Roger's 43-101 FB Post Hi Team,
I will gladly wait for our leaders to shed light on the below Facebook Post recently made by Roger but I figured I'd share for visibility.
In short, he’s stating that 43-101’s are not completely objective, but can be a lot of bs fluff depending on the people hired by the exploration company to do the job (bias reporting). What does stand out to me is the last burb, “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.”
This could possibly be a hint at a 43-101 coming up – and done the right way. ???
Roger’s Post:
National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101)
The generalist/retail investor believes that a junior miner needs to release a “43-101” ASAP!
Many Bay St and Wall St brokers also have parroted that same phase, believing that it is a measure of true value.
It often originates with bankers speaking to a junior miner / prospector seeking funding, then the statement is parroted back to a consultant, and then to investors.
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 an absolute required for mining companies. 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*t crazy.
In this case, it's obvious rubbish, but as long as some QP (Qualified person) 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 junior miners 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