Discovery Performance of the Western World Gold Industry Over the Period 1985- 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarises the performance of the gold exploration industry in the Western World since 1970, with particular emphasis on the period 1985- 2003. It identifies the number and size of major (ie>1 million ounce) primary gold discoveries made over this period by location and type of company. Estimates are also made of the likely contribution from smaller discoveries down to 0.1 million ounces. It also assesses the overall trend in the percentage of grassroot discoveries that are converted into mines, and the time taken to get them into production. By comparing the discovery data against total exploration expenditures it is possible to determine the average unit cost of finding a major gold deposit. It is significant to note that the average unit cost per discovery and per ounce of resource has tripled over the last 30 years. An attempt is made to determine the overall economic value generated by the industry. This is based on a detailed analysis of the rates of return and the Net Present Values (NPVs) of 109 major gold projects. After including an adjustment for discoveries not modelled, the NPVs are compared against the total amount of money spent on exploration to determine the value-to-cost ratio for the industry. Based on historical spot gold prices and tax rules, it is found that the return on investment for gold exploration in the Western World over the period 1985- 2003 was around five per cent real after-tax. The returns achieved in the US and Australia was significantly higher than that for Canada. The returns also appear to have declined in recent years. With regard to the relative performance of junior versus major companies, the paper estimates that the junior sector accounted for 30-40 per cent of the total exploration expenditure, and were was associated with 34 per cent of the total number of major deposits, 27 per cent of the contained ounces and 25 per cent of the economic value found.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".