked in until a liquidity event occurs.
The startup world will label their financing rounds (seed, Series A, Series B,..) with the hope that future investors provide financing at higher valuations than earlier investors. The mining industry does not label their placement rounds – perhaps they should.

In conclusion, an analogy between Junior Miners and Tech Startups can help outsiders understand the risk, capital structure, and investor behavior of both industries. One might conclude that Junior Miners were the Tech Startups of decades prior, and are still functioning that way today.

Should exploration expenses be considered R&D

Exploration spending shares some of the same characteristics of more commonly R&D.

R&D is uncertain in outcome, generates intellectual property (geological data, resource models), and is expensed before any revenue is realized. A pharma company doesn’t know if a new drug will be a win, similarly a Junior Miner doesn’t know if a drill program will yield an economic deposit. Both activities are investments in discovering something of future value, hopefully.

R&D is about de-risking a concept, and de-risking is a term commonly used by Junior Miners. Every drill hole, soil sample, and geophysical survey is a data point that builds knowledge, and even uneconomic drill holes provide value by focusing the search area.

Much like our drug development example, exploration has a high-failure, high-reward path. Early-stage “lab work” (geochemistry/geophysics) leads to “clinical trials” (core drilling) and eventually “commercialization” (feasibility and production).

There are also some differences between exploration and conventional R&D. R&D will typically create proprietary intellectual property, like a new drug or software platform that can be replicated and marketed globally. A mineral discovery is a unique, non-replicable physical asset in a given location. R&D in tech is about creating something from nothing (innovation), while exploration is about finding something that already exists (discovery).

Exploration also tends to be more binary since it is geologically constrained. You either find an ore body or you don’t. You can’t modify or pivot with an orebody. On the other hand, drug and software R&D can yield partial successes or new technologies, that may have other applications.

Although there are both similarities and differences, the analogy is interesting. Exploration may be considered as a hybrid since it has the uncertainty and knowledge-creation aspect of R&D, but the result is a unique physical asset and not IP. In my view exploration is equivalent to R&D.

Lassonde Curve vs Hype Cycle Curve

As mentioned previously, junior mining and Tech Startups will follow a cyclic path of hype and despair. In mining it is known as the “Lassonde Curve” and in tech its called the “Gartner Hype Cycle”. Let’s look at the similarities. Which came first?

The Lassonde Curve is the “elder” of the two models, predating the Gartner Hype Cycle by about a decade. I had written a previous blog post on this at Mining’s Lassonde Curve – A Wild Ride.

The image below shows them side by side, and they do look similar. While both charts effectively track the “rollercoaster” of investor psychology and technical de-risking, they emerged from different eras and industries. Both charts have a x-axis that represents time and both have a y-axis that represents expectation ( stock price can be viewed as a measure of expectation).

1. The Lassonde Curve (developed in late 1980s)
Created by Pierre Lassonde, the legendary mining financier and co-founder of Franco-Nevada. The model explains the life cycle of junior mining stocks to investors, explaining why sometimes investors get burned after a discovery even if the project is technically sound.

2. The Gartner Hype Cycle (developed in 1995)
Created by analyst Jackie Fenn at the technology research firm Gartner to help clients distinguish between the “hype” of a new technology and its actual commercial maturity. The model guides corporate IT departments on when to invest in new technologies (e.g., AI, Cloud, VR) without getting burned by the “Peak of Inflated Expectations.”

Does the Gartner HC model use the earlier Lassonde Model as a template? Both models show that humans tend to over-speculate on “newness” (whether it’s a drill hole hit or a new technology) and then lose interest when the hard work begins. It seems that Pierre Lassonde mapped that human behavior a few years before the tech world did. In this aspect, the understanding of investor behavior in junior mining was leading the way for Tech Startup behavior.

Is a PEA Study Like a Tech Product Market Fit (PMF) Study

Another similarity between junior mining and tech world is in the way early-stage viability is assessed. This is required to decide whether millions of dollars of further investment is warranted. Miners will complete a PEA. Startups will complete Product-Market Fit research.

A Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA or scoping study) is an early-stage technical and economic evaluation of a mineral deposit. Its core purpose is to determine whether a project is potentially viable before committing significant capital to more advanced studies.

Product-Market Fit (PMF) research for a Tech Startup is a structured effort to determine whether a product satisfies a strong market demand. The goal isn’t just to confirm PMF exists; its to understand the who, why, and how it will work before committing to aggressive growth.

Comparing a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to a Tech Startup’s Product-Market Fit (PMF) stage is a great way to see how both industries similarly “de-risk” an idea before committing big money.
In both worlds, this is the moment where one stops saying “We have a cool idea or a nice deposit” and start saying “We have a viable business.”

1. The “Does This Thing Actually Work?” Test

– Tech (PMF): Once the team has built a beta, they can see if people are using it and are willing to pay for it. They need to prove there is a market for the tech.

– Mining (PEA): The team has found a deposit. The PEA is the first time they can put a dollar sign on it. It’s a conceptual study that predicts “If we build a mine here with these current economic inputs, it should make money.”

2. The Shift from “Geology” to “Economics”

Just as a Tech Startup shifts from coding to customer acquisition cost (CAC), a Junior Miner shifts from geology to metallurgy and CAPEX.

– Tech: It doesn’t matter how good the code is, if it costs >$50 to acquire a customer who only spends $5 it will not be a viable venture.

– Mining: It doesn’t matter if you have 2 million ounces of gold if the rock is difficult to process or if the project costs billions to build. The PEA is the first reality check on these costs.

3. Attracting the Investors

The PEA / PMF stage may be the ultimate gatekeeper for many institutional capitalists.

– Tech: Once you deliver a PMF, Venture Capital (VC) firms may be more willing to provide growth capital to scale the business.

– Mining: Once a positive PEA is released, the company may see a “re-rating.” Larger funds and mid-tier miners may start looking at the project as a real asset rather than just a speculation.

In closing, It is important to remember that both PEA / PMF stages are still early. A tech company with PMF can still be crushed by a competitor or a change in regulatory or platform privacy requirements. A mining project with a PEA can still fail if the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) reveals that the environmental permitting or economic factors are not as expected. Neither early stage study is a guarantee for future success, which is another similarity between the two sectors.

Conclusions

There are many parallels between Junior Miners and Tech Startups. The similarities are in how they are built, how they function, and how they acquire funding.

In that way, exploration expenditures can also be viewed through the lens of R&D spending. So it may be improper for some to suggest that the mining industry is not spending enough on R&D, when it actually is spending huge amounts on R&D.

The Junior Mining industry has been around much longer than the Tech Startup world, and hence have led the way in building an ecosystem for speculative investment.

Is it cool to work in the startup world? The answer is yes if its tech, and (unfortunately) no if its mining.

**end**

In case you missed it, the last blog post was “Beyond the Headline Grade: For or Against Assay Transparency?“.

You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

What Does Ai Think of Toll Milling

Date: February 24, 2026 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

I recently noticed a few new mining studies that relied on toll milling as their base case operation. This made me wonder if this is a trend and if there are more examples of where this is happening.

If only there was a way to find out.

I have been tinkering with Ai (mainly ChatGPT and Gemini) to see what it can do, but I never really had a “project” for it to work on.

So I thought, lets see what Ai can tell us about toll milling. This would be an opportunity to test out Claude (AI assistant built by Anthropic) to see what it will deliver. I could ask it a few questions about the concept of toll milling to find out what it would say.

The following blog is the unedited responses that were given to my user prompts. The results, albeit lengthy, are interesting and informative. Let’s dive in.

By the way, this is the first blog post ever where I have applied Ai.

CLAUDE Ai CONVERSATION

USER PROMPT: Can you prepare a list of recent mining studies that used toll milling as the base case.

RESPONSE: Here is a summary of recent mining studies (primarily PEAs and PFS-level studies) that used toll milling as the base case or a key component, based on publicly available information from 2024-2026:

1. RPX GOLD – WAWA GOLD PROJECT (ONTARIO, CANADA) PEA – February 2026
The base case is built entirely around toll milling, with crushed ROM ore trucked to an off-site facility within 150 km for processing into gold dore. No on-site mill or tailings facility is planned, significantly reducing capital requirements. The project sits in the Michipicoten Greenstone Belt near Wesdome, Alamos, and Hemlo operations, all of which offer potential excess capacity.

2. AMEX EXPLORATION – PERRON GOLD PROJECT (QUEBEC, CANADA) Updated PEA – September 2025
Features a two-stage development strategy: a 4-year, 1,000 tpd contract mining and toll-milling operation in Phase 1, followed by construction of an on-site processing plant in Phase 2. The Abitibi region’s numerous operating mills make this approach practical. Initial capex is C$146M, partially offset by C$68.6M in pre-production revenues during the toll-milling phase.

