Taranis Resources Inc. V.TRO

Good Info after Market's Sucker Punch today!

[TrumpThis]

LinkedIn repost Sept 23/2022 by Rick Rule of 

Erik Ronald, Principal Consultant; Mining Geology; Mineral Resources: Exploration:

Friday Resource Geology Tip:
We need a “43-101”! As a North American consultant, you can imagine how often this phrase is uttered. It often originates with bankers speaking to a junior miner / prospector seeking funding, then the statement is parroted back to a consultant. Essentially, financiers are wanting an independent technical report, highlighting all technical work involved. The problem which then ensues, is there’s a misconception within the industry that a NI 43-101 TR demonstrates viability or legitimacy. Unfortunately, it's just about transparency on what was done, it's not a measure of good work.

The National Instrument 43-101 outlines term standard definitions for disclosure and transparency in public reporting of mineral projects. Full stop. It’s not required for non-TSX listed companies or private entities. It does not ensure sound technical work, or the act of its creation demonstrate project viability. For example, one can disclose that a “2 Moz Au deposit is based on one 20 g/t surface grab sample in a stream. The sample was assayed in a ‘proprietary’ homemade lab and then grade was extrapolated into 1 cubic km using Simple Kriging in Vulcan, the ‘density of the Earth’ was Googled, then the resultant tonnage was classified as Inferred Mineral Resources”. All procedures, assumptions, and work can easily be disclosed including, sampling method, assay method, modeling, estimation and so forth even if the whole thing is bat-sh(manure) crazy. In this case, it's obvious rubbish, but as long as some QP sign’s off, the company endorses it, and Form 43-101F1 format is followed in the write up, it’s a NI 43-101!

Disclosure is merely about being transparent in assumptions, who, what, when, where, and how work was performed with discussions on results and risks. Ultimately, it’s up to “reasonably informed investors” to decide if the project has merit, whether the QP should be trusted, and if the company/project are worth investment. Unfortunately, many juniors have unrealistic expectations that by “having a 43-101”, this demonstrates legitimacy. In some cases, the reality of dodgy data and risky assumptions will come to light quickly and sometimes, shockingly.

Thankfully, this very rarely happens but I’ve certainly seen a few obviously fraudulent “43-101” reports out there. No QP in their right mind would sign off and it’s certainly a ridiculous example but hopefully this demonstrates a point. QPs and professional societies are self-regulating so us, as an industry, need to call out bad apples when we see them and more importantly, educate non-technical folks to understand differences in disclosure from sound technical work program. What should always be sought is high-quality technical work following CIM guidelines, documented in a thorough NI 43-101 TR, all of which overseen by acceptable QP(s). It’s critical to understand the differences between “good industry practices” and disclosure. Happy Friday!

Activate to view larger image

• 367

Educate yourself on the process of NI 43-101 and the qualification's of the QP!