“How Long Does it Take to Sell a Discovery?” – Michael McClintock

Copied from Michael’s post on Linkedin which can be found HERE.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗜𝘁 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆?
(A hidden indicator of alignment in exploration)

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
Over the last while, we posed a simple internal question.
How long does it actually take to sell a successful discovery?

At first glance, the sense is decades. Projects can spend ten years in permitting, endure multiple metal cycles, and navigate the dreaded Lassonde Curve that most mines experience.

When we looked closer at the sucesses, our conclusion we naturally came to is 6 to 24 months post resource drill out.

Examples like GT Gold, Great Bear Resources, and Arizona Mining all support this. Each advanced rapidly, often before a final resource or feasibility study was delivered. The common thread was that these were discoveries that met critical corporate objectives.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗺
When the size, grade, jurisdiction, and strategic fit align with what acquirers need, projects sell fast. When they do not, more derisking is required and time lines naturally stretch.

This is where the Lassonde Curve becomes visible. Technical risk clouds value recognition and the market begins to demand proof of payback.

Many juniors manage this by pushing aggressive PEAs that majors do not believe, or tweaking assumptions to lift an IRR from 40% to 60%. None of that changes the underlying resource or its continuity.

The reality is straightforward. Buyers who build mines are sophisticated and practical. They have defined acquisition criteria and if you ask, they will often tell you exactly what those are.

Yet few juniors take the time to map them.

Instead, they fixate on headline numbers rather than alignment.

To retail investors it can look confusing. Some projects show excellent IRRs and NPVs yet sit idle. Others move fast and disappear from the market. The difference is not the economics, it is the fit.

Groups that sell discoveries consistently understand this. They focus on meeting corporate objectives, design programs to test them at the lowest cost, and market only when the technical story supports that alignment.

And that is the real signal, when management stops selling numbers and starts understanding the business it is in.

…………………………….

Comments by an industry CEO who I asked to summarize his take-aways:

• Alignment with major needs is paramount – size, grade, jurisdiction and strategic fit must match corporate objectives
• When alignment exists, projects sell before final resource estimates or feasibility studies
• Major companies don’t trust Junior PEA’s
• Majors are sophisticated and have defined criteria.
• Juniors to design exploration programs to test alignment at lowest cost