Mining Survey 2012-2013

FRASER INSTITUTE ANNUAL

Survey of Mining Companies
2012/2013

by Alana Wilson, Fred McMahon, and Miguel Cervantes
Survey Director: Kenneth P. Green

About The Fraser Institute
The Fraser Institute’s vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice,
competitive markets, and personal responsibility. Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the
impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals.

Founded in 1974, we are an independent research and educational organization with locations throughout
North America, and international partners in over 80 countries. Our work is financed by tax-deductible
contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations. In order to protect its inde-
pendence, the Institute does not accept grants from government or contracts for research.

Media
For media inquiries, please contact our Communications Department
telephone: 604.714.4582; e-mail: communications@fraserinstitute.org

Disclaimer
The coordinators of this survey have worked independently and opinions expressed by them are, therefore,
their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the supporters, trustees, or other staff of the Fraser
Institute. This publication in no way implies that the Fraser Institute, its trustees, or staff are in favor of, or
oppose the passage of, any bill; or that they support or oppose any particular political party or candidate.

Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief passages quoted in critical
articles and reviews.

Date of issue
February 2013

Editing, design, and production
Kristin McCahon

Cover
Design by Bill Ray.

Cover images: Chief miner… © Fotolia, Zentimeter; Coal train © Bigstock, bsauter; open pit (no title) ©
Flickr (commons), Uncle Kick-Kick; gemstones (no title) © Flickr (commons), RocksInMyHead

For additional copies of this survey, or for copies of previous years’ surveys, please call:
The Fraser Institute, 4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6J 3G7
Phone: (604) 688-0221, ext. 580; call toll-free: 1-800-665-3558, ext. 580; or e-mail sales@fraserinstitute.org

Table of Contents

Survey information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Executive summary—2012/2013 mining survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Survey methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summary indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Explanation of the figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Global survey rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Global results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Investment patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix: Tabular material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

About the authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Supporting the Fraser Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Purpose, funding, and independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Lifetime Patrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Editorial Advisory Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Survey information

The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining survey, conducted from October 9, 2012, to January
Companies was sent to approximately 4,100 explo- 6, 2013, represents responses from 742 of those
ration, development, and other mining-related companies. The companies participating in the sur-
companies around the world. Several mining publi- vey reported exploration spending of US$6.2 billion
cations and associations also helped publicize the in 2012 and US$5.4 billion in 2011.
survey. (Please see the acknowledgements.) The

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the hundreds of members of Camára Minera de Panamá (CAMPIRA), Chamber
the mining community who have responded to the of Mines Zimbabwe, Central Asian Free Market
survey this year and in previous years. You do a ser- Cen ter, The CRU, Fédération des minerais,
vice to your industry by providing such valuable in- minéraux industriels et métaux non ferreux,
formation. Global Mining Association of China, Guyana Gold
& Diamond Miners Association, Hungarian Min-
We would also like to thank the Prospectors and
ing As so ci a tion, MineAfrica Inc. and On the
Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), whose
Ground Group, Mining Industry NL, the NWT &
generous support makes this survey possible. We
Nunavut Chamber of Mines, the Oriental Mining
also owe a debt of gratitude to a number of mining
Club, Utah Mining Association, SERCITEC, Ari-
as so ci a tions and pub li ca tions that gen er ously
zona Geology, Asia Miner, Coal Age Asia, Mining
helped inform their readers and members of the op-
Business Media, MiningIQ, Mining Press, Mining
portunity to participate in the survey. These in-
Weekly, Republic of Mining, and, I Think Mining.
clude: Association for Mineral Exploration BC,
Asociación Nacional de Minería Metálica de Hon- We would like to thank Roberto Roca-Paz and PO-
duras, ANDI Cámara Asomineros—Bogotá, the PULI, Bolivia, for providing research assistance. We
Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, the would also like to thank then Executive Director
Australian Coal Association, Camara Empresaria Michael Walker and Laura Jones for conceptualiz-
Minera de Córdoba, Camara Minera de Jujuy, ing this project 15 years ago.

4 www.fraserinstitute.org

Executive summary—2012/2013 mining survey

This report presents the results of the Fraser Insti- the 96 jurisdictions in the survey. The index is
tute’s 2012/2013 annual survey of mining and ex- composed of survey responses to 15 policy factors
plo ra tion com pa nies to as sess how min eral that affect investment decisions. The PPI is normal-
endowments and public policy factors such as taxa- ized to a maximum score of 100.
tion and regulation affect exploration investment.
The survey responses have been tallied to rank The top
provinces, states, and countries according to the ex-
tent that public policy factors encourage or discour- No nation scored first in all categories. Finland had
age investment. Policy factors examined include the highest PPI score of 95.5. Along with Finland,
uncertainty concerning the administration of cur- the top 10 ranked jurisdictions are Sweden, Alberta,
rent regulations and environmental regulations, New Brunswick, Wyoming, Ireland, Nevada, Yu-
regulatory duplication, the legal system and taxation kon, Utah, and Norway. All were in the top 10 last
regime, uncertainty concerning protected areas and year except for Utah and Norway. Yukon was the
disputed land claims, infrastructure, socioeconomic first Canadian territory to make the top 10 in
and community development conditions, trade bar- 2011/2012. Both Quebec and Saskatchewan fell out
riers, political stability, labour regulations, quality of of the top 10 in 2012/2013. Chile, which had previ-
geological database, security, labour and skills sup- ously been the only jurisdiction outside North
ply, corruption, and uncertainty. Investment inten- America consistently in the top 10 over the life of
tions and commodity price expectations are also the survey, has continued to fall in the rankings—to
examined. 23rd place in this survey. Norway rose to 10th in the
rankings from 24th in 2011/2012, and Sweden and
A total of 742 responses were received for the sur- Finland have now been in the top 10 for the last
vey, providing sufficient data to evaluate 96 juris- three and four years, respectively.
dictions. By way of comparison, 93 jurisdictions
were evaluated in 2011/2012, 79 in 2010/2011, and
72 in 2009/2010. Jurisdictions are evaluated on ev-
The bottom
ery continent except Antarctica, including sub-na- The 10 least attractive jurisdictions for investment
tional jurisdictions in Canada, Australia, the United based on the PPI rankings are (starting with the
States, and Argentina. This year, French Guiana, worst) Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, DRC (Congo),
Greece, Serbia, and the sub-national jurisdictions of Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Guatemala, Philip-
La Rioja and Neuquen in Argentina were added to pines, and Greece. All of these jurisdictions were in
the survey. the bottom 10 last year with the exception of DRC
(Congo), Greece, and Zimbabwe. Greece was a new
addition to the survey in 2012/2013. Both the DRC
The rankings
(Congo) and Zimbabwe dropped significantly in the
The Policy Potential Index (PPI) is a composite in- rankings this year, with DRC (Congo) falling from
dex, measuring the overall policy attractiveness of 76th to 93rd, and Zimbabwe from 74th to 91st. Hon-

2012/2013 Survey of Mining Companies 5

duras and India moved out of the bottom 10 in PPI and ranking while Tasmania dropped most sig-
2012/2013. Honduras’ ranking improved from last nificantly. New Zealand’s PPI score and ranking
spot (93rd) in 2011/2012 to 83rd, while India moved also declined slightly, breaking a trend that has seen
from 89th to 81st. it improving steadily over the last five years. Indo-
nesia dropped the most in the rankings for Oceania
to last place in this year’s survey (96th) while the
Regional highlights
Philippines remained at 88th, also in the bottom 10.
Comments about these jurisdictions were a mixture
Canada
of positive and negative, although many of the min-
Canada’s average PPI score improved slightly, al- ers’ concerns related to uncertainties and, in partic-
though a Canadian jurisdiction did not rank first in ular, the permitting process.
the survey for the first time since 2006/2007. Both
Quebec and Saskatchewan dropped out of the top
10 in the rankings, to 11th and 13th respectively. The Africa
Canadian territories (Yukon, Nunavut, and the
Africa’s average PPI score decreased, continuing a
Northwest Territories) all improved their PPI
five-year declining trend. Mali’s rank dropped the
scores. In fact, the Northwest Territories had the
most, followed by Madagascar. Mauritania and
greatest improvement in score and rank amongst
Namibia improved most significantly, while Bot-
Canadian jurisdictions. Comments from miners
swana remained the highest ranked jurisdiction
suggest that while Canadian jurisdictions remain
(17th) on the continent. Comments for African ju-
competitive globally, uncertainties with Aboriginal
risdictions were split among concerns for political
consultation and disputed land claims are growing
stability and uncertainty in several nations, and
concerns for some.
praise for stability and policies in others.

United States
The average PPI in the US declined slightly, though Argentina, Latin America,
overall, it has increased over the last five years. Min- and the Caribbean
nesota and Michigan had the largest decrease in
Argentina’s average PPI score improved signifi-
their scores and ranking, while Utah and Alaska im-
cantly with most jurisdictions improving their
proved the most. Several comments noted stability
score and Rio Negro, Catamarca, and Salta improv-
and favourable regulations, although some miners
ing most significantly. Chile remains the top-
also noted challenges to mining based on environ-
ranked jurisdiction in this region, although it again
mental concerns.
dropped in this year’s rankings—this time to 23rd.
Guyana’s score dropped most significantly while
Australia and Oceania
the rankings for Panama and Honduras recovered.
The average PPI for Australia declined in 2012/ Comments for the region showed concern for re-
2013, although there has been an improving trend source nationalism and mining opposition in some
over the last five years. Western Australia remains areas, while policies to formalize informal miners
the country’s top-ranked jurisdiction (15th). Victo- (Peru) and to redistribute mining royalties to the lo-
ria had the greatest improvement in the country’s cal level were positively received by some miners.


Eurasia Miners continue to be pessimistic about short-term
The average PPI score for Eurasia didn’t change sig- commodity prices; more than half of the survey’s
nificantly, although Nordic jurisdictions (Finland, respondents expected small increases (less than
Greenland, Norway, and Sweden) performed very 10%) or reduced prices for diamonds, coal, nickel,
well. Finland took the survey’s top rank and Sweden zinc, copper, potash, platinum, and silver over the
and Norway were also in the top 10. In the Eurasian next two years. Only gold was expected to increase
region, Norway, India, and Turkey improved most in value by more than 20% over the next two years
significantly in the survey rankings. China had the by a majority of respondents. Given the positive ex-
most significant drop in score and rank followed by pectations for the price of gold, it is unsurprising
Poland. Miners expressed concerns about uncer- that gold continues to be the commodity assigned
tainty and lack of stability in mining policy in sev- the largest proportion of respondents’ budgets. Min-
eral Eurasian jurisdictions, but commented more ers were somewhat more optimistic about long-term
favourably on Ireland and the Nordic countries. commodity prices; most respondents expected sta-
ble or moderate increases (up to 15%) in inflation-ad-
justed commodity prices over the next 10 years.
Investment intentions
Finally, respondents were asked about the chal-
To tal ex plo ra tion bud gets in 2012/2013 in- lenges of raising funds compared with two years
creased from 2011/2012 and just over half of re- ago. Over 90% of respondents somewhat or fully
spondents reported increasing their exploration agreed that it was currently more difficult to raise
budgets over the last five years. However, only funds, with a majority believing that the reason for
46% of respondents plan to increase their explo- this difficulty was investors being worried about the
ration budgets in 2013. state of the world economy or being risk averse and
seeing mining as risky.


Survey methodology

Survey background In order to address this problem and assess how var-
ious public policy factors influence companies’ de-
The mining industry is an important contributor to cisions to invest in different regions, the Fraser
the economy in Canada. It provides not only mate- Institute began conducting an anonymous survey of
rials essential for all sectors of the economy, but also senior and junior companies in 1997. The first sur-
employment and government revenues. Mining vey included all Canadian provinces and territories.
contributes to economic growth worldwide and Ca- The second survey, conducted in 1998, added 17 US
nadian mining companies operate in jurisdictions states, Mexico, and for comparison with North
around the world. While mineral potential is obvi- American jurisdictions, Chile. The third survey,
ously a very important consideration in encourag- conducted in 1999, was further expanded to include
ing or dissuading mining investment, the impact of Argentina, Australia, Peru, and Nunavut. The sur-
government policies can be significant. vey now includes 96 jurisdictions from all conti-
nents except Antarctica. This year, French Guiana,
The effects of policy on deterring exploration in- Greece, Serbia, and the sub-national jurisdictions of
vestment may not be immediately apparent due to La Rioja and Neuquen in Argentina were added to
the lag time between when policy changes are im- the survey. Missouri and Laos were dropped due to
plemented and when economic activity is impeded insufficient survey response.
and job losses occur. Many regions around the
world have attractive geology and competitive poli- Jurisdictions are added to the survey based on the
cies, allowing exploration investment to be shifted interests expressed by survey respondents. This
away from jurisdictions with unattractive policies. survey is published annually and we strive to make
the results available and accessible to an increas-
Since 1997, the Fraser Institute has conducted an ingly global audience.
annual survey of mining and exploration companies
to assess how mineral endowments and public pol- The Fraser Institute’s mining survey is an informal
icy factors such as taxation and regulation affect ex- survey that attempts to assess the perceptions of
ploration investment. The motivation for the mining company executives with regard to various
survey came from a Fraser Institute conference on areas of optimal and sub-optimal public policies
mining held in Vancouver, Canada, in the fall of that might affect the hospitality of a jurisdiction to
1996. The comments and feedback from the confer- mining investment. Given the very broad circula-
ence showed that the mining industry was dissatis- tion that the survey receives, the extensive press
fied with gov ern ment pol i cies that de terred coverage that it receives, and positive feedback
exploration investment within the mineral-rich about the survey’s utility from miners, investors,
province of British Columbia. However, this dissat- and policymakers, we believe that the survey cap-
isfaction was not being measured and mining com- tures, in broad strokes, the perceptions of those in-
panies were reluctant to be publicly critical of volved in both mining and the regulation of mining
government and policies. in the jurisdictions included in the survey.


Sample design Figure 1: The position survey
respondents hold in their company,
The survey is designed to identify the provinces,
2012/2013
states, and countries that have the most attractive
policies to encourage investment in mining explo- Vice president: 16%
ration and production. Jurisdictions assessed by in- Manager: 16%
vestors as relatively unattractive may therefore be
prompted to consider reforms that would improve
their ranking. Presumably, mining companies use Other senior
the information that is provided to corroborate management 9%

their own assessments and to identify jurisdictions
where the business conditions and regulatory envi- Consultant: 6%

ronment are most attractive for investment. The Company
president: 42% Other: 12%
survey results are also a useful source of informa-
tion for the media, providing independent informa-
tion as to how particular jurisdictions compare.

The survey was distributed to approximately 4,100
managers and executives around the world in com-
panies involved in mining exploration, develop-
Figure 2: Company focus as indicated
ment, and other related activities. The names of
by respondents, 2012/2013
potential respondents were compiled from com-
mercially available lists, publicly available member-
Exploration
ship lists of trade associations, and other sources. company: 54%

Several mining publications and associations also
helped publicize the survey. (Please see the ac- Producer company
with less than
knowledgements). US$50M: 6%

The survey was conducted from October 9, 2012 to
January 6, 2013. A total of 742 responses were re-
ceived from individuals, of whom 639 completed Producer company
Other: 9% with more than
the full survey and 103 completed part of the survey. US$50M: 20%
Consulting
As figure 1 illustrates, over half of the respondents company: 12%
are either the company president or vice-president,
and a further 25% are either managers or senior
managers. The companies that participated in the
survey reported exploration spending of US$6.2 bil-
lion in 2012 and US$5.4 billion in 2011.
Just over a quarter of the respondents represent
Figure 2 shows that over half of the 2012/2013 sur- producer companies, and the final 21% is made up
vey respondents represent an exploration company. of consulting and other companies.


Survey questionnaire 11. Political stability;
12. Labour regulations/employment agreements
The survey was designed to capture the opinions of
and labour militancy/work disruptions;
managers and executives regarding the level of in-
vestment barriers in jurisdictions in which their 13. Quality of the geological database (includes
companies were familiar. Respondents were asked quality and scale of maps, ease of access to in-
to indicate how each of the 17 policy factors below formation, etc.);
influence company decisions to invest in various ju- 14. Level of security (includes physical security
risdictions. due to the threat of attack by terrorists, crimi-
nals, guerrilla groups, etc.);
1. Uncertainty concerning the administration,
interpretation, or enforcement of existing reg- 15. Availability of labour/skills;
ulations;
16. Level of corruption (or honesty);
2. Uncertainty concerning environmental regu-
17. Growing (or lessening) uncertainty in mining
lations (stability of regulations, consistency
policy and implementation.
and timeliness of regulatory process, regula-
tions not based on science); Respondents were asked to score only jurisdictions
3. Regulatory duplication and inconsistencies with which they were familiar and only on those
(includes federal/provincial, federal/state, policy factors with which they were familiar. Policy
inter-departmental overlap, etc.); questions were unchanged from 2011/2012. For
each of the 17 factors, respondents were asked to se-
4. Legal system (legal processes that are fair,
lect one of the following five responses that best de-
transparent, non-corrupt, timely, efficiently
scribed each jurisdiction with which they were
administered, etc.)
familiar:
5. Taxation regime (includes personal, corpo-
rate, payroll, capital, and other taxes, and 1. Encourages exploration investment
complexity of tax compliance); 2. Not a deterrent to exploration investment
6. Uncertainty concerning disputed land claims; 3. Is a mild deterrent to exploration invest-
7. Uncertainty concerning what areas will be ment
protected as wilderness, parks, or archeologi- 4. Is a strong deterrent to exploration invest-
cal sites, etc.; ment
8. Infrastructure (includes access to roads, 5. Would not pursue exploration investment
power availability, etc.); in this region due to this factor
9. Socioeconomic agreements/community de- The survey also included questions on the respon-
velopment conditions (includes local purchas- dents and their company types; most and least fa-
ing or processing requirements, or supplying vourable jurisdictions for mining and the reasons
social infrastructure such as schools or hospi- why; recommended policy changes in least favour-
tals, etc.); able jurisdiction(s); regulatory horror stories; ex-
10. Trade barriers (tariff and non-tariff barriers, emplary policy; the weighting of mineral versus
restrictions on profit repatriation, currency policy factors in investment decisions; and invest-
restrictions, etc.); ment patterns.


Summary indexes

Policy Potential Index (PPI): The PPI is based on ranks and is calculated so that
A comprehensive assessment of the the maximum scores are 100. Each jurisdiction is
attractiveness of mining policies ranked in each policy area based on the percentage
of respondents who judge that the policy factor in
While geologic and economic evaluations are al-
question “encourages investment.” The jurisdiction
ways requirements for exploration, in today’s glob-
that receives the highest percentage of “encourages
ally competitive economy where mining companies
investment” in any policy area is ranked first in that
may be examining properties located on different
policy area; the jurisdiction that receives the lowest
continents, a region’s policy climate has taken on
percentage of this response is ranked last. The rank-
increased importance in attracting and winning in-
ing of each jurisdiction across all policy areas is av-
vestment. The Policy Potential Index or PPI (see fig-
eraged and normalized to 100. A jurisdiction that
ure 3 and ta ble 1) pro vides a com prehen sive
ranks first in every category would have a score of
assessment of the attractiveness of mining policies
100; one that scored last in every category would
in a jurisdiction, and can serve as a report card to
have a score of 0.
governments on how attractive their policies are
from the point of view of an exploration manager.

The Policy Potential Index is a composite index that Current Mineral Potential Index
captures the opinions of managers and executives
The Current Mineral Potential index (see figure 4
on the effects of policies in jurisdictions with which
and table 2), is based on respondents’ answers to the
they are familiar. All survey policy questions (i.e.,
question about whether or not a jurisdiction’s min-
uncertainty concerning the administration, inter-
eral potential under the current policy environment
pretation, and enforcement of existing regulations,
(i.e., regulations, land use restrictions, taxation, po-
environmental regulations, regulatory duplication
litical risk, and uncertainty) encourages or discour-
and inconsistencies, taxation, uncertainty concern-
ages exploration.
ing disputed land claims and protected areas, infra-
structure, socioeconomic agreements, political Respondents clearly take into account mineral po-
stability, labor issues, geological database, and secu- tential, meaning that some jurisdictions that rank
rity) are included with the exception of corruption high in the Policy Potential Index but have limited
and growing or lessening uncertainty. The question hard mineral potential will rank lower in the Cur-
on corruption was just introduced last year and rent Mineral Potential Index, while jurisdictions
shows unusual variability in responses, so we have with a weak policy environment but strong mineral
decided not to include it in the PPI this year. For potential will do better. Nonetheless, there is con-
general information, we have still included the re- siderable overlap between this index and the Policy
sults to the corruption question in the report (see Potential Index, perhaps partly because good policy
figure 22 and table A18). The question on overall will encourage exploration, which in turn will in-
uncertainty is also not included in the PPI, as uncer- crease the known mineral potential.
tainty issues are picked up in specific policy areas.


Figure 3: Policy Potential Index
Finland
Sweden
Alberta
New Brunswick
Wyoming
Ireland
Nevada
Yukon
Utah
Norway
Quebec
Nova Scotia
Saskatchewan
Greenland
Western Australia
Ontario
Botswana
Newfoundland & Labrador
Alaska
South Australia
Manitoba
Northern Territory
Chile
Victoria
Morocco
New Zealand
French Guiana
Arizona
Northwest Territories
Namibia
British Columbia
Queensland
Michigan
Colorado
Idaho
Mauritania
Nunavut
Argentina: Salta
Argentina: Neuquen
Minnesota
Argentina: Rio Negro
Mexico
Argentina: Catamarca
New South Wales
New Mexico
Montana
Washington
Spain
Tasmania
Bulgaria
Argentina: San Juan
Serbia
Turkey
Ghana
Burkina Faso
California
Poland
Peru
Zambia
Dominican Republic
Brazil
Argentina: Mendoza
Panama
South Africa
Argentina: Jujuy
Colombia
Guyana
Argentina: Santa Cruz
Egypt
Niger
Suriname
China
Russia
Tanzania
Argentina:L a Rioja
Guinea (Conakry)
Papua New Guinea
Argentina: Chubut
Mali
Kazakhstan
India
Ecuador
Mongolia
Honduras
Madagascar
Romania
Greece
Philippines
Guatemala
Bolivia
Zimbabwe
Kyrgyzstan
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Venezuela
Vietnam
Indonesia
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Table 1: Policy Potential Index

Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Alberta 92.6 91.5 90.4 89.9 86.4 3/96 3/93 1/79 4/72 4/71
British Columbia 63.6 62.5 54.4 48.7 61.2 31/96 31/93 36/79 38/72 24/71
Canada

Manitoba 73.4 74.6 80.3 76.8 79.9 21/96 20/93 9/79 9/72 8/71
New Brunswick 90.8 95.0 67.3 94.1 80.4 4/96 1/93 23/79 2/72 6/71
Newfoundland & Labra- 76.8 77.0 74.6 78.3 84.6 18/96 16/93 13/79 8/72 5/71
dor
NWT 63.7 50.4 40.2 40.0 46.9 29/96 48/93 52/79 50/72 40/71
Nova Scotia 81.8 77.1 68.6 72.6 74.7 12/96 15/93 19/79 15/72 12/71
Nunavut 59.9 58.5 47.6 45.0 44.4 37/96 36/93 44/79 43/72 43/71
Ontario 78.3 79.4 68.7 66.2 75.2 16/96 13/93 18/79 22/72 10/71
Quebec 81.9 89.0 86.5 96.7 96.6 11/96 5/93 4/79 1/72 1/71
Saskatchewan 81.6 88.9 87.5 81.6 79.1 13/96 6/93 3/79 6/72 9/71
Yukon 83.8 83.0 73.0 73.9 72.5 8/96 10/93 15/79 11/72 15/71
Alaska 75.5 67.5 67.6 71.7 66.9 19/96 25/93 21/79 18/72 17/71
Arizona 64.2 65.5 65.9 62.8 59.1 28/96 29/93 25/79 25/72 27/71
US A

California 45.3 45.8 35.1 22.6 36.2 56/96 51/93 56/79 63/72 54/71
Colorado 61.9 60.5 47.0 32.6 49.2 34/96 33/93 46/79 54/72 38/71
Idaho 61.6 66.8 55.7 55.4 50.8 35/96 26/93 33/79 32/72 36/71
Michigan 62.3 72.2 47.9 60.2 * 33/96 23/93 42/79 26/72 *
Minnesota 58.1 72.6 47.3 33.5 49.7 40/96 22/93 45/79 53/72 37/71
Montana 55.9 54.0 40.8 44.0 38.8 46/96 40/93 50/79 46/72 52/71
Nevada 85.3 84.5 89.3 88.8 87.0 7/96 8/93 2/79 5/72 3/71
New Mexico 56.2 54.0 55.0 45.9 31.9 45/96 41/93 34/79 41/72 58/71
Utah 83.8 72.9 85.1 72.6 74.8 9/96 21/93 6/79 15/72 11/71
Washington 55.7 55.1 34.4 31.8 39.6 47/96 39/93 59/79 55/72 51/71
Wyoming 90.1 89.6 77.8 73.1 91.4 5/96 4/93 10/79 13/72 2/71
New South Wales 56.4 62.4 68.2 66.6 61.4 44/96 32/93 20/79 20/72 23/71
Australia

Northern Territory 68.5 81.5 62.2 73.0 64.4 22/96 11/93 27/79 14/72 20/71
Queensland 62.8 65.5 52.8 62.9 59.9 32/96 28/93 38/79 24/72 25/71
South Australia 75.5 75.3 75.9 75.9 71.0 20/96 19/93 11/79 10/72 16/71
Tasmania 54.1 64.8 61.3 65.9 55.5 49/96 30/93 28/79 23/72 31/71
Victoria 66.0 52.1 56.9 57.0 57.1 24/96 44/93 31/79 30/72 29/71
Western Australia 79.3 81.5 70.6 67.1 63.4 15/96 12/93 17/79 19/72 21/71
Indonesia 9.4 13.5 22.5 24.7 25.1 96/96 85/93 70/79 62/72 62/71
Oceania

New Zealand 65.1 65.7 63.4 55.1 43.4 26/96 27/93 26/79 33/72 45/71
Papua New Guinea 26.1 34.3 29.6 31.2 27.3 77/96 66/93 64/79 56/72 61/71
Philippines 14.0 13.0 27.3 14.0 28.1 88/96 88/93 66/79 70/72 59/71



Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Botswana 78.1 76.9 74.0 66.5 64.9 17/96 17/93 14/79 21/72 18/71
Burkina Faso 46.0 57.5 66.3 49.6 45.1 55/96 38/93 24/79 36/72 42/71
Africa

