Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

XMFSinchiruna (26.47)

Developing a Scorecard for Assessing MicroCap or Junior Explorers/Miners



April 12, 2011 – Comments (39) | RELATED TICKERS: KBXRF , PZG , CLGRF

I have inserted a very brief pause in the microcaps series; because over the course of completing the first two company-specific discussions, it occured to me just how important a more uniform means of comparison could be to the overall effectiveness of the series. This is an idea I've tossed around for years, and now both the time and the reason to develop the idea have arrived.

We need a scorecard that we can utilize to yield a score for prospective microcap resource companies that we perform due diligence on, so that all the work we do looking into each company produces a better and comprehensive understanding of how it may stack up as an investment opportunity relative to other similar plays. Rather than a means to an end, the scorecard is also conceived as a guide to hone due diligence endeavors to ensure that the full suite of salient characteristics of an emerging resource company are inspected and surveyed in a more systematic way.

So I spent all day and night yesterday honing an approach that I believe may have some merit as a scoring system. I am very interested to get your feedback if you can think of anything I've overlooked here, but on the whole I think you'll find this scorecard system will lead to just about every important rock being overturned during your/our research process. The other great advantage of this system is that now you don't have to wait for me to get through the 36+ companies in the cue for this series, but can rather proceed confidently in your research in the meantime and make moire timely decisions regarding your own selections of the most compelling investments available in the space.

The approach outlined below is based upon a maximum total score of 100. Within some individual sections, I have offered some suggestions as to how to apportion scores according to individual items in that section. Of course, one could easily alter that guidance to suit their own varying emphasis upon particular qualities or characteristics, provided they keep that approach consistent throughout their comparative research process.

I will illustrate the proposed scoring procedure in greater detail over the course of the next couple of company-specific posts, but in a nutshell, here are the major moving parts:

Resources: (maximum 30 points for this section)

     estimated scale of resources identified to date. 10 points

     deposit type: near surface vs. deep deposit, bulk-mineable vs. vein deposit. 4 points

     grade: rating average or observed ore grades relative to deposit type and peers. 8 points

     thickness and strike length: looking for positive indications of continuity and scope. 8 points

          bonus for deposits open along strike, at depth, or signs of infill potential.

Real Estate: (maximum 20 points for this section)

     location relative to producing or historical trends: the story that led them to look there. 5 points

          favorability of local and regional geology. 

     scale of the land package along geological trend - portion explored vs. unexplored. 5 points

          bonus for signs of district-scale potential beyond identified deposits. 

     adjacent or nearby mines, deposits, or targets; bonus if any include well financed operators. 5 points

          bonus for an adjacent mining operation, especially if it appears to be along strike/along trend.

          strategic allure - identifiable motive for acquisition by a nearby producer/developer.

     jurisdiction: political stability, tax regime, permitting process and regulatory regime. 5 points

          negative scores for this sub-section can conceivably be assessed for worst jurisdictions.

Life Stage: (maximum 15 points for this section) This section is all about the de-risking effect.

     very straightforward: one point for each milestone achieved in a typical development lifespan:

          staking --> sampling/trenching/target development --> exploration drilling --> initial resource estimate 

           --> further expansion or infill drilling --> PEA/pre-feasibility study --> building/reporting reserves --> 

          feasibility study --> permitting --> construction decision --> mine financing --> mine construction -->

          mine completion/inauguration -->  mine ramp-up --> achievement of design throughput.

Management: (maximum 15 points for this section)

     geological expertise, especially in region, and track record of prior discovery a huge bonus. 3 points

     commitment to shareholders: insider ownership; record of resisting shareholder dilution. 7 points

     strategic focus: coherent vision for company's future, including future financing needs. 5 points

Valuation: (maximum 10 points for this section)

     if resource estimate achieved: compare ratio of enterprise value to market value of resource to peers.

          if extensive, highly successful drilling is not included in estimate, adjust score accordingly.

     if no resource estimate: consider existence of a "persistent market disconnect" (see Alexandria post)

Upside Drivers: (maximum 10 points for this section)

          A more subjective section, where any additional items not contained above may be considered.

     looming advancement to new development stage with favorable indicators overlooked by market.

     if "persistent market disconnect" is very extreme, with high confidence, consider bonus points here.

     scale of exploration/development effort underway: # of drills, # meters to be drilled during year, etc.

     additional properties/opportunities apart from the primary project under consideration.