3. CHALLENGER GOLD – HUALILAN PROJECT (ARGENTINA) PFS – 2024/2025
The PFS is structured around toll milling as the path to near-term production, with the study outlining forecast EBITDA of approximately A$221M over a 3-year tolling period at current metal prices. Challenger also executed a binding term sheet with Dolphin Real Assets/Elsztain Group to facilitate processing through a tolling agreement, with the arrangement expected to fund mining, transportation, and processing costs until initial gold revenue is received.

4. SCOTTIE RESOURCES – SCOTTIE GOLD MINE PROJECT (BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA) PEA – October 2025
The primary base case is a Direct-Ship Ore (DSO) scenario, but the study prominently presents toll milling at the nearby Premier mill as a significant upside scenario. Under the toll-milling arrangement, the after-tax NPV(5%) rises from C$215.8M to C$380.1M at US$2,600/oz gold – a meaningful enhancement. No formal toll-milling agreement was in place at the time of the study.

5. MAGNA MINING – CREAN HILL PROJECT (ONTARIO, CANADA) PEA – 2024
The PEA incorporates a definitive off-take agreement with Vale Base Metals to process Contact mineralization through Vale’s Clarabelle Mill in Sudbury. This is a firm, contracted toll-milling arrangement rather than a conceptual one, giving the study’s economics a higher degree of confidence in processing costs.

6. AURIC MINING – JEFFREYS FIND GOLD MINE (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) Operational toll-milling program – 2024
While not a formal feasibility study, Auric and joint venture partner BML Ventures executed a contract to toll mill a minimum of 300,000 tonnes of ore through the Greenfields Mill in Coolgardie during 2024. The first stage produced ~9,741 oz of gold at 1.86 g/t, demonstrating the model’s viability for small, high-grade open pit operations lacking on-site processing infrastructure.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:

Toll milling as a base case is most common in:

– Early-stage PEAs for junior developers in established mining districts (Abitibi, Michipicoten, Sudbury) where nearby mill capacity exists.
– High-grade, lower-tonnage projects where the capital cost of a dedicated mill is hard to justify at the outset.
– Projects pursuing a phased development path to generate near-term cash flow before committing to full plant construction.

USER PROMPT: What are the risks of toll milling plan.

RESPONSE: Toll milling carries several meaningful risks that study authors and investors should consider carefully.

OPERATIONAL & LOGISTICS RISKS

The most fundamental risk is mill availability. A toll miller may prioritize its own ore or other clients during peak periods, leaving your project without processing capacity exactly when you need it. Scheduling conflicts can delay production and erode project economics significantly. Transportation of ore or concentrate over long distances also introduces costs that are sensitive to fuel prices, road conditions, and seasonal access – particularly in remote northern jurisdictions.

COMMERCIAL & CONTRACTUAL RISKS

Toll milling agreements are typically not long-term ironclad contracts, and terms can be renegotiated or terminated. The toll miller holds significant leverage, especially if there are few alternative processors nearby. Processing rates, payable metal terms, and penalty clauses for deleterious elements can all shift unfavorably over time. If no binding agreement exists at the study stage – as was the case with Scottie Resources – the entire economic base case rests on an assumption rather than a firm commitment.

METALLURGICAL RISKS

The toll miller’s circuit is optimized for their own ore, not yours. Differences in mineralogy, grind size requirements, or the presence of penalty elements like arsenic, bismuth, or mercury can result in lower recoveries than modeled, higher processing charges, or outright refusal to accept the ore. Blending your material with the host mill’s feed can also complicate settlement and metal accounting.

FINANCIAL & ROYALTY RISKS

Without ownership of the processing facility, you have limited control over costs. Any increase in the toll miller’s operating costs – energy, reagents, labor – can be passed through to you. Additionally, some royalty structures are calculated on net smelter returns, meaning toll milling charges directly reduce the royalty base and affect third-party obligations.

REGULATORY & PERMITTING RISKS

Transportation of ore across jurisdictions may require additional permits, environmental assessments, or spill containment plans. If the toll mill’s own permits are challenged or its tailings facility reaches capacity, your project could be indirectly affected by regulatory actions aimed at a third party.

STRATEGIC RISKS

Relying on toll milling can delay the development of on-site infrastructure and institutional processing knowledge, which matters if the long-term plan is to build a dedicated mill. It can also make the project harder to finance or sell, since acquirers typically prefer integrated operations with controlled processing costs. Finally, if the toll miller is acquired, restructured, or shuts down, continuity of the arrangement is immediately in question.

In short, toll milling is an elegant solution for reducing upfront capital, but it trades capex risk for a different set of operational, commercial, and strategic risks that need to be carefully managed and clearly disclosed in any technical study.

USER PROMPT: What responsibility does the Qualified Person have in signing off on a study with toll milling.

RESPONSE: The Qualified Person (QP) signing off on a technical study that uses toll milling as the base case carries significant professional and regulatory responsibility, particularly under NI 43-101 in Canada or JORC in Australia.

CORE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER REGULATION

Under NI 43-101, the QP must take responsibility for the technical report in its entirety, or for clearly delineated sections where multiple QPs are involved. The QP must have sufficient relevant experience not just in geology or engineering broadly, but specifically in the type of deposit and the technical aspects being certified – which in a toll milling scenario includes process engineering, metallurgy, and mine economics. A geologist signing off on processing assumptions they are not qualified to assess would be in breach of their obligations.

REASONABLENESS OF ASSUMPTIONS

The QP is required to certify that the study’s assumptions are reasonable and reflect industry best practice. For toll milling specifically, this means the QP must be satisfied that the processing costs used in the economic model are realistic and supportable. If the toll milling rate is based on a verbal understanding or a letter of intent rather than a binding agreement, the QP must disclose this clearly and assess whether the assumed rate is achievable in the current market. Using a stale or unsupported toll rate without disclosure would represent a failure of duty.

DISCLOSURE OF RISKS

The QP has an affirmative obligation to disclose material risks that could affect the project’s viability. A rigorous technical report should explicitly identify the risks associated with toll milling – mill availability, contract uncertainty, metallurgical compatibility, transportation costs – rather than burying them in boilerplate language. Superficial or generic risk disclosure that does not reflect the specific circumstances of the toll milling arrangement would fall short of professional standards.

METALLURGICAL COMPETENCE

If the study relies on recoveries and processing costs derived from testwork conducted on the toll miller’s circuit, the QP must evaluate whether that testwork is adequate, recent, and representative of the ore to be processed. If no testwork has been done on the specific mill to be used, the QP must justify why analogous data is sufficient, and must disclose the uncertainty this introduces. Blindly accepting a recovery assumption without interrogating its basis is a serious professional risk.

INDEPENDENCE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

NI 43-101 requires the QP to be independent in certain circumstances, and to disclose any relationships with the issuer. If the toll miller is a related party or has a financial interest in the project, the QP must consider whether this creates a conflict that needs to be disclosed or whether it affects the reliability of commercial terms assumed in the study.

SITE VISIT REQUIREMENTS

The QP is generally required to have conducted a site visit. In a toll milling scenario, a thorough QP would arguably need to be familiar not just with the mine site but with the processing facility to be used – its condition, spare capacity, metallurgical compatibility, and operational track record. Signing off on processing assumptions for a facility that has never been visited or independently assessed is a professional vulnerability.

PRACTICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES

If a study proves materially misleading due to unsupported toll milling assumptions, the QP faces regulatory action from securities regulators, professional discipline from their engineering or geoscience association, civil liability to investors, and reputational damage. Canadian securities regulators have historically taken a dim view of QPs who rubber-stamp economic assumptions without genuine independent verification.

In summary, the QP’s responsibility in a toll milling study is not merely to sign a form – it is to genuinely interrogate the commercial, metallurgical, and logistical assumptions underpinning the arrangement, ensure they are adequately disclosed, and take personal professional accountability for their reasonableness. A QP who treats toll milling as a convenient shortcut to a positive economic outcome without doing this work is exposing themselves to considerable risk.

I asked Claude to create a QP checklist for factors that should be reviewed for a toll milling study. You can download that file at this link DOWNLOAD FILE.

CONCLUSION

The results given by Claude are quite thorough and insightful. It’s hard to argue with its observations and conclusions. This research took all of 30 seconds, so I can see it is no longer difficult to become a blog writer. Writing isn’t the challenge; finding interesting topics is.