DRC (Congo) 12.3 19.9 7.8 18.9 24.1 93/96 76/93 77/79 68/72 63/71
Egypt 32.4 19.9 * * * 69/96 77/93 * * *
Ghana 48.2 52.9 45.1 53.3 51.3 54/96 43/93 47/79 34/72 35/71
Guinea (Conakry) 26.4 16.6 40.2 * * 76/96 83/93 51/79 * *
Madagascar 16.5 42.0 15.6 * * 85/96 59/93 73/79 * *
Mali 24.9 52.9 58.2 58.2 53.6 79/96 42/93 29/79 27/72 33/71
Mauritania 61.6 45.5 * * * 36/96 52/93 * * *
Morocco 65.6 60.3 * * * 25/96 34/93 * * *
Namibia 63.7 51.6 57.9 49.2 52.5 30/96 45/93 30/79 37/72 34/71
Niger 32.2 30.7 47.9 * * 70/96 68/93 43/79 * *
South Africa 35.0 44.5 23.4 26.2 40.4 64/96 54/93 67/79 61/72 49/71
Tanzania 28.0 38.8 32.4 44.9 41.8 74/96 63/93 61/79 44/72 48/71
Zambia 41.7 46.1 34.9 36.5 44.4 59/96 50/93 57/79 52/72 44/71
Zimbabwe 13.4 21.8 22.4 14.7 19.1 91/96 74/93 71/79 69/72 65/71
Argentina ** ** 32.4 28.4 33.0 ** ** 60/79 59/72 56/71
Argentina

Catamarca 56.9 39.0 * * * 43/96 61/93 * * *
Chubut 26.0 24.6 * * * 78/96 70/93 * * *
Jujuy 34.5 20.1 * * * 65/96 75/93 * * *
La Rioja 26.5 * * * * 75/96 * * * *
Mendoza 36.1 22.2 * * * 62/96 73/93 * * *
Neuquen 59.3 * * * * 39/96 * * * *
Rio Negro 57.9 25.7 * * * 41/96 69/93 * * *
Salta 59.7 43.9 * * * 38/96 55/93 * * *
San Juan 53.3 39.0 * * * 51/96 62/93 * * *
Santa Cruz 32.7 35.7 * * * 68/96 65/93 * * *
Bolivia 13.8 8.1 9.1 20.1 16.5 90/96 91/93 76/79 66/72 66/71
Latin America and the Carribean Basin

Brazil 38.2 43.3 43.2 46.1 47.1 61/96 57/93 49/79 40/72 39/71
Chile 67.7 75.3 81.3 79.1 79.9 23/96 18/93 8/79 7/72 7/71
Colombia 34.4 38.0 51.2 40.6 43.0 66/96 64/93 40/79 48/72 46/71
Ecuador 19.0 13.1 27.9 10.5 4.1 82/96 86/93 65/79 71/72 70/71
Dominican Republic 39.7 31.5 * * * 60/96 67/93 * * *
French Guiana*** 64.6 * * * * 27/96 * * * *
Guatemala 13.8 2.9 10.0 21.9 5.1 89/96 92/93 75/79 64/72 69/71
Guyana 32.9 44.7 * * * 67/96 53/93 * * *
Honduras 17.9 1.7 1.2 20.4 11.8 83/96 93/93 79/79 65/72 68/71
Mexico 57.3 58.8 54.7 58.1 57.7 42/96 35/93 35/79 28/72 28/71
Panama 35.8 16.9 23.3 31.2 42.4 63/96 82/93 68/79 56/72 47/71
Peru 42.0 43.4 43.6 47.7 56.6 58/96 56/93 48/79 39/72 30/71
Suriname 31.0 23.4 * * * 71/96 72/93 * * *
Venezuela 11.8 10.9 1.3 6.9 3.7 94/96 90/93 78/79 72/72 71/71



Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Bulgaria 53.6 50.6 55.9 * * 50/96 47/93 32/79 * *
China 28.5 43.1 30.9 45.1 45.2 72/96 58/93 62/79 42/72 41/71
Finland 95.5 92.4 86.0 90.2 72.7 1/96 2/93 5/79 3/72 14/71
Greenland 79.9 78.2 74.9 * * 14/96 14/93 12/79 * *
Eurasia

Greece 15.6 * * * * 87/96 * * * *
India 21.1 12.4 10.6 27.1 16.2 81/96 89/93 74/79 60/72 67/71
Ireland 89.7 83.0 72.6 72.1 59.8 6/96 9/93 16/79 17/72 26/71
Kazakhstan 23.3 17.0 30.4 39.0 33.0 80/96 81/93 63/79 51/72 57/71
Kyrgyzstan 13.4 13.1 51.4 29.9 22.5 92/96 87/93 39/79 58/72 64/71
Mongolia 17.9 19.5 35.7 19.0 34.5 84/96 78/93 54/79 67/72 55/71
Norway 82.4 72.0 67.3 55.9 64.5 10/96 24/93 22/79 31/72 19/71
Poland 42.7 51.2 * * * 57/96 46/93 * * *
Romania 16.2 18.0 37.9 * * 86/96 80/93 53/79 * *
Russia 28.1 24.6 23.1 44.2 37.9 73/96 71/93 69/79 45/72 53/71
Serbia 49.9 * * * * 52/96 * * * *
Spain 54.6 57.6 52.9 57.5 62.1 48/96 37/93 37/79 29/72 22/71
Sweden 93.6 85.5 82.3 73.9 73.8 2/96 7/93 7/79 12/72 13/71
Turkey 49.7 41.0 34.7 52.8 39.8 53/96 60/93 58/79 35/72 50/71
Vietnam 11.6 14.4 35.5 * * 95/96 84/93 55/79 * *
* Not available
** Argentina is no longer reported as a single jurisdiction (we now report separately on the sub-national jurisdictions).
***French Guiana is considered a DOM (Département d’outre-mer), a French overseas department.

Best Practices Calculating the “Current” and
Mineral Potential Index “Best Practices” indexes

To obtain an accurate view of the attractiveness of a
Figure 5 shows the mineral potential of jurisdic-
jurisdiction, we combine the responses to “Encour-
tions, assuming their policies are based on “best
ages Investment” and “Not a Deterrent to Invest-
practices” (i.e., world class regulatory environment,
ment,” as the reader can see in figures 4 and 5. Since
highly competitive taxation, no political risk or un-
the “Encourages” response expresses a much more
certainty, and a fully stable mining regime). In other
positive attitude to investment than “Not a Deter-
words, this figure represents, in a sense, a jurisdic-
rent,” in calculating these indexes, we give “Not a
tion’s “pure” mineral potential, since it assumes a
Deterrent” half the weight of “Encourages.”
“best practices” policy regime. Table 3 provides
more precise information and the recent historical For example, the “Current Mineral Potential” (fig-
record. ure 4 and table 2) for British Columbia was calcu-


Figure 4: Current Mineral Potential
assuming current regulations and land use restrictions

Greenland
Finland
Sweden
Nevada
Saskatchewan
Alaska
Yukon
Wyoming
Western Australia
Northern Territory
Chile
New Brunswick
Utah
Arizona
Botswana
Ontario
Guyana
South Australia
Norway
Turkey
Ghana
Alberta
Queensland
Quebec
Burkina Faso
Nunavut
New Zealand
Mexico
Ireland
Idaho
Manitoba
British Columbia
Serbia
Namibia
Nova Scotia
Peru
Spain
Colombia
New Mexico
Panama
Brazil
Minnesota
Michigan
New South Wales
Tanzania
Mauritania
Dominican Republic
Montana
Niger
Morocco
Russia
Argentina: Salta
Argentina: San Juan
Kyrgyzstan
Victoria
Zambia
Bulgaria
Tasmania
Suriname
Colorado
California
Mali
Argentina: Neuquen
French Guiana
Kazakhstan
Argentina: Mendoza
Romania
China
Papua New Guinea
Poland
Guinea (Conakry)
India
South Africa
Vietnam
Mongolia
Philippines
Indonesia
Washington
Argentina: Jujuy
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: Santa Cruz Encourages investment
Argentina: La Rioja
Greece Not a deterrent to investment
Madagascar
Egypt
Ecuador
Zimbabwe
Venezuela
Guatemala
Honduras
Bolivia
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Table 2: Mineral potential assuming current regulations/land use restrictions†

Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2010/ 2009/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2009 2008
Alberta 0.56 0.60 0.53 0.48 0.49 24/96 18/93 32/79 32/72 34/71
Canada

Manitoba 0.52 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.53 33/96 11/93 17/79 22/72 29/71
New Brunswick 0.62 0.54 0.46 0.57 0.54 12/96 27/93 38/79 26/72 28/71
Nfld. & Labrador 0.61 0.66 0.57 0.60 0.64 14/96 8/93 25/79 17/72 9/71
NWT 0.58 0.44 0.35 0.34 0.44 18/96 46/93 59/79 53/72 46/71
Nova Scotia 0.50 0.41 0.38 0.43 0.40 37/96 51/93 51/79 40/72 54/71
Nunavut 0.55 0.51 0.38 0.39 0.55 28/96 30/93 50/79 46/72 27/71
Ontario 0.59 0.56 0.60 0.50 0.57 17/96 23/93 19/79 30/72 21/71
Quebec 0.55 0.65 0.76 0.73 0.77 26/96 9/93 2/79 3/72 1/71
Saskatchewan 0.72 0.69 0.75 0.69 0.67 5/96 4/93 3/79 6/72 5/71
Yukon 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.63 0.60 7/96 3/93 11/79 11/72 16/71
Alaska 0.72 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.71 6/96 6/93 9/79 9/72 4/71
Arizona 0.60 0.51 0.54 0.51 0.46 15/96 31/93 31/79 29/72 42/71
US A

California 0.33 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.22 64/96 88/93 72/79 68/72 64/71
Colorado 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.26 63/96 77/93 68/79 55/72 62/71
Idaho 0.52 0.36 0.48 0.43 0.48 32/96 59/93 34/79 39/72 37/71
Michigan 0.43 0.43 0.36 0.38 * 45/96 48/93 57/79 48/72 *
Minnesota 0.43 0.43 0.31 0.29 0.41 44/96 49/93 63/79 59/72 53/71
Montana 0.41 0.31 0.32 0.38 0.27 50/96 66/93 62/79 49/72 59/71
Nevada 0.72 0.67 0.73 0.75 0.73 4/96 7/93 4/79 1/72 2/71
New Mexico 0.46 0.55 0.43 0.36 0.42 41/96 24/93 43/79 51/72 51/71
Utah 0.61 0.60 0.66 0.61 0.60 13/96 15/93 13/79 16/72 15/71
Washington 0.24 0.19 0.10 0.23 0.19 82/96 91/93 78/79 65/72 70/71
Wyoming 0.71 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.61 8/96 12/93 20/79 23/72 13/71
New South Wales 0.42 0.46 0.39 0.48 0.49 46/96 41/93 49/79 33/72 36/71
Australia

Queensland 0.56 0.51 0.55 0.58 0.58 25/96 32/93 28/79 21/72 19/71
South Australia 0.58 0.62 0.56 0.62 0.61 20/96 14/93 27/79 15/72 12/71
Tasmania 0.34 0.37 0.42 0.44 0.51 61/96 56/93 45/79 37/72 31/71
Victoria 0.39 0.25 0.35 0.30 0.43 57/96 78/93 60/79 58/72 49/71
Indonesia 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.40 0.46 81/96 73/93 58/79 43/72 42/71
Oceania

New Zealand 0.54 0.30 0.47 0.24 0.21 29/96 68/93 35/79 64/72 66/71
Papua New Guinea 0.29 0.60 0.67 0.48 0.38 73/96 16/93 10/79 34/72 56/71
Philippines 0.26 0.33 0.44 0.43 0.49 80/96 63/93 40/79 38/72 35/71



Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2010/ 2009/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2009 2008
Botswana 0.60 0.75 0.68 0.68 0.59 16/96 1/93 7/79 7/72 17/71
Burkina Faso 0.55 0.63 0.71 0.70 0.57 27/96 13/93 6/79 4/72 22/71
DRC (Congo) 0.23 0.38 0.21 0.30 0.44 83/96 55/93 70/79 56/72 47/71
Egypt 0.12 0.33 * * * 89/96 61/93 * * *
Ghana 0.56 0.60 0.57 0.60 0.55 23/96 17/93 24/79 18/72 26/71
Africa

Guinea (Conakry) 0.29 0.36 0.36 * * 74/96 58/93 56/79 * *
Madagascar 0.12 0.38 0.41 * * 90/96 52/93 46/79 * *
Mali 0.33 0.55 0.59 0.64 0.58 65/96 26/93 21/79 10/72 20/71
Mauritania 0.42 0.46 * * * 48/96 40/93 * * *
Morocco 0.40 0.50 * * * 51/96 33/93 * * *
Namibia 0.50 0.45 0.55 0.58 0.47 35/96 44/93 29/79 24/72 40/71
Niger 0.40 0.38 0.42 * * 52/96 52/93 44/79 * *
South Africa 0.28 0.33 0.28 0.39 0.45 77/96 62/93 66/79 45/72 44/71
Tanzania 0.42 0.55 0.58 0.47 0.55 47/96 25/93 23/79 35/72 24/71
Zambia 0.38 0.47 0.46 0.53 0.51 58/96 39/93 37/79 28/72 30/71
Zimbabwe 0.10 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.15 92/96 87/93 74/79 67/72 71/71
Argentina * * 0.37 0.33 0.43 * * 55/79 54/72 50/71
Catamarca 0.36 0.36 * * * 60/96 57/93 * * *
Argentina

Chubut 0.20 0.25 * * * 85/96 78/93 * * *
Jujuy 0.22 0.38 * * * 84/96 52/93 * * *
La Rioja 0.18 * * * * 87/96 * * * *
Mendoza 0.30 0.25 * * * 70/96 78/93 * * *
Neuquen 0.32 * * * * 67/96 * * * *
Rio Negro 0.32 0.27 * * * 66/96 75/93 * * *
Salta 0.39 0.45 * * * 54/96 42/93 * * *
San Juan 0.39 0.48 * * * 55/96 37/93 * * *
Santa Cruz 0.19 0.48 * * * 86/96 38/93 * * *
Bolivia 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.23 96/96 89/93 71/79 61/72 63/71

Brazil 0.44 0.54 0.60 0.63 0.60 43/96 28/93 18/79 12/72 14/71
Chile 0.64 0.69 0.77 0.74 0.72 11/96 5/93 1/79 2/72 3/71
Colombia 0.47 0.53 0.64 0.57 0.55 40/96 29/93 16/79 25/72 25/71
Ecuador 0.11 0.26 0.16 0.23 0.20 91/96 76/93 74/79 66/72 69/71
French Guiana 0.32 * * * * 68/96 * * * *
Guatemala 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.33 94/96 78/93 69/79 70/72 57/71
Guyana 0.58 0.44 * * * 19/96 45/93 * * *
Honduras 0.06 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.22 95/96 90/93 76/79 70/72 65/71
Mexico 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.64 30/96 21/93 15/79 5/72 7/71
Panama 0.45 0.22 0.40 0.30 0.50 42/96 86/93 48/79 56/72 32/71
Peru 0.49 0.42 0.59 0.63 0.64 38/96 50/93 22/79 12/72 8/71
Suriname 0.33 0.25 * * * 62/96 78/93 * * *
Venezuela 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.21 93/96 93/93 77/79 72/72 67/71



Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2010/ 2009/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2009 2008
Bulgaria 0.36 0.23 0.38 * * 59/96 84/93 51/79 * *
China 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 72/96 69/93 61/79 52/72 55/71
Eurasia

Finland 0.74 0.59 0.66 0.62 0.65 2/96 19/93 12/79 14/72 6/71
Greenland 0.76 0.72 0.73 * * 1/96 2/93 5/79 * *
Greece 0.13 * * * * 88/96 * * * *
India 0.28 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.26 76/96 78/93 64/79 63/72 61/71
Ireland 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.39 0.47 31/96 36/93 39/79 44/72 38/71
Kazakhstan 0.31 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.50 69/96 65/93 51/79 47/72 32/71
Kyrgyzstan 0.39 0.30 0.38 0.28 0.21 56/96 72/93 51/79 60/72 68/71
Mongolia 0.27 0.44 0.53 0.42 0.33 79/96 47/93 33/79 42/72 58/71
Norway 0.57 0.32 0.47 0.47 0.43 21/96 64/93 36/79 36/72 48/71
Poland 0.29 0.45 * * * 75/96 42/93 * * *
Romania 0.30 0.28 0.20 * * 71/96 74/93 * * *
Russia 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.37 0.47 53/96 67/93 65/79 50/72 41/71
Serbia 0.50 * * * * 36/96 * * * *
Spain 0.48 0.34 0.41 0.43 0.42 39/96 60/93 47/79 41/72 52/71
Sweden 0.73 0.59 0.65 0.56 0.59 3/96 20/93 14/79 27/72 18/71
Turkey 0.57 0.50 0.57 0.59 0.62 22/96 33/93 26/79 20/72 11/71
Vietnam 0.27 0.30 0.43 * * 78/96 69/93 41/79 * *
† = The figures in this table and the accompanying figure count 100% of all “encourages” answers, but only 50 percent of the
“not a deterrent” answers. For a discussion, please see page 15.
* = not available.

lated by adding the percent of respondents who fig ure’s mean ing, con sider Mon go lia, the
rated BC’s mineral potential as “Encourages Invest- jurisdiction with the most room for improvement
ment” (33%) with the 36% that responded “Not a in 2012/2013. When asked about Mongolia’s min-
Deterrent to investment,” which was half weighted eral potential under “current” regulations, miners
at 18% (see table A1). Thus, British Columbia has a gave it a score of 27. Under a “best practices” regu-
score of 51, taking into account rounding, for latory regime, where managers can focus on pure
2012/2013. mineral potential rather than policy-related prob-
lems, Mongolia’s score was 84. Thus, Mongolia’s
score in the “Room for Improvement” category is
Room for improvement
58. (Numbers may not add up due to rounding).
Figure 6 is one of the most revealing in this study. It The greater the score in figure 6, the greater the
subtracts each jurisdiction’s score for mineral po- gap between “current” and “best practices” min-
tential under “best practices” from mineral poten- eral potential, and the greater the “room for im-
tial under “current” regulations. To understand this provement.”


Figure 5: Policy/Mineral Potential assuming no land use restrictions
in place and assuming industry “best practices”
Mongolia
Yukon
Papua New Guinea
Indonesia
Alaska
Western Australia
Nevada
Ontario
Botswana
Turkey
Chile
Philippines
Saskatchewan
Greenland
Nunavut
Quebec
Mexico
British Columbia
Queensland
Kyrgyzstan
Colombia
Finland
Wyoming
Manitoba
India
South Australia
Northern Territory
Arizona
Newfoundland and Labrador
Sweden
Tanzania
Kazakhstan
Russia
Peru
Serbia
Brazil
Utah
Vietnam
Namibia
Zambia
New Brunswick
Montana
China
Argentina: Jujuy
Madagascar
Ghana
Argentina: San Juan
Norway
Alberta
South Africa
Idaho
Colorado
Argentina: La Rioja
Guyana
Burkina Faso
Egypt
Ecuador
Zimbabwe
California
Mauritania
Argentina: Mendoza
Minnesota
Bolivia
New South Wales
New Mexico
Argentina: Salta
Argentina: Chubut
Mali
Suriname
Ireland
Tasmania
New Zealand
Venezuela
Michigan
Guatemala
Dominican Republic
Guinea(Conakry)
Spain
Romania
Panama
Nova Scotia Encourages investment
Victoria
French Guiana
Washington Not a deterrent to investment
Argentina: Neuquen
Niger
Poland
Morocco
Bulgaria
Honduras
Greece
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Table 3: Policy mineral potential assuming no regulations in place
and assuming industry best practices†

Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Alberta 0.57 0.64 0.61 0.56 0.64 50/96 57/93 59/79 62/72 48/71
Canada

Manitoba 0.69 0.76 0.74 0.80 0.78 25/96 26/93 33/79 14/72 21/71
New Brunswick 0.60 0.52 0.43 0.65 0.61 44/96 78/93 74/79 50/72 53/71
Nfld. & Labrador 0.68 0.82 0.76 0.78 0.73 29/96 15/93 29/79 18 72 35/71
NWT 0.73 0.85 0.87 0.82 0.77 16/96 6/93 8/79 7/72 20/71
Nova Scotia 0.40 0.47 0.40 0.56 0.42 86/96 87/93 78/79 63/72 70/71
Nunavut 0.74 0.85 0.84 0.77 0.84 12/96 5/93 16/79 22/72 5/71
Ontario 0.75 0.78 0.85 0.81 0.80 8/96 25/93 11/79 11/72 14/71
Quebec 0.73 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.88 16/96 13/93 17/79 3/72 2/71
Saskatchewan 0.74 0.81 0.89 0.79 0.80 12/96 20/93 5/79 15/72 16/71
Yukon 0.81 0.89 0.90 0.82 0.76 2/96 2/93 2/79 8/72 26/71
Alaska 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.82 5/96 1/93 1/79 2/72 10/71
Arizona 0.68 0.73 0.76 0.73 0.74 29/96 31/93 30/79 29/72 29/71
US A

California 0.51 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.59 63/96 67/93 64/79 56/72 60/71
Colorado 0.56 0.64 0.70 0.69 0.64 55/96 55/93 47/79 44/72 50/71
Idaho 0.56 0.68 0.65 0.68 0.73 55/96 36/93 56/79 45/72 34/71
Michigan 0.45 0.55 0.54 0.71 * 78/96 72/93 68/79 36/72 *
Minnesota 0.50 0.54 0.77 0.61 0.59 64/96 75/93 27/79 54/72 58/71
Montana 0.59 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.79 45/96 33/93 47/79 27/72 20/71
Nevada 0.76 0.81 0.85 0.83 0.86 7/96 17/93 13/79 4/72 3/71
New Mexico 0.49 0.64 0.68 0.63 0.59 67/96 54/93 52/79 52/72 58/71
Utah 0.64 0.66 0.71 0.74 0.79 39/96 48/93 45/79 24/72 19/71
Washington 0.37 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.55 88/96 80/93 75/79 68/72 66/71
Wyoming 0.69 0.68 0.74 0.70 0.70 25/96 42/93 36/79 38/72 40/71
New South Wales 0.49 0.55 0.55 0.62 0.71 67/96 71/93 67/79 53/72 37/71
Australia

Queensland 0.72 0.75 0.80 0.81 0.82 18/96 29/93 22/79 10/72 9/71
South Australia 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.80 0.77 25/96 23/93 39/79 12/72 22/71
Tasmania 0.46 0.47 0.66 0.59 0.70 75/96 86/93 55/79 57/72 41/71
Victoria 0.40 0.37 0.42 0.51 0.66 86/96 91/93 76/79 67/72 47/71
Indonesia 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.75 0.80 3/96 10/93 12/79 23/72 17/71
Oceania

New Zealand 0.46 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.58 75/96 88/93 70/79 65/72 62/71
Papua New Guinea 0.79 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.81 3/96 3/93 6/79 34/72 12/71
Philippines 0.74 0.85 0.82 0.72 0.82 12/96 7/93 19/79 33/72 11/71



Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Botswana 0.75 0.78 0.77 0.72 0.68 8/96 24/93 28/79 31/72 44/71
Burkina Faso 0.55 0.76 0.81 0.74 0.70 58/96 28/93 21/79 25/72 43/71
DRC (Congo) 0.70 0.87 0.90 0.86 0.89 23/96 4/93 4/79 1/72 1/71
Egypt 0.54 0.45 * * * 60/96 90/93 * * *
Ghana 0.58 0.81 0.75 0.71 0.76 47/96 18/93 31/79 35/72 28/71
Africa

Guinea (Conakry) 0.43 0.66 0.73 * * 82/96 50/93 39/79 * *
Madagascar 0.58 0.62 0.68 * * 47/96 60/93 51/79 * *
Mali 0.48 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.60 71/96 32/93 24/79 16/72 56/71
Mauritania 0.50 0.61 * * * 64/96 61/93 * * *
Morocco 0.33 0.50 * * * 93/96 80/93 * * *
Namibia 0.62 0.50 0.69 0.71 0.51 40/96 80/93 49/79 37/72 68/71
Niger 0.35 0.57 0.58 * * 91/96 69/93 65/79 * *
South Africa 0.57 0.64 0.72 0.66 0.70 50/96 56/93 43/79 48/72 42/71
Tanzania 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.70 0.76 32/96 47/93 25/79 40/72 27/71
Zambia 0.60 0.61 0.78 0.68 0.74 43/96 62/93 26/79 46/72 31/71
Zimbabwe 0.52 0.64 0.74 0.58 0.58 62/96 58/93 34/79 58/72 61/71
Argentina * * 0.71 0.73 0.74 * * 44/79 28/72 31/71
Catamarca 0.57 0.68 * * * 50/96 39/93 * * *
Argentina

Chubut 0.48 0.84 * * * 71/96 9/93 * * *
Jujuy 0.58 0.50 * * * 47/96 80/93 * * *
La Rioja 0.56 * * * * 55/96 * * * *
Mendoza 0.50 0.57 * * * 64/96 69/93 * * *
Neuquen 0.36 * * * * 90/96 * * * *
Rio Negro 0.44 0.68 * * * 79/96 42/93 * * *
Salta 0.49 0.55 * * * 67/96 74/93 * * *
San Juan 0.57 0.69 * * * 50/96 35/93 * * *
Santa Cruz 0.62 0.65 * * * 40/96 52/93 * * *
Bolivia 0.49 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.64 67/96 66/93 62/79 49/72 49/71

Brazil 0.65 0.81 0.86 0.78 0.77 35/96 21/93 9/79 20/72 23/71
Chile 0.75 0.81 0.85 0.83 0.80 8/96 18/93 14/79 5/72 15/71
Colombia 0.71 0.80 0.90 0.72 0.83 21/96 22/93 3/79 32/72 7/71
Ecuador 0.54 0.65 0.70 0.69 0.71 60/96 51/93 46/79 43/72 38/71
French Guiana 0.37 * * * * 88/96 * * * *
Guatemala 0.44 0.63 0.69 0.63 0.60 79/96 59/93 50/79 51/72 55/71
Guyana 0.55 0.53 * * * 58/96 77/93 * * *
Honduras 0.29 0.53 0.59 0.48 0.56 95/96 76/93 63/79 70/72 63/71
Mexico 0.72 0.85 0.86 0.80 0.79 18/96 8/93 10/79 13/72 18/71
Panama 0.42 0.58 0.63 0.58 0.60 84/96 68/93 57/79 60/72 57/71
Peru 0.65 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.85 35/96 14/93 15/79 9/72 4/71
Suriname 0.47 0.55 * * * 73/96 73/93 * * *
Venezuela 0.46 0.59 0.56 0.58 0.55 75/96 65/93 66/79 58/72 64/71



Score Rank
2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/ 2012/ 2011/ 2010/ 2009/ 2008/
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Bulgaria 0.32 0.50 0.45 * * 94/96 80/93 73/79 * *
China 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.67 0.73 45/96 46/93 37/79 47/72 33/71
Eurasia

Finland 0.70 0.68 0.74 0.73 0.72 23/96 36/93 34/79 30/72 36/71
Greenland 0.74 0.76 0.73 * * 12/96 27/93 39/79 * *
Greece 0.25 * * * * 96/96 * * * *
India 0.69 0.68 0.50 0.50 0.63 25/96 44/93 70/79 68/72 51/71
Ireland 0.47 0.60 0.61 0.42 0.55 73/96 63/93 60/79 72/72 64/71
Kazakhstan 0.67 0.70 0.75 0.70 0.71 32/96 33/93 31/79 39/72 39/71
Kyrgyzstan 0.71 0.68 0.67 0.56 0.67 21/96 39/93 53/79 64/72 46/71
Mongolia 0.84 0.82 0.83 0.78 0.74 1/96 16/93 18/79 19/72 30/71
Norway 0.57 0.50 0.53 0.60 0.61 50/96 80/93 69/79 55/72 54/71
Poland 0.35 0.68 * * * 91/96 39/93 * * *
Romania 0.42 0.47 0.61 * * 84/96 89/93 58/79 * *
Russia 0.65 0.68 0.67 0.69 0.83 35/96 38/93 54/79 42/72 8/71
Serbia 0.65 * * * * 35/96 * * * *
Spain 0.43 0.52 0.41 0.45 0.53 82/96 79/93 77/79 71/72 67/71
Sweden 0.67 0.68 0.73 0.74 0.62 32/96 45/93 38/79 25/72 52/71
Turkey 0.75 0.73 0.81 0.70 0.67 8/96 30/93 20/79 41/72 45/71
Vietnam 0.62 0.36 0.60 * * 40/96 92/93 61/79 * *
† = The figures in this table and the accompanying figure count 100% of all “encourages” answers, but only 50 percent of the
“not a deterrent” answers. For a discussion, please see page 15.
* = not available.