I want to know what you think. Does the relative allocation of points among the sections feel appropriate to you? I know that not all investors share the same precise value set when assessing opportunities (i.e. some may place greater emphasis upon valuation or management than I have here, but I have attempted to base my weighting on my observations of what has set outperformers apart in the past, rather than my own specific value set as an investor). I am aware this is nonetheless a subjective and non-scientific process, and so I would very much enjoy your feedback here. Again, I have attempted herein a weighting of company characteristics according to my experience of how significantly those characteristics appear to predict outperformance over time. I have not had a chance to test this scoring system out yet, so I reserve the right to tweak or alter this approach after putting into practice.

Thank you for your feedback! Now go out and try the scoring systenm for yourself and see what you come up with for your own favorite junior resource company. I will do the same in preparation for the next post in the series, and then we'll compare notes on the process in a subsequent post.

Thanks to all of you for your continues interest and participation in this highly enjoyable process.



39 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:


It looks really good and somethign I woudl ike to use in my DD.  I need to do some homework to better understand some of the metrics you have.  For example,  in the resources section, I really do not have af irm grasp on the differences and  preferences of deposit type or thickness/strike length.

I imagine if the resource is near the surface, then the copany woudl plausibly spend less in extracting the resouces than if it were 1 KM underground.  Is that typically tue?  And I need to differentiate the pros and cons with bulk mineable vs. vein deposit.

If my interpretation is correct, vein deposit is the deposit of one mineral, i.e gold, but bulk minerable will be several PMs in rock.  If that's true, then the ancillary PM's can offset the price for the core find, say lead and copper offset the price for extracting silver.  If my interpretation is correct, I would think that would be a plus, especially if the silve grade is high.

I can understnad that the thicker the vein, the more PM is to be obtained.  Additionally, the longer the stirke length, the longer the mine can produce tht PM.  It's almost like calculating the area of the PM contained in the ground.  The greater the area identified, the more PM you will get, correct?

Where I get lost is the difference between deposits open along strike, at depth, or signs of infill potential. I need to figure out the pros and cons of this one.

I assume that the closer to 100, the better the investment is, but at what point do you say its not a viable investment, or rather too risky.  I realize this is 100% personal interpretation and I am trying to evaluate it like a PEG ratio, which may not be appropriate but when doing something new I try to link previous activities/calculations to what I am trying to learn to help the process along.  So a PEG of 1 states the company is fair valued, under one its undervalued.  I guess I am wonderig if you had thouht of something along those lines?

In any case, thanks for doing this!!! It is truly helpful and I am sure once I understand the various aspects of it, it will prove invaluable. Still so much to learn.....


Report this comment
#2) On April 12, 2011 at 11:21 AM, XMFSinchiruna (26.47) wrote:


You are correct about the near-surface metric ... closer to surface = easier to get to, and less likely to require underground mining techniques.

You are misunderstanding the distinction between vein and bulk deposits. There may be associated patterns in incidence of byproduct concentrations, but a bulk mineable deposit generally offers better long-term economics than a vein system, though exceptionally high grades in a vein system can compensate for that differential. Very large scale deposits that can offer the greatest acquisitive interest from producing miners tend to be bulk mineable deposits with intersects of considerable thickness, but again vein systems of exceptional grade, thickness, or strike length can still host a phenomenally attracive resource.

Yes, expanding strike length, increasing thicknesses, and expanding depths imply an expansion of the resource contained in the deposit.

Also, the degree to which the full presumed strike length, depth, etc. has not yet been fully drilled can conceal future upside.That is what is meant by deposits being "open" in one direction or another (the last drilling along that axis encountered mineralization, and drilling beyond that point has not yet occured). This is a measure of indications that a given deposit/resource may yet have room for significant expansion through further drilling with an elevated likelihood of success.

As to what score may indicate an unattractive investment, I am not sure yet. I still need to experiment with my new formula on some real-life stocks that I'm familiar with. Stay tuned. :)

Report this comment
#3) On April 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM, jacobske (< 20) wrote:


Is there anything else (metrics) other analysts use to come up with their target prices, buy, sell, hold, overweight, outperform, etc. ratings?

May want to include:

     analyst coverage

     joint venture/partners



    timeliness of reporting

    start price

    type of resources

    hedging resources

Apologize ahead of time, if I'm offbase here.