One toll milling project that Claude did not list was the Galway Metals Estrades Project PEA published February 18, 2026. Perhaps that study was too recent to be familiar with it.

While Claude is not a mining specific Ai platform, there are some that are under development with a mining research focus. Some of these include MineGPT , SureOre.ai, ProspectorAi , and there are probably even more out there.

This area will continue to evolve, and may help mitigate the technical personnel shortage being experienced.

END

In case you missed it, the last blog post was “Mine Waste Risk Management – A Step Towards Consistency“.

You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

Mine Waste Risk Management – A Step Towards Consistency

Date: December 20, 2025 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 2 Replies

Every now and then I discover a new technology or platform that I feel can play a key role in the mining industry going forward. I also come across others that, in my opinion, will struggle to gain traction, knowing the industry as I do.

One intriguing platform that has caught my recent attention is related to mine waste risk management. This platform has been in development for a few years but recently reached the commercial launch milestone. The name of it is the Critical Infrastructure Risk Decision Basis (CI-RiskDB).

It is being developed by a Saskatoon based team at Enviro Integration Strategies and is intending to help manage risks associated with tailings, water, waste rock and heap leach facilities at mining operations. A heap leach pile is not exactly waste, until the leaching process is complete, but these facilities operate under the same types of risk as the other facility types included.

The CI-RiskDB platform has been designed on the risk assessment framework used by Agnico Eagle Mines, and aligned with current global best practices and standards. Agnico has been a co-developer of the back-end processes, and collaborator and reviewer of the platform design all the way along. It certainly helps to have some mine operator input when developing anything new for the mining industry.

Mining industry standardization is something I have always been a big proponent of. My years of undertaking numerous mining due diligences has shown me that the industry has a knack for each company doing things their own way. However, some industry-wide standardization of risk processes might be warranted given the extremely critical nature of tailings dams and other mine site embankments.

Regarding the CI-RiskDB online platform, I was given free demo access. I was able to poke around, examine methodologies, capabilities, and hence get a feel for how the application works. After my brief period of using it, I am in no way an expert on it. However, I can see that likely in less than 8 hours of use (or training) one should become very comfortable with the system functionality.

Benefits of the Platform

In my view, having a single industry platform for critical infrastructure risk management provides several benefits. These are:

• The CI-RiskDB platform provides consistency in the approach used to define and assess risk, which is important given the industry’s issue with employee turnover and lack of experienced technical personnel. A consistent platform will make it easier to accommodate personnel movement within companies and within supporting consultancies.

• The platform provides a complete risk story per site facility (i.e. tailings dam) by quantifying risk relative to other site facilities, and documenting actions to lower risks. This system is designed specifically for geo-infrastructure that rely on geotechnical stability analyses. It requires the users to identify all the ways that hazards, uncertainties, gaps in knowledge and poor quality of work can introduce risks to the facility.

• The CI-RiskDB platform provides a basis for both a risk assessment (risk ranking) and a Level of Practice (LOP) or maturity assessment. The LOP was something I personally had never heard of before. The LOP assessment represents a way to identify, quantify, and mitigate the numerous uncertainties one has in the design and operation of a mining facility.

• The platform can provide a repository for all documents pertaining to the facilities, linked directly to actions and risks they are related to, and other system knowledge such as actions status and progress, history of changes over time, and who made the changes and updates. It is then possible to find all relevant information in one place, including design reports, review board notes, construction records, performance and monitoring reports. This can be a time savings for all involved, and can support audits, training, onboarding.

• There will be a paper trail for the risk evaluation process, by documenting who provided input, rationale for the input, who did the review and final signoff on the risk scores.

Site Information Structure

The CI-RiskDB platform assesses risk management down to the level of the cross-sectional stability analysis. It subdivides a site down into various operational levels.

SITE ==> FACILITY ==> INFRASTRUCTURE ==> CROSS-SECTION

Each mine site is unique with its own set of “Facilities”. For example, the individual Facilities could include Tailing Management Area #1, TMA #2, the Heap Leach Pad, Waste Dump #1, Waste Dump #2, etc.

Each Facility can then be further subdivided into separate “Infrastructure”. For each Facility these could include (for example) a North Dam, a South Dam, an East Dam, etc.

Each Infrastructure item can be further classified into separate stability Cross-Sections. For example, the North Dam may have a section 10 metres high and another section at 50 metres high. Perhaps some stability analysis is done at peak shear strength and others using residual shear strength. The stability analysis for each cross-section will be different with unique factors of safety, unique Level of Practice (LOP), and therefore resulting in a unique probability of failure.

Risk Quantification Criteria

The CI-RiskDB platform follows a typical, but adaptable, risk evaluation approach of:

Risk Score = (Probability of Failure) X (Consequence of Failure)

The Probability of Failure is derived from Factor of Safety calculations modified by a Level of Practice score. The Level of Practice (LOP) is a measure of the integrity and quality of data used to design and manage a mine facility. A dam with a Factor of Safety of 1.2 will have a different Annual Failure Probability depending if the design & operation are highly credible (a high LOP) versus a design & operation based on limited field data and technical rigor (low LOP).

For example, by improving operating management or monitoring systems, one may reduce the Probability of Failure without changing anything in the design of the dam itself.

The Consequence of Failure score is derived from scoring on the four factors listed below. Each is scored on a scale of 1 to 5. The overall Consequence Score for the risk evaluation is based on the maximum score of the four factors

Health and Safety
Material damage
Environment
Community

Note that the risk categories, definitions, and score settings are adaptable based on a company’s existing risk matrices. This way a company does not need to implement an entirely new system, other than using the CI-RiskDB platform to help manage their information and risk assessment workflow.

Level Of Practice (LOP) Evaluation

The Level of Practice (LOP) is a measure of the integrity and quality of data used to design and manage a mine facility. The CI-RiskDB platform currently uses 45 criteria to evaluate the LOP associated with a facility. For example, these quality criteria include items such as: current understanding of soil profile; testing & verification between lab and field investigations; stability analysis detail; construction QA/QC undertaken, monitoring programs, etc.

The 45 criteria used for the LOP are categorized into six main categories. They are:

Design – Investigation (9 criteria)
Design – Testing (6 criteria)
Design – Analysis & Documentation (8 criteria)
Construction (8 criteria)
Operation & Monitoring (10 criteria)
Performance (4 criteria)

While not all 45 criteria apply to every facility or Infrastructure, the fact that 45 criteria are defined helps ensure a consistent LOP evaluation process.

Each facility receives an overall LOP score based on 1 to 4 rating for each criteria. As well, the basis for each criteria score is documented, reviewed, and signed off by relevant persons. This provides a documented process that endures despite changes in technical or management personnel.

The LOP score is at a snapshot in time and will evolve as measures are implemented to address areas that were lacking in technical rigor.

Example Output

The following are some example outputs from the CI-RiskDB platform.

Path to Successful Implementation

Tailings ponds and waste rock dumps are mine facilities that can impact the public far beyond the boundaries of the mine property limit. These facilities need to be taken seriously. Adoption of a platform like CI-RiskDB would move towards enhancing mining industry consistency in risk management.

The selection of individual scores will still be of a subjective nature when deciding what practices are good or poor quality, or whether sufficient rigor was applied to controlling risks. There is also the possibility of people assigning low consequence ratings where high consequence impacts might be possible.

Over confidence of personnel is something that can unfortunately play a role in risk management. However, the more eyes involved with reviews and signoffs, as well as occasional third party audits, the less likely that this occurs (hopefully).

If a company wishes to successfully implement the CI-RiskDB platform, it will need to make certain time commitments.

1. The company should treat the platform like a collective “diary” about their facilities, ensuring a full onboarding of all past information and reports and a thorough set of evaluations to start.

2. They will need to infill any risk-based information already known, and to have team members add insights about their own knowledge and observations over time. At the least, those involved with the facility must gradually add their knowledge that would otherwise remain “in their heads” or on their personal computers.

3. Companies must then continue to use the platform to record observations, upload performance reports and inspections, other relevant reports, and to update progress on actions and changes in conditions or issues tied to risks. The idea is to move the team away from relying on personal folders and emails, giving everyone involved access to information.

4. Companies must use the built-in governance protocols by running reports to understand what updates and changes have been made over time. Compare the number of actions added versus closed out over a specified period. Is progress being made? Compare the status of performance and risk progression over time and use this to demonstrate action for external audiences.

The CI-RiskDB platform will not maximize its value if a company is unable to make these types of commitments.

Conclusion

In closing, as of this month December 2025, I understand the Critical Infrastructure Risk Decision Basis platform is currently being piloted and implemented at a number of mine sites in Canada, including Agnico Eagle at a corporate level. Additional pilots may be forthcoming in 2026.