A caveat Surveys can also produce anomalies. For example,
in this survey New Brunswick and Nova Scotia re-
ceived higher scores for existing policies than for
This survey captures miners’ general and specific best practices.
knowl edge. A miner may give an oth er wise
high-scoring jurisdiction a low mark because of his It is also important to note that different segments
or her individual experience with a problem. We do of the mining industry (exploration and develop-
not believe this detracts from the survey. In fact, we ment companies, say) face different challenges. Yet
have made a particular point of highlighting such many of the challenges the different segments face
differing views in the survey comments and “What are similar. This survey is intended to capture the
miners are saying” quotes. overall view.


Figure 6: Room for improvement

Mongolia
Indonesia
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Madagascar
Bolivia
Ecuador
Egypt
Zimbabwe
India
Argentina: La Rioja
Guatemala
Argentina: Jujuy
Kazakhstan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Kyrgyzstan
South Africa
China
Argentina: Chubut
Russia
Tanzania
Colombia
Honduras
Colorado
Zambia
British Columbia
Brazil
Argentina: Mendoza
Mexico
Nunavut
Montana
Turkey
Argentina: San Juan
California
Quebec
Manitoba
Peru
Ontario
Queensland
Botswana
Serbia
Mali
Guinea (Conakry)
Suriname
Washington
Greece
Tasmania
Romania
Namibia
Chile
South Australia
Yukon
Argentina: Salta
Western Australia
Mauritania
Arizona
Minnesota
Alaska
New South Wales
Poland
French Guiana
Idaho
Argentina: Neuquen
Northern Territory
Nevada
Utah
New Mexico
Dominican Republic
Michigan
Saskatchewan
Ghana
Victoria
Alberta
Norway
Burkina Faso
Wyoming
Greenland
New Brunswick
Guyana
Panama
Finland
Bulgaria
Spain
Niger
Sweden
Ireland
Morocco
New Zealand
Nova Scotia
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Explanation of the figures

Figures 4 through 23 of each factor (see table 9). In most years, the split
was nearly exactly 60 percent mineral and 40 per-
Figures 4 and 5 show the percentage of respondents
cent policy. This year the answer was 58.65 percent
who say that “current” or “best practices” policy ei-
mineral potential and 41.35 percent policy. We
ther “encourages exploration investment” or is “not
maintained the precise 60/40 ratio in calculating
a deterrent to exploration investment” (a “1” or a “2”
this index to allow comparability with other years.
on the scale above; see also earlier discussion of the
calculation of these indexes).
The Policy Potential Index provides the data for
This differs from figures 7 through 23, which show policy potential while the rankings from the “Best
the percentage of respondents who rate each policy Practices” (figure 5), based on the percentage of re-
factor as a “mild deterrent to investment explora- sponses for “Encourages Investment,” provide data
tion” or “strong deterrent to exploration invest- on the policy component.
ment” or “would not pursue exploration investment
in this region due to this factor” (a “3”, “4,” or “5” on To some extent, we have de-emphasized the impor-
the scale). Readers will find a breakdown of both tance of the Composite Policy and Mineral Index in
negative and positive responses for all areas in the recent years, moving it from the executive summary
appendix so they can make their own judgments in- to the body of the report. We believe that our direct
dependent of the charts. question on “current” mineral potential provides
the best measure of investment attractiveness (fig-
ure 4). This is partly because the 60/40 relationship
Figure 24: Composite Policy
is probably not stable at the extremes. For example,
and Mineral Index
extremely bad policy that would virtually confiscate
The Composite Policy and Mineral Index combines all potential profits, or an environment that would
both the Policy Potential Index and results from the expose workers and managers to high personal risk,
“best practices” question, which in effect ranks a ju- would discourage mining activity regardless of min-
risdiction’s “pure” mineral potential, given best eral potential. In this case, mineral potential, far
practices. This year, the index was weighted 60 per- from having a 60 percent weight, might carry very
cent by mineral potential and 40 percent by policy. little weight. Nonetheless, we believe the composite
These ratios are determined by a survey question index provides some insights and have maintained
asking respondents to rate the relative importance it for that reason.


Global survey rankings

The top The bottom
No nation scored first in all categories. Finland had The 10 least attractive jurisdictions for investment
the highest Policy Potential Index score of 95.5. based on the PPI rankings are, starting with the
Along with Finland, the top 10 ranked jurisdictions worst, In do ne sia, Viet nam, Ven e zuela, DRC
are Sweden, Alberta, New Brunswick, Wyoming, (Congo), Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Guate-
Ireland, Nevada, Yukon, Utah, and Norway. All mala, Philippines, and Greece. All of these jurisdic-
were in the top 10 last year except for Utah and Nor- tions were in the bottom 10 last year with the
way. Yukon was the first Canadian territory to make exception of DRC (Congo), Greece, and Zimbabwe.
the top 10 in 2011/2012. Both Quebec and Sas- Greece was a new ad di tion to the sur vey in
katchewan fell out of the top 10 in 2012/2013. Chile, 2012/2013.
which had previously been the only jurisdiction
outside North America consistently in the top 10 Both the DRC (Congo) and Zimbabwe dropped sig-
over the life of the survey, has continued to fall in nificantly in the rankings this year, with DRC
the rankings—to 23rd place in this year’s survey. (Congo) falling from 76th to 93rd, and Zimbabwe
Norway rose to 10th in the rankings from 24th in from 74th to 91st. Honduras and India moved out of
2011/2012, and Sweden and Finland have now been the bottom 10 in 2012/2013. Honduras’ ranking im-
in the top 10 for the last three and four years, respec- proved from last spot (93rd) in 2011/2012 to 83rd,
tively. while India moved from 89th to 81st.


Global results

Canada score amongst Canadian jurisdictions, increasing
from 50.4 in 2011/2012 to 63.7 in 2012/2013. The
Canada’s average PPI score improved slightly in Northwest Territories saw improvement in all pol-
2012/2013, but for the first time since 2006/2007, a icy factors, most significantly in its legal system
Canadian jurisdiction did not rank first in the sur- (23%); labour and skill availability (13%); and uncer-
vey. The highest ranked Canadian jurisdiction was tainty concerning the administration, interpreta-
Alberta, which remained in 3rd place. Last year’s tion, and enforcement of existing regulations (12%).
number one jurisdiction, New Brunswick, dropped
to 4th place. Comments: Canada

Both Quebec and Saskatchewan dropped out of the The comments in the following section have been
top 10 in 2012/2013. Saskatchewan had been in the edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain
top 10 since 2008/2009 and dropped from 6th in confidentiality, and to clarify meanings.
2011/2012 to 13th in 2012/2013 due to worsening
perceptions amongst respondents for uncertainty Canada in general
over which areas will be protected as wilderness,
Canadian mining regulations and legislation are
parks, or archeological sites (-12%)1; the taxation re-
generally easy to operate under.
gime (-11%); and labour and skills availability
—A producer company with more than US$50M,
(-10%). Quebec had been in the top 10 since
Company president
2001/2002, but it dropped to 11th in 2012/2013 from
5th in 2011/2012 due to worsening perceptions Ca na dian pro jects [are] tak ing years to wind
amongst respondents for political stability (-25%); through regulatory processes in which every opinion
and uncertainty concerning the administration, has the same validity regardless of how poorly in-
interpretation, and enforcement of existing regula- formed. I am not sure that any province is immune
tions (-14%). Quebec was the top-ranked jurisdic- from this nonsense.
tion in 2007/2008, 2008/2009, and 2009/2010. —A consulting company, Manager

The PPI score for all of Canada’s territories—Yukon, Constant back and forth in Canada [with] First Na-
Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories—contin- tions trying to prove negative impacts of mining in
ued to improve in this year’s survey. In fact, for the order to get contractual financial and other commit-
second year in a row, Yukon was among the top 10 ments from mining companies. We need to find our
jurisdictions. The Northwest Territories showed way to a regulatory and cultural regime where First
the greatest year-to-year improvement in it its PPI Nations can focus on holding companies to responsi-

1 Numbers in brackets refer to the difference in the percentage of respondents who responded that a
particular policy factor “Encourages investment” between the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 mining surveys.


Figure 7: Uncertainty concerning the adminstration, interpretation,
and enforcement of existing regulations
Botswana
Sweden
New Brunswick
Greenland Mild deterrent to investment
Saskatchewan
Chile
Wyoming Strong deterrent to investment
Alberta
Northern Territory Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Finland
Nova Scotia
Norway
Morocco
Utah
Turkey
Yukon
Nevada
Ireland
Mexico
South Australia
Western Australia
Alaska
Mauritania
Burkina Faso
Namibia
Zambia
Guyana
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Serbia
Ghana
Arizona
Quebec
New Zealand
Manitoba
Argentina: Salta
Colombia
Ontario
Nunavut
Idaho
New South Wales
Panama
Peru
Spain
Argentina: San Juan
Queensland
British Columbia
Bulgaria
Suriname
Argentina: Jujuy
New Mexico
Mali
Papua New Guinea
Victoria
Argentina: Neuquen
Tasmania
Michigan
Tanzania
Argentina: La Rioja
Vietnam
Niger
Kazakhstan
Russia
French Guiana
Poland
Colorado
Minnesota
India
South Africa
Romania
China
Washington
Guatemala
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: Mendoza
Greece
Guinea (Conakry)
Montana
Mongolia
Madagascar
California
Philippines
Honduras
Indonesia
Ecuador
Egypt
Zimbabwe
Bolivia
Venezuela
Kyrgyzstan
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


ble behaviour and opportunities for mutually bene- British Columbia
ficial business relationships—not percentages of
projects (this includes a transparent and reliable ap- I think that Canada and BC in general have a lot
proach to determining whether a First Nation more potential for being the highest rated jurisdic-
should share in the royalty paid on minerals, not ne- tions for mineral exploration, but politics (for the pur-
gotiating an additional financial payment). pose of getting elected or re-elected) gets in the way of
—A producer company with more than US$50M, making the right policies in exchange for votes.
Vice-president —An exploration company, Vice-president

Dealing with the Ministry of Mines in BC via a phone
Canada’s federal/provincial regulatory duplicity,
call. Always polite. Always willing to go the extra
primarily EAs [Environmental Assessments], lends
mile to answer the question.
itself to detracting investment opportunities.
—An exploration company, Other senior manage-
ment
Manager

Both exploration and development permit wait
Re-affirm that the province has real ownership and times are unacceptable as they can range from 3
control of its land and mineral resources. Mining months to 2 years in some cases. Recently a permit
companies are not sure who really owns the re- application that had been sitting without release for
sources, therefore mineral claims or titles are becom- referral to First Nations for 3 months was resolved,
ing meaningless. but only with the intervention of the government
—An exploration company, Company president minister. There is no consistency between how local
offices deal with referrals and no consistency with
I believe the federal courts have put provincial gov- how they are issued. There is a general lack of com-
ernments in Canada in a near impossible situation munication and commitment from BC government
by imposing the “duty to consult” requirements on employees to service the public, although there are
the provinces without ensuring that the additional notable exceptions.
rights given or upheld (depending on the perspec- —An exploration company, Manager
tive) for First Nations people are balanced by giv-
ing the provinces an adequate mechanism to deal Construction of the Northwest Transmission Line is
with how this affects their mining community critical to unlocking billions in future revenue for the
(which is a pro vin cial ju ris dic tion). It is an province of BC.
off-load ing and im po si tion of a re spon si bil ity —A producer company with more than US$50M,
without the authority to balance exploration’s ba- Manager
sic requirements of land access.
—An exploration company, Company president Manitoba

Alberta Duty to consult needs to be streamlined and ade-
quately resourced.
Strong mining province, open for business. —A producer company with less than US$50M,
—An exploration company, Company president Other senior management


Figure 8: Uncertainty concerning environmental regulations

Botswana
Burkina Faso
Saskatchewan
Mexico Mild deterrent to investment
Zambia
Greenland Strong deterrent to investment
Mali
Alberta
Wyoming Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Utah
Namibia
Guyana
Chile
New Brunswick
Tanzania
Yukon
Ghana
Turkey
Serbia
Northern Territory
Niger
Finland
Morocco
Ireland
Nevada
Egypt
Western Australia
Mauritania
South Australia
Brazil
Quebec
Sweden
Ontario
Argentina: Salta
Dominican Republic
Manitoba
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Suriname
Alaska
Spain
Mongolia
Nova Scotia
China
Argentina: San Juan
Nunavut
Papua New Guinea
Colombia
Bulgaria
Peru
Norway
Guinea (Conakry)
Arizona
Panama
Russia
French Guiana
Madagascar
Queensland
New South Wales
Kyrgyzstan
Argentina: La Rioja
New Mexico
Vietnam
Idaho
India
Zimbabwe
Romania
Indonesia
Argentina: Neuquen
British Columbia
New Zealand
Bolivia
Philippines
Minnesota
Michigan
Tasmania
Washington
Venezuela
Honduras
Poland
Montana
Argentina: Jujuy
Victoria
Colorado
Argentina: Chubut
Guatemala
Ecuador
Argentina: Mendoza
California
Greece
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Many firms in Manitoba have not been able to get Northwest Territories
permits in anything approaching a timely man-
ner. This is true even for very low impact explora- Too hard to get exploration permits on a predictable
tion activities. schedule and without excessive and overly expensive
—A producer company with more than US$50M early-stage community consultation.
—An exploration company, Manager

New Brunswick Nunavut

Nunavut is a territory that is in many ways in con-
Land acquisition and permitting seems easy and
flict. It wants investment and then creates a bureau-
straight forward compared to most other jurisdictions.
cracy and commercial environment that is strongly
—Vertically integrated, Other senior management
negative towards any investment.
Provincial bureaucrats understand mining and key —An exploration company, Vice-president
issues that need to be addressed through permitting
Ontario
and taxation policies.
—An exploration company, Company president Government is pro-active, people are well educated,
indigenous people are consulted and cooperative,
and there is still plenty of mineral potential, particu-
larly in the far north.
—A consulting company, Other senior management
Policy change is needed to improve the overall gov-
ernment structure and the regulatory process—one New legislation is creating uncertainty in dealing
unified process rather than two conflicting processes with First Nations as each group has their own prior-
(Inuit vs. NL). A concerted effort is needed to create ities when negotiating with mining companies.
and maintain fairness through a) better coordina- We’re not opposed to sharing the wealth, but these
tion between Nunatsiavut and the province; b) Less priorities need to be standardized through legisla-
“us vs. them” and exclusionary treatment of “outsid- tion to remove the uncertainty for both parties and
ers”; c) local government needs to find well-informed investment—i.e., First Nations should receive prede-
advisors with a recognized background in economic termined Net Smelter Return %, ownership %, em-
development. ployment %, or any combination thereof.
—An exploration company, Company president —An exploration company, Chief Financial Officer

Newfoundland very likely has the best policies re- Quebec
lated to claim staking and the ease/quickness of
staking, the highest land tenure & security possible, The government has given municipalities and sur-
and also the best system known of acquiring histori- face right owners absolute control over mineral de-
cal exploration data, all of it on-line and free for velopment. One may own the mineral rights but not
downloading to anyone in the world. These policies be able to explore or mine without paying what
are a major, 100% encouragement to explore and amounts to pay-offs. A great system destroyed in or-
develop in Newfoundland-Labrador. der to garner votes.
—An exploration company, Company president —An exploration company, Company president


Figure 9: Regulatory duplication and inconsistencies

Botswana
Sweden
Saskatchewan
Chile Mild deterrent to investment
Greenland
Finland
Burkina Faso Strong deterrent to investment
Namibia
Northern Territory
New Brunswick Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Nova Scotia
Zambia
Norway
Yukon
Ghana
Western Australia
South Australia
Mexico
Alberta
Turkey
Guyana
Ireland
Wyoming
Nevada
Morocco
Quebec
Utah
Panama
Mauritania
Alaska
Dominican Republic
Manitoba
Brazil
Ontario
French Guiana
Serbia
Bulgaria
Mali
Arizona
Colombia
New Zealand
New South Wales
Spain
Niger
Suriname
Tanzania
Victoria
Peru
Idaho
Papua New Guinea
Queensland
British Columbia
Montana
Mongolia
Nunavut
Kazakhstan
New Mexico
South Africa
Argentina: Salta
Madagascar
Argentina: San Juan
Poland
Argentina: Neuquen
Argentina: Jujuy
Tasmania
China
Minnesota
Guinea (Conakry)
Romania
Washington
Russia
Colorado
Bolivia
India
Michigan
Philippines
Greece
Indonesia
Kyrgyzstan
Argentina: Mendoza
Ecuador
Egypt
California
Argentina: La Rioja
Zimbabwe
Guatemala
Argentina: Chubut
Vietnam
Venezuela
Honduras
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Everything that is done in Quebec is exemplary. Saskatchewan
Skilled labour, government cooperation, strong First
Nations assistance, good resources, good infrastruc- Progressive, mining friendly government, well regu-
ture, and a positive outlook. lated, balanced approach to protected lands, bal-
—An exploration company, Company president anced approach to First Nation Land issues, very
high mineral potential in a diversity of metals and
minerals, great access and infrastructure, political
Quebec already has in place aboriginal land claim stability, regulatory certainty and consistency, and a
settlements in many areas and a clear and well doc- populace who know what pays the bills.
umented set of mining regulations. —An exploration company, Company president
—An exploration company, Company president
Saskatchewan is one of the more straight forward ju-
I was impressed with the public consultation process risdictions for obtaining an approved LUP [Land
managed by a branch of the ministry of environment Use Plan]; not because it is easy and lacking in sub-
in Quebec. Transparent, available, and respectful of stance, but because of the clarity in the requirements
timelines. from the operator plus it provides a one-stop-shop
—A producer company with more than US$50M, approach with direct communication with the land
Manager use administrator.

Different environmental process and permitting They have developed an effective mechanism for
rules in the same province. One portion of the prov- consultation and issuing permits. They have a native
ince is covered by a First Nation agreement with the coordinator with Saskatchewan Environment that
provincial government making it impossible to ob- has trust and relationships with both aboriginal and
tain any kind of preliminary permits before the final industry groups.
certificate of authorization is granted. In the same —An exploration company, Vice-president
province, the same type of project can receive con-
struction permits while waiting to finalize the certifi- Saskatchewan—a fixed work permit and regulatory
cate of authorization to open the mine. The end environment; in other words, a transparent process.
result is that the same project will take at least 2 —An exploration company, Company president
years extra to open its mine and start mining.
—An exploration company, Company president Yukon

Yukon: the bands working with the miners to help
Quebec has dropped significantly over last 18 months grow the economy.
with First Nations concerns, political risk, uncertain —An exploration company, Investor relations
tax treatment, uncertain policies, negative on min-
ing, and negative changes to mining legislation. Good mineral endowment and government just
—A producer company with less than US$50M, seems to work like one would hope it would.
Company president —A consulting company, Consultant


Figure 10: Legal processes that are fair, transparent,
non-corrupt, timely, and efficiently administered
Northern Territory
New Brunswick
Wyoming
Sweden
Saskatchewan Mild deterrent to investment
Botswana
Yukon Strong deterrent to investment
Alberta
Greenland Would not invest due to this factor
Western Australia
New South Wales
South Australia
Finland
Norway
Ireland
Queensland
New Zealand
Victoria
Nova Scotia
Nevada
Ontario
Tasmania
French Guiana
Utah
Alaska
British Columbia
Michigan
Chile
Manitoba
Minnesota
Idaho
Quebec
Arizona
Nunavut
Namibia
Mauritania
Turkey
Montana
New Mexico
Colorado
Morocco
Ghana
Spain
Mexico
Washington
Colombia
Guyana
Peru
Argentina: Salta
Serbia
Zambia
California
Brazil
Panama
Dominican Republic
Poland
Burkina Faso
Niger
Bulgaria
Argentina: San Juan
Tanzania
Mali
Suriname
South Africa
Papua New Guinea
Romania
Argentina: Neuquen
Madagascar
Argentina: Jujuy
Argentina: Mendoza
Russia
Argentina: La Rioja
Philippines
Kazakhstan
Greece
China
Argentina: Chubut
India
Mongolia
Ecuador
Kyrgyzstan
Guatemala
Zimbabwe
Vietnam
Venezuela
Honduras
Guinea (Conakry)
Bolivia
Indonesia
Egypt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


The United States

Although the USA’s average PPI score declined United States in general
slightly in 2012/2013, it had three jurisdictions
ranked in the top 10: Wyoming (5), Nevada (7), and There needs to be a classification just for the “United
Utah (10). Overall, US jurisdictions have improved States.” While Alaska has great potential and the
their PPI scores over the last five years, with the ex- state government is welcoming, the federal govern-
ception of top-ranked Ne vada and Wy oming, ment exerts incredible control over Alaska and thus
which dropped slightly. it’s difficult to rate it high, given the federal intrusion.
Minnesota and Michigan saw the largest declines in Vice president
their scores and rankings in 2012/2013. However,
both had also moved up sig nif i cantly in the Alaska
2011/2012 rankings. Minnesota fell from 22nd in
2011/2012 to 40th in 2012/2013 due to worsening Supportive government, particularly in the central
perceptions amongst respondents for labour and district where areas are specifically designated for
skills availability (-26%); and political stability mineral resource development. Permit process is a
(-14%). Michigan fell from 23rd in 2011/2012 to 33rd known quantity. Despite opposition in Southwest
in 2012/2013 due to wors en ing per cep tions Alaska toward one project, the central district is the
amongst respondents for availability of labour and best place to have a project for certainty, exploration
skills (-29%); the legal system (-18%); and the quality potential and geo-political risk.
of the geological database (-14%). —An exploration company, Company president

Utah saw the greatest improvement in rankings Alaska Land Claims Act. Unequivocally identifies
amongst US jurisdictions in 2012/2013, moving native interest.
from 21st in 2011/2012 to 9th due to increased survey —An exploration company, Company president
ratings for the quality of the geological database
(29%); taxation regime (22%); and regulatory dupli- Arizona
cation and inconsistencies (12%). Alaska also im-
proved since last year’s sur vey—from 25 th in Withdrawal of over one million acres of federal
2011/2012 to 19th in 2012/2013. The improvement lands in northern Arizona in January 2012 to pre-
was due to increased survey ratings for availability vent mining. The result was over 99% of valid claims
of labour and skills (13%); the quality of the geologi- were closed to further exploration.
cal database (11%); and infrastructure (8%). —A producer company with less than US$50M,
Other senior management
Comments: United States
California
The comments in the following section have been
edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain In California, greenhouse gas regulations (cap and
confidentiality, and to clarify meanings. trade regulations) are being implemented. There is


Figure 11: Taxation regime

Yukon
Alberta
Finland
New Brunswick
Utah
Wyoming Mild deterrent to investment
Alaska
Saskatchewan Strong deterrent to investment
Botswana
Chile Would not invest due to this factor
Ireland
Morocco
Nevada
Sweden
Idaho
French Guiana
Arizona
Greenland
Turkey
Mexico
Nova Scotia
New Zealand
Ontario
Guyana
Colombia
Michigan
Dominican Republic
Nunavut
Manitoba
Panama
Spain
Peru
British Columbia
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Norway
Quebec
Victoria
Namibia
Colorado
Papua New Guinea
New Mexico
Montana
Serbia
Washington
Bulgaria
Minnesota
Mauritania
Northern Territory
Zambia
Queensland
New South Wales
Argentina: San Juan
Mali
Western Australia
Tasmania
Brazil
Argentina: Salta
Niger
South Australia
Kazakhstan
Argentina: Neuquen
Indonesia
Suriname
Romania
Philippines
Honduras
Madagascar
China
Russia
South Africa
India
Guatemala
Tanzania
California
Argentina: Jujuy
Vietnam
Argentina: Mendoza
Kyrgyzstan
Poland
Greece
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: La Rioja
Egypt
Guinea (Conakry)
Ecuador
Mongolia
Bolivia
Zimbabwe
Venezuela
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


total confusion as to how the legislation will affect Nevada
the mining industry, what the cost impacts will be,
and you cannot get any answers from the Califor- In Nevada, the NEPA process has become relatively
nia Air Resources Board who are implementing streamlined allowing companies to have some cer-
the legislation. tainty of what the permitting process is and achiev-
—An exploration company, Company president ing an outcome for a known cost and timeframe.

