Antonio (Resource Talks)

"Money is made on the delta between price and value," @RealRickRule told me at the PDAC earlier this month. "Everybody pays attention to the stock quote, but most don't do the work to ascertain value," Rick Rule added. Too many nuggets in this one to quote in here. Watch it.

One of the most useful questions in mining is also one of the most annoying: “If it’s that good, how come nobody’s doing it already?” I recently heard the story of a company that's looking to clean up old mines, reprocess waste piles, and make money doing it for decades, and it can be genuinely interesting. It can also be a trap for your brain, because who doesn't want to get paid to do the right thing. But that’s exactly when you ask the question. Not to be a jerk. To find the friction. If nobody’s doing it, there’s usually a reason. Metallurgy doesn’t cooperate, grades are lower than advertised, recoveries are ugly, contaminants create permitting headaches, logistics are nasty, the material is more variable than expected, liability is unclear, bonding is expensive, economics, etc, etc. The point of the question isn’t to conclude that it can or can’t work. It’s to force the real constraints into the open. Who owns the legacy liability? Who carries the closure obligations? What happens if you disturb material and the regulator decides you’ve inherited the mess? What’s the capex and sustaining capex, and how sensitive is the model to commodity price, reagent cost, and throughput? How consistent is the feed, and how do they prove it without cherry-picking? If the answer is “people tried, here’s why it failed, and here’s what’s different now,” you might be looking at a potential edge. Point is, when you hear a “win-win” pitch; ask. I did, in my recent interview with @SasqResources $SASQ.CN. The CEOs answer is in the clip below. Full interview on YT and wherever you get your podcasts.

@AwaleResources The core shack was cool this year (and last year). I mean, VG is always cool. Thanks for having me!

We've now hit visible gold in many Charger holes, with assays up to 308 g/t Au and higher. Obviously, the grade is strong, but the bigger story is consistency. Additionally, it's showing free gold & straightforward mining characteristics, which matter as much as grade. $ARIC.V

Jurisdictional risk is not just “will the government steal it?” or “will they slap us with a windfall tax?” The real concern is more boring and more deadly: Can you actually build the mine, and how long will it take before you’re pouring metal instead of issuing updates about “ongoing engagement”? Take Canada. It’s one of the better places on Earth for rule of law and a relatively straightforward permitting framework, but straightforward doesn’t mean fast. If you’re buying a developco with a Canadian asset, the risk isn’t usually confiscation. It’s time, carrying costs, shifting politics, consultation complexity, and the fact that the average path from discovery to production can be well north of a decade and sometimes pushes toward two. That gap alone can turn a great deposit into a great dilution machine. But there’s the stuff people conveniently forget to model: qualified labour, qualified contractors, equipment availability, reagents, power, roads, ports, winter access, wildfire seasons, and supply chains that decide to implode the moment you need something large, heavy, and on time. Those are jurisdictional risks too, but Canada has that taken care of. But again (yes many buts), the question isn't only “is it safe.” Ask “can it be built” and “how many years and seasons until cash flow,” because time is the sneakiest tax in mining. @miningstockguy talked about this in our recent interview. Clip below. Full interview on YT now.

@frank_baere @RealRickRule We all want it yesterday.

@ResourceTalks @RealRickRule Money is made when you are long as the price goes up and short when it goes down. Markets can remain over and under valued for very long. I don't have very long.

"Money is made on the delta between price and value," @RealRickRule told me at the PDAC earlier this month. "Everybody pays attention to the stock quote, but most don't do the work to ascertain value," Rick Rule added. Too many nuggets in this one to quote in here. Watch it.

@john45761488 @RealRickRule Thank you, John.

@ResourceTalks @RealRickRule Well done.

Thank you for reading. I wish you a great week ahead, even if you have gingerism.

🔸 Upcoming interviews get announced at the bottom of the home page on resourcetalks.com. If you have any questions for these companies, please send me an email or fill in the form at the bottom of the home page.

Every week, I send a free weekly newsletter containing a 5-minute summary of every Resource Talks interview. Here's the lineup from week 10: Can a New Gold Mine be Built in Utah by 2029? 🔸 @revivalgoldinc $RVG.V CEO Interview Can a Junior Really Build a Gold Mine Without Major Dilution? 🔸 @InventusMining $IVS.V CEO Interview I Asked Rick Rule a Question the Mining Industry Keeps Avoiding 🔸 PDAC 2026 Part 1/3 Free newsletter and full interviews linked below.