Hence one can expect that with time the platform will incorporate even more industry feedback in its functionality.

If you are interested in taking a deeper dive on the CI-RiskDB, contact the Enviro Integration Strategies’ team at https://ci-riskdb.com.

I would like to thank Karen Chovan for allowing me access to the platform. Since I am not a risk management expert, the time spent poking around was also a good learning experience for me.

Date: Dec 20, 2025

You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

Mine Reconciliation – Standardization Please

Date: May 7, 2025 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

Mine through mill reconciliation, in my view, is an under appreciated topic that could benefit from more conversation amongst industry members. Unfortunately, reconciliation is sometimes viewed as a time consuming frustrating activity, with what some consider less than verifiable results. However given the ongoing innovation that we are seeing in mining, reconciliation may need to play a bigger role than ever.

The mining industry is implementing more and more technology in the mining cycle.

For example, this can range from AI assisted resource modelling, down hole logging, blast movement tracking, GPS controlled dig limits, MineSense bucket grade tracking, load scanning, truck dispatch control, smart mining and edge computing, online grade analyzers, belt weightometers, drone surveying of stockpiles, and real time process controls.

Lots of different innovations are continually being adopted by the mining industry, contrary to what some may say.

The question is does all this innovation improve the overall performance of a mining operation, and if so, by how much? It can cost a lot of money to implement the new technology, is there a payoff?

One cannot answer those questions if one doesn’t undertake proper mine reconciliation. A concern might be that mining is innovating faster than the ability to assess the results of that innovation. To monitor it, you need to measure it.

What is Mine Reconciliation

Mine reconciliation is the process of comparing and aligning the estimated production with the actual production from mining and processing. It requires assessing the accuracy of pre-mining predictions against actual results to identify inconsistencies in the system and hopefully improve it, be it resource estimation, mine planning, or process efficiency. Comparisons can be made between multiple stages in the mining system, as shown in the image below.

Mine reconciliation requires information such as initial predictions from exploration data and geological models, actual measurement: data from mining sources, such as blast holes, stockpile samples, or mill feed. As well it will need data on the final product being shipped off site. Do the metal quantities balance out throughout the mining operation?
Mine reconciliation tends to aggregate over longer time periods (monthly, quarterly or annually) due to short term impacts of material handling in stockpiles and plant circuits and the labour time needed to collect the input data.
Mine reconciliation ultimately attempts to assess how well the delivery of the final metal product relates to the initial resource model (i.e. what the project decision was originally based on)? It is also tool to evaluate the impact of any innovation implementation on the operation.
Reconciliation will help mine operators highlight issues and optimize extraction, manage costs, and ensure compliance with regulatory or investor expectations. Factors such as poor resource estimation, excessive dilution and ore loss, inaccurate sampling, etc. can cause discrepancies, making reconciliation an important part of any operation.
The reconciliation process is also used to derive Mine Call Factors. These factors are used to modify the forecasts from long range models, short range models, and grade control models to better represent the actual performance the operation will likely see. Large call factors suggest something is amiss in the “forecast to actual” progression. The first problem is to identify the causes. The list of the common sources of error can be lengthy. Then, once identified, the second problem is how to fix them.

Harry Parker initially suggested various reconciliation parametrics and labelled them F1, F2, F3. In a 2009 paper by Fouet titled “Standardising the Reconciliation Factors Required in Governance Reporting”, indicates that Rio Tinto had decided upon fifteen (15) different possible reconciliation correlations (see image below). Each one provides an insight on the efficiency of the operation in one way or another. I have seen modified versions of the reconciliation relationships, so it appears there may be no industry standard at this time. Fouet was asking about industry standardization in 2009 (an excellent paper to read by the way).

Mining Codes Getting Involved

It appears that the JORC Code may be recognizing the importance of reconciliation. In an August 2024 Exposure Draft JORC is suggesting the following text: “Where an Ore Reserve has been publicly reported for an operating mine, the results of both production reconciliation and any prior estimate comparison must also be included in the annual Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves statement. Refer to Clause 2.36. The relationships and variables being reconciled must be described in plain language or depicted graphically and must include reconciliations of both the Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.”

Interestingly, it appears that NI43-101 has not yet jumped on the bandwagon about the importance of disclosing reconciliation results. However, it may just be a matter of time before it becomes one of their disclosure requirements.

If more regulatory focus will be put on mine reconciliation disclosure, then perhaps more industry standardization is warranted. This would help better define some of the terminology and “F factors” shown in the diagrams above to ensure consistency and help avoid each mine doing reconciliation in their own way.

Excel versus Cloud Based Reconciliation

Each mine site may be unique with respect to; ore sources; terminology; ore types; mining methods; stockpiling philosophy; processing methods; technology availability; and personnel capability. So often the easiest approach for mine reconciliation is based on the Excel spreadsheet. (Reconciliation is generally not an easy undertaking).

Spreadsheets can be built site specific, based on an operation’s unique characteristics.

Spreadsheets are often built by a user for that user. They are tailored for the tailor. In my experience, typically the modeler is the only one comfortable with an Excel model’s logic, since all of us may think differently. Unfortunately, with the spreadsheet approach, it becomes more difficult to standardize an industry wide reconciliation process.

An alternate solution to spreadsheets is to use a cloud based standardized software package. Toronto based Minebright has one option, called Pit Info (see link for more info). There are a few other reconciliation software applications available. They tend to be cloud based, hence multiple people can have access to the input modules or output modules. (I would like to thank the Minebright people for steering me towards some of the technical papers on this subject).

The cloud based approach may help make reconciliation a group effort instead of a tightly controlled internal function. It may also help standardize reporting from a company’s multiple operations, reporting from the mining industry globally, or simply for consistent JORC reporting.

The downside to the cloud approach is the mine site teams must learn the software and tailor it to their operation. However, once that hurdle is passed, personnel changes become less onerous due to the model consistency. I have seen cases where a person doing the Excel reconciliation task has left their job, and hence forward the reconciliation effort came to a halt. The people remaining may be too busy or simply don’t want to have to figure out the Excel logic of someone else.

The other nice thing about a cloud software approach is that when improvements are rolled out, every user gets the same update. The “wisdom of crowds” will result in learnings and suggestions that will tend to improve the application functionality over time. There are a lot of smart people out there, and it would be nice to see them working together rather than individually, as the open source software community has demonstrated.

With AI, we also may get to the point where cloud based mine reconciliation platforms can use learnings from other projects, and help identify where the likely technical shortfalls are at a mine site and why production is not reconciling. Let’s ask AI do some of the thinking for us to get to the bottom of a problem.

Conclusion

Mine reconciliation is becoming more and more important, but it can be a forgotten aspect. Sometimes this is because it is difficult to do properly. However, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted. The more one can learn about one’s operation, the more likely it can stay efficient, relevant, and in business. The more one knows whether technology improvements are making a difference, the more one may be willing to take on even more new technology.

Shifting some people (like me) away from Excel based solutions can be a challenge, but this is an area where it makes sense. Years ago, many engineers did mine production scheduling using Excel, but we have gradually moved away from that, thankfully. Reconciliation should maybe follow that path.

Disclaimer: Mining is a global business, and perhaps more progress is being made on reconciliation standardization than I am aware of sitting here in my Toronto office. Mine operations around the world are at the forefront of developing new systems. Perhaps we are seeing great things being done in the area of mine reconciliation, or maybe we are not. Please share your experiences if you’re comfortable doing that.

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

Top Ten Mining Podcasts

Date: March 12, 2024 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 1 Reply

Podcasts. There are thousands of them out there, free for anyone to access. This blog post is about the top mining podcasts that I find entertaining and educational. There are probably some missing from this list that I have not heard about. One only has so much free time in a day.

On YouTube, there are also a lot of videos related to mining and investing. Some of the YouTube videos are also available in audio only podcast format. Given the option, I prefer the audio-only podcast format over YouTube since one doesn’t need to focus on a video screen. With audio podcasts, you can do other things, like exercise, walk the dog, drive, etc. One has freedom to multi-task, something that is tougher with video.

For listening to podcasts, I personally use the Android phone app called Podcast Addict , however, there are plenty of other apps available.

Mining Podcast Categories

Mining podcasts tend to fall into one of two categories; Mining Investment; and Geology & Engineering Discussions.

Mining Investment: These are the investor targeted interviews, interrogating corporate executives or newsletter writers. From a mining engineer’s perspective (not an investor), I listen to some of these to catch up on past projects or learn how different executives strategize their path forward. These interviews can be paid for promotions, so sometimes the interview questions are of the softball type “Tell us why your project is so great”. Some interviews can be a big more rigorous and those can get interesting.