Report this comment
#4) On April 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, reinman60 (< 20) wrote:


It's interesting to have a more"quantitative" framework for evaluaring exploration stage miner, even if the values assigned to each metric are somewhat subjective.

I've just revisited the corporate presentaion for Caza gold, and a question popped into my mind.  This is a very early stage project, and there has been very little drilling done on the properties, mainly bulk surface sampling. It seems to me that the district which the mines are in, and the surface features and anomolies, together with the bulk samples, are most of what you have to form a judgement about the prospects for these properties.  

This brings me to my question.  The judgement and experience of the senior geologists as to the potential of these projects seems key, given the relative paucity of hard data. Likewise the judgement and experiece of the CEO, being able to synthesize the limited amount of information available to him and form an opinion as to the economic viabilty of the project, seems extremely important.  Therefore, it seems to me that major factor in buying into a company at this stage would. be the quality of the management.  Wouldn't you have to weight this factor more than 15%?  I remember reading several interviews with mining analysts, and they seem to place a much greater emphasis on management, some of them rating it as the most important factor in their decision.  I know that a great management and a bad property are not going to produce a successful outcome, but the point here is that this situation wouldn't happen with a great management.

Report this comment
#5) On April 12, 2011 at 12:03 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:


A good thought, but thus far I'm comfortable with the extent to which the more salient items in your list can be assessed with this approach. If a company is covered, those target prices can inform one's score for valuation. Compelling jv partnerships can be utilized to boost the score under "Upside Drivers". Debt is seldom an issue for these microcaps, as their access to credit is generally very limited, and revenue is typically not present. Significant byproduct metal grades would positively impact the first sub-section under "Resources" (the 10-point item).

Thanks for the thoughts. I will keep those and all Foolish auggestions under advisement when I test out the approach with a real-life example over the coming days.

Report this comment
#6) On April 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:


I agree, Caza could potentially have scored relatively poorly here, but I was picturing a process whereby the "resources" score would at least partially reflect reasonably targeted resource potential in cases where confidence in management expertise and and real estate story are both exceptionally high.

All the same, we may consider developing guidelines for what we might consider attractive scores at each "life-stage" level. I'll do some thinking on this, and I will try to apply to process retroactively to Caza when I have a chance.

Report this comment
#7) On April 12, 2011 at 12:14 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:


By the same token, we certainly wouldn't want to see Caza scoring in the top percentile here, as little de-risking has been accomplished as yet. The score is intended to reflect risk as well as upside potential.

Anyway, it's a great point, and one I will continue to ponder as I look to hone the approach.

Report this comment
#8) On April 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, reinman60 (< 20) wrote:


The point you made about risk is a good one.  It seems that in these types of companies, as I guess in all things, the higher the risk the higher the potential reward.  Having looked at the history of some similar companies, more concrete data, hence lower risk, is often discounted extremely quickly, lowering potential gains for the more risk averse.

Report this comment
#9) On April 12, 2011 at 12:27 PM, rfaramir (28.68) wrote:

It's awesome having all these factors listed so we can look into them. I'm dubious about just adding the results together, though. Some seem like multipliers, some like deal-breakers.

Deal-breaker: political climate. Multiplier: tax rate (15% -> 0.85x, 40% -> 0.60x)

Life Stage seems even bigger. All else equal, would their life stage really only change your opinion of a miner by +/- 7%? (range of 1-15, so take 8 as average and just go up or down 7 notches). I'd think that you'd be at about 0% for the first few steps, then edge into a small position, then at some decisive point (between reporting reserves and permitting?) go in up to 50-80%, then complete your position from then on up. So, a multiplier, but with a very non-linear effect.

Report this comment
#10) On April 12, 2011 at 12:46 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:


Points well taken. You'll note political climate was the one spot where I recommended issuing a negative value commensurate with the unattractiveness of a givfen jurisdiction - whether due to political climate, an exhoritant tax rate, etc. I think that device may serve a similar role as a multiplier component without unduly complicating the idea behind the approach (a comprehensive guide to due diligence and qualitative comparative assessment thereof).

Life stage, along with the scale of identified resources, is a principle de-risking component of a resource microcap's investment profile. Together with the 10pts apportioned for scale of resource indentified, I think 15% for the de-risking of life-stage advancements offers a reasonable injection of risk metrics into the equation without unduly barring more speculative resource plays from the running. After all, this entire exercise is about identifying the highest octane vehicles to fulfill the more speculative portion of an investor's overall precious metals exposure.

