What the geology factor actually measures
Four inputs drive the geology score. First, grade — measured in grams per tonne for gold and silver, percent for base metals. Grade determines whether a deposit can be mined economically at a given commodity price. Second, resource category — the progression from inferred (widely-spaced drill data, lowest confidence) to indicated (tighter-spaced, moderate confidence) to measured (tight-spaced, high confidence). Higher-category ounces earn higher scores because they carry less geological uncertainty. Third, metallurgy — whether the deposit can be economically processed. A high-grade deposit with complex metallurgy (gold locked in sulphide, or with significant deleterious elements) scores worse than a lower-grade deposit with simple metallurgy. Fourth, continuity — whether the mineralisation holds together in three dimensions or is erratic and pocketed.
A 5/5 score requires all four to be strong. Amex (Perron), Canagold (New Polaris), and GoGold (Los Ricos) score 5/5 because their grade, resource category, metallurgy, and continuity all clear high bars. Western Copper scores 5/5 on a different axis — grade is modest but tonnage and co-product credits combine to produce exceptional project-level economics.
Why geology is the hardest factor to change
The other four factors change over quarters or years. Geology changes over decades, and mostly through new exploration. A company cannot improve its geology score by better management decisions — the rocks are what the rocks are. What can happen is that a new discovery on the same property adds to the resource, or that infill drilling moves ounces from inferred to indicated, or that metallurgical testwork resolves a processing concern. Those are slow, capital- intensive changes.
This is why the geology score is the most persistent signal in the framework. If a company has scored 4/5 or 5/5 on geology, it is very likely to still score 4/5 or 5/5 a year later, barring a negative resource revision (which does happen, especially on early-stage resources with narrow drill spacing).
High geology but weak overall — the pattern to watch
Canagold is instructive. The New Polaris project scores 5/5 on geology — the asset is high-quality. But the composite is only 17/25 (WATCH) because capital structure scores 2/5, which weights the composite down. This is the classic "great project in a constrained package" pattern. A disciplined financing can lift the capital score from 2/5 to 3/5 or 4/5, which would push the composite well into BUY territory. Investors willing to bet on the capital-side repair mechanism can size into names like this ahead of the re-rating event.
The inverse pattern — strong management and capital, weak geology — is harder to resolve because geology is slow to change. Collective Mining (management 5/5, geology 2/5) is the clearest example in our coverage.
Grade alone is not the story
Retail investors often fixate on grade ("ounces per tonne") as the headline measure of geological quality. Grade matters, but it's one of four inputs. A 25 g/t gold deposit with complex metallurgy and erratic continuity can mine worse than a 1.5 g/t deposit with simple metallurgy and bulk continuity. Heap-leach-amenable oxide gold at 0.8 g/t — the Liberty Gold and Integra Resources profile — scores well on metallurgy and continuity even if grade alone would suggest otherwise. Read the 43-101 beyond the grade number.