Geology & Engineering Discussions: There are also a few podcasts related to technical discussions on geology, exploration methods, resource modelling, mining software, technology, and mining services. I have not found any podcasts specifically related to mine engineering or mineral processing. They tend to be geared towards the geological and exploration aspects of the industry.

Pick and choose wisely. One can’t listen to all the episodes available or else you wouldn’t have time to do anything else in life. You would also likely be bored because many can be similar and repetitive.

Therefore I follow multiple podcasts, get new updates, and then pick and choose from there. I probably only listen to 10%-20% of the episodes of those I follow. Probably most everyone does the same thing.

With investor presentations, the same executives will appear on multiple podcasts when they have new developments to share. As well, some executives a. re returning guests, sometimes with not a lot new to say. Some interviews are paid and some unpaid. Staying in the public eye is important.

The podcast host controls the style of discussion and you will find some that you prefer over others.

Mining Investment Podcasts

This list are my regulars in 2026, in no particular order of preference. The initial version of this post in 2024 had a few different ones, but some have since disappeared. There are plenty more podcasts run by IR and investment firms such as Red Cloud, 6ix, as well as several newsletter writers. You can probably find an interview out theon whatever company interest you.

Resource Talks https://www.youtube.com/@ResourceTalks/ who does a executive interview, largely following a consistent script. The discussions get into share ownership, career history, and project plans. I like this podcast so much, I was on it once. These can be lengthy, 1 to 2 hours in duration.
Mining Stock Education https://www.miningstockeducation.com/ This Bill Powers podcast will have some no hold barred discussions focusing on both the positives and negatives of mining investment (no actual names mentioned). Some guests will provide great education on the inner workings of the junior mining industry.
Crux Investor https://www.cruxinvestor.com/
Mining Stock Daily https://www.miningstockdaily.com/ Mining Stock Daily, hosted by Trevor Hall, provides a daily 8 minute overview of overnight mining news and will also have long form discussions on finance, macro economics, and corporate exploration news.
Money of Mine https://www.youtube.com/@MoneyofMine This Aussie mining podcast focusses mainly on Australian companies, but the multiple hosts have an interesting style and not afraid to say what they think. The buy-side investment analysts they chat with have great insight.

Geology & Engineering Podcasts

These are some podcasts on the technical side of mining. Some of the discussions can get very deep into the science but others will discuss the role of QPs, 43-101, JORC, etc. Investors may get limited value from these podcasts.

Fresh Thinking by Optiro-Snowden https://snowdenoptiro.com/podcasts-fresh-thinking-technical-podcasts-mining-industry/ This podcast is hosted by Snowdon – Optiro consultants. They typically focus on resource modelling and grade reconciliation aspects. The episodes are fairly short (10-15 mins), which is nice. Although I am not a resource modeller, I can always learn more about the black art of resource modelling.
Measured by RSC https://www.youtube.com/@rscyoutube is hosted by Rene Sterk and is mainly Australia focused, speaking with many geologists and consultants from the region. The discussions are not too technical and often focus on big picture issues for consultants.
Rethink Mining https://www.youtube.com/@ReThinkMining These are discussions on global mining innovation, chatting startup founders developing new hardware, software, and technology for the mining industry.
The Northern Mining Podcast https://secure.northernminer.com/tag/podcast/ This podcast provides general industry news, as the Northern Miner newspaper does. It also has interviews with key industry players, but generally avoids the company investor relation interviews.

That’s the Top Ten.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no podcasts related to mine engineering, and topics such as pit optimization, mine design, scheduling, equipment selection, and costing.

There was one podcast on mine scheduling by Mark Bowater, author of the book “Crimes Against Mine Planning”, but I can’t find it on any podcast platform.

Conclusion

There is no shortage of material in the podcast world about the mining industry. It all depends on what grabs your attention.

Let us know what mining podcasts you would recommend (no self promotion allowed).

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

For some free mining calculator apps, including project timelines and a simplified cashflow modeller, check out this website https://sites.google.com/view/drillingdown

NPV One – Cashflow Modelling Without Excel

Date: May 21, 2023 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

From time to time, I encounter interesting software applications related to the mining industry. I recently became aware of NPV One, an Australian based, cloud hosted application used to calculate mineral project economics. Their website is https://npvone.com/npvone/

NPV One is targeting to replace the typical Excel based cashflow model with an online cloud model. It reminds me of personal income tax software, where one simply inputs the income and expense information, and then the software takes over doing all the calculations and outputting the result.

NPV One may be well suited for those not comfortable with Excel modelling, or not comfortable building Excel logic for depreciation, income tax, or financing calculations. These calculations are already built in the NPV One application.

I had a quick review of NPV One, being given free access to test it out. I spent a bit of time looking at the input menus and outputs, but by no means am I proficient in the software after this short review.

Like everything, I saw some very good aspects and some possible limitations. However, my observations may be a bit skewed since I do a lot of Excel modelling and have a strong comfort level with it. Nevertheless, Excel cashflow modelling has its own pro’s and con’s, some of which have been irritants for years.

NPV One – Pros and Cons

Pros

NPV One develops financial models that are in a standardized format. Models will be very similar to one another regardless of who creates it. We are familiar with Excel “artists” that have their own modelling style that can make sharing working models difficult. NPV One might be a good standard solution for large collaborative teams looking at multiple projects while working in multiple offices.
NPV One, I have been assured, is error free. A drawback with Excel modelling is the possibility of formula errors in a model, either during the initial model build or by a collaborator overwriting a cell on purpose (or inadvertently).
With NPV One, a user doesn’t need to be an Excel or tax modelling expert to run an economic analysis since it handles all the calculations internally.
NPV One allows the uploading of large input data sets; for example life-of-mine production schedules with multiple ore grades per year. This means technical teams can still generate their output (production schedules, annual cost summaries, etc.) in Excel. They can then simply import the relevant rows of data into NPV One using user-created templates in CSV format.
As NPV One evolves over time with more client input, functionality and usability may improve as new features are added or modified.

Cons

Like anything, nothing is perfect and NPV may have a few issues for me.

Since I live and breathe with Excel, working with an input-based model can be uncomfortable and take time to get accustomed to. Unlike Excel, in NPV One, one cannot see the entire model at once and scroll down a specific year to see production, processing, revenue, costs, and cashflow. With NPV jump to. If you’re not an avid Excel user, this issue may not be a big deal.
In Excel one can see the individual formulas as to how a value is being calculated. Excel allows one to follow a mathematical trail if one is uncertain which parameters are being used. With NPV One the calculations are built in. I have been assured there are no errors in NPV One, so accuracy is not the issue for me. It’s more the lack of ability to dissect a calculation to learn how it is done.
With NPV One, a team of people may be involved in using it. That’s the benefit of collaborative cloud software. However that means there will be a learning curve or training sessions that would be required before giving anyone access to the NPV One model. Although much of NPV One is intuitive, one still needs to be shown how to input and adjust certain parameters.
Currently NPV One does not have the functionality to run Monte Carlo simulations, like Excel does with @Risk. I understand NPV One can introduce this functionality if there is user demand for it. There will likely be ongoing conflict to try to keep the software simple to use versus accommodating the requests of customers to tailor the software to their specific needs.

Conclusion

The NPV One software is an option for those wishing to standardize or simplify their financial modelling.

Whether using Excel or NPV One, I would recommend that a single person is still responsible for the initial development and maintenance of a financial model. The evaluation of alternate scenarios must be managed to avoid it becoming a modelling team free for all.

Regarding the cost for NPV One, I understand they are moving away from a fixed purchase price arrangement to a subscription based model. I don’t have the details for their new pricing strategy as of May 2023. Contact Christian Kunze (ck@npvone.com) who can explain more, give you a demo, and maybe even provide a trial access period to test drive the software.

To clarify I received no compensation for writing this blog post, it is solely my personal opinion.

Regarding Excel model complexity mentioned earlier, I have written a previous blog about the desire to keep cashflow models simple and not works of art. You can read that blog at “Mine Financial Modelling – Please Think of Others”.

As with any new mining software, I had also posted some concerns with QP responsibilities as pertaining to new software and 43-101. You can read that post at the appropriately titled “New Mining Software and 43-101 Legal Issues”.

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

Games People Play

Date: September 29, 2022 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: Leave a reply

Are you a board game player? Personally I am not. However I understand there is a huge board game community out there. These game enthusiasts meet in small coffee shops and attend large gaming conventions. I read that 35% of Americans say they play board games several times a month. Think about how many board games you may have laying around in your own place, even if you’re not a hard core gamer.