As I suggested above, however, it may make sense for us to consider a targeted range of scores for companies occupying distinct broader life-stage categories to enhance the impact of life-stage upon final investment evaluation.

Anyway, I appreciate the constructive critique. Thanks for posting.

Report this comment
#11) On April 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:

I purchased small initial positions this morning in several of the microcaps that you all brought to my attention over the last few weeks. Thank you to everyone for generating so many compelling ideas.

Report this comment
#12) On April 12, 2011 at 1:03 PM, reinman60 (< 20) wrote:

Speaking of political risk, interesting information from mining consultants Behre Dolbear Group: "2011 Ranking Of Countries For Mining Investment"

Report this comment
#13) On April 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM, rfaramir (28.68) wrote:

Not that we've tapped the potential on this topic, yet, but I was wondering about the transition from explorer to junior producer (and eventually to mid-tier, etc.).

Once you know a company's cost/oz, it is by definition a producer, not a developer/explorer, right? So that's why this factor doesn't come in at this stage? (That's my limited understanding.) But what factors above eventually influence the cost/oz of producing? Could they be separated out into their own category so as the company ages in its life cycle, that portion *becomes* cost/oz eventually?

I'm obviously thinking like grade of ore, while a multiplying factor in value of whole deposit (along with total volume derived from physical dimensions, et al), is also a factor in eventual cost/oz. The lower the grade, the higher the cost/oz, as more ore has to be processed to extract it.

But also these: deposit type (which I can't estimate at all), taxes (is that on profits?), royalties (is that on total revenues?), lease/rent (on total land area?), labor costs in jurisdiction (mining is capital-intensive, but isn't labor relevant?), amount and distance to infrastructure.

Not that you haven't already covered these. Even labor and royalties are just variants/details already covered in what you've presented. I'm just trying to get a handle on it all by re-categorizing the factors and putting them into a perspective I can eventually understand (cost/oz in this case).

Report this comment
#14) On April 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

Hey Sinch,

Thanks for addressing my pionts.  You're really a goldmine yourself pal!  All that info, shared for free....I think abotu how TMF coudl have made a Sinch's Club,akin to the MDP, hidden gems group etc....I am glad they didn't do that, but your knowledge ha sbeen a world of help.

I'd love to ask what you got, but I know you can't devulge that info.  I am trying to get me some AUNFF today at 0.74/share...we'll see if it goes down, in addition to more GPL.

In any case, thanks for the help understanding the metrics and I look forward to putting in action and comparing results withthe rest of the group

Report this comment
#15) On April 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Gonzhouse (23.58) wrote:

To  Jbay76 , Sinch has disclosed his positions in previous posts.

To silverminer, to piggyback on Jbay76's comment, I think it would be a great service to your readers for TMF to have a portal or website specifically devoted to the fabulous metrics you have noted.  You've got a group of followers that believes in the process and is willing to push the edge of the envelope. 

Any idea where we should begin?

Report this comment
#16) On April 12, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:


What Sinch has recently purchased was not in his previous holdings, reread comment # 11

Report this comment
#17) On April 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:


I will update my holdings at the end of the day, and those are always available at my CAPS profile page. :)

Report this comment
#18) On April 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

oh, that's right :)...excuse me while I take a peek =D

Report this comment
#19) On April 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Seansonfire (43.35) wrote:

I think this is a great way to understand the company, but I think a more appropriate way of assessing the value of each of the microcaps would be doing the full assement except the valuation.  As the other characteristics you are assessing, Resources, Lifecycle, Management, etc. are revolve around the risk and potential of the company. 

By seperating out the valuation from the business analysis you can avoid the problem of buying a good company at a bad valuation, or put another you may be buying a good company rather then a good stock using this metric.

Once you have completed both you business analysis and your valuation, you can adjust your valuation according based on results from the business analysis upwards or downwards.  This will provide you better valuation metric will all business analysis assumptions built in.

Report this comment
#20) On April 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.47) wrote:


Interesting ... thanks for the feedback. I'll give it some thought. :)

Report this comment
#21) On April 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM, monksnake (41.05) wrote:


I'm with you on AUNFF.  I initialized a position today at 0.75 at about 9:00 am.  Gonna buy the dip if I didn't call the bottom closely enough.