Difficult land access, myriad environmental issues, Good legal framework, tax regime stability at com-
hostile regulatory environment. petitive rates, good approval procedures.
—An exploration company, Company president —A producer company with more than US$50M,
Company president

Colorado
New Mexico
World class resources, but crippling regulations
New Mexico has turned around as a place to build
have clients not even considering investment.
uranium projects. It should be noted in your study
—An exploration company, Counsel
that the new government is strongly supportive of re-
source development.
Idaho —An exploration company, Company president

Good inter-agency coordination. Utah
Streamlined permitting and review process.
—An exploration company, Senior management
Michigan
Washington
Straightforward, modern mining regulations were
put in place in 2007. The current governor is pro-jobs Washington needs balanced public policy regarding
and pro-mining mining and environmental concerns.
—An exploration company, Company president —A producer company with more than US$50M,
Manager

Minnesota Wyoming

Need to streamline the environmental approval Lower tax regime, government encourages mining,
process. little political downside.
—An exploration company, Company president —A consulting company, Vice-president


Figure 12: Uncertainty concerning disputed land claims

Greenland
Utah
Wyoming
Sweden
Nevada Mild deterrent to investment
Botswana
Norway
Ireland Strong deterrent to investment
Finland
Idaho Would not invest due to this factor
Chile
Arizona
Spain
Colorado
Alaska
New Brunswick
French Guiana
Turkey
Michigan
Minnesota
Burkina Faso
Montana
New Mexico
California
Nova Scotia
New Zealand
Washington
Saskatchewan
Alberta
Namibia
Serbia
Queensland
Ghana
Western Australia
Nunavut
Mali
Yukon
Morocco
Victoria
Northern Territory
South Australia
New South Wales
Mauritania
Quebec
Dominican Republic
Argentina: San Juan
Niger
Tasmania
Argentina: Salta
Colombia
Mexico
Zambia
Brazil
Argentina: Chubut
Guyana
Argentina: Mendoza
Panama
Bulgaria
China
Manitoba
Kazakhstan
Ontario
Poland
Madagascar
Argentina: Jujuy
Egypt
Argentina: La Rioja
Argentina: Neuquen
India
Guinea (Conakry)
South Africa
Mongolia
Tanzania
Peru
British Columbia
Romania
Vietnam
Russia
Suriname
Ecuador
Kyrgyzstan
Indonesia
Honduras
Philippines
Papua New Guinea
Greece
Bolivia
Guatemala
Zimbabwe
Venezuela
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Australia and Oceania

The average PPI score for Australia is down slightly Australia in general
from 2011/2012, although there has been an in-
creasing trend over the last five years. Western Aus- Across Australia, political and regulatory panic is
tralia is the highest ranked Australian jurisdiction seriously impacting the quality and timeliness of de-
with a rank of 15th and a PPI score of 79.3 in cisions, and certainty about access to land is very
2012/2013. Victoria showed significant improve- concerning. The “Twitter” factor is determining po-
ment in both its PPI and rank, moving from 44th in litical attitudes and actions, and regulators are re-
2011/2012 to 24th in 2012/2013 due to improve- acting to minimize the perceived “risk exposure” of
ments in ratings for political stability (38%); and the their ministers.
legal system (16%). —An exploration company, Company president

New Zealand has steadily improved both its PPI New South Wales
score and rank ing over the last five years. In
2012/2013, its ranking rose slightly to 26th from Stable, not corrupt, has technical potential, skilled
27th, with survey ratings improving most signifi- labour force, not too green, and sensitive to how min-
cantly for political stability (18%); the legal system ing assists remote development and usefulness of
(13%); and quality of the geological database (12%). royalties. Pro-mining conservative government.
—A consulting company, Company president
Indonesia dropped in the rankings from 85th in
2011/2012 to 96th (of 96) in 2012/2013 due to wors-
Queensland
ening ratings amongst survey respondents for polit-
i cal sta bil ity (-6%); un cer tainty con cern ing
The introduction of new compensation agreements
environmental regulations (-6%); and uncertainty
for exploration drilling in the minerals sector has
concerning the administration, interpretation, or
been a disaster. Legal bills and compensation pay-
enforcement of existing regulations (-3%). Papua
ments are outrageous.
New Guinea also dropped—to 77th in 2012/2013
—An exploration company, Managing director
from 66th in 2011/2012—with lower survey ratings
for trade barriers (-15%); uncertainty regarding the
South Australia
administration, interpretation, or enforcement of
existing regulations (-11%); and political stability You get a professional case officer to deal with your
(-6%). The Philippines remained at 88th (in the bot- approvals and the regulators are willing to be en-
tom 10) for the second year in a row. gaged at the highest level and help, not hinder, your
proposals.
Comments: Australia and —An exploration company, Vice-president
Oceania
Tasmania
edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain Very green policies.
confidentiality, and to clarify meanings. —An exploration company, Company president


Figure 13: Uncertainty concerning which areas will be protected
as wilderness areas, parks or archeological sites
Niger
Morocco
Burkina Faso
Mali
Mauritania
Botswana
Namibia
Ghana Mild deterrent to investment
Zambia
Guinea(Conakry) Strong deterrent to investment
Kazakhstan
Wyoming
Sweden Would not invest due to this factor
Ireland
Chile
Tanzania
Utah
Finland
Greenland
Mexico
Saskatchewan
China
New Brunswick
Egypt
Guyana
Spain
Nevada
South Africa
Western Australia
Papua New Guinea
Turkey
Alberta
Norway
South Australia
Russia
Northern Territory
Argentina: San Juan
Serbia
Argentina: Salta
Yukon
Dominican Republic
Minnesota
New South Wales
Peru
French Guiana
Kyrgyzstan
Idaho
Panama
Michigan
Alaska
Mongolia
Bulgaria
Argentina: Jujuy
New Mexico
Victoria
Brazil
Nova Scotia
New Zealand
Quebec
Vietnam
Poland
Suriname
Queensland
Guatemala
Washington
Manitoba
Zimbabwe
Nunavut
Arizona
Colombia
Madagascar
Montana
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: Neuquen
Ontario
Argentina: La Rioja
Argentina: Mendoza
Philippines
Tasmania
Indonesia
Greece
Romania
Bolivia
Colorado
Honduras
India
British Columbia
Ecuador
California
Venezuela
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Victoria uncertainty over foreign ownership laws, mandatory
downstream processing requirements (implemented
Difficult regulatory regime which increases explora- without industry consultation), a ban on export of
tion ex penses and in creases de ci sion-mak ing raw commodities, corruption, poor governance […],
timeframes. unfair and unworkable forestry restrictions and im-
—An exploration company, Managing director/ CEO pediments […], lack of confidence in the judiciary
(mainly through corruption, but incompetence also),
Western Australia the rise in resource nationalism, etc. Although 70%
of all investment comes from foreign capital, recent
Western Australia should have everything going for
policy changes have either knowingly or unwittingly
it, but its permitting processes are now more costly
resulted in the marginalization of foreign investors.
than actual exploration on the ground, are slow, and
—A producer company with less than US$50M,
the reg u la tors woe fully un der manned and
Vice-president
underfunded. In exploration and development, time
is money and imposing 60-day (some agencies) or 45
New Zealand
working day approval window does not work, espe-
cially when the first feedback typically comes in 2 or Risk-based approach to permitting. Easy and local
3 days before the deadline... councils have all the regulatory power without having
—An exploration company, Vice-president to jump through hoops with different regulators.
Clear guidelines, rules, and regulations. Prompt gov-
Vice-president
ernment response.
—An exploration company, Managing director Quick issuing of permits (within 40 or so days) to
carry out exploration in New Zealand.
Indonesia —An exploration company, Manager

The degree of corruption and the uncertainties re-
Papua New Guinea
garding engagement of local stakeholders and shift-
ing environmental regulations make this one of the Political instability.
most risky destinations for investment. The number —A producer company with more than US$50M,
of horror stories continues to grow. Manager
—An exploration company, Vice-president
No legislative or regional stability.
Forestry permits are purposely delayed and used as a —A consulting company, Company president
means to either extort huge grease money or wait out
an exploration to force it to abandon a viable project in Philippines
order to be picked up by a domestic company owned by
army generals or the political/economic elite. Recent Executive Order and required pending legis-
—An exploration company, Manager lation creates massive uncertainty for companies in-
volved in exploration and final design stages of
As a relative change measure, Indonesia has gone mining development.
backwards more than any country due to ongoing —Other, Vice-president


Figure 14: Infrastructure (includes access to roads, power availability, etc)

Utah
Ireland
New Brunswick
Michigan
Nevada Mild deterrent to investment
Minnesota
Finland
Norway Strong deterrent to investment
Arizona
Wyoming Would not invest due to this factor
Nova Scotia
Alberta
Idaho
Sweden
Turkey
Washington
Montana
California
New Zealand
Bulgaria
Colorado
New Mexico
New South Wales
Victoria
Spain
Quebec
Western Australia
Ontario
Saskatchewan
Queensland
Mexico
Tasmania
Northern Territory
South Australia
Serbia
Argentina: Mendoza
Manitoba
Poland
Greece
Argentina: Salta
British Columbia
Namibia
Morocco
Argentina: San Juan
Chile
Botswana
Dominican Republic
Romania
Argentina: Jujuy
South Africa
Egypt
Peru
Ghana
Panama
Zambia
Argentina: Neuquen
Kazakhstan
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: La Rioja
Brazil
Yukon
China
Colombia
Alaska
Russia
India
Tanzania
Kyrgyzstan
Burkina Faso
Zimbabwe
Honduras
Guatemala
French Guiana
Vietnam
Madagascar
Ecuador
Venezuela
Indonesia
Greenland
Mali
Niger
Nunavut
Mauritania
Bolivia
Suriname
Philippines
Guinea (Conakry)
Guyana
Mongolia
Papua New Guinea
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Africa

The average PPI score for Africa is down from tainty con cern ing the ad min is tra tion,
2011/2012, continuing a declining trend over the interpretation, or enforcement of existing regula-
last five years. Botswana is the bright spot in Africa. tions (11%).
It is the highest ranked jurisdiction on the continent
(17th) and has improved its PPI score over the last Comments: Africa
five years.
Mali saw the largest decline in its rank in 2012/2013,
edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain
falling from 42nd to 79th. Mali dropped on nearly
confidentiality, and to clarify meanings.
every policy factor, but most significantly in its sur-
vey ratings for uncertainty concerning environ-
Africa in general
mental regulations (-29%); uncertainty concerning
the administration, interpretation, or enforcement Resource nationalism in Africa is a major concern.
of existing regulations (-28%); and taxation regime Corruption needs to be controlled. Governments
(-23%). Mali also dropped in security (-12%) and po- have to be more pro-active towards Investors. Trans-
litical stability (-14%), although both factors were parency is a must and could be a strong motivator for
already rated very low in the 2011/2012 survey. investors.
Madagascar also fell in the rankings from 59th in —A producer company with more than US$50M,
2011/2012 to 85th in 2012/2013 due to worsening Company president
perceptions amongst respondents for uncertainty
concerning what areas will be protected as wilder- Botswana
ness, parks, or archaeological sites (-23%); uncer-
tainty con cern ing en vi ron men tal reg u la tions Can get work done. Reasonable approval process.
(-21%); and uncertainty concerning the adminis- Not excessive regulations. Clearly pro-mining cul-
tration, interpretation, or enforcement of existing ture. Honest civil servants.
regulations (-16%); although it did improve signifi- —A producer company with more than US$50M,
cantly on its rating for trade barriers (15%). Manager

Mauritania saw the largest improvement in Africa Favourable attitude of government, fair social and
in both PPI and rankings; it moved up to 36th in environmental approach, fair taxation and no
2012/2013 from 52nd in 2011/2012 due to improve- added requirements, and government is increas-
ments in the ratings for regulatory duplication and ingly investing in assets such as infrastructure and
inconsistencies (19%); quality of the geological da- education.
tabase (17%); legal system (17%); and uncertainty —An exploration company, Manager
concerning what areas will be protected as wilder-
ness, parks or archeological sites (17%). Namibia Burkina Faso
also recovered to 30th in 2012/2013 after dropping
to 45th in 2011/2012. Its improved ratings were for The country recognizes the contribution to the econ-
uncertainty concerning disputed land claims (18%); omy that mining brings and they have great need.
availability of labour and skills (13%); and uncer- Permitting risk is very low and the time it takes from


Figure 15: Socioeconomic agreements/community development conditions

Wyoming
Norway
Finland
Nevada
Utah
Sweden
Alberta Mild deterrent to investment
Arizona
Nova Scotia
Ireland Strong deterrent to investment
New Mexico
Idaho
Saskatchewan Would not pursue investment due to this factor
New Brunswick
Michigan
Washington
South Australia
New South Wales
Western Australia
Spain
Victoria
Chile
Minnesota
Montana
Northern Territory
Yukon
California
New Zealand
Queensland
Manitoba
Tasmania
Alaska
Turkey
Quebec
Colorado
Ontario
Poland
Botswana
British Columbia
Namibia
Mexico
Serbia
Bulgaria
Russia
French Guiana
Greenland
Colombia
Guyana
Dominican Republic
Brazil
Mauritania
Argentina: San Juan
Ghana
Argentina: Salta
Zambia
India
China
Panama
Argentina: Mendoza
Nunavut
Morocco
Argentina: Neuquen
Argentina: Jujuy
Kazakhstan
Tanzania
Mali
Vietnam
South Africa
Madagascar
Argentina: La Rioja
Burkina Faso
Mongolia
Niger
Suriname
Egypt
Romania
Indonesia
Peru
Greece
Argentina: Chubut
Honduras
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Kyrgyzstan
Guinea (Conakry)
Guatemala
Zimbabwe
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


discovery to development can be half that in most constrained within law. The future is uncertain. Lo-
countries. cal comment: “it’s under control.”
—An exploration company, Company president —A consulting company, Consultant

Attractive mining code and stable legal system. The latest mining code is grossly unbalanced toward
—A producer company with more than US$50M, the government and of pure political nature.
Founder and vice-chairman —An exploration company, Shareholder

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Madagascar

Corrupt beyond description and, from a mining Great mineral assets, highly corrupt government,
point of view, a shambles in each and every conceiv- and unstable policies and application thereof.
able respect. —A producer company with more than US$50M,
—A producer company with more than US$50M, Company president
Company president
Mali
Egypt
First-in-time applications are being rejected in fa-
Lack of transparency, lack of modern/reasonable vour of other applicants due to corrupt payments by
mining code. other applicants.
—An exploration company, Vice president —An exploration company, Director

Uncertainty of tenure. High tax, high import duty, and after-effects from
—An exploration company, Company president the recent coup. Uncertainty about the Northern
part of Mali and how it will affect the whole of Mali.
Ghana —A producer company with more than US$50M,
Former president
Second largest producer in Africa with a small popu-
lation that depends on mining revenues. Large min- Mauritania
ing corporations have made sure title laws are strong
and in place and maintained. There are minerals Openness and flexibility by the government of Mau-
everywhere and due to a number of socio-political ritania. They are keen to attract foreign investment
circumstances, many opportunities still exist. As in the resource sector and are sincere in their desire
long as you create employment in the field, tradi- to create a world-class mining regime.
tional leaders will back you and they have the final —A producer company with more than US$50M,
say on the land. Vice-president
Morocco
Guinea (Conakry)
Professional people with good will... in one word: easy.
Guinea Conakry: licences were issued then trans- —A producer company with more than US$50M,
ferred to a third party. Transfer methodology is not Manager


Figure 16: Trade barriers—tariff and non-tariff barriers,
restrictions on profit repatriation, currency restrictions, etc.
Yukon
Idaho
New South Wales
Finland
New Brunswick
Victoria Mild deterrent to investment
Colorado
Tasmania
Nova Scotia Strong deterrent to investment
Utah
Queensland
Michigan Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Ontario
Nevada
Sweden
California
Wyoming
Saskatchewan
Alaska
Manitoba
Ireland
British Columbia
Montana
Greenland
Spain
Alberta
Northern Territory
Arizona
Washington
Norway
Western Australia
Nunavut
New Zealand
Turkey
Minnesota
Chile
South Australia
Botswana
New Mexico
Quebec
Bulgaria
French Guiana
Panama
Mexico
Morocco
Colombia
Guyana
Dominican Republic
Poland
Peru
Namibia
Ghana
Greece
Zambia
Mauritania
Burkina Faso
Romania
Serbia
Mali
Tanzania
Papua New Guinea
Honduras
Brazil
Madagascar
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Guatemala
Kyrgyzstan
Philippines
Niger
Guinea (Conakry)
Suriname
Ecuador
India
Russia
Indonesia
Mongolia
China
Vietnam
Argentina: Mendoza
Argentina: San Juan
Egypt
Zimbabwe
Bolivia
Argentina: Salta
Venezuela
Argentina: Neuquen
Argentina: Jujuy
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: La Rioja
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Namibia Tanzania

Namibia: mineral resources data is provided at rel- Government’s increased involvement in mining
atively low cost to industry participants. This creates projects.
a junior-senior company level playing field thus en- —An exploration company, Vice-president
couraging investment. Well done!
—A consulting company, Consultant
Zambia
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) rules, the
uranium moratorium, and moves by the govern- Environmental approval process in Zambia: No
ment to change mining law are toxic to new explo- duplication—a properly constructed and submit-
ration investment. ted EMP/EIS [Environmental Management Plan/
—An exploration company, Company president Environmental Impact Statement] approved in
statutory time.
Niger

Lack of stability. Zambia: imposing a long moratorium and other
—A consulting company, Company president delays, then penalizing investors for running out of
time.
South Africa —An exploration company, Executive director

Strikes, demonstrations, military killing workers.
—An exploration company, Vice-president Zimbabwe

Country with an unworkable political structure. Zimbabwe: unofficial government policy is you will
—An exploration company, Company president never expatriate profits. Black empowerment and
political uncertainty make large or long-term invest-
Both South Africa and Zimbabwe are driving social ment impossible; no rights of ownership, no rights to
experiments not driven by logic and economy, but by enter required professionals, corruption is high, bor-
ide ol ogy. In the ab sence of rea son, pri mary der restrictions—unstable future.
industries be come the cash cows to fund the —A producer company with less than US$50M,
un-fundable. The rise of oligarchs in both countries Company president
evidences decline.


Figure 17: Political stability
New Brunswick
Saskatchewan
Finland
Botswana
Greenland
Northern Territory Mild deterrent to investment
New Zealand
Victoria
Yukon Strong deterrent to investment
Western Australia
Alberta
Newfoundland and Labrador Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Nova Scotia
South Australia
Wyoming
Norway
Nevada
Arizona
Manitoba
Alaska
Sweden
Utah
Ireland
New Mexico
Idaho
Nunavut
French Guiana
Tasmania
Ontario
New South Wales
Queensland
Turkey
Chile
Morocco
Michigan
Namibia
Dominican Republic
Montana
Bulgaria
Minnesota
Colorado
Poland
Ghana
Vietnam
Brazil
India
Quebec
Mexico
British Columbia
Washington
China
Spain
Zambia
Tanzania
Panama
Colombia
California
Guyana
Serbia
Russia
Peru
Argentina: San Juan
Mauritania
Kazakhstan
Argentina: Neuquen
Argentina: Salta
Burkina Faso
Romania
Indonesia
Argentina: Mendoza
Suriname
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: Jujuy
South Africa
Philippines
Argentina: La Rioja
Ecuador
Kyrgyzstan
Papua New Guinea
Madagascar
Greece
Niger
Mali
Mongolia
Venezuela
Honduras
Guatemala
Guinea(Conakry)
Bolivia
Zimbabwe
Egypt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Argentina, Latin America, and the Caribbean Basin

The average PPI score for Argentina improved sig- or enforcement of existing regulations (21%); and
nificantly in 2012/2013, with all jurisdictions except socioeconomic agreements/community develop-
Santa Cruz improving. Rio Negro had the largest ment conditions (10%), although it also dropped
rank ing im prove ment, mov ing from 69 th in notably in its rating for labour regulations/employ-
2011/2012 to 41st in 2012/2013 due to improved rat- ment agreements and labour militancy/work dis-
ings for the quality of the geological database (29%); ruptions (-10%). Honduras recovered in 2012/2013
socioeconomic agreements/community develop- to 83rd after dropping to the bottom spot (93rd of 93
ment conditions (24%); and uncertainty concerning jurisdictions) in 2011/2012 with modest improve-
disputed land claims (24%). Catamarca and Salta ments in most policy areas including uncertainty
also im proved rank ings sig nif i cantly be tween concerning disputed land claims (6%) and trade
2011/2012 and 2012/2013, with Catamarca moving barriers (6%).
from 61st to 43rd, and Salta from 55th in to 38th.

The average PPI score for the rest of Latin America
Comments on Argentina, Latin
and the Caribbean Basin also improved in the last
America, and the Caribbean
year, in large part due to the addition of French Gui- Basin
ana to the survey in 2012/2013 and its PPI score of
64.6 (ranking it 27th).
edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain
Chile remains the top-ranked jurisdiction in Latin confidentiality, and to clarify meanings.
America although its ranking dropped again in
2012/2013 to 23rd (Chile was a top-10 jurisdiction Argentina in general
from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011) due to worsening
perceptions amongst survey respondents for its le- The battles between the national and provincial
gal system (-15%); regulatory duplication and in- governments in Argentina at the present time exac-
consistencies (-14%); and uncertainty regarding the erbate the difficulty of operating any business in the
administration, interpretation, or enforcement of country, and are especially difficult for mining,
existing regulations (-14%). Guyana dropped most which depends on free trade, the ability to repatriate
significantly in the ratings—from 53rd in 2011/2012 income from massive capital investments, and ac-
to 67th in 2012/2013—due to decreased ratings for cess to competitive labor, services, and supplies.
labour regulations/employment agreements and la- —A producer company with more than US$50M,
bour militancy/work disruptions (-25%); uncer- Senior management
tainty concerning disputed land claims (-22%); and
uncertainty concerning environmental regulations In the last three years Argentina has gone from being
(-17%). a place that welcomed mining investment and pro-
tected it to one where “nothing is certain,” other than
Panama recovered in the 2012/2013 rankings to the country’s and province’s desires to take an
63rd after dropping to 82nd in 2011/2012. It im- ever-increasing amount of the investment return. In-
proved its ratings for trade barriers (25%); uncer- flation, currency controls, union activism, changing
tainty regarding the administration, interpretation, laws, corruption, and an unwillingness to acknowl-


Figure 18: Labor regulations, employment agreements, and
labour militancy or work disruptions
Saskatchewan
Yukon
Greenland
Utah
Wyoming
Finland Mild deterrent to investment
New Brunswick
Idaho Strong deterrent to investment
Alberta
Nevada
Sweden Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Botswana
Alaska
Arizona
Manitoba
Norway
Nunavut
Montana
New Mexico
Guyana
Nova Scotia
Michigan
Colorado
Turkey
New Zealand
Ontario
Ireland
Minnesota
Ghana
Morocco
Serbia
Washington
Quebec
French Guiana
Namibia
Burkina Faso
Northern Territory
Vietnam
Mauritania
British Columbia
Dominican Republic
Chile
Bulgaria
Western Australia
Queensland
Colombia
China
Mexico
Panama
California
Russia
South Australia
Spain
Zambia
Papua New Guinea
Tasmania
Victoria
Mongolia
Argentina: San Juan
Tanzania
New South Wales
Suriname
Romania
Brazil
Mali
Philippines
Argentina: Salta
Poland
Madagascar
Guatemala
Niger
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Peru
Guinea (Conakry)
Argentina: Neuquen
Argentina: La Rioja
India
Kyrgyzstan
Argentina: Mendoza
Honduras
Argentina: Jujuy
Argentina: Chubut
Greece
Zimbabwe
Ecuador
South Africa
Venezuela
Egypt
Bolivia
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


edge the negative aspects of the changes has made Salta
Argentina one of the most difficult places to invest
and in fact has plummeted [it] from “desirable” to The government and the locals are mining friendly.
“not a chance at the moment,” even though the min- —An exploration company, Manager
eral endowment is largely untapped and the eco-
nomic benefits to the poorest regions of the country Santa Cruz
could be enormous.
Corrupt, unstable political environment, nationalistic.
Company president
Consultant

Confiscatory tax regimes in Argentina, threats of ex-
Latin America in general
propriation, corruption at all levels of government.
—An exploration company, Consultant Honduras, El Salvador, and Ecuador need clear
mining law and secure land tenure.
Catamarca —An exploration company, Company president

The provincial government supports mining in line In general, the countries with good mineral potential
with the national government and according to the but the worst policies (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, vari-
Mining Investment Law. The miniscule anti-min- ous Argentina provinces, Ecuador, Honduras, El
ing opposition is not an impediment to mining de- Salvador) need new pro-private enterprise regimes.
vel op ment. We have strong sup port from the —A producer company with more than US$50M,
national, provincial, and municipal governments. Senior management
[translated]
—An exploration company, Company president Bolivia

Bolivia is a nightmare... confusion at all levels. Pol-
Chubut
icy being developed but no realism as to what it
should be.
The current debacle unfolding in Chubut over the
new proposed mining law has been devastating.
Promised changes to allow open pit mining in the
Bolivia—reverse the nationalization policies and
Messeta Central were supposed to open the door to a
move back toward an open free market economy.
floodgate of new investment, but misguided drafters
attached extremely punitive new tax and royalty
Vice-president
clauses to the legislation, stalling projects and
throwing the province into uncertainty.
Chile
Chile has been the least risky place to invest in min-
Mendoza ing because it completely embraces mining, the rules
and regulations are clear, the rule of law is strong,
Legislation “against mining” in Mendoza province. [there is a] low rate of corruption, the time from dis-
—Other (Academia), Study coordinator covery to development is the shortest I know, [there


Figure 19: Geological database
(includes quality and scale of maps, ease of access to information, etc.)
Finland
New South Wales
British Columbia
Saskatchewan Mild deterrent to investment
New Brunswick
Yukon
Queensland Strong deterrent to investment
South Australia
Greenland Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Western Australia
Wyoming
Northern Territory
Ontario
Quebec
Utah
Ireland
Manitoba
Alberta
Nevada
Tasmania
Nova Scotia
Colorado
Sweden
Alaska
New Zealand
Victoria
New Mexico
Montana
Arizona
Idaho
Norway
Nunavut
French Guiana
Spain
Minnesota
California
Mexico
Washington
Chile
South Africa
Botswana
Peru
Turkey
Dominican Republic
Brazil
Namibia
Russia
Michigan
Argentina: San Juan
Argentina: Jujuy
Argentina: Salta
Argentina: Neuquen
Serbia
Ghana
Greece
India
Morocco
Argentina: La Rioja
Zambia
Papua New Guinea
Poland
Bulgaria
Mauritania
Argentina: Mendoza
Romania
Colombia
Kazakhstan
Mongolia
Tanzania
Argentina: Chubut
Burkina Faso
Indonesia
Kyrgyzstan
Philippines
Honduras
Guyana
Guatemala
Madagascar
Egypt
Niger
Panama
Ecuador
Mali
China
Zimbabwe
Vietnam
Bolivia
Guinea (Conakry)
Suriname
Venezuela
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


are] clear-cut environmental requirements, an French Guiana
availability of talent, access to capital, and great
security. Previous company had an advanced exploration
—Development company, Company president project which was cancelled by French government
after they had spent many millions in exploration
Chile: revoked EIS [Environmental Impact State- and environmental monitoring. It appeared the
ment] approval after it was approved based on lack French government had no intention of allowing
of indigenous people consultation as per ILO169 large-scale mining for the site but continued to allow
[C169—Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention] exploration.
when the country itself does not officially recognize —An exploration company, Senior management
pertinent peoples as indigenous.
—A producer company with more than US$50M, Guatemala
Senior management
The direct allocation of a portion of the royalty reve-
Colombia nue generated by a mine to the municipality or re-
gion in which the mine operates—as provided by
Colombia: Attempting to get permit to work on lands Guatemala’s mining law—ensures that the eco-
in “Pacific Forest Zone” that were all clear-cut in nomic benefits of mining are shared with the local
1940s. Government agency biologists, zoologists, etc. population.
are totally supportive and all studies have been posi- —A producer company with more than US$50M,
tive but administrator refuses to sign order for more Other senior management
than a year because he is afraid that the NGOs will
not be happy with action. Corruption, unstable governments, large impact of
—An exploration company, Company president NGOs and religious leaders.
Ecuador
Guyana
Ecuador: We now have environmental, mining, and
social laws, and tax regulations (the institutions for Guyana: multiple claim holders registered to 1
control and regulation of activity). claim caused by administrative laxity.
—A consulting company, Company president —Other, Contract coordinator