Recently an avid board game player sent me an email asking if I was aware that there several mining related games. That was a surprise to me. Who would create a board game about mining and for what demographic market?

Curiosity took over and I had to check out the links sent to me on the Board Game Geek website. Here’s a few of the games and what they do. Now that Germany may be moving back into coal, the first three games may come back into fashion. The 4th game listed is a bit of a head scratcher.

A few of the mining board games

Game 1: Haspelknecht: The Story of Early Coal Mining (2015)

This game is part of a coal-mining game trilogy created by Thomas Spitzer in Germany. The players take the role of farmers with opportunities to exploit the presence of coal in the Ruhr region of Germany. During the game, players acquire knowledge about coal, extend their farms, and dig deeper in the ground to extract more coal.

Players must select the correct tasks while being mindful of quickly accumulating pit water, for it can stall efforts and prevent extraction of coal. The game info link is here.

Game 2: The Ruhr: A Story of Coal Trade (2017)

In the second game of Spitzer’s trilogy, you are still in the Ruhr region in the 18th century, at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The Ruhr river presented a transportation route from the coal mines. However, the Ruhr was filled with obstacles and large dams, making it incredibly difficult to navigate.

The players transport and sell coal to cities and factories along the Ruhr river in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the beginning, players have access only to low value coal but can gain access to high value coal. The players also build warehouses, locks, and export coal to neighboring countries in the pursuit of the most points.

The info link is here.

Game 3: Schichtwechsel: Die Förderung liegt in deiner Hand (2021)
This game may still be in German text only. Players are the administrator of a coal mine, and experience competition while living through a piece of Ruhr Valley history.

They bring coal and overburden from underground to the surface, let the miner go through a “shift at the colliery”, produce coke, or build the typical colliery settlements.

The info link is here.

Game 4: The Cost (2020)
This game takes on a more negative view of the mining industry. It is described as “A bold take on the economics in the brutal industry that is asbestos.” The game players assume the role of a global asbestos company.

Players make their fortune in mining, refining, and shipping. Whoever ends the game with the most money wins. The last part of the description is the gem “When players mine or refine asbestos, they must choose to either maximize profits for short-term gains or sacrifice their hard-won money to minimize deaths, thus sustaining the industry.” That’s every mining executive’s dilemma; profits or deaths. The info link is here.

Some of these game boards look more complicated than the actual industry. To find other games you can go to the Board Game Geek website and search for different themes. Most mining games listed there are not realistic but are more about dwarves mining gems or they just have an activity called “mining”. Here’s one called Copper Country.

Free Excel Mining Game

In 1983 my brother, at the age of 10, got his Commodore 64 computer and was eagerly learning to program in BASIC. He was always looking for ideas on what he could write programs about. I had graduated from McGill in Mining Engineering a few years earlier, so I suggested he write a simple computer game about mining as his project.

I provided him with the logic and in no time he had it written and functioning. That game is long gone, likely at the bottom of a landfill stored inside the chips of his Commodore 64. Some 40 years later, my brother is still coding as a software development manager. I guess I managed to convince him the mining industry wasn’t a career path.

Over the last few months I decided to learn VBA (Visual Basic for Applications). VBA is a programming language the works with Microsoft Office products, mainly Excel.

I always enjoyed programming. In university we wrote FORTRAN programs using stacks of punch cards to feed the machine the code. I had also learned the BASIC language, from my brother’s VIC 20 and Commodore computers.

A good way to learn something is to watch a few pf the many tutorial videos on YouTube. An even better way to learn VBA is by taking on an actual coding project from scratch. So, what worked 40 years ago, would work again. Rather than write something useful, I decided to re-write the mining game from 1983, albeit enhanced with the Excel application capability and more years of personal mining experience.

This coding process would force me to learn how to write code, figure out logic, create loops, if-then statements, and handle debugging. Already knowing Excel makes the entire process easier. Combining Excel functionality with VBA delivers capabilities that would have been difficult to do in BASIC alone. Note: It appears that BASIC is no longer in use, having been replaced by Python as the preferred programming language.

Download it.. if curious

If you are curious about the capability of VBA, the Excel mining game can be downloaded. A descriptive overview of the game is included in the PDF file at this link.

Junior Mining CEO game screenshot

The very simple game is called Junior Mining CEO. The object is to find gold, raise the share price, and not go bankrupt given the pitfalls that often befall the mining industry. The input parameters have a lot of optionality, although I have protected the macro code itself for this edition. You can borrow money and issue equity to fund your mining activity.

The Excel file can be downloaded at this link. The was written using Excel 365 but it may also work on older versions of Excel.

You will first need to save the game to your computer to run the macros. Since there are macros, many computers will disable such Excel files because they can contain viruses. You may need to toggle the file Properties in File Explorer to unblock the file to allow the macros to run.

Is there a junior mining corporate sponsorship opportunity here? Sure. For a small fee, I will add your company logo to the game and pre-set all the input parameters so that everyone is a big winner all the time.

Conclusion

As mentioned in a blog from a few months ago, “ A Junior EIT Mining Story” some gamification of mining may help introduce and educated people on the industry. Augmented reality (AR) and Virtual reality (VR) are both technologies that can be used to help reach out to the younger generations (I’m not talking about investor outreach).

How about a new board game that does to mining what Monopoly did to real estate investing? Look at real estate prices today, no doubt being influenced by everything we learnt playing Monopoly as kids.

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts.

A Junior EIT Mining Story

Date: July 11, 2022 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 2 Replies

We know the mining industry is having trouble attracting talent in all sorts of disciplines, including operations, technical, and supervision. Industry people have no shortage of ideas (right or wrong) on how this issue can be addressed in the future. Myself…I don’t really have any good suggestions.

Not long ago I was speaking with a 2020 graduate mining engineer (EIT = Engineer in Training). During our conversation, I was curious to know what attracted him to the industry and if he had any advice on how to reach out to others in his age group. I asked if he was willing to share his thoughts on my blog site. After all, who better to hear from than a recent graduate. He said “yes”, so for your interest, here is his story and his thoughts. (I decided to leave his name out of this article although he was not insisting on anonymity.)

So here’s the story (in his words)

Mining has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. Being born in Sudbury, many of my family members have been, or are currently involved, in mining through a variety of occupations, including my father who I idolized. However, I never knew my true interest in the industry until my 11th-grade technology class. I had a teacher who was passionate about the mining industry, and he created a project that involved developing a very basic mine design.

Once I started the project, I realized that I enjoyed the design work, as it requires problem-solving which constantly stimulates the mind. After the conclusion of this project, I started doing my own research to expand my knowledge and realized that the financial side of mining had great interest to me as well. This led me at age 16 to start investing in the mining sector, which I continue to this day.

With this developed interest, and my family’s mining history, the decision to study Mining Engineering at Laurentian University was an easy decision. It allowed me to support my hometown and will allow me, given my career ambitions, to put this small school on the international map.

Before my first year of university, I had a summer job tramming at Macassa Mine in Kirkland Lake Ontario, which has been in production since 1933. My mentality was to get the boots on the ground and get the job done, whatever it took (with proper safety precautions of course). Using rail systems, dumping ore cars manually, jackleg drilling, etc. gave me the perspective that mining was archaic, mining was rough, and mining was only about the ounces.

Therefore, when I started the Mining Engineering program at Laurentian University in 2016, I already had a (somewhat negative) preconceived notion of the mining industry, but as my short career progressed, my opinions morphed into something different, something more positive.

Now that I have graduated and been employed for a couple of years, my perspective has changed. However, I feel that the perspective of the general population has not. People within mining have a (positive) bias and realize its importance in our everyday lives. This is showcased in the famous saying “if it is not grown, it is mined” and I believe that to get the industry to progress at an even faster rate, we need to get everyone on board.

It cannot be an industry that just takes from the Earth, it needs to be seen as one that values sustainability, supplies the world with required goods, and creates jobs with high employee satisfaction. Although this has started with companies taking more of an interest in stakeholder value and employee job satisfaction, based on my limited years in the industry, there is still lots of room for growth.

To change the negative view around mining, I believe the main focal point should be electric equipment and the ability for remote operation/work. With all this newly developed technology at our fingertips, I know that future operations will be safer and more sustainable, which should be better portrayed.

The battery-electric equipment will surely increase employee satisfaction since I know firsthand that one of the worst feelings as a worker is to have a scoop operating in a heading that is already 25+ degrees. It will also create more sustainability since the industry can transition from being reliant almost solely on fossil fuels.

