## A Critical Look at Interpreting Drill Results: What Investors Need to Know
Mining exploration is a high-stakes game where drilling represents the most significant expense for junior miners. In today’s competitive market, adopting a critical look at interpreting drill results is essential for making informed decisions. With costs averaging £50–£250 per metre and total programmes often requiring £1–£5 million in capital, investors must stay vigilant.
Only 1 in 3,000 exploration projects eventually reaches production. This sobering statistic highlights the importance of examining every drill result with due care. Investors need to develop a routine to systematically analyse each piece of data. Consequently, a critical look at interpreting drill results can separate promising opportunities from economic failures.
As an investor, your responsibility is to analyse drill outcomes rather than accepting company interpretations at face value. Furthermore, this approach enables you to distinguish between promising mineral deposits and ventures that may not deliver value. For additional clarity on early-stage results, consider insights from beginner’s guide to understanding mining drill results.
“Not every drill result is good. As investors we must evaluate public results with a critical eye and approach every mining company news release as questionable. Our investment depends on it,” warns Christopher Rawluk, a leading mining industry expert.
Dr. Sarah Whitman from MIT’s Earth Resources Lab reflects, “Drill results are both compass and litmus test for mining investments – they should confirm geological theories while meeting economic thresholds.”
## Why Interpreting Drill Results Matters for Mining Investors
Mining companies often present drill outcomes in the most favourable light possible. However, this approach may obscure important details. For instance, companies might selectively report favourable intercepts while neglecting to mention lower-grade sections. Investors, therefore, must delve deeper into the data.
Often, news releases will trumpet impressive results like “20.50 g/t gold over 7.5m.” However, upon closer inspection, it may be clear that the best results only span a narrow section. In addition, understanding the full picture requires basic arithmetic: multiply each section’s grade by its length, add the results, and then divide by the total interval.
This method confirms the reported average but can mask the true quality of the mineralisation. Consequently, a critical look at interpreting drill results becomes essential when assessing the risks involved.
## How to Analyse Drill Highlights Effectively
### Understanding the Context Behind Impressive Numbers
Mining companies naturally present their data optimistically. For instance, they may highlight a brief high-grade segment while the overall interval remains modest. In addition, drill results can be misleading if key details are ignored.
A company press release might feature “20.50 g/t gold over 7.5m,” yet break the interval into a 0.5m section grading 295 g/t and a 7.0m section averaging 2.3 g/t. In such cases, a calculation confirms the overall average. Still, understanding the distribution is crucial.
To perform the calculation:
• Multiply each section’s grade by its length.
• Add these values together.
• Divide by the total interval length.
This method reveals the underlying geological reality beyond the headline numbers.
### Recognising Legitimate vs. Misleading Results
The interpretation of drill outcomes varies with deposit type. For instance, epithermal gold deposits typically present high grades over shorter intervals, while porphyry copper–gold systems display lower grades over extended intervals. In addition, the “nugget effect” – where isolated high-grade samples appear – complicates interpretation.
Industry data suggests that this effect occurs in approximately 23% of gold deposits, increasing the risk of misinterpretation. As an investor, you may benefit from reviewing formation and economic impact of deposits for further context.
“Grade distribution curves separate economic from subeconomic deposits – the kurtosis matters as much as the mean,” explains Professor Michael Underwood of the Colorado School of Mines. This insight emphasises the significance of statistical patterns over simple averages.
Warning signs of “grade smearing” include:
• Isolated high-grade intervals lacking geological context.
• Inconsistent mineralisation between adjacent drill holes.
• Selective reporting without mentioning unsuccessful holes.
• Changing cut-off grades between releases.
## What is Cut-Off Grade and Why Does It Matter?
### Evaluating Results Against Economic Thresholds
Cut-off grade represents the minimum metal concentration required for ore to be economically extracted. This threshold differentiates waste rock from potentially valuable material. In addition, cut-off grade varies based on mining method and prevailing metal prices.
For example, typical cut-off grades include:
• Open pit Carlin: 0.15–0.35 g/t Au
• Underground Orogenic: 3.5–5.0 g/t Au
• Heap Leach Oxide: 0.25–0.45 g/t Au
• Copper–Gold Porphyry: 0.15–0.25% CuEq
The calculation for cut-off grades incorporates several economic factors: operating cost, capital cost, metal price, refining cost, and recovery rate. Notably, companies sometimes manipulate these figures to present their projects in a more favourable light.
For instance, the Newmont–Buenaventura joint venture revised their cut-off grade from 0.8 to 1.2 g/t in 2023 after accounting for increased inflation and operating costs. This adjustment significantly reduced the resource estimate, illustrating how economics can shift rapidly.
Mining methods also play a key role. Underground operations require considerably higher grades to counteract increased extraction expenses, whereas open-pit mines can remain profitable with lower-grade material due to economies of scale.