Government is unable to support consistent mineral In Guyana, with the granting of the prospecting
use policies and ownership. licence, environmental permits for any exploration
—An exploration company, CFO related matter are also included.
Dominican Republic
Mexico
Open door in the Dominican Republic for invest-
ment in mining. Long mining history, NAFTA, strong track record of
—A producer company with more than US$50M, mines being developed, no royalty, reasonable tax
Consultant regime, decent infrastructure, reasonable time to


Figure 20: Security (includes physical security due to
the threat of attack by terrorists, criminals, guerrilla groups, etc.)
Michigan
Idaho
New Zealand
Greenland
Finland
Yukon Mild deterrent to investment
Nunavut
Nova Scotia Strong deterrent to investment
New Brunswick
Victoria
South Australia Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Queensland
Northern Territory
New South Wales
British Columbia
Nevada
Saskatchewan
Alberta
Western Australia
Montana
Alaska
Quebec
Colorado
Sweden
Minnesota
Ontario
Tasmania
Wyoming
Utah
Washington
Norway
Botswana
Poland
California
Arizona
Manitoba
Ireland
Argentina: La Rioja
Chile
New Mexico
Spain
Argentina: Neuquen
Namibia
Bulgaria
Argentina: Jujuy
French Guiana
Argentina: San Juan
Argentina: Mendoza
Dominican Republic
Ghana
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: Salta
Zambia
Vietnam
Mongolia
Turkey
China
Serbia
Panama
Brazil
Romania
Morocco
Mauritania
Madagascar
Guyana
Greece
Kazakhstan
Russia
Tanzania
India
Kyrgyzstan
Burkina Faso
Peru
Ecuador
Suriname
Indonesia
South Africa
Bolivia
Guinea (Conakry)
Zimbabwe
Egypt
Colombia
Mexico
Mali
Venezuela
Honduras
Philippines
Papua New Guinea
Guatemala
Niger
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


permit, wide variety of productive geologic environ- When applying for drill permits in Peru with all re-
ments, good labor force, skilled engineers (no need for quirements completed, the permit is issued in due
ex-pats long term), support at state and federal lev- course and within the indicated time frame. It is
els for mining. Local problems in the south can deter worth congratulating the competent authorities for
investment. the diligent and professional handling of the process!
—An exploration company, Company president —An exploration company, Company president

After we discovered multiple, very rich and large New royalty structure in Peru based on operating
mineral resources in a Mexican state, we were tar- margins.
geted by very powerful groups. This is still ongoing, so —An exploration company, Company president
I will not name names. These groups hired Mexican
and Canadian anti-mining groups to target one of Suriname
our operations. They began an extortion campaign
against us and we received no help from the state One of my companies spent 13 years investing in gold
government. These groups tried desperately to drive exploration in Suriname. I am a patient and persis-
us out of the state. tent investor, but we finally pulled out in 2007. The
—An exploration company, Company president government effectively confiscated our main prop-
erty even though it was effectively our partner! My
Panama opin ion in a nut shell is that I would not go
back. Even though the country has good mineral po-
Corruption, unforeseen future title problems. Suc- tential, the government is corrupt; there is no rule of
cess attracts political and security problems. law, and little infrastructure.
—A consulting company, Company president —A producer company with more than US$50M,
Senior management
Peru
Venezuela
Peru has an excellent (and automated) land ten-
ure system. Expropriations/confiscations in Venezuela.
—An exploration company, Vice-president —An exploration company, Company president


Figure 21: Supply of labor/skills
Finland
Nova Scotia
Sweden
New Brunswick Mild deterrent to investment
Utah
Nevada
Wyoming Strong deterrent to investment
Ontario
Victoria
Spain Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Idaho
Montana
Colorado
Arizona
British Columbia
Quebec
Ireland
Bulgaria
Alaska
Serbia
Minnesota
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
New Mexico
Argentina: Neuquen
Poland
New South Wales
Argentina: Jujuy
South Australia
Michigan
Washington
Queensland
Northern Territory
Yukon
Turkey
New Zealand
Norway
Russia
Chile
Tasmania
Western Australia
California
Peru
Brazil
Morocco
Mexico
Alberta
Argentina: La Rioja
Argentina: San Juan
French Guiana
China
Argentina: Mendoza
Argentina: Salta
Ghana
India
Kazakhstan
Vietnam
Romania
Panama
Nunavut
Greenland
Dominican Republic
South Africa
Colombia
Namibia
Zambia
Philippines
Kyrgyzstan
Indonesia
Tanzania
Botswana
Argentina: Chubut
Greece
Niger
Mauritania
Guyana
Bolivia
Egypt
Mali
Mongolia
Zimbabwe
Guinea (Conakry)
Burkina Faso
Papua New Guinea
Madagascar
Honduras
Ecuador
Guatemala
Suriname
Venezuela
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Eurasia

The average PPI score for Eurasia did not change concerning which areas will be protected as wilder-
significantly in 2012/2013. Greece was added to the ness, parks, or archeological sites (-9%).
survey and ranked 87th (in the bottom 10). Serbia
was also added and ranked 52nd in the 2012/2013
Comments on Eurasia
survey. Nordic countries performed very well in the
survey holding three of the top 10 jurisdictions: Fin- China
land (1), Sweden (2), Norway (10). Greenland
ranked 14th. Our company is being forced by local governments in
China to sell its mining operation to a local operator
without a competitive process in place and the desig-
Norway had the most significant improvement in
nated buyer will not pay fair market value for the as-
its PPI score and ranking, moving up to 10th in
sets and resources. This will create a local monopoly
2012/2013 from 24th in 2011/2012 due to improved
and potentially cause risk from various safety per-
ratings for its taxation regime (36%); political stabil-
spectives to our employees.
ity (22%); and infrastructure (17%). Turkey also im-
proved from 60th in 2011/2012 to 53rd in 2012/2013
with improved survey ratings for availability of la-
Uncertainty going forward regarding consistency of
bour and skills (20%); trade barriers (18%); and level
mining policy, mining rights, taxation, and royalties.
of security (16%). India, too, moved up in the rank-
ings from 89th in 2011/2012 (in the bottom 10) to
Senior management
81st in 2012/2012, although the ratings on individ-
ual factors were mixed, with improved ratings in
Finland
many areas, most significantly political stability
(20%), tempered by a notable drop in ratings for un- Changes in the new mining law, and under-staffing
certainty concerning environmental regulations of the permitting team in government, has seen the
(-10%). claim applications process for mineral exploration
go from a six-month approval time in 2006 to an av-
Po land dropped in the rank ings from 46 th in erage of 4 years. This means it takes four years from
2011/2012 to 57th in 2012/2013 with lower ratings identifying your target and applying for the claim
for infrastructure (-24%); uncertainty concerning before you can drill. The mining lease approval
disputed land claims (-15%); and legal system (-15%), waiting list is now over four years. It is really holding
while also showing improvements in ratings for the up the process.
level of security (20%) and availability of labour and —A producer company with less than US$50M,
skills (18%). China had the most significant drop in Company president
its PPI score and ranking, falling from 58th in
2011/2012 to 72nd in 2012/2013, due to worsening No unnecessary regulations and a government that
perceptions amongst survey respondents for the supports mining and clears away obstructions.
level of security (-19%); uncertainty concerning en- —A producer company with more than US$50M,
vironmental regulations (-13%); and uncertainty Vice-president


Figure 22: Corruption

Idaho
New Zealand
Greenland
French Guiana
Finland Mild deterrent to investment
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick Strong deterrent to investment
Saskatchewan
Queensland Would not pursue investment due to this factor
Sweden
British Columbia
South Australia
Alberta
Yukon
Western Australia
Wyoming
Arizona
Northern Territory
Alaska
Norway
Victoria
Utah
New South Wales
Nevada
Minnesota
Ireland
Colorado
Nunavut
Ontario
Manitoba
Michigan
Tasmania
Montana
California
New Mexico
Washington
Chile
Quebec
Botswana
Spain
Poland
Turkey
Namibia
Morocco
Mauritania
Argentina: Neuquen
Ghana
Burkina Faso
Peru
Colombia
Argentina: Salta
Brazil
Argentina: San Juan
Dominican Republic
Argentina: La Rioja
Zambia
Guyana
Niger
Argentina: Mendoza
China
Argentina: Chubut
Argentina: Jujuy
Greece
Panama
Mexico
Suriname
South Africa
Bulgaria
Russia
Tanzania
Papua New Guinea
Mali
Ecuador
Vietnam
Mongolia
Serbia
Kazakhstan
Romania
Madagascar
Philippines
Zimbabwe
Bolivia
India
Venezuela
Guinea (Conakry)
Indonesia
Honduras
Kyrgyzstan
Guatemala
Egypt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Greenland Stable, transparent governments.
The mining act is transparent in Greenland... Easy
to understand and follow. Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan: high level of corruption.
—A consulting company, Company president
Our experience shows that there is a will to put mines
into production. There are no royalties, no aboriginal Kyrgyzstan
land claims, and a one-door policy to get approvals
from exploration through exploitation. The govern- Corrupt, inconsistent and random policy changes.
ment benefits through corporate and employer taxes, —An exploration company, Company president
which encourages mine production.
—An exploration company, Company president Kyrgyzstan: demand for free participation in project
by relatives of the then President.
Greece —An exploration company, Company president

Mongolia
Economic uncertainty; inconsistent mining regulation.
—A consulting company, Vice-president Incessant changes to relevant laws as a kneejerk re-
action to specific instances and its desire to re-open
Many stalled gold projects over last 30 years. existing agreements made in good faith.
—An exploration company, manager —An exploration company, Vice-president

India Illegal expropriation of assets in Mongolia.
—A for mer de vel op ment com pany, Com pany
Uncertain regulations, corrupt system, poor infra- president
structure.
Poland
—Mining equipment distributor, Vice-president
Most of the country of Poland is protected due to wild-
India has enormous monazite resources; however, it life, nature, forests (more than 30%). The most diffi-
does not allow the private sector the opportunity to cult problem caused is the implementation of
exploit this mineral. Because it contains thorium, restricted areas—so-called Natura 2000—in each of
monazite is reserved for the exclusive use of the gov- the EU countries. There is restriction under EU juris-
ernment. diction and every change for mining purposes often
—An exploration company, Chairman & CEO requires a decision from Brussels. Our Polish execu-
tives are able to decide, but are so scared that they do
Ireland not take the risk to make any decision in that problem
area. Sometimes very important deposits cannot be
Online information database and application pro- exploited due to the nature restriction, although there
cess in Ireland. is sometimes really nothing worth being protected.
—An exploration company, Company president This problem is especially difficult in Polish lignite


Figure 23: Growing (or lessening) uncertainty
in mining policy and implementation
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Sweden
Saskatchewan
Greenland Mild deterrent to investment
Norway
Botswana
Newfoundland & Labrador Strong deterrent to investment
Alberta
Finland
Ireland Would not pursue investment due to this factor
New Zealand
Utah
Yukon
Wyoming
Nevada
Chile
Turkey
Michigan
Nunavut
Northern Territory
Arizona
Western Australia
Poland
Alaska
Idaho
Ontario
Manitoba
New Mexico
South Australia
French Guiana
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Minnesota
Panama
Spain
Namibia
Morocco
Serbia
New South Wales
Queensland
Montana
Mexico
Guyana
Ghana
Bulgaria
Colombia
Victoria
British Columbia
Quebec
Colorado
India
Washington
Tasmania
Argentina: Neuquen
Zambia
Mauritania
Argentina: Salta
Argentina: San Juan
Tanzania
Burkina Faso
Peru
California
China
Argentina: La Rioja
Romania
Guatemala
Argentina: Mendoza
Argentina: Jujuy
Greece
Russia
Suriname
Kazakhstan
Vietnam
Argentina: Chubut
Niger
Papua New Guinea
Madagascar
Guinea (Conakry)
South Africa
Mongolia
Honduras
Indonesia
Mali
Philippines
Venezuela
Ecuador
Kyrgyzstan
Zimbabwe
Bolivia
Egypt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


open cast mines. There is also a problem with outer the one-year tenure, renewable annually. The pro-
dumping of overburden in European lignite mines. cess proceeded successfully and fairly.
—A producer company with more than US$50M, —An exploration company, Company president
Manager
Spain
In Poland, a mining company (or any other investor)
is not the owner of the geological information it pro- Spain: Impossible to open anything even if the crisis
duces. The state is the owner of the information and is destroying the country.
may sell the information to any other company. There —A producer company with more than US$50M,
is also no preference in granting en exploitation Manager
licence to a company holding an exploration permit.
—Academia, Researcher Sweden

Romania No hurdles, investment friendly, proactive. No cor-
ruption. Obvious law, clear processes, and regula-
Clear procedures that remove politics from the envi- tions. Winner. No time wasting.
ronmental permitting process would make develop- —An exploration company, Vice-president
ment of mines practical.
—A consulting company, Manager Mining culture and history, trained workforce, ex-
ceptional infrastructure, good regulatory processes,
Russia underexplored, known world class mineral deposits.
Russian policy is to review all applications within 90
days with 10 days for a company response to ques- Vietnam
tions/issues and a yes/no decision within two weeks.
In many respects, their environmental requirements Mining Law 2010 passed after a consultation period
are stricter than in Canada (e.g., dry-stacked gold with various interest groups who participated in the
tailings in some jurisdictions). feedback process. The result is that the Ministry of
—A consulting company, Manager Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) has
struggled to make sense of the regulation to enable it
A joint venture agreement was completely ignored to pass the enabling provisions, therefore no new in-
and the deposit sold to a third party who only reim- vestment in any mine of scale since the legislation
bursed 50% of our investment after threats of litiga- was passed has occurred.
tion in The Hague. Courts and litigation in Russia —An exploration company, Company president
were laughable.
—An exploration company, Company president Endemic corruption, highest taxes and royalties in
the world, unskilled workforce, political ineptitude,
Serbia and a constantly shifting and overly complex regula-
tory framework.
Serbia has modernized its mining law. Companies —A producer company with more than US$50M,
had to re-apply for new three-year rights rather than Senior management


Figure 24: Composite policy and mineral potential
Yukon
Finland
Nevada
Sweden
Western Australia
Wyoming
Alaska
Saskatchewan
Ontario
Quebec
Greenland
Botswana
New Brunswick
Chile
Utah
South Australia
Alberta
Manitoba
NWT
British Columbia
Northern Territory
Queensland
Nunavut
Norway
Arizona
Mexico
Turkey
Ireland
Namibia
Serbia
Idaho
Colorado
Papua New Guinea
Montana
Mongolia
Nova Scotia
Colombia
Peru
Argentina: San Juan
Mauritania
Brazil
Ghana
New Zealand
Minnesota
Argentina: Salta
Zambia
New South Wales
Michigan
New Mexico
Tanzania
Burkina Faso
Indonesia
Russia
Victoria
Philippines
India
Tasmania
Kazakhstan
Argentina: Jujuy
California
French Guiana
Kyrgyzstan
South Africa
Spain
China
Guyana
Morocco
Egypt
Argentina: Neuquen
Washington
Argentina: Mendoza
Argentina: La Rioja
Dominican Republic
Madagascar
Vietnam
Bulgaria
Suriname
Ecuador
Argentina: Chubut
Panama
Mali
Poland
Guinea (Conakry)
Zimbabwe
Bolivia
Niger
Venezuela
Guatemala
Romania
Honduras
Greece
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


What miners are saying

The comments in the following section have been Profit-based taxes versus net royalties.
edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain —An exploration company, Company president
confidentiality, and to clarify meanings.
Publishing mineral licences database on the internet
for all to see what licences are due to expire.
Good policy is…

Any jurisdiction that allows a company or individ-
ual to keep mineral dispositions in good standing by
carrying out the appropriate amount of exploration
Horror stories
and development work.
Ontario: Uncertainty over native rights and land
—Vertically integrated, Senior management
claims.
Government interactions with mining chamber or
other operators’ representative body before changes
Ontario off-loading native consultation/accommo-
are made.
dation to the mining and exploration communities
—A development company, Company president
when the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly de-
fined this process as a provincial responsibility re:
Tax on transfer of mining right not valued on direct
minerals.
profit, but based on valuation, at tax department’s
discretion.
Vice-president
Constant pressure from NGOs in Central and South
Case management of proposed mining projects being American countries taking valuable focus away
handled by one regulatory agency, with a dedicated from operations and into providing proof of false al-
case manager for each project being appointed to as- legations against mining companies.
sist the proponent in going through the approvals —A producer company with more than US$50M,
process. Manager
Soil sample grid in Zimbabwe was noticed by locals
Fairness and law and order. who thought the flagging marking the soil sample
—An exploration company, Company president sites denoted the presence of gold. Local miners
swarmed in, devastated the grid site with hand exca-
Streamline mine permitting process, particularly vations to 10 meters deep and the Zimbabwe govern-
the timeline. ment did nothing to stop the rape and pillage of what
—A producer company with more than US$50M, turned out to be a geochemically dead grid.
Manager —A consulting company, Company president


Quebec government wants to give a veto on mining to Endless “community consultation” in Northwest
municipalities, even those that grew over mines in Territories for early-stage exploration. The even-
historically recognized mining camps! This opens up tual cost of consultation exceeded the exploration
great opportunities for “brown envelopes” and cor- budget.
ruption to local mayors!!! —An exploration company, Company president
The system for claim appeal in the province of Que-
Finland has gone from issuing mining exploration bec. It can take up to 4 years to conclude a decision
claims within a week in 2007 to taking 3+ years to is- over a single, simple issue.
sue mining exploration claims. This is an impossible —An exploration company, Company president
environment for junior mining exploration compa-
nies to work in! Indonesia: Approved mining right taken and given to
—An exploration company, Company president a third party, with no consultation.
—A consulting company, Vice-president
Bolivian expropriation of mining assets.


Investment patterns

Total exploration budgets for 2012 were US$6.2 bil- We asked miners whether they thought that the
lion. Exploration budgets had increased from 2011, prices of these commodities over the next two years
when exploration budgets were US$5.4 billion (fig- would increase by over 50 percent, between 20 per-
ures 25a and b). cent and 50 percent, under 10 percent (in other
words, stagnant prices just above or below the rate
Over the last five years (2007-2012), just over half
of inflation), or decline (see figure 26).
(51.3%) of respondents increased their exploration
expenditures (see table 4). Exploration investment · 86.4% of respondents thought diamond prices
was led by producer companies with more than would increase by 10% or less, or decline over
US$50M revenue, where almost 80% of respon- the next two years
dents reported increased exploration expenditures.
By contrast, only 34.4% of producer companies with · 83.8% of respondents thought coal prices would
less than US$50M revenue increased their explora- increase by 10% or less, or decline over the next
tion expenditure, while 40.6% decreased expendi- two years
ture. Investments by exploration companies also · 82.7% of respondents thought nickel prices
diverged, with 46.5% increasing investment, 38.1% would increase by 10% or less, or decline over
decreasing investment, and 15.4% leaving their in- the next two years
vestments unchanged between 2007 and 2012.
· 81.5% of respondents thought zinc prices would
Only 46% of respondents plan to increase their ex- increase by 10% or less, or decline over the next
ploration budgets in 2013; down from 68% in 2012 two years
and 82% in 2011 (see table 5). Producer companies
with less than US$50M led the way, with 66.7% an- · 74.2% of respondents thought potash prices
ticipating an increased exploration budget in 2013. would increase by 10% or less, or decline over
This was followed by exploration companies, where the next two years
52.7% anticipated an increase in their exploration · 73.7% of respondents thought copper prices
budget. Only 36.6% of producer companies with more would increase by 10% or less, or decline over
than US$50M and 25% of consulting companies ex- the next two years
pect to increase their exploration budgets in 2013.
· 64.3% of respondents thought platinum prices
Commodity prices would increase by 10% or less, or decline over
the next two years
Miners continue to be pessimistic about future
commodity prices; more than half of the survey re- Projections for gold and silver prices were more
spondents expect small increases (less than 10%) or positive. While 53.4% of respondents thought silver
reduced prices for diamonds, coal, nickel, zinc, cop- prices would increase by 10% or less, or decline over
per, potash, platinum, and silver over the next two the next two years, others were more positive. 41.5%
years (see table 6). For a majority of respondents, of respondents expected prices to increase by
only gold was expected to increase in value by more 20-50% and 5.2% expected price increases of more
than 20% over the next two years. than 50% over the next two years.


Figure 25a: Exploration budget by Figure 25b: Exploration budget by
company type ($US), 2011* company type in $US, 2012
Total = US$5.4 billion*
Exploration
Exploration
company:
company:
$1,773,722,625
$1,650,883,617

Other:
$170,079,000
Other:
$192,725,000 Producer
A producer company with less
company with Producer Producer than US$50M:
more than company with company with $136,485,000
US$50M: less than more than
$3,314,463,307 US$50M: US$50M:
Total = US$6.2 billion
$110,080,000 $4,286,069,823

*Note: This is the total from the responses given to the 2012
survey; the number differs from the figures in last year’s re-
port because a different group of miners responded to the
survey this year.

Table 4: Has your total (worldwide) Table 5: Do you anticipate your
exploration expenditure increased, exploration budget will increase
decreased, or remained the same over in 2013?
the five-year period from 2007-2012? All respondents
All Responses Increased 302 Yes 275
Decreased 174 No 320
Unchanged 113 Exploration Companies
Exploration Companies Increased 160 Yes 183
Decreased 131 No 164
Unchanged 53
A producer company with less than US$50M
A producer company Increased 11 Yes 22
with less than US$50M Decreased 13 No 11
Unchanged 8
A producer company with more than US$50M revenue
A producer company Increased 98
Yes 45
with more than US$50M Decreased 13
revenue No 78
Unchanged 12
A consulting company
A consulting company Increased 18
Yes 13
Decreased 11
No 39
Unchanged 23
Other
Other Increased 15
Yes 12
Decreased 6
No 28
Unchanged 17


Figure 26: Do you believe that for the following minerals,
prices over the next two years will:

70% Increase by more than 50% Increase by 20-50%

Increase by 10% or less Decline
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Cu (Copper) Ag (Silver) Zn (Zinc) Au (Gold) Ni (Nickel) PGM (Platinum) Diamonds Coal Potash

Gold price projections were the most positive. Only what optimistic in the long term, with 48% expect-
38.8% thought gold prices would either increase by ing prices to rise by up to 15%, 19% expecting prices
10% or less, or decline over the next two years; to rise by 15-30%, and 17% expecting stable prices
53.4% thought they would increase by 20% to 50%, over the next 10 years (see figure 27).
while 7.7% expected increases of more than 50%.
Finally, respondents were also asked about their
Given the positive price expectations for gold, it is
agreement with the statement, “many in the mining
unsurprising that gold continues to be the com-
industry believe the industry now has great diffi-
modity assigned the largest proportion of the bud-
culty raising funds compared to two years ago.” Of
gets of survey respondents (see table 7). Gold was
those who responded, 60% agreed strongly with this
assigned the largest proportion of the budget for
statement, 31% agreed somewhat, and only 9% dis-
49% of those responding to the question, followed
agreed somewhat or strongly. Of those who agreed
by copper (17%), and silver (6%).
with the statement, nearly 80% believed the diffi-
For the first time in our survey, respondents were culty raising funds was due to investors being wor-
asked whether, despite recent price uncertainty, ried about the state of the world economy, 52%
they believed that commodity prices would con- believed that investors are risk averse and see min-
tinue to rise in real terms (inflation adjusted) over ing as risky, and 36% thought that investors are wor-
the long term (over 10 years). Miners appear some- ried that costs in mining are rising (see figure 28).


