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 libraryTwo complete publications — a copper major's Taca Taca and Vizsla Silver's Panuco — are free to download in the library, models included. Judge the product first.
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.
Six project sets delivered to date — gold, copper and silver across five jurisdictions.
| Report after-tax NPV(5%) | US$1,802M |
| Independently rebuilt | US$1,792M (−0.5%) |
Three findings the study does not show: its cash flow contradicts its own stated 30-day working-capital terms; ~US$128M of pre-production revenue escapes tax entirely (no statutory basis); and Mexico's statutory profit-sharing is omitted without explanation. Each is built as a selectable assumption with its NPV effect quantified.
| Report after-tax NPV(8%) | US$1,376M |
| Independently rebuilt | US$1,361M (−1.1% (deliberate, decomposed)) |
The rebuild found the report's published cash-flow table does not reproduce its own headline pre-tax NPV, and its closure line disagrees with its capital table — proven by cross-footing the report against itself. Our variance is deliberately held and decomposed rather than forced to tie.
| Report after-tax NPV(5%) | US$2,059M |
| Independently rebuilt | US$2,048M (−0.5%) |
West African fiscal mechanics built from statute — Côte d'Ivoire loss carry-forwards, unit-of-production depreciation with the first-year uplift, and a working-capital decomposition that reconciles the report's own series line by line.
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.
Join the list and you will receive the first full publication — the rebuilt Excel model and the ten-page investor memo — by email, free, when it releases. Founding subscriptions open afterwards for continued access to new analyses and the library. Founding subscriptions from US$99/month (launch pricing to be confirmed).