In addition, I believe that remote equipment operation is not being used to its full capacity or explained to the younger generation. Right now, there has been equipment running in Canada that was operated in Australia. What is stopping mines from having equipment operators all over the world in urban office spaces or out of their own homes? I believe that for a company to visit a high school, or even a trades school, to sell the idea that you can operate a massive piece of equipment from the creature comforts of home, almost like a real-life video game, would be quite compelling to this audience.

Even creating a mining simulation video game where you can run through a story of being a manager, excavator/scoop operator, truck driver, etc. would get the thought of mining brought into the coming generations at a younger age. This would increase the talent pool from the more typical operator because more and more youth are getting skilled at remote operation through video games due to their increased screen time.

Not only equipment operators, but technical staff could be made fully, or partially, remote. When I describe my job to my (non-mining) peers, many are interested since mining is a fast-paced, stimulating, and rewarding industry.

But as soon as I describe the remote nature of the work, many young professionals, or high school students, get turned away. Therefore, showing teenagers, through school presentations or workshops, that a technical career in mining can lead you down so many avenues (scheduling, ventilation design, drill & blast, etc.) would pique their interest, but I believe adding the ability to work remote, with some occasional travel, would drive the point home.

People get comfortable and people are afraid to leave home, so selling a career that allows for boundless flexibility in job tasks and constant stimulation while living wherever you desire could allow a shrinkage in the current technical gap.

Overall, the mining awareness and outreach (approach) is still old school. Getting to youth and teenagers through various media streams could be the key to getting engagement from not only the current mining towns but larger urban centres as well.

I mentioned a mining simulation video game previously, but what is stopping us there. Many of my peers, and youth younger than myself, are entering the professions of doctors, lawyers, finance, or criminal investigators.

I might be wrong, but, intriguingly, these are industries are the base professions glorified on TV. Why not develop more TV shows based on mining? I know that there would be some population interest considering many people ask me if the gold we mine underground looks like what comes out of the pans in Yukon Gold Rush.

So do I think the mining industry is archaic…. not anymore.

Do I think the mining industry is rough… somewhat.

Do I think it is only about the ounces…., yes, since a mine will not run any other way.

However, I believe that there has been more importance placed on employee and stakeholder satisfaction. So, with more time, and more engagement from the public of all ages, I think this industry can have a bright future ahead.

END

Conclusion

Firstly, I would like to thank this engineer for taking time to write out his well formed thoughts, and for allowing me to share them.

Many of the mining people I meet are following along in family footsteps. No surprise there. However, the industry cannot rely on that farm system alone. It should be reaching out to broader society, although that may require some out-of-the-box thinking. People’s attitudes and personalities are different today than they were 20 years ago. Many different doors are being held open as career options.

The discussion above has some interesting ideas from a person who would be the target of outreach efforts. It likely will take more effort than simply telling people “Hey, your iPhone uses metal, therefore mining is good, and you should work in mining”.

This guest blog post is an industry perspective from the view of a young engineer. If you interested in the perspective from a seasoned engineer who has worked around the globe, check out the book that is described in this blog post “Life as an Engineer – Read All About It“.

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts.

Hard Rock Continuous Cutting – Reducing Drill & Blast

Date: December 20, 2021 Author: Ken Kuchling Comments: 3 Replies

Several years ago I worked in the Saskatchewan potash industry where I grew my appreciation for continuous mining systems. Some of the key benefits were the high productivity per man-hour and the safe operating conditions. On a 12 hour nightshift, with a crew of 16 people we could mine over 9,000 tonnes of ore. Productivity is likely even higher now with the larger machines. Therefore, since that time, I have always kept an eye out for when similar technology can be applied in hard rock mining.

One of the research areas we are seeing these days is the development of continuous cutting technology for hard rock mine development. The idea is to replace the conventional drill & blast approach with something more efficient and safer. No need to deal with explosives, noxious gases, shatter the wall rock, or have personnel scale their way under loose conditions.

Recently I was contacted by someone associated with Robbins asking if I was aware of their MDM5000 mine development technology. I wasn’t aware of it, but I wondered if there finally is a light at the end of the tunnel.

4-rotor miner

In Saskatchewan potash the entire mining operation relies on track-mounted continuous miner technology. The miners are connected directly to the shaft area using a network of conveyors, up to 10 km worth of conveyor.

The potash miners are able to undertake both development work and production mining whilst connected to conveyor.

From time to time they will rely on shuttle cars, scooptrams, or grasshopper conveyors for small development tasks. A roadheader may also be available for localized ground stabilization.

All of this mechanical cutting is done in potash (sylvinite rock), considered a soft rock with a compressive strength of 20-40 MPa. For comparison, hard rock can have compressive strengths exceeding 250 MPa.

Two approaches in hard rock

Hard rock piloting trials are underway at a few operations, using different vendors with different equipment. These trials include companies like Komatsu, Robbins, Sandvik, and Epiroc. Each are testing their own equipment and cutting technologies.

The hard rock cutting approaches generally fall into two camps.

Roadheader style

There are the track mounted roadheader style cutters, typically with a movable arm used to shape the excavation. Any excavation shape is possible.

Tunnel Borer Style

Then there are the tunnel borer styles, where the machine propels itself with hydraulic shoes and the opening shape is based on the machine configuration. Normally a circular shaped opening is the result.

The roadheader style cutter is normally restricted to softer rock (< 50 MPa) while the tunnel borer is capable of much harder rock (200-250 MPa).

Robbins MDM5000

One system that peaked my interest is the Robbins MDM5000 because it can both cut hard rock and create a rectangular opening. Speaking with the vendor, this unit uses shoes to propel itself while cutting a rectangular shaped opening about 5m x 4.5m in size (see image). A rectangular shape is preferred to the circular opening whereby the floor invert must be backfilled to provide a level operating surface.

MDM5000 opening shape

The MDM5000 configuration and advance rate allows the installation of ground support and utilities behind the advancing face. Water sprays and dust collectors help to maintain visibility and air quality at the working face.

The Robbins unit is best suited for long straight drives although reportedly it can turn curves with 450-m radius. Tighter turns may be feasibility in the future by tweaking the machine design. Interestingly driving a drift uphill is easier than driving downhill due to the more efficient cuttings removal capability.

The MDM5000 unit can be linked to a Robbins conveyor system, which includes a head drive and an extensible belt storage unit that can feed out the conveyor belt as the machine advances forward. This operation is similar to that used in the Saskatchewan potash industry.

Robbins MDM5000

A Robbins machine has been in operation at the Fresnillo mine for several years with favorable results (check out the link here).

One nice thing about disc cutters is that they can accommodate variable rock types (softer and harder) while road headers can be hindered by hard rock zones. Roadheaders require a bit more consistency in rock quality.

Continuous cutting systems, such as the MDM5000, can be combined with vertical conveying technology, leading to safe and rapid development (>200m per month) in the right situation.

Conclusion

No doubt that we will eventually see more application of hard rock continuous cutting technology in the right situations. The Stillwater Mine in Montana has been using a Robbins tunnel borer for years for development tasks.

No matter how well these new systems perform, there will still be some limitations. This means the conventional drill and blast development will always be around. However, keep your eyes on this mining technology sector as improvements in cutter head design and equipment mobility continue to evolve.

Coincidentally International Mining (Nov-Dec 2021) recently published an in-depth article on the various systems being looked at. The link is here.

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates.

How long does it take to turn a mineral discovery into a producing mine. Also how long does permitting really take? These are questions that I see asked frequently in mining circles. The answer often thrown around is “18 years.” Is that really true or is it just a much-repeated industry myth?

Answering these questions is one reason we created a new online App called Timeline Viewer, hosted on the Drilling Down website (https://sites.google.com/view/drillingdown).

What Is the Timeline Viewer

The Timeline Viewer is a online application where anyone can take a look at the milestone history of selected mining projects. Key milestones are laid out chronologically from initial exploration, through studies, permitting, and sometimes even up to production.

The Viewer puts it all in one place: a visual, browsable record of what happened and when. This information is derived from corporate press releases, and weblinks are provided.

This App was vibe coded using the Zite platform (https://www.zite.com/). Just explain to the AI what you want to create, and it then writes all the code for you. Very simple to use and fast.

Getting Started: The List of Projects

Before diving into an individual timelines, the obvious starting point is the List of Projects (https://jcrkyl7eju.zite.so/). This list gives you an overview of every project currently logged in the database (over 90 as of today).

You can browse the list in either Grid view or List view. Once you find a project of interest, clicking on it takes you to its timeline in the Viewer.

Why The Timeline Matters

For anyone following the mining sector, whether as an investor – analyst – geologist -engineer, the value of the Timeline Viewer is that it simplifies a series of press releases into a visual record.