Table 6: Do you believe that for the following minerals,
prices over the next two years will:

increase by increase by increase by Decline
more than 50% 20-50% 10% or less
Cu (Copper) 9 141 346 75

Ag (Silver) 29 231 241 56

Zn (Zinc) 8 90 331 100

Au (Gold) 46 318 187 44

Ni (Nickel) 6 84 317 112

PGM (Platinum) 12 170 270 59

Diamonds 4 65 278 162

Coal 4 80 251 183

Potash 5 126 280 97

Figure 27: Despite recent price uncertainty, do you believe that commodity prices
will continue to rise in real terms (inflation adjusted) over the long term—
say, over the next 10 years?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
No, prices will fall by No, they will fall but They will remain stable Yes, they will rise by Yes, they will rise by Yes, they will rise by
more than 15% by less than 15% over the next 10 years up to 15% 15-30% over 30%


What miners are saying about investment patterns

The comments in the following section have been The move towards yield in the resource sector shows
edited for length, grammar and spelling, to retain a lack of investor understanding in the space [of
confidentiality, and to clarify meanings. mining] as a growth investment rather than a yield
investment.
Market concerns… Company president

With companies trading at a fraction of the value of Exploration/mining are not generating returns com-
their assets, it is obvious that the market is not work- mensurate with risk because governments, commu-
ing properly right now. We can only hope that com- nities, and workers are gaining a larger piece of the
mon sense brings things back to clarity. pie—combined with higher levels of regulation
—An exploration company, Company president which adds cost and time—that render this business
less than appealing.
The political climate relative to mining has deterio- —A producer company with more than US$50M,
rated almost globally over the last 5 years as govern- Manager
ments, particularly in South America, have inserted
themselves more and more into the economic and The investment model for junior miners is broken.
regulatory framework—on an ad-hoc basis. The in- The costs of doing business and the regulatory re-
vestment climate has also deteriorated during the quirements have risen dramatically over the last de-
same period as miners have failed to deliver the full cade and the difficulty of exploration juniors to
benefits of the commodity price boom, partially due attract funding is at an all-time low.
to our own lack of discipline and partially for under- —An exploration company, Company president
estimating the impacts of government.
—A producer company with more than US$50M, Only a few stock exchanges are suitable for listing ex-
Company president ploration company stocks. The TSX and LSE are the
two largest and both have regulations suitable for
Overall, the mining industry tends to destroy capital, speculative exploration. The failure to allow the
so it is only when the wind is at our back, (i.e., rising merger between these two exchanges has deprived
commodity prices and an increased appetite for risk) Canadian explorers, and non-Canadians listing on
that money flows freely into mining exploration. the TSX, of access to a much larger pool of liquidity
—An exploration company, Company president than is currently available.
—A consulting company, Consultant
The current risk-averse climate, especially towards
junior exploration companies, is a major concern to Until we have a fundamental change in the way that
the sector’s future ability to finance, explore, dis- decision-makers for investments in mining are re-
cover, and develop new resources. Measured & Indi- munerated, i.e., those that reside in the investment
cated (M&I) ounces in good jurisdictions valued at banks and fund management companies, we will not
<$5/oz. in a $1,700 gold price environment is testa- see a change in the investment going to the riskier end
ment to that. of the market that needs the cash, i.e., the juniors that
—An exploration company, Company president guarantee the future replacement for the mid-caps


Figure 28: If you agree miners are having difficulty raising funds, is this because:
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Investors believe Investors are worried Investors are risk Investors are worried Investors are Other
commodity prices will about the state of the averse and see that costs in mining concerned about
be weak for sometime world economy mining as risky are rising the impact of
resource nationalism

and the majors of continuously depleting resource nies. Some of the potential rewards that investors
bases. You cannot remunerate people on a quarterly normally expect are being stripped by the issuance of
performance for a stock that is involved in a derivatives in the market or by discounting of share
long-term development business. It is the most ridic- values through sale of flow-through shares, etc.
ulous contradiction that exists. The structural read- —An exploration company, Company president
justment seen in the retail banking sector needs to
flow through to the negative value adding invest- As long as the world economy is weak and uncertain,
ment banking and fund management sector. investors will not speculate in exploration ventures.
—A consulting company, Company president —An exploration company, Chairman & CEO

The investment climate is simply hinging on the back
of Chinese growth, which in part is linked to Euro- Current market conditions
pean and US recovery and a return to fully function-
ing consumerism. Until the latter occurs, there will Investors are worried about management’s ability to
be ongoing uncertainty in commodities. deliver projects on time and budget.
—A producer company with more than US$50M, —Development company, Company president
Manager
Funds are available for good quality advanced pro-
The investment industry is now backing investment jects. Funds are difficult to source for junior explora-
in gold and precious metals directly and through tion companies.
ETFs rather than in mining and exploration compa- —An exploration company, Managing director


Table 7: What commodity is assigned the Table 8: Who responded
largest proportion of your budget? to the survey?

Mineral Percent Number
Whom do you REPRESENT?
Au (Gold) 49% 304
An exploration company 397 54%
Cu (Copper) 17% 105
Ag (Silver) 6% 36 A producer company with 41 6%
less than US$50M
Coal 4% 25
Zn (Zinc) 4% 24 A producer company with 145 20%
more than US$50M
U (Uranium ) 4% 22
Fe (Iron) 3% 19 A consulting company 86 12%
Ni (Nickel) 3% 18 Other 68 9%
Rare Earths 1% 9
Diamonds 1% 8
What is your POSITION?
PGM (Platinum) 1% 6
Li (Lithium) 1% 6 Company president 301 42%
Other (please specify) 6% 36 Vice president 112 16%

Manager 115 16%
Table 9: How do you rate the importance of mineral Other Senior Management 65 9%
potential versus policy factors? (Must total 100%)
Consultant 45 6%
Mineral Potential 58.65%
Other 84 12%
Policy Factors 41.35%

Cash flow is king, meaning that junior mineral ex- Doubtless, the mining executives have all had nice
ploration companies are having a far more difficult bonuses and increased salaries over the period, but
time raising funding in equity markets than produc- investors have been abused. Management of majors
ers or mine builders who can still raise project debt should hang their heads... oh, no it’s alright, they still
financing for good projects. have a war chest with which to pick up distressed ju-
—An exploration company, Company president nior assets so it’s a win-win!
The recent underperformance of gold share prices is
wholly due to the irresponsible actions of the major This is the first time in my memory that exploration
gold producers, which has hammered investor confi- fell off, in spite of fairly good commodity prices. In-
dence. Investors must be bemused that rather than vestors are looking for liquidity and worried about
delivering increased rewards and dividends to long term investments in mineral exploration.
shareholders over the last 10 years of increasing gold World economics and negative media reporting
prices, the majors have whittled away profits by min- compounds the problem. I don’t know what will turn
ing ever more low grade, increasing their production it around for the business.
costs and not benefiting from the rise in gold price. —An exploration company, Vice-president


Investors are avoiding investing in exploration pro- smooth out volatility which is generated by this form
jects, even if the upside is high, and prefer those proof trading. Increasing costs of resource production is
jects which are at feasibility stage or higher. starting to become apparent and over time produc-
—An exploration company, Manager ers will have to get higher commodity prices to gener-
ate reasonable profits.
Exploration companies with no revenue are being —An exploration company, Company president
asked to underwrite expensive community relations
programs—they are usually the first to arrive in a We always go up and down with the prices....
community—but investors want their money to go —A producer company with less than US$50M,
into the ground, not into philanthropy. If the indus- Company president
try wants a robust project pipeline, there needs to be
a way to fund these important but non-core issues. Risk has been re-calibrated given the excesses in the
—An exploration company, Company president US and UK banking industry. The “Boomer” genera-
tion has realized they can’t risk the treasure chest as
Although there are available funds in the “West,” the the clock has ticked and there is no time to recoup
entire process of financial modeling is very conserva- lost and risky investments. Mining exploration is a
tive. “Eastern” countries have a more optimistic out- risky business and that appetite has lessened, until
look and hence dominate investment into the mining the next upward swing in commodity prices brings
industry. risk capital back to the mining industry.
—An exploration company, Manager —An exploration company, Vice-president

Looking forward… As the traditional methods of financing disappear
for junior explorers, there will be a large void created
Social and community problems will be the perma- in “greenfields-type” exploration. Major mining
nent preoccupation for new investments in the min- companies will be unable to continue to meet the de-
ing sector. mand for metals as they exhaust their reserves, and
—A producer company with more than US$50M, will almost certainly be forced to mine marginal de-
Company president posits in politically risky areas of the world. The end
result will be companies whose balance sheets are
There is little investment at the greenfields stage. We more subject to political instability and fluctuating
will face a significant problem within ten years. commodity prices.
—A consulting company, Consultant —An exploration company, Company president

Mining is a supply and demand industry linked di- We are about to experience a mining renaissance
rectly to economic development and or sustained around the globe. A solution for many crisis affected
economic equilibrium. Emerging economies in Asia areas of the world is to permit projects expeditiously.
and South America will mostly drive new de- —Development, Vice-president
mand—these are experiencing slower growth in
2012 and buffer new demand. Also, short term My medium-term view is that commodities will
“hedge trading” in commodities often produces false track sideways for the next few years, tracking stron-
value in commodity prices not really related to de- ger thereafter. Exploration successes will become less
mand cycles—longer periods of slowing demand frequent due to a drop-off in investment, restricted


access to prospective areas, the rise of social opposi- Compliments received
tion to mining (particularly in emerging economies
with good prospectivity), and the added burden
I hope you get a lot of responses for this survey, the
placed on explorers to meet tightening government
more the better the data.
controls and rising community expectations. This
lack of success and stunting of new supply from a
greenfields source will underpin a stable to moder-
ately rising commodity process environment. In Thanks again for your efforts.
short, exploration is becoming too expensive, too —An exploration company, Manager
time consuming, too uncertain, and potentially too
controversial to be sufficiently attractive to the Usually a very good survey; clear questions.
broader capital markets. —A consulting company, Manager
Vice-president
The survey covers most aspects of the mining and ex-
With dramatically increasing capex and opex costs, ploration industry. Well done...
resources increasingly in higher risk countries, —An exploration company, Company president
grades de creas ing dra mat i cally, per mit ting
timeframes blowing out everywhere coupled with a Great survey. I also send a copy to the various Minis-
lack of global discovery, the cost of metals will con- ters of Mines and Finance in the various jurisdic-
tinue to increase. However, what the industry needs tions we operate in. They may not like what their
is smaller footprint, higher grade projects with less country rating is, but it certainly focuses their minds
impact that are easier to permit in GOOD countries. on the problems in their jurisdictions. Great survey,
Grassroots discoveries and innovation in explora- please keep it up.
tion is mandatory for the mining industry. —A producer company with more than US$50M,
—An exploration company, Company president Company president

Appendix: Tabular material

The following tables provide a complete description of the answers for each policy question for each juris-
diction. Tables A1 through A18 parallel figures in the main body of the report. Table A19 provides the an-
swer to the question: Which jurisdiction has the best (worst) policy environment? Jurisdictions are ranked
by best “net” response—the number of respondents who rated a jurisdiction “best” minus the number or re-
spondents that rated the same jurisdiction “worst.” The table only includes jurisdictions listed in the survey.
Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


Table A1: Mineral potential, assuming current regulation/land use restrictions

1: Encourages Investment 2: Not a Deterrent to investment
3: Mild Deterrent 4: Strong Deterrent
5: Would not pursue investment due to this factor

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Canada Alberta 35% 44% 15% 6% 2%
British Columbia 33% 36% 24% 7% 1%
Manitoba 32% 38% 15% 9% 6%
New Brunswick 38% 48% 14% 0% 0%
Newfoundland & Labrador 32% 58% 8% 3% 0%
Northwest Territories 43% 31% 18% 7% 2%
Nova Scotia 30% 41% 22% 7% 0%
Nunavut 30% 49% 19% 0% 2%
Ontario 39% 41% 14% 6% 1%
Quebec 35% 42% 16% 7% 1%
Saskatchewan 53% 39% 7% 2% 0%
Yukon 51% 39% 8% 3% 0%

USA Alaska 56% 31% 12% 1% 0%
Arizona 36% 48% 13% 1% 1%
California 19% 27% 24% 23% 7%
Colorado 13% 41% 29% 16% 1%
Idaho 25% 54% 17% 4% 0%
Michigan 20% 45% 35% 0% 0%
Minnesota 21% 43% 32% 4% 0%
Montana 23% 36% 25% 14% 2%
Nevada 55% 35% 11% 0% 0%
New Mexico 16% 61% 21% 3% 0%
Utah 40% 42% 16% 2% 0%
Washington 9% 30% 40% 19% 2%
Wyoming 52% 36% 9% 2% 0%

Australia New South Wales 15% 54% 26% 4% 0%
Northern Territory 46% 39% 14% 2% 0%
Queensland 34% 43% 17% 6% 0%
South Australia 34% 48% 15% 3% 0%
Tasmania 14% 39% 25% 21% 0%
Victoria 18% 43% 28% 13% 0%
Western Australia 47% 42% 9% 3% 0%

Oceania Indonesia 11% 29% 27% 24% 9%
New Zealand 28% 53% 15% 5% 0%
Papua New Guinea 12% 35% 32% 18% 3%
Philippines 11% 31% 42% 14% 3%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Africa Botswana 39% 42% 19% 0% 0%
Burkina Faso 36% 39% 19% 7% 0%
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 16% 16% 16% 42% 11%
Egypt 8% 8% 33% 42% 8%
Ghana 32% 49% 17% 2% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 14% 29% 29% 29% 0%
Madagascar 8% 8% 50% 25% 8%
Mali 15% 37% 32% 17% 0%
Mauritania 25% 33% 42% 0% 0%
Morocco 20% 40% 33% 0% 7%
Namibia 21% 59% 15% 3% 3%
Niger 30% 20% 40% 10% 0%
South Africa 13% 30% 33% 18% 7%
Tanzania 18% 47% 29% 5% 0%
Zambia 6% 64% 21% 9% 0%
Zimbabwe 3% 14% 21% 35% 28%

Argentina Catamarca 19% 33% 33% 10% 5%
Chubut 7% 25% 29% 18% 21%
Jujuy 6% 33% 33% 22% 6%
La Rioja 0% 35% 35% 18% 12%
Mendoza 16% 29% 16% 24% 16%
Neuquen 14% 36% 36% 7% 7%
Rio Negro 12% 41% 24% 12% 12%
Salta 12% 55% 24% 9% 0%
San Juan 17% 45% 26% 10% 2%
Santa Cruz 12% 15% 38% 27% 9%

Table 1 continued next page ...




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Latin America Bolivia 0% 12% 21% 47% 21%

and the Brazil 21% 46% 30% 3% 0%

Caribbean Chile 40% 47% 11% 2% 0%

Basin Colombia 29% 36% 29% 7% 0%
Ecuador 3% 17% 33% 25% 22%
Dominican Republic 17% 48% 30% 4% 0%
French Guiana 9% 46% 18% 18% 9%
Guatemala 0% 16% 37% 42% 5%
Guyana 39% 39% 19% 4% 0%
Honduras 6% 0% 50% 19% 25%
Mexico 29% 47% 17% 6% 1%
Panama 21% 47% 26% 0% 5%
Peru 27% 44% 24% 6% 0%
Suriname 7% 53% 27% 7% 7%
Venezuela 3% 15% 15% 29% 38%

Eurasia Bulgaria 9% 55% 36% 0% 0%
China 11% 37% 20% 9% 23%
Finland 55% 38% 8% 0% 0%
Greenland 56% 40% 4% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 25% 58% 8% 8%
India 6% 44% 19% 19% 13%
Ireland 38% 29% 26% 5% 2%
Kazakhstan 14% 33% 38% 10% 5%
Kyrgyzstan 29% 21% 29% 7% 14%
Mongolia 12% 29% 35% 12% 12%
Norway 38% 38% 14% 5% 5%
Poland 14% 29% 36% 14% 7%
Romania 12% 36% 20% 32% 0%
Russia 21% 38% 17% 13% 13%
Serbia 20% 60% 0% 20% 0%
Spain 24% 48% 24% 0% 5%
Sweden 54% 37% 3% 3% 3%
Turkey 32% 49% 19% 0% 0%
Vietnam 8% 39% 8% 46% 0%


Table A2: Policy/mineral potential, assuming no land use restrictions in place, and
assuming industry “best practices”

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 46% 45% 4% 4% 0%
New Brunswick 34% 51% 12% 0% 2%
Newfoundland and Labrador 51% 34% 14% 2% 0%
Nova Scotia 19% 42% 15% 19% 4%
Nunavut 59% 30% 11% 0% 0%
Ontario 60% 31% 8% 1% 1%
Quebec 58% 29% 6% 6% 0%
Yukon 65% 31% 4% 0% 0%

USA Alaska 67% 22% 8% 1% 1%
Arizona 48% 41% 12% 0% 0%
California 34% 34% 19% 11% 2%
Colorado 37% 38% 24% 2% 0%
Idaho 30% 53% 15% 0% 2%
Michigan 21% 47% 32% 0% 0%
Minnesota 26% 48% 26% 0% 0%
Montana 40% 40% 16% 5% 0%
Nevada 60% 31% 8% 0% 1%
New Mexico 30% 38% 27% 5% 0%
Utah 43% 41% 16% 0% 0%
Washington 17% 41% 38% 5% 0%
Wyoming 50% 39% 11% 0% 0%

Queensland 57% 30% 10% 3% 0%
Tasmania 25% 43% 29% 4% 0%
Victoria 23% 35% 33% 10% 0%

New Zealand 26% 41% 26% 8% 0%
Philippines 65% 19% 14% 0% 3%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 36% 39% 16% 7% 3%
Egypt 50% 8% 33% 8% 0%
Ghana 37% 41% 15% 4% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 32% 23% 32% 9% 5%
Madagascar 50% 17% 25% 8% 0%
Mali 20% 55% 15% 8% 3%
Mauritania 33% 33% 17% 8% 8%
Morocco 13% 40% 40% 0% 7%
Namibia 41% 41% 15% 0% 3%
Niger 20% 30% 30% 10% 10%
South Africa 34% 44% 15% 5% 2%
Tanzania 50% 34% 13% 0% 3%
Zambia 38% 44% 12% 3% 3%
Zimbabwe 28% 48% 10% 10% 3%

Chubut 29% 39% 14% 11% 7%
Jujuy 39% 39% 17% 6% 0%
La Rioja 29% 53% 12% 0% 6%
Mendoza 30% 41% 16% 5% 8%
Neuquen 14% 43% 36% 0% 7%
Rio Negro 24% 41% 29% 0% 6%
Salta 27% 44% 24% 6% 0%
San Juan 34% 46% 15% 2% 2%
Santa Cruz 41% 41% 9% 3% 6%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 51% 28% 16% 3% 2%

Colombia 57% 28% 13% 0% 2%
Basin
Ecuador 41% 26% 10% 21% 3%
French Guiana 8% 58% 33% 0% 0%
Guatemala 22% 44% 33% 0% 0%
Guyana 39% 32% 25% 0% 4%
Honduras 6% 47% 41% 0% 6%
Mexico 56% 33% 9% 2% 0%
Panama 28% 28% 39% 6% 0%
Peru 52% 27% 18% 3% 1%
Suriname 20% 53% 27% 0% 0%
Venezuela 29% 34% 26% 3% 9%

China 43% 31% 14% 6% 6%
Finland 51% 37% 12% 0% 0%
Greenland 52% 44% 4% 0% 0%
Greece 17% 17% 50% 8% 8%
India 56% 25% 13% 0% 6%
Ireland 23% 47% 23% 7% 0%
Kazakhstan 43% 48% 5% 0% 5%
Kyrgyzstan 50% 43% 0% 7% 0%
Mongolia 77% 14% 6% 0% 3%
Norway 38% 38% 10% 14% 0%
Poland 0% 69% 31% 0% 0%
Romania 28% 28% 40% 4% 0%
Russia 58% 15% 19% 8% 0%
Serbia 50% 30% 20% 0% 0%
Spain 19% 48% 24% 5% 5%
Sweden 51% 31% 14% 3% 0%
Turkey 61% 28% 11% 0% 0%
Vietnam 39% 46% 8% 8% 0%


Table A3: Uncertainty concerning the administration, interpretation, and
enforcement of existing regulations

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 45% 21% 9% 21% 4%
New Brunswick 64% 30% 7% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 52% 35% 10% 3% 0%
Nunavut 28% 35% 28% 7% 2%
Ontario 35% 30% 25% 9% 1%
Quebec 47% 21% 22% 9% 1%
Yukon 55% 29% 14% 2% 0%

USA Alaska 39% 38% 18% 3% 1%
Arizona 20% 49% 28% 2% 1%
California 1% 14% 15% 45% 25%
Colorado 8% 25% 30% 26% 11%
Idaho 19% 42% 25% 14% 0%
Michigan 9% 32% 55% 5% 0%
Minnesota 16% 16% 48% 19% 0%
Montana 4% 17% 45% 21% 13%
Nevada 48% 33% 16% 3% 1%
New Mexico 13% 35% 37% 15% 0%
Utah 40% 45% 13% 2% 0%
Washington 4% 21% 29% 35% 10%
Wyoming 57% 33% 8% 2% 0%

Queensland 24% 31% 36% 9% 0%
Tasmania 3% 38% 28% 21% 10%
Victoria 17% 29% 29% 24% 2%

New Zealand 20% 46% 24% 10% 0%
Philippines 0% 15% 32% 39% 15%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 32% 41% 18% 9% 0%
Egypt 8% 0% 8% 54% 31%
Ghana 26% 43% 26% 6% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 7% 14% 25% 43% 11%
Madagascar 0% 15% 23% 62% 0%
Mali 14% 33% 31% 20% 2%
Mauritania 39% 39% 15% 8% 0%
Morocco 40% 45% 15% 0% 0%
Namibia 36% 38% 20% 4% 2%
Niger 15% 23% 46% 15% 0%
South Africa 13% 17% 30% 31% 10%
Tanzania 11% 29% 44% 11% 4%
Zambia 14% 60% 22% 5% 0%
Zimbabwe 3% 3% 21% 21% 53%

Chubut 3% 19% 25% 25% 28%
Jujuy 10% 43% 10% 24% 14%
La Rioja 0% 40% 15% 25% 20%
Mendoza 7% 15% 17% 30% 30%
Neuquen 28% 17% 17% 17% 22%
Rio Negro 16% 26% 21% 16% 21%
Salta 34% 32% 18% 13% 3%
San Juan 21% 35% 21% 19% 4%
Santa Cruz 15% 26% 28% 23% 8%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 24% 47% 19% 8% 1%

Colombia 25% 39% 24% 10% 1%
Basin
Ecuador 2% 7% 30% 33% 28%
French Guiana 22% 11% 33% 11% 22%
Guatemala 9% 14% 32% 36% 9%
Guyana 33% 39% 18% 9% 0%
Honduras 0% 14% 24% 29% 33%
Mexico 45% 34% 15% 5% 1%
Panama 27% 32% 23% 18% 0%
Peru 22% 36% 29% 12% 1%
Suriname 12% 41% 35% 6% 6%
Venezuela 3% 3% 5% 16% 74%

China 7% 21% 34% 23% 16%
Finland 47% 40% 9% 4% 0%
Greenland 54% 39% 8% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 21% 29% 43% 7%
India 13% 19% 19% 31% 19%
Ireland 42% 38% 11% 9% 0%
Kazakhstan 4% 33% 26% 26% 11%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 5% 45% 20% 30%
Mongolia 7% 12% 33% 33% 14%
Norway 38% 48% 14% 0% 0%
Poland 7% 27% 47% 20% 0%
Romania 0% 29% 25% 39% 7%
Russia 7% 29% 23% 19% 23%
Serbia 15% 54% 23% 8% 0%
Spain 8% 50% 27% 12% 4%
Sweden 65% 30% 5% 0% 0%
Turkey 23% 61% 14% 2% 0%
Vietnam 0% 39% 15% 23% 23%


Table A4: Environmental regulations


Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 18% 43% 20% 17% 1%
New Brunswick 23% 55% 23% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 4% 54% 39% 4% 0%
Nunavut 6% 50% 39% 4% 2%
Ontario 20% 43% 28% 8% 1%
Quebec 21% 44% 24% 10% 1%
Yukon 24% 49% 22% 3% 1%

USA Alaska 14% 44% 30% 11% 1%
Arizona 5% 43% 43% 6% 3%
California 1% 7% 21% 37% 34%
Colorado 5% 12% 36% 36% 10%
Idaho 9% 29% 46% 16% 0%
Michigan 10% 19% 57% 14% 0%
Minnesota 0% 29% 48% 16% 7%
Montana 4% 15% 42% 25% 14%
Nevada 21% 48% 26% 4% 1%
New Mexico 7% 33% 26% 33% 2%
Utah 24% 56% 19% 2% 0%
Washington 6% 15% 26% 36% 17%
Wyoming 29% 52% 14% 4% 2%

Queensland 9% 33% 40% 17% 0%
Tasmania 3% 20% 40% 23% 13%
Victoria 5% 14% 55% 26% 0%

New Zealand 2% 29% 48% 17% 5%
Philippines 0% 30% 43% 18% 10%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 18% 74% 6% 3% 0%
Egypt 15% 54% 15% 15% 0%
Ghana 19% 54% 15% 12% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 15% 33% 30% 22% 0%
Madagascar 0% 43% 36% 14% 7%
Mali 16% 66% 12% 6% 0%
Mauritania 33% 33% 25% 8% 0%
Morocco 30% 40% 25% 5% 0%
Namibia 27% 52% 21% 0% 0%
Niger 7% 64% 21% 7% 0%
South Africa 7% 53% 30% 7% 3%
Tanzania 7% 68% 21% 5% 0%
Zambia 17% 69% 11% 3% 0%
Zimbabwe 3% 34% 29% 20% 14%

Chubut 3% 13% 38% 25% 22%
Jujuy 5% 14% 43% 19% 19%
La Rioja 5% 35% 30% 20% 10%
Mendoza 2% 9% 35% 28% 26%
Neuquen 17% 17% 39% 11% 17%
Rio Negro 11% 16% 42% 21% 11%
Salta 27% 35% 24% 11% 3%
San Juan 17% 40% 38% 6% 0%
Santa Cruz 8% 46% 33% 8% 5%





Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 11% 55% 32% 3% 0%


Ecuador 2% 11% 39% 34% 14%
French Guiana 17% 28% 11% 17% 28%
Guatemala 0% 14% 67% 10% 10%
Guyana 12% 67% 18% 3% 0%
Honduras 0% 21% 42% 21% 16%
Mexico 27% 60% 11% 1% 1%
Panama 5% 42% 37% 16% 0%
Peru 12% 41% 33% 13% 2%
Suriname 12% 47% 41% 0% 0%
Venezuela 3% 18% 18% 26% 34%

China 7% 50% 21% 14% 9%
Finland 18% 52% 25% 5% 0%
Greenland 27% 58% 12% 4% 0%
Greece 0% 7% 43% 36% 14%
India 6% 31% 31% 19% 13%
Ireland 19% 51% 21% 9% 0%
Kazakhstan 7% 54% 29% 11% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 5% 37% 37% 11% 11%
Mongolia 5% 52% 26% 10% 7%
Norway 14% 38% 43% 5% 0%
Poland 7% 13% 53% 27% 0%
Romania 0% 36% 25% 25% 14%
Russia 7% 40% 37% 10% 7%
Serbia 27% 46% 18% 9% 0%
Spain 4% 54% 27% 12% 4%
Sweden 11% 53% 36% 0% 0%
Turkey 7% 66% 21% 7% 0%
Vietnam 0% 39% 46% 8% 8%


Table A5: Regulatory duplication and inconsistencies
(includes federal/provincial, federal/state, inter-departmental overlap, etc.)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 15% 45% 26% 12% 3%
New Brunswick 32% 44% 24% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 14% 61% 21% 4% 0%
Nunavut 7% 33% 49% 9% 2%
Ontario 16% 41% 34% 8% 1%
Quebec 18% 46% 24% 12% 1%
Yukon 26% 45% 22% 7% 0%

USA Alaska 10% 51% 30% 7% 2%
Arizona 6% 46% 38% 9% 1%
California 0% 15% 25% 40% 21%
Colorado 7% 21% 42% 22% 8%
Idaho 6% 40% 44% 11% 0%
Michigan 5% 19% 71% 5% 0%
Minnesota 0% 30% 53% 17% 0%
Montana 2% 41% 28% 20% 10%
Nevada 16% 49% 30% 5% 0%
New Mexico 2% 37% 46% 15% 0%
Utah 16% 46% 35% 4% 0%
Washington 2% 26% 30% 28% 13%
Wyoming 16% 50% 32% 2% 0%

Queensland 8% 37% 34% 21% 0%
Tasmania 3% 30% 37% 30% 0%
Victoria 5% 42% 29% 22% 2%