## How to Interpret Grade Equivalents in Multi-Commodity Deposits
### Decoding “Eq” Calculations in Drill Results
For polymetallic deposits, companies often present results using equivalent grades such as CuEq or AuEq. These figures convert the value of multiple metals into a single, comparable metric. In addition, this approach simplifies the evaluation process.
Equivalent grade calculations rely on several assumptions:
- Recovery rates (often presumed to be 100%).
- Current or projected metal prices.
- Refining costs and any associated penalties.
- Relative contribution of each metal to the overall value.
A typical copper equivalent calculation might be:
CuEq% = Cu% + (Au g/t × 0.03215 × (Au price ÷ Cu price)) + (Ag g/t × 0.00021 × (Ag price ÷ Cu price))
Using benchmark prices for copper, gold, and silver, a drill intercept might convert modest gold contributions into a higher overall equivalent grade. This example further illustrates why a critical look at interpreting drill results remains paramount.
In recent reporting, Freeport-McMoRan’s Q2 2024 update revealed a ±12% variance in CuEq values solely due to fluctuating price inputs. Such variations highlight the sensitivity of these calculations to market conditions.
For more detailed insights on valuations, review understanding the jorc code.
## Critical Questions to Ask When Reading Drill Result News Releases
When analysing drill results, sophisticated investors pose essential questions to verify the data:
- Is the result consistent with the deposit type and local geology?
- Does the highlighted interval represent continuous mineralisation or isolated high grades?
- What is the difference in grade if high-grade sections are removed or capped?
- Are the cut-off grades realistic for the deposit type and potential mining method?
- What assumptions underpin equivalent grade calculations?
- How does the drill angle intersect the mineralisation – is the interval close to true thickness?
- Are QA/QC protocols detailed, including the use of certified reference materials?
- How do these results compare with previous drilling on the same property?
Addressing these questions helps in developing a precise understanding of each project. Additionally, investors may benefit from exploring mining feasibility studies for expert economic viability insights.
## Tools for Investors to Verify Drill Results
### Resources for Independent Analysis
Savvy mining investors increasingly use specialised tools to verify company claims independently. According to recent surveys, nearly 78% of institutional investors now employ automated drill result validators. In addition, these tools enhance analytical rigour.
Key resources include:
• Professional Mining Software: Tools like Maptek Vulcan, Micromine, and Leapfrog offer detailed 3D visualisations and statistical analyses.
• Free Online Calculators: Websites provide free resources for weighted average grade assessments, metal equivalent conversions, and cut-off grade sensitivity analyses.
• Technical Databases: Institutions like the USGS and national geological surveys offer baseline data for regional comparisons.
• Regulatory Filings: Platforms such as SEDAR+ (Canada) and EDGAR (US) provide technical reports with extensive QA/QC protocols.
• Industry Benchmarks: Publications like S&P Global Market Intelligence compare results against similar deposits.
For further reading on junior investment strategies, consider navigating junior mining risks.
In addition, investors can benefit from accessing external resources such as an insightful article on critical drill analysis which discusses the intricacies of interpreting assay data. Alternatively, you might find useful assay reading tips to be a helpful starting point.
## FAQs About Interpreting Drill Results
### What is the difference between true thickness and apparent thickness?
Drill holes rarely intersect mineralised zones at perfect right angles. Consequently, the reported interval length, known as apparent thickness, is often longer than the actual width, or true thickness. For instance, a drill hole at a 45° angle will record an apparent thickness roughly 1.4 times the true value.
At even more acute angles, this distortion increases significantly. Companies should ideally report both the drill orientation and the estimated dip of the mineralisation. Without this information, investors should be cautious, as it may obscure the true resource potential.
### How can investors spot potential reporting issues?
Key warning signs include:
• Reporting only successful holes
• Inconsistent cut-off grade application
• Absence of true thickness and drill orientation details
• Vague geological descriptions with minimal context
• Unreasonable metal price assumptions in equivalent calculations
• Emphasis on total metal content over grade specifics
• Lack of third-party QA/QC confirmation
Maintaining consistency in reporting standards is crucial for transparency.
### When are high-grade results actually meaningful?
High-grade intervals are valuable when they show:
• Consistency between multiple drill holes, indicating continuous mineralisation
• Sufficient width relative to the intended mining method
• Geological coherence with identifiable features
• Metallurgical compatibility ensuring effective recovery
These factors collectively determine if apparent high grades translate into an economically viable orebody.
Overall, maintaining a critical look at interpreting drill results provides investors with the deep insights needed to navigate the complexities of mining exploration. Each careful analysis, backed by robust tools and predetermined criteria, underscores the importance of thorough due diligence.
Ready to Catch the Next Major Mineral Discovery?
Harness the power of real-time alerts for significant ASX mineral discoveries through Discovery Alert's proprietary Discovery IQ model, which transforms complex drill results into actionable investment opportunities. Explore our discoveries page to see how major mineral announcements have historically delivered exceptional returns for early investors.