The Viewer is a tool for answering the “how long does it really take” question with actual information.

The Companion Piece: The Timeline Editor

If you encounter a bug, issue or inaccuracy, please flag it by email (KJKLTD@gmail.com). We’re open to hearing comments, since nobody expects AI-written code to be 100% perfect.

Conclusion

Note: You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

For some free mining calculator apps, including project timelines and a simplified cashflow modeller, check out this website https://sites.google.com/view/drillingdown

In closing, here is a summary timeline of all the mines coming into production in Canada over the last decade (from what I could find). The link to the timeline is https://neeovjtd7t.zite.so/project/3cd8bd8a-148f-4bc9-9bc3-fa56617f12d8

Recently I’ve seen a few LinkedIn conversations about whether the mining industry is spending enough money on Research and Development (R&D). Usually when one thinks of R&D, one might envision the development of new technology, new drug, equipment or software.

This blog post examines whether the junior mining industry was a leader in Tech Startup culture. Even things like the Lassonde Curve and the PEA have their comparables in the current tech world.

Are Junior Miners precursors to Tech Startups

Junior mining companies and Tech Startups share numerous similarities, although they operate in very different worlds. The following comments should recognize that junior mining ecosystem has been around for generations, long before the birth of tech ecosystems.

A startup spends years (and millions of dollars) building an MVP (Minimum Viable Product). If the market doesn’t want it or the tech fails to scale, the company goes to zero. Similarly if holes don’t hit or the metallurgy is too complex, the mining asset can face significant headwinds.

Both generate proprietary data. A Junior Miner’s most valuable asset is often its geological data (drill results, resource estimates, land tenure). A Tech Startup’s asset is its IP, code, or trade secrets. In both cases, the assets are largely intangible until proven economic.

Both rely on quality founders and management. A small, skilled team can make or break the company. A geologist or executive with a great track record (“the Midas touch”) is analogous to a serial tech founder. Often the investors are backing the person more than the project.

Obviously we should also point out there some differences between juniors and Tech Startups.

Juniors work with physical geological reality. You either find the ore body or you don’t. Startups can pivot; geology can’t.

Mining has far longer timelines; discovery to production can take 10–20 years vs. a startup’s typical 5–7 year VC cycle. Any longer than that, and a Tech Startups technology can become obsolete.

Regulatory, environmental permitting, and social license is a constraint for miners with no real startup equivalent. Viable exploration projects can get blocked through no fault of the miner itself.

Junior Miners are more commodity-price dependent. Even a great deposit can be uneconomic at the wrong metal price. Conversely a miner’s asset could become more valuable over time based on metal prices. Tech startup do not rely on a commodity price outside their control.

The startup world will label their financing rounds (seed, Series A, Series B,..) with the hope that future investors provide financing at higher valuations than earlier investors. The mining industry does not label their placement rounds – perhaps they should.

In conclusion, an analogy between Junior Miners and Tech Startups can help outsiders understand the risk, capital structure, and investor behavior of both industries. One might conclude that Junior Miners were the Tech Startups of decades prior, and are still functioning that way today.

Should exploration expenses be considered R&D

Exploration spending shares some of the same characteristics of more commonly R&D.

R&D is about de-risking a concept, and de-risking is a term commonly used by Junior Miners. Every drill hole, soil sample, and geophysical survey is a data point that builds knowledge, and even uneconomic drill holes provide value by focusing the search area.

Much like our drug development example, exploration has a high-failure, high-reward path. Early-stage “lab work” (geochemistry/geophysics) leads to “clinical trials” (core drilling) and eventually “commercialization” (feasibility and production).

Exploration also tends to be more binary since it is geologically constrained. You either find an ore body or you don’t. You can’t modify or pivot with an orebody. On the other hand, drug and software R&D can yield partial successes or new technologies, that may have other applications.

Although there are both similarities and differences, the analogy is interesting. Exploration may be considered as a hybrid since it has the uncertainty and knowledge-creation aspect of R&D, but the result is a unique physical asset and not IP. In my view exploration is equivalent to R&D.

Lassonde Curve vs Hype Cycle Curve

As mentioned previously, junior mining and Tech Startups will follow a cyclic path of hype and despair. In mining it is known as the “Lassonde Curve” and in tech its called the “Gartner Hype Cycle”. Let’s look at the similarities. Which came first?

The Lassonde Curve is the “elder” of the two models, predating the Gartner Hype Cycle by about a decade. I had written a previous blog post on this at Mining’s Lassonde Curve – A Wild Ride.

Is a PEA Study Like a Tech Product Market Fit (PMF) Study

Another similarity between junior mining and tech world is in the way early-stage viability is assessed. This is required to decide whether millions of dollars of further investment is warranted. Miners will complete a PEA. Startups will complete Product-Market Fit research.

A Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA or scoping study) is an early-stage technical and economic evaluation of a mineral deposit. Its core purpose is to determine whether a project is potentially viable before committing significant capital to more advanced studies.

Product-Market Fit (PMF) research for a Tech Startup is a structured effort to determine whether a product satisfies a strong market demand. The goal isn’t just to confirm PMF exists; its to understand the who, why, and how it will work before committing to aggressive growth.

1. The “Does This Thing Actually Work?” Test

– Tech (PMF): Once the team has built a beta, they can see if people are using it and are willing to pay for it. They need to prove there is a market for the tech.

– Mining (PEA): The team has found a deposit. The PEA is the first time they can put a dollar sign on it. It’s a conceptual study that predicts “If we build a mine here with these current economic inputs, it should make money.”

2. The Shift from “Geology” to “Economics”

Just as a Tech Startup shifts from coding to customer acquisition cost (CAC), a Junior Miner shifts from geology to metallurgy and CAPEX.

– Tech: It doesn’t matter how good the code is, if it costs >$50 to acquire a customer who only spends $5 it will not be a viable venture.

– Mining: It doesn’t matter if you have 2 million ounces of gold if the rock is difficult to process or if the project costs billions to build. The PEA is the first reality check on these costs.

3. Attracting the Investors

The PEA / PMF stage may be the ultimate gatekeeper for many institutional capitalists.

– Tech: Once you deliver a PMF, Venture Capital (VC) firms may be more willing to provide growth capital to scale the business.

– Mining: Once a positive PEA is released, the company may see a “re-rating.” Larger funds and mid-tier miners may start looking at the project as a real asset rather than just a speculation.

Conclusions

There are many parallels between Junior Miners and Tech Startups. The similarities are in how they are built, how they function, and how they acquire funding.

In that way, exploration expenditures can also be viewed through the lens of R&D spending. So it may be improper for some to suggest that the mining industry is not spending enough on R&D, when it actually is spending huge amounts on R&D.

The Junior Mining industry has been around much longer than the Tech Startup world, and hence have led the way in building an ecosystem for speculative investment.

Is it cool to work in the startup world? The answer is yes if its tech, and (unfortunately) no if its mining.

In case you missed it, the last blog post was “Beyond the Headline Grade: For or Against Assay Transparency?“.

You can sign up for the KJK mailing list to get notified when new blogs are posted. Follow me on Twitter at @KJKLtd for updates and other mining posts. The entire blog post library can be found at https://kuchling.com/library/

I recently noticed a few new mining studies that relied on toll milling as their base case operation. This made me wonder if this is a trend and if there are more examples of where this is happening.

If only there was a way to find out.

I have been tinkering with Ai (mainly ChatGPT and Gemini) to see what it can do, but I never really had a “project” for it to work on.

So I thought, lets see what Ai can tell us about toll milling. This would be an opportunity to test out Claude (AI assistant built by Anthropic) to see what it will deliver. I could ask it a few questions about the concept of toll milling to find out what it would say.

The following blog is the unedited responses that were given to my user prompts. The results, albeit lengthy, are interesting and informative. Let’s dive in.

By the way, this is the first blog post ever where I have applied Ai.

CLAUDE Ai CONVERSATION

USER PROMPT: Can you prepare a list of recent mining studies that used toll milling as the base case.

RESPONSE: Here is a summary of recent mining studies (primarily PEAs and PFS-level studies) that used toll milling as the base case or a key component, based on publicly available information from 2024-2026:

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:

Toll milling as a base case is most common in:

USER PROMPT: What are the risks of toll milling plan.

RESPONSE: Toll milling carries several meaningful risks that study authors and investors should consider carefully.

OPERATIONAL & LOGISTICS RISKS

COMMERCIAL & CONTRACTUAL RISKS

METALLURGICAL RISKS

FINANCIAL & ROYALTY RISKS