New Zealand 15% 37% 44% 5% 0%
Philippines 3% 20% 30% 40% 8%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 18% 62% 12% 9% 0%
Egypt 15% 0% 54% 31% 0%
Ghana 14% 57% 20% 10% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 4% 26% 30% 41% 0%
Madagascar 7% 29% 14% 43% 7%
Mali 10% 43% 35% 12% 0%
Mauritania 31% 31% 31% 8% 0%
Morocco 25% 40% 30% 5% 0%
Namibia 21% 56% 19% 2% 2%
Niger 7% 43% 36% 14% 0%
South Africa 6% 33% 40% 17% 4%
Tanzania 7% 40% 42% 11% 0%
Zambia 17% 57% 17% 6% 3%
Zimbabwe 0% 15% 21% 29% 35%

Chubut 3% 6% 34% 34% 22%
Jujuy 5% 29% 24% 29% 14%
La Rioja 0% 15% 35% 35% 15%
Mendoza 4% 13% 38% 26% 19%
Neuquen 17% 17% 33% 17% 17%
Rio Negro 11% 21% 37% 21% 11%
Salta 16% 21% 42% 16% 5%
San Juan 13% 23% 48% 15% 2%
Santa Cruz 3% 28% 36% 26% 8%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Carib- Brazil 10% 48% 34% 8% 0%

bean Basin Chile 16% 64% 16% 3% 0%
Colombia 11% 41% 35% 11% 1%
Ecuador 2% 14% 33% 40% 12%
French Guiana 17% 39% 17% 22% 6%
Guatemala 0% 14% 71% 10% 5%
Guyana 6% 61% 30% 3% 0%
Honduras 0% 0% 63% 32% 5%
Mexico 24% 46% 24% 5% 1%
Panama 5% 57% 29% 10% 0%
Peru 8% 38% 43% 9% 2%
Suriname 6% 41% 41% 12% 0%
Venezuela 0% 5% 16% 38% 41%

China 0% 33% 28% 28% 12%
Finland 36% 44% 11% 9% 0%
Greenland 36% 44% 16% 4% 0%
Greece 0% 21% 43% 29% 7%
India 0% 25% 31% 31% 13%
Ireland 24% 42% 27% 7% 0%
Kazakhstan 4% 36% 39% 21% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 5% 15% 40% 20% 20%
Mongolia 10% 32% 29% 22% 7%
Norway 14% 57% 24% 5% 0%
Poland 7% 27% 53% 13% 0%
Romania 4% 25% 32% 29% 11%
Russia 3% 24% 24% 35% 14%
Serbia 8% 46% 31% 15% 0%
Spain 4% 46% 35% 12% 4%
Sweden 28% 56% 14% 3% 0%
Turkey 7% 62% 27% 4% 0%
Vietnam 0% 8% 54% 39% 0%


Table A6: Legal System (includes legal processes that are fair, transparent,
non-corrupt, timely, efficiently administered, etc.)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 41% 40% 11% 5% 3%
Nova Scotia 54% 32% 14% 0% 0%
Nunavut 37% 39% 22% 0% 2%
Ontario 46% 39% 10% 4% 2%
Quebec 43% 35% 19% 3% 1%
Yukon 47% 48% 6% 0% 0%

USA Alaska 40% 42% 13% 4% 0%
Arizona 27% 49% 18% 5% 1%
California 10% 35% 22% 19% 14%
Colorado 32% 28% 26% 10% 4%
Idaho 24% 56% 16% 2% 2%
Michigan 18% 64% 9% 9% 0%
Minnesota 26% 55% 13% 7% 0%
Montana 14% 52% 23% 10% 2%
Nevada 38% 47% 15% 1% 0%
New Mexico 20% 46% 24% 9% 2%
Utah 37% 46% 17% 0% 0%
Washington 17% 35% 25% 19% 4%
Wyoming 44% 54% 2% 0% 0%

Queensland 39% 47% 11% 3% 0%
Tasmania 40% 43% 13% 3% 0%
Victoria 45% 41% 12% 2% 0%

New Zealand 55% 31% 12% 2% 0%
Philippines 2% 12% 24% 42% 20%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 6% 32% 53% 6% 3%
Egypt 0% 0% 23% 54% 23%
Ghana 14% 45% 33% 6% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 4% 0% 30% 56% 11%
Madagascar 0% 21% 29% 50% 0%
Mali 2% 29% 47% 16% 6%
Mauritania 23% 46% 8% 15% 8%
Morocco 10% 50% 25% 10% 5%
Namibia 22% 49% 24% 0% 4%
Niger 7% 29% 43% 7% 14%
South Africa 6% 23% 40% 22% 10%
Tanzania 2% 29% 44% 20% 4%
Zambia 5% 41% 41% 8% 5%
Zimbabwe 0% 9% 9% 20% 63%

Chubut 3% 9% 31% 38% 19%
Jujuy 10% 10% 25% 30% 25%
La Rioja 5% 10% 30% 30% 25%
Mendoza 11% 9% 32% 23% 26%
Neuquen 12% 12% 24% 29% 24%
Rio Negro 16% 11% 37% 21% 16%
Salta 24% 24% 29% 18% 5%
San Juan 9% 24% 41% 20% 7%
Santa Cruz 8% 18% 41% 28% 5%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 4% 37% 51% 8% 0%

Colombia 4% 45% 34% 17% 0%
Basin
Ecuador 2% 9% 25% 48% 16%
French Guiana 22% 61% 11% 6% 0%
Guatemala 0% 9% 41% 41% 9%
Guyana 3% 46% 39% 9% 3%
Honduras 0% 5% 33% 48% 14%
Mexico 12% 41% 39% 7% 1%
Panama 9% 32% 46% 14% 0%
Peru 9% 39% 41% 9% 2%
Suriname 6% 24% 59% 6% 6%
Venezuela 0% 5% 5% 33% 56%

China 2% 11% 25% 36% 25%
Finland 67% 24% 9% 0% 0%
Greenland 62% 31% 8% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 14% 36% 36% 14%
India 0% 13% 31% 44% 13%
Ireland 48% 41% 9% 2% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 14% 43% 32% 11%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 10% 40% 20% 30%
Mongolia 0% 12% 39% 34% 15%
Norway 50% 41% 9% 0% 0%
Poland 0% 40% 47% 7% 7%
Romania 0% 25% 21% 43% 11%
Russia 0% 16% 29% 23% 32%
Serbia 8% 39% 31% 23% 0%
Spain 4% 54% 27% 12% 4%
Sweden 70% 27% 3% 0% 0%
Turkey 14% 52% 27% 7% 0%
Vietnam 0% 8% 50% 17% 25%


Table A7: Taxation regime (includes personal, corporate, payroll, capital, and
other taxes, and complexity of tax compliance)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 21% 47% 26% 6% 1%
New Brunswick 23% 63% 14% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 21% 54% 21% 4% 0%
Nunavut 15% 54% 30% 2% 0%
Ontario 19% 53% 22% 6% 1%
Quebec 26% 37% 25% 13% 0%
Yukon 28% 62% 10% 0% 0%

USA Alaska 30% 53% 17% 0% 0%
Arizona 12% 65% 21% 1% 1%
California 3% 30% 31% 26% 10%
Colorado 11% 48% 31% 9% 1%
Idaho 6% 71% 23% 0% 0%
Michigan 5% 65% 25% 5% 0%
Minnesota 12% 42% 31% 15% 0%
Montana 6% 52% 35% 6% 0%
Nevada 24% 55% 20% 1% 0%
New Mexico 10% 49% 31% 10% 0%
Utah 31% 55% 12% 2% 0%
Washington 11% 43% 32% 9% 5%
Wyoming 35% 50% 13% 2% 0%

Queensland 7% 42% 35% 17% 0%
Tasmania 7% 39% 32% 18% 4%
Victoria 7% 54% 27% 10% 2%

New Zealand 13% 60% 25% 3% 0%
Philippines 0% 38% 48% 10% 5%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 16% 50% 34% 0% 0%
Egypt 8% 15% 39% 31% 8%
Ghana 6% 58% 26% 10% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 0% 19% 58% 23% 0%
Madagascar 14% 21% 43% 14% 7%
Mali 7% 41% 41% 9% 2%
Mauritania 15% 39% 46% 0% 0%
Morocco 32% 47% 16% 5% 0%
Namibia 9% 50% 34% 5% 2%
Niger 0% 46% 46% 9% 0%
South Africa 4% 29% 39% 25% 3%
Tanzania 5% 29% 50% 12% 5%
Zambia 6% 44% 44% 6% 0%
Zimbabwe 0% 6% 27% 35% 32%

Chubut 4% 21% 39% 25% 11%
Jujuy 11% 21% 32% 26% 11%
La Rioja 0% 25% 44% 19% 13%
Mendoza 5% 26% 47% 14% 9%
Neuquen 7% 36% 21% 21% 14%
Rio Negro 12% 24% 35% 24% 6%
Salta 11% 34% 37% 14% 3%
San Juan 9% 39% 30% 21% 2%
Santa Cruz 3% 34% 26% 29% 9%




Response 1 2 3 4 5


Colombia 3% 68% 26% 3% 0%
Ecuador 3% 16% 32% 41% 8%
French Guiana 24% 53% 12% 12% 0%
Guatemala 5% 29% 43% 24% 0%
Guyana 10% 61% 23% 7% 0%
Honduras 5% 32% 42% 21% 0%
Mexico 15% 60% 21% 3% 1%
Panama 10% 57% 24% 10% 0%
Peru 10% 56% 26% 6% 1%
Suriname 7% 33% 47% 13% 0%
Venezuela 0% 6% 28% 33% 33%

China 3% 33% 45% 15% 5%
Finland 35% 51% 14% 0% 0%
Greenland 28% 48% 20% 4% 0%
Greece 0% 29% 43% 29% 0%
India 7% 27% 47% 13% 7%
Ireland 34% 46% 18% 2% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 44% 39% 17% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 6% 24% 47% 12% 12%
Mongolia 5% 14% 54% 22% 5%
Norway 36% 27% 18% 14% 5%
Poland 0% 29% 57% 14% 0%
Romania 0% 38% 42% 21% 0%
Russia 19% 15% 33% 15% 19%
Serbia 25% 33% 25% 17% 0%
Spain 13% 54% 25% 8% 0%
Sweden 40% 37% 14% 6% 3%
Turkey 7% 68% 20% 5% 0%
Vietnam 0% 31% 46% 15% 8%


Table A8: Uncertainty concerning disputed land claims


Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 18% 26% 27% 22% 7%
New Brunswick 27% 50% 21% 2% 0%
Nova Scotia 21% 50% 29% 0% 0%
Nunavut 22% 42% 26% 11% 0%
Ontario 14% 29% 32% 21% 4%
Quebec 21% 40% 28% 10% 1%
Yukon 21% 42% 33% 2% 1%

USA Alaska 30% 47% 18% 3% 1%
Arizona 16% 65% 16% 3% 1%
California 14% 57% 17% 6% 6%
Colorado 14% 65% 14% 6% 1%
Idaho 15% 66% 19% 0% 0%
Michigan 24% 52% 19% 5% 0%
Minnesota 28% 48% 17% 7% 0%
Montana 18% 55% 18% 6% 2%
Nevada 27% 61% 11% 0% 0%
New Mexico 15% 58% 23% 3% 3%
Utah 26% 66% 8% 0% 0%
Washington 18% 52% 18% 9% 2%
Wyoming 34% 57% 9% 0% 0%

Queensland 11% 56% 25% 8% 0%
Tasmania 10% 47% 33% 7% 3%
Victoria 12% 50% 29% 7% 2%

New Zealand 15% 56% 29% 0% 0%
Philippines 0% 18% 35% 30% 18%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 13% 63% 22% 0% 3%
Egypt 25% 17% 25% 33% 0%
Ghana 10% 56% 24% 8% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 7% 30% 37% 22% 4%
Madagascar 7% 36% 14% 29% 14%
Mali 0% 64% 27% 7% 2%
Mauritania 23% 39% 23% 8% 8%
Morocco 21% 42% 26% 5% 5%
Namibia 21% 48% 25% 5% 2%
Niger 8% 50% 25% 8% 8%
South Africa 1% 35% 29% 29% 6%
Tanzania 2% 33% 48% 12% 5%
Zambia 6% 46% 37% 3% 9%
Zimbabwe 0% 9% 21% 24% 47%

Chubut 14% 36% 36% 11% 4%
Jujuy 11% 32% 32% 11% 16%
La Rioja 6% 35% 41% 6% 12%
Mendoza 7% 42% 35% 12% 5%
Neuquen 20% 20% 40% 7% 13%
Rio Negro 24% 41% 24% 6% 6%
Salta 20% 34% 40% 3% 3%
San Juan 14% 46% 32% 9% 0%
Santa Cruz 8% 56% 28% 8% 0%





Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 6% 45% 37% 10% 2%


Ecuador 8% 18% 15% 40% 20%
French Guiana 24% 53% 18% 0% 6%
Guatemala 0% 10% 50% 30% 10%
Guyana 0% 50% 38% 9% 3%
Honduras 6% 12% 29% 47% 6%
Mexico 7% 45% 36% 11% 1%
Panama 5% 43% 38% 10% 5%
Peru 7% 28% 38% 24% 3%
Suriname 7% 20% 53% 20% 0%
Venezuela 0% 8% 16% 38% 38%

China 3% 43% 23% 20% 13%
Finland 37% 47% 16% 0% 0%
Greenland 50% 42% 8% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 14% 50% 36% 0%
India 0% 38% 19% 31% 13%
Ireland 39% 48% 9% 5% 0%
Kazakhstan 22% 22% 35% 13% 9%
Kyrgyzstan 12% 12% 18% 29% 29%
Mongolia 0% 36% 33% 14% 17%
Norway 27% 59% 9% 5% 0%
Poland 0% 43% 36% 21% 0%
Romania 4% 28% 52% 16% 0%
Russia 4% 26% 26% 30% 15%
Serbia 0% 67% 33% 0% 0%
Spain 8% 71% 17% 4% 0%
Sweden 44% 44% 8% 3% 0%
Turkey 10% 67% 19% 5% 0%
Vietnam 0% 31% 54% 8% 8%


Table A9: Uncertainty over which areas will be protected as wilderness,
parks, or archeological sites

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 7% 37% 34% 19% 3%
New Brunswick 14% 56% 28% 2% 0%
Nova Scotia 7% 41% 44% 7% 0%
Nunavut 8% 36% 45% 9% 2%
Ontario 7% 31% 41% 17% 3%
Quebec 10% 37% 39% 12% 2%
Yukon 11% 46% 36% 6% 1%

USA Alaska 8% 45% 28% 17% 2%
Arizona 5% 38% 41% 15% 1%
California 1% 20% 27% 33% 19%
Colorado 1% 27% 30% 37% 6%
Idaho 4% 49% 38% 9% 0%
Michigan 5% 48% 38% 10% 0%
Minnesota 3% 52% 35% 10% 0%
Montana 2% 41% 25% 31% 2%
Nevada 11% 55% 27% 7% 0%
New Mexico 3% 48% 28% 23% 0%
Utah 18% 55% 18% 8% 0%
Washington 4% 40% 22% 24% 9%
Wyoming 15% 62% 19% 4% 0%

Queensland 4% 42% 39% 11% 4%
Tasmania 0% 37% 27% 23% 13%
Victoria 5% 45% 31% 14% 5%

New Zealand 0% 48% 45% 8% 0%
Philippines 3% 34% 50% 5% 8%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 15% 79% 6% 0% 0%
Egypt 15% 54% 15% 15% 0%
Ghana 6% 78% 14% 2% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 7% 70% 11% 11% 0%
Madagascar 0% 43% 43% 7% 7%
Mali 7% 86% 7% 0% 0%
Mauritania 31% 62% 8% 0% 0%
Morocco 26% 68% 5% 0% 0%
Namibia 18% 68% 11% 2% 0%
Niger 8% 92% 0% 0% 0%
South Africa 12% 54% 26% 4% 4%
Tanzania 9% 65% 12% 12% 2%
Zambia 11% 69% 17% 3% 0%
Zimbabwe 3% 41% 21% 21% 15%

Chubut 0% 41% 17% 31% 10%
Jujuy 0% 50% 11% 22% 17%
La Rioja 6% 31% 25% 31% 6%
Mendoza 7% 30% 30% 14% 19%
Neuquen 7% 33% 33% 13% 13%
Rio Negro 6% 35% 29% 18% 12%
Salta 12% 46% 27% 12% 3%
San Juan 14% 46% 21% 21% 0%
Santa Cruz 6% 43% 29% 20% 3%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 3% 46% 43% 9% 0%

Colombia 3% 40% 37% 19% 2%
Basin
Ecuador 0% 26% 26% 33% 15%
French Guiana 12% 41% 12% 18% 18%
Guatemala 5% 40% 30% 20% 5%
Guyana 10% 58% 29% 3% 0%
Honduras 6% 22% 39% 28% 6%
Mexico 11% 60% 22% 7% 0%
Panama 5% 48% 38% 10% 0%
Peru 8% 46% 27% 19% 1%
Suriname 8% 39% 39% 8% 8%
Venezuela 3% 17% 26% 29% 26%

China 3% 68% 15% 5% 10%
Finland 16% 56% 21% 7% 0%
Greenland 12% 60% 28% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 36% 21% 36% 7%
India 0% 27% 33% 27% 13%
Ireland 23% 52% 21% 5% 0%
Kazakhstan 9% 68% 18% 5% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 53% 29% 6% 12%
Mongolia 5% 46% 35% 5% 8%
Norway 14% 48% 29% 10% 0%
Poland 0% 46% 31% 23% 0%
Romania 0% 33% 42% 21% 4%
Russia 4% 57% 25% 4% 11%
Serbia 8% 50% 42% 0% 0%
Spain 8% 58% 17% 13% 4%
Sweden 19% 56% 22% 3% 0%
Turkey 5% 60% 29% 7% 0%
Vietnam 0% 46% 46% 8% 0%


Table A10: Quality of infrastructure (includes access to roads,
power availability, etc.)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 26% 39% 29% 6% 0%
Nova Scotia 50% 39% 11% 0% 0%
Nunavut 9% 7% 26% 52% 6%
Ontario 33% 41% 23% 3% 0%
Quebec 41% 35% 20% 5% 0%
Yukon 15% 24% 38% 19% 4%

USA Alaska 12% 20% 39% 27% 2%
Arizona 39% 52% 7% 1% 1%
California 24% 61% 13% 1% 0%
Colorado 37% 47% 13% 3% 1%
Idaho 26% 60% 11% 2% 0%
Michigan 52% 43% 0% 5% 0%
Minnesota 52% 41% 3% 3% 0%
Montana 31% 55% 14% 0% 0%
Nevada 46% 47% 7% 0% 0%
New Mexico 24% 59% 10% 7% 0%
Utah 43% 53% 2% 2% 0%
Washington 26% 60% 12% 2% 0%
Wyoming 43% 47% 9% 2% 0%

Queensland 23% 51% 22% 4% 0%
Tasmania 28% 41% 24% 7% 0%
Victoria 36% 45% 12% 7% 0%

New Zealand 20% 66% 15% 0% 0%
Philippines 0% 13% 60% 23% 5%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 3% 27% 47% 21% 3%
Egypt 0% 54% 39% 8% 0%
Ghana 12% 39% 37% 10% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 4% 7% 33% 52% 4%
Madagascar 0% 23% 39% 31% 8%
Mali 0% 17% 63% 17% 2%
Mauritania 8% 8% 54% 23% 8%
Morocco 11% 53% 32% 0% 5%
Namibia 21% 43% 23% 11% 2%
Niger 8% 8% 50% 25% 8%
South Africa 11% 44% 32% 11% 3%
Tanzania 5% 26% 45% 17% 7%
Zambia 3% 44% 41% 9% 3%
Zimbabwe 3% 24% 24% 32% 18%

Chubut 14% 31% 28% 21% 7%
Jujuy 5% 53% 16% 11% 16%
La Rioja 11% 33% 33% 17% 6%
Mendoza 16% 50% 21% 5% 9%
Neuquen 20% 27% 33% 7% 13%
Rio Negro 28% 28% 33% 6% 6%
Salta 17% 47% 33% 3% 0%
San Juan 13% 49% 31% 7% 0%
Santa Cruz 6% 44% 44% 3% 3%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 7% 35% 44% 11% 3%

Colombia 6% 33% 46% 12% 3%
Basin
Ecuador 7% 15% 44% 24% 10%
French Guiana 12% 12% 59% 18% 0%
Guatemala 5% 19% 57% 14% 5%
Guyana 0% 10% 52% 36% 3%
Honduras 5% 20% 45% 25% 5%
Mexico 12% 59% 23% 5% 1%
Panama 0% 48% 48% 5% 0%
Peru 4% 48% 37% 11% 1%
Suriname 7% 7% 53% 33% 0%
Venezuela 8% 14% 38% 27% 14%

China 15% 24% 42% 12% 7%
Finland 54% 40% 7% 0% 0%
Greenland 4% 15% 54% 27% 0%
Greece 7% 57% 29% 0% 7%
India 6% 25% 44% 19% 6%
Ireland 63% 33% 2% 2% 0%
Kazakhstan 8% 38% 38% 17% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 6% 24% 41% 18% 12%
Mongolia 0% 5% 42% 45% 8%
Norway 50% 41% 9% 0% 0%
Poland 14% 50% 36% 0% 0%
Romania 13% 46% 33% 8% 0%
Russia 0% 31% 31% 28% 10%
Serbia 42% 25% 33% 0% 0%
Spain 38% 42% 17% 4% 0%
Sweden 53% 33% 14% 0% 0%
Turkey 26% 60% 14% 0% 0%
Vietnam 0% 23% 62% 15% 0%


Table A11: Socioeconomic agreements/community development conditions
(includes local purchasing, processing requirements, or supplying social
infrastructure such as schools or hospitals, etc.)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 16% 62% 13% 7% 2%
New Brunswick 33% 52% 14% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 31% 58% 12% 0% 0%
Nunavut 10% 35% 46% 10% 0%
Ontario 20% 53% 21% 6% 1%
Quebec 21% 52% 25% 3% 0%
Yukon 16% 64% 18% 3% 0%

USA Alaska 15% 59% 24% 2% 0%
Arizona 19% 70% 9% 1% 1%
California 19% 61% 6% 11% 3%
Colorado 19% 54% 20% 4% 3%
Idaho 12% 75% 12% 2% 0%
Michigan 30% 55% 5% 10% 0%
Minnesota 22% 59% 15% 4% 0%
Montana 17% 64% 13% 4% 2%
Nevada 27% 67% 5% 1% 0%
New Mexico 16% 71% 11% 3% 0%
Utah 25% 69% 4% 0% 2%
Washington 11% 73% 7% 9% 0%
Wyoming 33% 63% 2% 0% 2%

Queensland 21% 58% 18% 3% 0%
Tasmania 17% 59% 17% 3% 3%
Victoria 21% 62% 13% 3% 3%

New Zealand 31% 49% 15% 5% 0%
Philippines 0% 26% 32% 40% 3%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 6% 31% 56% 6% 0%
Egypt 8% 25% 42% 25% 0%
Ghana 7% 47% 40% 2% 4%
Guinea (Conakry) 8% 15% 35% 42% 0%
Madagascar 0% 39% 54% 0% 8%
Mali 2% 37% 59% 2% 0%
Mauritania 15% 39% 46% 0% 0%
Morocco 6% 38% 56% 0% 0%
Namibia 12% 54% 32% 0% 2%
Niger 8% 25% 58% 8% 0%
South Africa 5% 34% 37% 20% 5%
Tanzania 3% 38% 43% 14% 3%
Zambia 6% 44% 38% 12% 0%
Zimbabwe 7% 13% 17% 33% 30%

Chubut 7% 21% 39% 18% 14%
Jujuy 18% 24% 35% 12% 12%
La Rioja 13% 25% 38% 13% 13%
Mendoza 8% 38% 30% 10% 15%
Neuquen 21% 21% 50% 0% 7%
Rio Negro 24% 24% 41% 6% 6%
Salta 18% 32% 35% 12% 3%
San Juan 16% 37% 33% 12% 2%
Santa Cruz 9% 35% 27% 27% 3%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 3% 52% 38% 6% 0%
Chile 13% 69% 17% 2% 0%
Caribbean
Colombia 3% 53% 30% 13% 0%
Basin
Ecuador 5% 10% 39% 36% 10%
French Guiana 15% 46% 23% 15% 0%
Guatemala 5% 15% 35% 35% 10%
Guyana 3% 53% 33% 10% 0%
Honduras 0% 28% 28% 28% 17%
Mexico 8% 56% 28% 8% 1%
Panama 10% 35% 45% 10% 0%
Peru 2% 29% 44% 25% 1%
Suriname 7% 27% 47% 20% 0%
Venezuela 3% 14% 22% 35% 27%

China 3% 46% 32% 11% 8%
Finland 53% 43% 5% 0% 0%
Greenland 17% 42% 38% 4% 0%
Greece 7% 21% 36% 21% 14%
India 0% 50% 38% 6% 6%
Ireland 33% 55% 13% 0% 0%
Kazakhstan 5% 36% 55% 5% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 25% 50% 19% 6%
Mongolia 0% 34% 47% 16% 3%
Norway 43% 52% 5% 0% 0%
Poland 14% 57% 29% 0% 0%
Romania 0% 32% 50% 14% 5%
Russia 4% 58% 17% 17% 4%
Serbia 0% 64% 27% 9% 0%
Spain 30% 52% 17% 0% 0%
Sweden 46% 46% 9% 0% 0%
Turkey 8% 65% 27% 0% 0%
Vietnam 0% 39% 62% 0% 0%


Table A12: Trade barriers—tariff and non-tariff barriers, restrictions on profit
repatriation, currency restrictions, etc

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 33% 59% 7% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 41% 56% 4% 0% 0%
Nunavut 29% 61% 10% 0% 0%
Ontario 39% 56% 5% 1% 0%
Quebec 37% 49% 13% 1% 0%
Yukon 45% 54% 1% 0% 0%

USA Alaska 41% 52% 7% 0% 0%
Arizona 36% 55% 8% 0% 2%
California 36% 58% 3% 3% 0%
Colorado 35% 62% 3% 0% 0%
Idaho 35% 63% 2% 0% 0%
Michigan 40% 55% 5% 0% 0%
Minnesota 30% 59% 11% 0% 0%
Montana 34% 57% 9% 0% 0%
Nevada 43% 51% 6% 0% 0%
New Mexico 28% 59% 13% 0% 0%
Utah 35% 61% 4% 0% 0%
Washington 36% 55% 9% 0% 0%
Wyoming 40% 53% 7% 0% 0%

Queensland 31% 65% 4% 0% 0%
Tasmania 35% 62% 3% 0% 0%
Victoria 40% 58% 3% 0% 0%

New Zealand 33% 58% 8% 3% 0%
Philippines 3% 39% 39% 17% 3%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 9% 58% 33% 0% 0%
Egypt 0% 18% 36% 46% 0%
Ghana 7% 63% 26% 4% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 9% 30% 39% 22% 0%
Madagascar 15% 31% 31% 15% 8%
Mali 8% 55% 26% 11% 0%
Mauritania 25% 42% 25% 8% 0%
Morocco 33% 40% 13% 13% 0%
Namibia 15% 55% 25% 3% 3%
Niger 10% 30% 30% 30% 0%
South Africa 3% 42% 32% 16% 7%
Tanzania 3% 61% 26% 8% 3%
Zambia 9% 58% 33% 0% 0%
Zimbabwe 7% 10% 19% 23% 42%