Report this comment
#22) On April 12, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Bays (29.31) wrote:

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but as a bonus I'd always look for if infrastructure is already in place. 

If the company becomes a producer, having power lines, highways, ports, and railways already in place or close by will be a major plus. 

If the resource is isolated up in the artic, the grades better be incredible.  

Report this comment
#23) On April 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM, XMFSinchiruna (26.47) wrote:


great point ... an oversight on my part! I will factor that in within the Real Estate section. Thanks for that!!!

Report this comment
#24) On April 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM, truleuneek (< 20) wrote:

Caza issued an update yesterday, for those who haven't seen it.



Report this comment
#25) On April 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:


Update released, today:


Northgate Minerals Provides Update on Construction and Exploration Activities at Young-Davidson


First qtr results:

Recent article by Sinch:

Hopefully, this isn't off topic.


Skt Pilot




Report this comment
#26) On April 13, 2011 at 2:08 PM, magnetpal (< 20) wrote:

I would suggest to hold on before initiating any BUY on AUNFF. Seems LOTS and LOTS of shares & warrants out there which came from PP to buy back the SLW stream. It would be a bad idea to buy it now.

Report this comment
#27) On April 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM, ikkyu2 (98.11) wrote:

I am sorry to say this, but I find all this analysis you are doing to be nonsense.  There is no 'likelihood' of gold or other mineral deposits at a certain site.  Either the gold is there and recoverable or it is not.  Tacking your numbers on it - and you do not have a PhD in mining geology - does not make you smarter than others about whether or not there is gold under the ground there.

From the 1967 Time-Life Science Library volume, Matter:  "Man's lust for gold has been a delusion, for he has pursued little more than a yellow gleam."  I understand the store of value represented by gold, but I also understand that the gleam of gold has clouded the vision of a lot of formerly clear-thinking people.

Buying stock in a mining venture that has not uncovered any gold is gambling.  The people who run such companies are gamblers and they understand how to rig a game.  You are gambling not only with the chance that there is gold underground, but also the chance that the management is just running a crooked shell game at investors' expense.

I like what I know of you as a person from your writings, Mr Harris, and I still think you're a sensible fellow.  But I think you're letting the gleam of gold put you a little off the rails of reasonable investment analysis.

Report this comment
#28) On April 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM, rfaramir (28.68) wrote:


In return for being late to the party, by waiting until gold is actually recovered profitably you will at least not be ripped off by a failed explorer, assuming you trust the financial reports or physically visit the mining location yourself to confirm that they are mining gold (and inspect their books yourself, etc.).

The whole point of the exercise that Mr. Barker is leading us through is to get as much clarity from the data available as possible, so we invest the appropriate amount as it meets our individual tastes for looking like a money-making venture. Note that reports of actual gold found, and in what amounts, and at what depths, and over what expanses are all part of this. That IS real gold really being found, but that's not enough. The rest is feasibility of that buried gold becoming a profitable mine.

Feel free to wait until you have a confirmed major producer to evaluate. The rest of us are at least willing to consider getting in earlier, so we have a chance of sharing in the bigger profits for admittedly a bigger risk.

Report this comment
#29) On April 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

Too late magnetpal .. I locked the deal yesterday.  Over the course of several years, I'm sure my haste and lack of knowledge concerning the warrants will be rectified.  On my behalf, I did buy when the market was down...oh well.


Thanks for the link!

Report this comment
#30) On April 13, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Bays (29.31) wrote:


No... thank you!  That's a lot of work and a very worthwhile excercise.  Thanks for sharing.  

Report this comment
#31) On April 13, 2011 at 8:45 PM, golddlog (< 20) wrote:

ikkyu2,  I think you are not understanding the purpose of the exercise or the underlying assumption that this is due diligence on speculative investments.  Mr. Barker is bringing forth a screening process that has worked for him in evaluating the risk of micro-cap miners.  It is a very specific investment space with a fairly predictable evolutionary process that has played out many times before.  This micro cap mining space is a very small percentage of an investment portfolio and as such is money that can be used to speculate with the at the prospect of a big return.  For example, buying 100,000 shares of micro-cap miner A at 15 cents or an outlay of $15,000 in an investment portfolio of $500,000 is a small risk worth taking for a potentially big payoff.  The example could be $5,000 for 33,000 shares but the point is, research is done, an investment thesis is made, and an expected sell price of say $5 or $10 is the goal.  If it works out it becomes a great investment, if it doesn't you move on.  In particular, this example is palatable for me personally because of the MF community exchange of ideas and the track record of Mr. Barker and his methodologies.  Knowledge is power, and I'll take TMF Sinchiruna's expertise anyday over your 1967 Time Life science library volumes. Incidentally, 1967 was a good year for me as I was born that year.  In ending, the gleam of gold has nothing to do with this exercise.  The Micro-cap i invested in has robust economics at $1050 Gold and will be a low cost producer for years to come with a cushion in gold pricing.  This is the value of due diligence and community input my friend, Uncovering a golden nugget in the dirt is fun you should try it.  Good luck

