When a mining company publishes an economic study, its headline NPV is an output you are asked to trust. We rebuild the entire cash-flow model from the report's own published inputs — every assumption footnoted to its page and table, every tax line built from statute, verified by real recalculation — and tell you, in plain language, where the report holds up and where it does not.
Join the launch list Browse the libraryA sample model is available on request: email [email protected].
The same discipline on every report, whatever the commodity or code.
A formula-driven Excel model reconstructs the study's economics from its lowest-level published inputs — unit costs × physical drivers, never the report's own totals pasted in. The report's figures become reconciliation targets the model must independently hit.
Every model must reproduce the report's headline NPV within a disclosed tolerance under real spreadsheet recalculation. Where a report cannot be reconciled to its own tables, we publish the divergence and its decomposition rather than force a tie.
Fiscal lines are built from the governing law — rates, depreciation regimes, loss carry-forwards, royalties — and checked against the report's published tax. Where the report and the statute disagree, both treatments are built and selectable.
Every deliverable is reviewed line-by-line by the founder — a CFA with 15+ years in valuation and a mining specialty — before it ships. The review is the product.
Twelve projects covered to date — gold, copper and silver across five jurisdictions.
| Report after-tax NPV(5%) | US$3,206M |
| Independently rebuilt | US$3,245M (+1.2% (deliberate, decomposed)) |
Two opposite effects net to the difference. The study's printed revenue is US$410.75M below payable metal times price in Years 5-27, all in the copper and silver credits, with no selling term to explain it; and its published taxes cannot be rebuilt from statute. The model takes revenue at the stated selling terms and tax from federal and Québec statute; with both of the study's printed figures selected, it lands 0.1% above.
| Report after-tax NPV(7%) | C$2,135M |
| Independently rebuilt | C$2,055M (−3.7% (deliberate, decomposed)) |
The study prints a single total-taxes row, with no pools, allowances or credit timing. Its taxes are C$140M below statute over the life of mine, with refunds in Years 1 and 2: about C$340M of deductions it does not name. Built from federal and Newfoundland and Labrador statute, the rebuild lands 3.7% below the headline and within 0.5% pre-tax; with the study's published taxes selected, it is within 0.7%.
| Report after-tax NPV(5%) | US$2,397M |
| Independently rebuilt | US$2,367M (−1.2% (deliberate, decomposed)) |
The study states book depreciation, no depletion and no deduction for property tax, yet its published taxes can only be reached with percentage depletion, MACRS, federal expensing and the property-tax deduction. Built from federal and Idaho statute, the Mine License Tax included, the rebuild lands 1.2% below the headline and within 0.1% pre-tax; with the study's published taxes selected, it lands 0.1% above.
Why the variance column matters. Anyone can quote a report's NPV. Rebuilding it independently and landing within a percent — or proving precisely why it cannot be reconciled to its own tables, as our Santa Cruz coverage did — is the difference between repeating a number and verifying one. That check runs on every publication, and the result is printed on each model's dashboard.
Members receive the weekly email, including one full investor memo with each issue. Paid subscriptions open at launch, with every rebuilt model viewable in the browser and new analyses as they release.