@Bernie_Kreft Now that you're here, could you tell me about paleo placers?

@ResourceTalks Indeed, B Kreft has entered the chat on placer.

Recently got to learn more about paleo placer deposits. Apparently, they’re a different animal, that shouldn't be treated like a modern creek placer with better marketing. A placer is generally an active or recently active alluvial system you can see and sample in today’s drainages. A paleo placer is a fossil river system (paleochannel) that’s been buried, compacted, sometimes cemented, sometimes faulted, sometimes covered by volcanics or glacial junk, and generally does not care about your timeline. Same idea (mechanical concentration), totally different execution risk. The big difference is confidence. Modern placers can often be trench-sampled, bulk-sampled, and visually understood with a lot less guesswork about geometry. Paleo placers force you to solve for: - where the channel is, - how it bends, - where the pay streak sits, - what the trap sites are, and - how continuous it is ... ... all under cover. That’s why you see more drilling, more geophysics, and way more arguments about continuity and nugget effect. Also, mining a paleo placer is very different and requires a bigger operation. I spent some time figuring out what to ask when looking into those, and theres more work to be done on my end, but the basics are: Start with geometry and mineability: - How deep is the paleochannel? - How thick is the gravel? - What’s the strip ratio and overburden type? - Is it cemented or clay-rich? - What’s groundwater doing to your costs and your schedule? - etc Then ask some of the more annoying questions: - How representative are the samples (bulk sample size, spacing, QA/QC, duplicates, screen metallics if needed)? - How are they managing nugget effect? - What’s the expected recovery and what did the test work look like? - Where’s the source and why is it there (trap sites, paleo topography, bedrock riffles), and what would killing the target cost if continuity doesn’t hold? - etc Paleo placers can be real. But not all companies who pitch them are. Ask. I did, in my recent interview with @InventusMining $IVS.V. The CEOs answer is in the clip below. Full interview on YT and wherever you get your podcasts.

@Bernie_Kreft I knew I'd see you in here

@ResourceTalks I don't agree with his assessment of paleoplacer vs modern placer. The Klondike and Atlin areas have-had targets that would fit nicely onto the chart at the 1:33 minute mark. Several deposits that certainly exceeded 500,000 ozs and with grades averaging 7.5 g/t Au.

@jmillette77 Good point for next time!

@ResourceTalks Definitely good to see. I’m curious what function drones have taken over from helicopters, if any.

Antonio gets to the choppas 🚁 Also drillers, software and aerospace vehicles in junior mining. @ResourceTalks The Quiet Crisis Facing Junior Mining Companies | PDAC 2026 Part 3/3 youtu.be/bJAQ_pwvLhY?si…

It’s easier to give away dilution than to negotiate like you actually care about existing shareholders, but in this market, that's rarely excusable. In good markets, strong companies have strong flexibility on structure. Demand is there, the story has traction, and the company’s currency (their paper) works. That’s exactly when management should fight hardest to minimize dilution and avoid handing out unnecessary leverage to new money. Warrants could (key word; could) make sense in ugly markets when you need to sweeten risk and get the deal done. But now, throwing warrants into everything can be a quiet value leak. This is also the kind of market where you can pick your investor, not just take whoever shows up with a wire. High-quality shareholders (the sticky, long-term holders) usually care about the asset first. They want exposure to the project, the team, and the timeline. They don’t need a warrant as emotional support if they genuinely believe in the outcome. In my brief experience, the better the investor, the more they often respect clean structure because they understand overhang and they’re not trying to flip paper on the first pop. If a financing without warrants scares them away, that may be giving you a clue about what kind of holder they are. None of this means that issuers should never issue warrants. It means treat warrants like a tool, not a reflex. In good markets, management has a rare opportunity to raise money cleanly, build the right register, and protect the upside for existing shareholders. Either way, as a speculator, you ... you guessed it ... you have to ask. Ask about their capital acquisition strategy and whether it involves warrants and why. I asked @revivalgoldinc $RVG.V about that in my recent interview with their CEO. His response can be heard/seen in the clip below. Full interview's out on YT now.

@tom_woolrych Proud of the ginge, I see.

Hey lithium, long time no speak. You still oversupplied? @LibraEnergyMats $LIBR.CN answers.