Report this comment
#32) On April 13, 2011 at 9:30 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

ikkyu2 (97.44) wrote:

 "I am sorry to say this, but I find all this analysis you are doing to be nonsense."

You’re wasting everyone’s time.  You are making statements that have no basis in fact.  Such as categorically stating, “Buying stock in a mining venture that has not uncovered any gold is gambling.  The people who run such companies are gamblers and they understand how to rig a game.” 

 Oh, really?

Your statement applies to every mining venture that has not uncovered gold?  All the people who run such companies are gamblers?   Come on.

But, what is your point?  That all exploration companies are bad investments?  Or is that just ALL GOLD exploration companies are bad investments? 

Is your motive for your post to help fellow fools?  Was it to disrupt the dialogue?  Don’t hold back.  Let us know your reason for the post.  We’re all adults here.  Won’t you admit it was disruptive?

You state: “But I think you're letting the gleam of gold put you a little off the rails of reasonable investment analysis.” 

How would you analyze said companies?  Would you avoid them all?  I challenge you to add something constructive to the dialogue. 

“I am sorry to say this, but I find all this analysis you are doing to be nonsense.” 

 Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.  Now move on to make a more productive use of your time.


Report this comment
#33) On April 13, 2011 at 10:17 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:

The Caza Gold discussion has been reposted here on Michael Campbell's "Money Talks" website:


Report this comment
#34) On April 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:

Also, Dr Eric Owens from Alexandria Minerals returned to the Alexandria live chat post recently to asnwer the remaining questions from your fellow Fools. Those replies are worth a close look.

Report this comment
#35) On April 14, 2011 at 12:51 AM, ikkyu2 (98.11) wrote:

"But, what is your point?  That all exploration companies are bad investments?  Or is that just ALL GOLD exploration companies are bad investments?"


My point is that exploration companies that don't find anything in their explorations are bad investments.

THAT is true risk.  Stop trying to obscure it.

Report this comment
#36) On April 14, 2011 at 4:35 AM, silvermind (< 20) wrote:


Great job on this evaluation scorecard!

Please consider doubling the management value possible points.  Rick Rule says that it is #1 in importance and  I believe he has said only a small percentage of explorer teams ever find the gold and that many teams just don't find the minerals that are there to be found.  He has said the explorer team mentality is different from producers and takes a special leadership and team.



Report this comment
#37) On April 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM, silverminer (30.18) wrote:


"My point is that exploration companies that don't find anything in their explorations are bad investments."

If that was the only point you were trying to make, you sure picked a funny way to say it. :) You'll get no argument from me on the above statement, but your comment #27 bears little resemblance to the above message. 

Who is Mr. Harris, anyway?

Report this comment
#38) On April 17, 2011 at 10:53 AM, mhy729 (30.31) wrote:

Is anyone familiar with Brent Cook, who as a veteran geologist/mining stock analyst has been running a minerals exploration investment newsletter (subscription-based) Exploration Insights?  I've listened to some of the past interviews he's done with BNN (Business News Network based in Canada; some links are provided at his website ) and he seems very knowledgeable and "down to earth" (i.e. not an outspoken, "charismatic" pumper type).  For some of the interviews he has taken phone call/email questions from viewers asking for his thoughts on specific junior miners/explorers.  Might be interesting to see what he has to say on some of the micro-cap plays that Sinchiruna is featuring in his ongoing series.

Report this comment
#39) On April 20, 2011 at 7:35 AM, mhy729 (30.31) wrote:

Global survey names Alberta as top destination for mining investment, Saskatchewan ranks third while Quebec falls to fourth

Presentation by Fred McMahon (Toronto, March 3, 2011): Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2010/2011

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners