In this article
A mine study connects the deposit to a possible operating project: how material will be mined, processed and delivered to a market, and what that system will cost. Its detail should match the decision and the evidence available. Calling a document “bankable” does not remove uncertainty or guarantee financing.
This guide explains the progression from early option assessment to feasibility work and the assumptions that need to be linked. You should finish able to scope the next study and identify what it must resolve before a development commitment.
Use the study stage to define the decision
An early scoping assessment compares broad options and identifies the information worth improving. A pre-feasibility study develops a preferred technical and economic case from alternatives. A feasibility study provides more detailed support for evaluating and implementing the selected project.
The JORC Code’s study definitions distinguish these stages and the relationship to Ore Reserves under that reporting framework. Study names alone do not prescribe a universal cost accuracy, budget or duration. Agree the estimate basis and engineering maturity explicitly.
Keep the technical assumptions connected
The geological model affects mining geometry, dilution and the production schedule. That schedule determines feed, metallurgy and plant duty. Water, power, transport, environmental measures and closure then influence both capital and operating cost. Each discipline should use compatible quantities and dates.
An open-pit versus underground choice needs geometry, ground conditions, access, method, recovery and costs. It should not be made from one grade cutoff or stripping-ratio rule copied from another mine. Document the alternatives and the evidence behind the selected case.
Distinguish mineralisation from a mining case
A Mineral Resource and an Ore Reserve are different reporting concepts. A study must apply the relevant technical, economic and other factors before treating material as a viable mining inventory under the applicable framework. Have the responsible reporting professional confirm classification and use of the data.
The study brief should identify the required public-reporting standard, who is responsible for it and what supporting work remains. Software output or an attractive geological model does not replace that assessment.
Expose the assumptions in the cash forecast
For an illustrative year, assume 30,000 processed t at 2 g/t and 85% overall recovery. Recovered gold is 30,000 × 2 × 0.85 = 51,000 g. At an assumed USD 70/g payable-value basis, receipts are USD 3.57 million. If assumed mine and processing outgoings total USD 2.7 million, the difference is USD 870,000 before capital, financing, tax and other omitted obligations.
At an assumed 1.5 g/t with the same tonnes, recovery and price, receipts fall to USD 2.6775 million, slightly below the assumed operating outgoings. These are teaching inputs, not a forecast. The exercise shows why grade and other downside cases need to be tested together.
Bring approvals and closure into the study
Include land, water, waste, community and closure work early enough to affect design and schedule. IFC Performance Standard 1 is a reference for integrated environmental and social management where applicable. Local approval conditions remain a separate project responsibility.
A study that excludes an unresolved water source or waste facility can understate both cost and schedule risk. Record assumptions, responsible specialists and the investigation needed to close each gap.
Questions and answers
Does a report called bankable guarantee that a lender will fund the mine?
The label does not establish financing eligibility or remove the project's uncertainties. A lender assesses its own requirements alongside the study's evidence, assumptions and remaining work. Confirm the decision the study must support and the relevant funding criteria before commissioning additional detail.
Can a feasibility study repair missing geological or metallurgical evidence?
The study can identify gaps and coordinate work to close them, but calculations cannot replace the missing observations and tests. Keep the mine schedule, process response and economic assumptions connected to their evidence. If a major input remains uncertain, scope the next investigation before treating the study as an implementation basis.
Scope the study that reduces the next uncertainty
Select the stage from the decision, connect the disciplines and test the financial case under weaker inputs. Ask for a report that states evidence, assumptions and remaining work clearly. The next step is a study brief listing the project alternatives and the uncertainties that could change the development decision.
Sources and assumptions
Reporting and management references were reviewed on 5 October 2026. Economic figures are illustrative. No standard study price, guaranteed estimate accuracy or financing outcome is asserted.