Chubut 0% 4% 25% 43% 29%
Jujuy 0% 6% 17% 50% 28%
La Rioja 0% 0% 18% 53% 29%
Mendoza 8% 13% 20% 40% 20%
Neuquen 7% 0% 21% 43% 29%
Rio Negro 12% 6% 18% 35% 29%
Salta 6% 6% 31% 43% 14%
San Juan 7% 12% 23% 42% 16%
Santa Cruz 0% 3% 27% 38% 32%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 8% 46% 38% 8% 0%

Colombia 22% 52% 20% 7% 0%
Basin
Ecuador 3% 32% 26% 32% 8%
French Guiana 15% 62% 15% 8% 0%
Guatemala 0% 45% 50% 5% 0%
Guyana 19% 54% 15% 12% 0%
Honduras 11% 44% 33% 11% 0%
Mexico 19% 56% 21% 4% 0%
Panama 38% 38% 19% 5% 0%
Peru 25% 46% 24% 6% 0%
Suriname 7% 29% 43% 21% 0%
Venezuela 3% 6% 6% 36% 50%

China 3% 22% 41% 27% 8%
Finland 61% 37% 2% 0% 0%
Greenland 44% 48% 4% 4% 0%
Greece 8% 62% 31% 0% 0%
India 0% 33% 40% 20% 7%
Ireland 55% 38% 5% 2% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 46% 27% 27% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 6% 38% 25% 19% 13%
Mongolia 0% 26% 51% 11% 11%
Norway 52% 38% 10% 0% 0%
Poland 21% 50% 21% 7% 0%
Romania 23% 41% 32% 5% 0%
Russia 4% 26% 37% 15% 19%
Serbia 9% 55% 36% 0% 0%
Spain 35% 57% 9% 0% 0%
Sweden 53% 41% 6% 0% 0%
Turkey 18% 71% 5% 3% 3%
Vietnam 0% 23% 39% 39% 0%


Table A13: Political stability


Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 46% 44% 6% 3% 1%
Nova Scotia 58% 35% 8% 0% 0%
Nunavut 38% 49% 11% 2% 0%
Ontario 50% 36% 10% 4% 1%
Quebec 35% 31% 23% 10% 1%
Yukon 63% 31% 5% 1% 0%

USA Alaska 60% 29% 7% 5% 0%
Arizona 40% 50% 6% 3% 1%
California 26% 31% 19% 15% 9%
Colorado 39% 33% 17% 8% 3%
Idaho 53% 34% 9% 4% 0%
Michigan 43% 33% 19% 5% 0%
Minnesota 35% 38% 14% 14% 0%
Montana 44% 29% 13% 13% 2%
Nevada 54% 36% 9% 1% 0%
New Mexico 35% 53% 8% 5% 0%
Utah 52% 36% 10% 2% 0%
Washington 32% 32% 16% 14% 7%
Wyoming 64% 28% 6% 2% 0%

Queensland 55% 30% 15% 0% 0%
Tasmania 61% 25% 7% 4% 4%
Victoria 65% 30% 5% 0% 0%

New Zealand 65% 30% 5% 0% 0%
Philippines 3% 18% 51% 21% 8%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 3% 30% 55% 6% 6%
Egypt 0% 0% 0% 75% 25%
Ghana 26% 45% 21% 6% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 0% 4% 25% 63% 8%
Madagascar 0% 15% 31% 46% 8%
Mali 0% 11% 23% 55% 11%
Mauritania 23% 15% 23% 31% 8%
Morocco 25% 56% 0% 13% 6%
Namibia 36% 41% 17% 2% 5%
Niger 7% 7% 36% 21% 29%
South Africa 6% 15% 42% 27% 9%
Tanzania 5% 54% 32% 5% 5%
Zambia 18% 41% 27% 6% 9%
Zimbabwe 0% 3% 3% 52% 42%

Chubut 0% 25% 36% 21% 18%
Jujuy 0% 22% 33% 22% 22%
La Rioja 0% 18% 35% 24% 24%
Mendoza 2% 24% 37% 20% 17%
Neuquen 7% 29% 29% 14% 21%
Rio Negro 6% 25% 38% 6% 25%
Salta 6% 29% 37% 23% 6%
San Juan 7% 32% 36% 18% 7%
Santa Cruz 3% 21% 35% 29% 12%





Response 1 2 3 4 5


Colombia 18% 40% 30% 10% 3%
Ecuador 3% 15% 23% 35% 25%
French Guiana 57% 29% 14% 0% 0%
Guatemala 5% 0% 57% 33% 5%
Guyana 19% 37% 37% 4% 4%
Honduras 5% 0% 47% 32% 16%
Mexico 18% 48% 27% 6% 1%
Panama 11% 47% 26% 16% 0%
Peru 11% 34% 39% 14% 2%
Suriname 0% 27% 47% 20% 7%
Venezuela 3% 3% 13% 29% 53%

China 11% 49% 23% 11% 6%
Finland 81% 17% 2% 0% 0%
Greenland 52% 44% 0% 4% 0%
Greece 7% 7% 50% 29% 7%
India 20% 47% 27% 7% 0%
Ireland 61% 27% 7% 5% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 38% 50% 13% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 17% 11% 56% 17%
Mongolia 0% 6% 44% 39% 11%
Norway 75% 15% 0% 10% 0%
Poland 36% 36% 29% 0% 0%
Romania 0% 31% 31% 31% 8%
Russia 15% 37% 19% 22% 7%
Serbia 0% 55% 27% 18% 0%
Spain 23% 36% 27% 14% 0%
Sweden 80% 9% 9% 3% 0%
Turkey 15% 69% 13% 3% 0%
Vietnam 23% 46% 15% 15% 0%


Table A14: Labor regulations, employment agreements, and
labor militancy/work disruptions

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 25% 62% 11% 1% 0%
Nova Scotia 33% 48% 15% 4% 0%
Nunavut 17% 69% 13% 2% 0%
Ontario 22% 56% 18% 2% 1%
Quebec 18% 54% 21% 8% 0%
Yukon 35% 60% 4% 1% 0%

USA Alaska 33% 54% 12% 1% 0%
Arizona 23% 65% 9% 3% 1%
California 14% 45% 27% 9% 5%
Colorado 28% 52% 16% 3% 1%
Idaho 31% 60% 8% 2% 0%
Michigan 24% 57% 19% 0% 0%
Minnesota 17% 59% 17% 7% 0%
Montana 25% 58% 13% 4% 0%
Nevada 38% 51% 9% 1% 0%
New Mexico 18% 64% 13% 5% 0%
Utah 33% 59% 6% 2% 0%
Washington 23% 49% 26% 2% 0%
Wyoming 45% 47% 4% 4% 0%

Queensland 8% 56% 26% 10% 0%
Tasmania 7% 48% 28% 7% 10%
Victoria 10% 45% 35% 5% 5%

New Zealand 23% 56% 18% 3% 0%
Philippines 3% 45% 37% 13% 3%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 9% 62% 29% 0% 0%
Egypt 0% 8% 50% 33% 8%
Ghana 4% 71% 23% 2% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 4% 33% 29% 33% 0%
Madagascar 0% 46% 46% 0% 8%
Mali 5% 43% 41% 12% 0%
Mauritania 15% 54% 23% 8% 0%
Morocco 7% 67% 27% 0% 0%
Namibia 7% 63% 27% 2% 0%
Niger 8% 33% 42% 17% 0%
South Africa 2% 15% 26% 49% 8%
Tanzania 0% 53% 38% 8% 3%
Zambia 3% 53% 41% 3% 0%
Zimbabwe 0% 19% 23% 42% 16%

Chubut 4% 21% 43% 25% 7%
Jujuy 6% 22% 50% 6% 17%
La Rioja 6% 29% 47% 12% 6%
Mendoza 5% 26% 36% 23% 10%
Neuquen 14% 21% 50% 7% 7%
Rio Negro 13% 25% 44% 13% 6%
Salta 6% 41% 41% 9% 3%
San Juan 9% 44% 30% 14% 2%
Santa Cruz 3% 15% 39% 33% 9%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 6% 41% 46% 6% 0%

Colombia 3% 61% 28% 8% 0%
Basin
Ecuador 3% 16% 46% 27% 8%
French Guiana 7% 64% 14% 14% 0%
Guatemala 0% 43% 43% 10% 5%
Guyana 0% 82% 15% 4% 0%
Honduras 0% 28% 61% 11% 0%
Mexico 7% 55% 32% 6% 1%
Panama 0% 62% 38% 0% 0%
Peru 1% 39% 42% 17% 1%
Suriname 0% 50% 43% 7% 0%
Venezuela 0% 14% 17% 43% 26%

China 11% 51% 24% 8% 5%
Finland 41% 50% 10% 0% 0%
Greenland 28% 64% 8% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 21% 36% 29% 14%
India 7% 27% 53% 13% 0%
Ireland 19% 57% 19% 5% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 41% 50% 9% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 31% 31% 25% 13%
Mongolia 3% 52% 33% 9% 3%
Norway 33% 52% 10% 5% 0%
Poland 15% 31% 46% 8% 0%
Romania 4% 44% 32% 20% 0%
Russia 0% 58% 27% 8% 8%
Serbia 27% 46% 18% 9% 0%
Spain 17% 39% 26% 17% 0%
Sweden 34% 54% 9% 3% 0%
Turkey 15% 64% 18% 3% 0%
Vietnam 8% 62% 23% 8% 0%


Table A15: Quality of geological database (includes quality and scale of maps,
ease of access to information, etc.)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 57% 36% 4% 3% 0%
Nova Scotia 63% 30% 7% 0% 0%
Nunavut 41% 44% 15% 0% 0%
Ontario 71% 24% 3% 1% 1%
Quebec 76% 19% 3% 3% 0%
Yukon 65% 33% 3% 0% 0%

USA Alaska 56% 35% 8% 1% 0%
Arizona 48% 41% 12% 0% 0%
California 35% 45% 15% 5% 0%
Colorado 51% 41% 7% 0% 1%
Idaho 42% 46% 12% 0% 0%
Michigan 15% 45% 30% 10% 0%
Minnesota 40% 40% 10% 10% 0%
Montana 55% 34% 9% 2% 0%
Nevada 57% 36% 6% 2% 0%
New Mexico 55% 34% 8% 3% 0%
Utah 56% 38% 4% 2% 0%
Washington 36% 41% 21% 2% 0%
Wyoming 57% 38% 2% 2% 0%

Queensland 63% 34% 1% 1% 0%
Tasmania 48% 44% 0% 7% 0%
Victoria 58% 33% 10% 0% 0%

New Zealand 45% 45% 10% 0% 0%
Philippines 6% 33% 47% 14% 0%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 0% 41% 50% 9% 0%
Egypt 0% 33% 58% 8% 0%
Ghana 13% 43% 38% 6% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 0% 18% 36% 46% 0%
Madagascar 8% 25% 58% 8% 0%
Mali 0% 26% 62% 13% 0%
Mauritania 17% 33% 33% 17% 0%
Morocco 27% 27% 40% 7% 0%
Namibia 30% 35% 33% 3% 0%
Niger 0% 33% 50% 17% 0%
South Africa 22% 51% 24% 2% 2%
Tanzania 8% 36% 41% 15% 0%
Zambia 12% 41% 38% 9% 0%
Zimbabwe 0% 24% 31% 38% 7%

Chubut 14% 29% 43% 4% 11%
Jujuy 18% 41% 24% 12% 6%
La Rioja 18% 35% 24% 18% 6%
Mendoza 13% 36% 28% 15% 8%
Neuquen 36% 21% 29% 7% 7%
Rio Negro 29% 29% 29% 6% 6%
Salta 18% 39% 39% 3% 0%
San Juan 14% 45% 29% 7% 5%
Santa Cruz 12% 38% 41% 6% 3%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 13% 52% 30% 5% 0%

Colombia 10% 37% 40% 13% 2%
Basin
Ecuador 5% 24% 37% 29% 5%
French Guiana 39% 46% 15% 0% 0%
Guatemala 0% 37% 47% 16% 0%
Guyana 11% 26% 52% 11% 0%
Honduras 6% 33% 44% 11% 6%
Mexico 28% 51% 18% 3% 1%
Panama 5% 26% 58% 11% 0%
Peru 24% 49% 23% 5% 0%
Suriname 7% 7% 57% 21% 7%
Venezuela 0% 14% 36% 31% 19%

China 0% 26% 43% 23% 9%
Finland 76% 24% 0% 0% 0%
Greenland 52% 44% 4% 0% 0%
Greece 9% 46% 18% 27% 0%
India 7% 47% 33% 13% 0%
Ireland 61% 33% 7% 0% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 45% 50% 5% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 40% 33% 13% 13%
Mongolia 6% 38% 41% 9% 6%
Norway 52% 33% 10% 5% 0%
Poland 29% 21% 36% 7% 7%
Romania 4% 44% 30% 13% 9%
Russia 12% 50% 23% 8% 8%
Serbia 22% 33% 22% 22% 0%
Spain 14% 68% 9% 9% 0%
Sweden 69% 23% 6% 3% 0%
Turkey 13% 58% 21% 8% 0%
Vietnam 0% 23% 62% 15% 0%


Table A16: Security situation (includes physical security due to the threat of
attack by terrorists, criminals, guerrilla groups, etc.)

Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 61% 31% 7% 0% 1%
Nova Scotia 89% 11% 0% 0% 0%
Nunavut 69% 31% 0% 0% 0%
Ontario 72% 24% 2% 2% 0%
Quebec 70% 27% 1% 1% 0%
Yukon 78% 22% 0% 0% 0%

USA Alaska 72% 26% 2% 0% 0%
Arizona 55% 37% 7% 1% 0%
California 55% 38% 8% 0% 0%
Colorado 70% 27% 3% 0% 0%
Idaho 66% 34% 0% 0% 0%
Michigan 80% 20% 0% 0% 0%
Minnesota 77% 20% 0% 3% 0%
Montana 67% 30% 2% 0% 0%
Nevada 70% 29% 1% 0% 0%
New Mexico 56% 31% 10% 3% 0%
Utah 70% 26% 2% 2% 0%
Washington 69% 27% 4% 0% 0%
Wyoming 73% 23% 0% 4% 0%

Queensland 79% 21% 0% 0% 0%
Tasmania 89% 7% 4% 0% 0%
Victoria 85% 15% 0% 0% 0%

New Zealand 80% 20% 0% 0% 0%
Philippines 0% 5% 45% 40% 11%



Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 6% 25% 53% 9% 6%
Egypt 0% 17% 58% 17% 8%
Ghana 20% 52% 24% 4% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 0% 18% 32% 46% 5%
Madagascar 8% 42% 42% 8% 0%
Mali 0% 7% 32% 51% 10%
Mauritania 8% 42% 25% 25% 0%
Morocco 40% 13% 33% 0% 13%
Namibia 33% 53% 8% 5% 3%
Niger 0% 0% 46% 31% 23%
South Africa 3% 20% 36% 35% 6%
Tanzania 3% 40% 40% 18% 0%
Zambia 9% 62% 21% 6% 3%
Zimbabwe 0% 18% 18% 25% 39%

Chubut 25% 46% 25% 4% 0%
Jujuy 33% 44% 17% 0% 6%
La Rioja 35% 53% 12% 0% 0%
Mendoza 26% 49% 21% 3% 3%
Neuquen 36% 50% 14% 0% 0%
Rio Negro 29% 59% 12% 0% 0%
Salta 24% 47% 29% 0% 0%
San Juan 31% 45% 21% 2% 0%
Santa Cruz 21% 50% 24% 6% 0%




Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 8% 51% 32% 10% 0%

Colombia 0% 10% 60% 24% 6%
Basin
Ecuador 3% 25% 50% 18% 5%
French Guiana 39% 39% 23% 0% 0%
Guatemala 0% 0% 50% 40% 10%
Guyana 4% 46% 36% 14% 0%
Honduras 6% 0% 50% 39% 6%
Mexico 2% 8% 43% 42% 5%
Panama 15% 45% 30% 10% 0%
Peru 2% 27% 52% 19% 1%
Suriname 7% 20% 67% 7% 0%
Venezuela 0% 5% 24% 38% 32%

China 17% 47% 22% 8% 6%
Finland 88% 12% 0% 0% 0%
Greenland 84% 16% 0% 0% 0%
Greece 17% 33% 42% 8% 0%
India 6% 31% 63% 0% 0%
Ireland 73% 16% 9% 2% 0%
Kazakhstan 5% 43% 43% 10% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 36% 7% 43% 14%
Mongolia 14% 54% 23% 6% 3%
Norway 76% 19% 0% 5% 0%
Poland 79% 14% 0% 7% 0%
Romania 13% 42% 42% 4% 0%
Russia 11% 32% 32% 11% 14%
Serbia 20% 40% 20% 20% 0%
Spain 32% 55% 14% 0% 0%
Sweden 80% 17% 0% 3% 0%
Turkey 16% 49% 32% 3% 0%
Vietnam 23% 46% 31% 0% 0%


Table A17: Availability of labor and skills


Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 32% 47% 19% 1% 0%
New Brunswick 46% 44% 10% 0% 0%
Nova Scotia 44% 48% 7% 0% 0%
Nunavut 17% 33% 44% 6% 0%
Ontario 45% 42% 11% 2% 0%
Quebec 48% 35% 16% 1% 0%
Yukon 33% 40% 25% 3% 0%

USA Alaska 33% 47% 16% 3% 0%
Arizona 36% 48% 16% 0% 0%
California 27% 41% 25% 8% 0%
Colorado 37% 47% 14% 0% 1%
Idaho 37% 49% 14% 0% 0%
Michigan 14% 62% 19% 5% 0%
Minnesota 20% 60% 17% 3% 0%
Montana 39% 46% 13% 2% 0%
Nevada 47% 40% 12% 0% 0%
New Mexico 34% 45% 21% 0% 0%
Utah 41% 47% 12% 0% 0%
Washington 32% 43% 25% 0% 0%
Wyoming 42% 46% 13% 0% 0%

Queensland 25% 49% 24% 3% 0%
Tasmania 29% 39% 21% 7% 4%
Victoria 31% 56% 8% 5% 0%

New Zealand 23% 49% 28% 0% 0%
Philippines 16% 29% 47% 8% 0%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 7% 17% 53% 23% 0%
Egypt 17% 8% 58% 17% 0%
Ghana 17% 40% 30% 13% 0%
Guinea (Conakry) 5% 19% 29% 48% 0%
Madagascar 0% 17% 50% 25% 8%
Mali 0% 24% 51% 22% 2%
Mauritania 0% 33% 42% 25% 0%
Morocco 20% 47% 20% 13% 0%
Namibia 15% 33% 43% 10% 0%
Niger 0% 33% 25% 33% 8%
South Africa 12% 35% 37% 12% 3%
Tanzania 3% 38% 43% 15% 3%
Zambia 9% 38% 44% 9% 0%
Zimbabwe 21% 3% 31% 38% 7%

Chubut 7% 32% 43% 14% 4%
Jujuy 11% 67% 11% 11% 0%
La Rioja 6% 59% 24% 12% 0%
Mendoza 13% 45% 26% 11% 5%
Neuquen 21% 57% 7% 14% 0%
Rio Negro 18% 53% 12% 18% 0%
Salta 24% 33% 24% 18% 0%
San Juan 17% 46% 22% 15% 0%
Santa Cruz 9% 39% 15% 33% 3%





Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 13% 54% 27% 6% 0%


Ecuador 0% 16% 45% 37% 3%
French Guiana 15% 46% 31% 8% 0%
Guatemala 5% 10% 65% 10% 10%
Guyana 0% 30% 59% 11% 0%
Honduras 6% 11% 61% 17% 6%
Mexico 21% 46% 28% 4% 1%
Panama 5% 45% 45% 5% 0%
Peru 17% 51% 26% 7% 0%
Suriname 0% 14% 71% 14% 0%
Venezuela 3% 8% 35% 32% 22%

China 14% 44% 28% 8% 6%
Finland 45% 52% 2% 0% 0%
Greenland 8% 40% 36% 16% 0%
Greece 8% 25% 58% 8% 0%
India 6% 50% 38% 0% 6%
Ireland 48% 34% 18% 0% 0%
Kazakhstan 5% 50% 40% 5% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 43% 29% 7% 21%
Mongolia 0% 24% 49% 24% 3%
Norway 10% 62% 24% 5% 0%
Poland 43% 36% 21% 0% 0%
Romania 4% 46% 42% 8% 0%
Russia 15% 56% 26% 4% 0%
Serbia 30% 50% 0% 20% 0%
Spain 32% 55% 14% 0% 0%
Sweden 40% 51% 6% 3% 0%
Turkey 28% 44% 25% 3% 0%
Vietnam 8% 46% 31% 15% 0%


Table A18: Corruption


Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 55% 37% 4% 3% 1%
Nova Scotia 78% 22% 0% 0% 0%
Nunavut 47% 46% 6% 2% 0%
Ontario 60% 32% 6% 2% 1%
Quebec 47% 35% 13% 5% 1%
Yukon 68% 28% 3% 1% 0%

USA Alaska 65% 30% 5% 0% 0%
Arizona 50% 46% 3% 0% 1%
California 52% 36% 8% 3% 2%
Colorado 58% 35% 6% 1% 0%
Idaho 65% 35% 0% 0% 0%
Michigan 57% 33% 10% 0% 0%
Minnesota 60% 33% 3% 3% 0%
Montana 54% 35% 7% 4% 0%
Nevada 60% 34% 7% 0% 0%
New Mexico 55% 32% 13% 0% 0%
Utah 65% 29% 4% 2% 0%
Washington 57% 30% 9% 5% 0%
Wyoming 62% 34% 2% 2% 0%

Queensland 56% 42% 3% 0% 0%
Tasmania 54% 36% 11% 0% 0%
Victoria 65% 30% 5% 0% 0%

New Zealand 80% 21% 0% 0% 0%
Philippines 3% 5% 36% 51% 5%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 13% 29% 42% 13% 3%
Egypt 0% 0% 58% 42% 0%
Ghana 11% 32% 32% 23% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 0% 5% 29% 52% 14%
Madagascar 0% 8% 42% 42% 8%
Mali 0% 17% 52% 29% 2%
Mauritania 17% 42% 8% 33% 0%
Morocco 13% 47% 13% 27% 0%
Namibia 15% 48% 25% 10% 3%
Niger 0% 33% 42% 17% 8%
South Africa 2% 19% 37% 37% 6%
Tanzania 0% 18% 50% 30% 3%
Zambia 3% 32% 41% 18% 6%
Zimbabwe 3% 3% 24% 21% 48%

Chubut 7% 21% 36% 29% 7%
Jujuy 6% 22% 28% 28% 17%
La Rioja 6% 29% 24% 18% 24%
Mendoza 11% 21% 32% 29% 8%
Neuquen 21% 29% 21% 14% 14%
Rio Negro 24% 24% 24% 18% 12%
Salta 12% 27% 38% 21% 3%
San Juan 14% 24% 36% 24% 2%
Santa Cruz 3% 18% 38% 38% 3%





Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 2% 37% 48% 13% 2%


Ecuador 0% 16% 51% 19% 14%
Guatemala 0% 0% 55% 30% 15%
Guyana 0% 35% 46% 12% 8%
Honduras 0% 0% 44% 44% 11%
Mexico 4% 21% 52% 20% 3%
Panama 0% 25% 60% 10% 5%
Peru 2% 38% 47% 13% 0%
Suriname 0% 20% 60% 20% 0%
Venezuela 0% 6% 14% 39% 42%

China 3% 26% 31% 29% 11%
Finland 81% 19% 0% 0% 0%
Greenland 64% 36% 0% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 25% 33% 33% 8%
India 0% 6% 38% 50% 6%
Ireland 57% 36% 2% 5% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 10% 40% 50% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 0% 36% 43% 21%
Mongolia 0% 12% 53% 21% 15%
Norway 71% 24% 0% 5% 0%
Poland 8% 62% 8% 15% 8%
Romania 0% 8% 50% 21% 21%
Russia 0% 18% 21% 46% 14%
Serbia 0% 10% 70% 20% 0%
Spain 13% 57% 22% 9% 0%
Sweden 77% 20% 0% 3% 0%
Turkey 8% 58% 32% 3% 0%
Vietnam 0% 15% 46% 23% 15%


Table A19: Growing (or lessening) uncertainty


Response 1 2 3 4 5
Manitoba 33% 31% 16% 16% 4%
Nova Scotia 42% 54% 4% 0% 0%
Nunavut 28% 46% 24% 0% 2%
Ontario 27% 38% 23% 11% 2%
Quebec 17% 33% 36% 12% 3%
Yukon 40% 45% 14% 1% 0%

USA Alaska 34% 35% 27% 5% 0%
Arizona 19% 53% 24% 3% 2%
California 9% 28% 29% 26% 8%
Colorado 15% 33% 29% 22% 1%
Idaho 20% 47% 31% 2% 0%
Michigan 5% 70% 20% 5% 0%
Minnesota 21% 39% 25% 14% 0%
Montana 20% 33% 31% 13% 2%
Nevada 32% 49% 17% 2% 0%
New Mexico 6% 58% 22% 14% 0%
Utah 28% 57% 13% 2% 0%
Washington 12% 35% 30% 23% 0%
Wyoming 44% 40% 16% 0% 0%

Queensland 19% 36% 39% 7% 0%
Tasmania 21% 25% 32% 18% 4%
Victoria 15% 35% 45% 5% 0%

New Zealand 25% 60% 13% 3% 0%
Philippines 0% 9% 46% 34% 11%




Response 1 2 3 4 5
Burkina Faso 0% 38% 48% 14% 0%
Egypt 0% 0% 17% 58% 25%
Ghana 7% 44% 42% 4% 2%
Guinea (Conakry) 0% 15% 10% 70% 5%
Madagascar 0% 17% 33% 50% 0%
Mali 0% 10% 33% 50% 8%
Mauritania 18% 27% 9% 46% 0%
Morocco 21% 36% 36% 7% 0%
Namibia 18% 40% 40% 0% 3%
Niger 0% 20% 40% 20% 20%
South Africa 7% 7% 31% 48% 8%
Tanzania 3% 36% 39% 19% 3%
Zambia 6% 39% 42% 12% 0%
Zimbabwe 0% 7% 14% 35% 45%

Chubut 0% 24% 20% 28% 28%
Jujuy 0% 29% 24% 35% 12%
La Rioja 0% 31% 25% 31% 13%
Mendoza 5% 24% 19% 35% 16%
Neuquen 8% 39% 31% 15% 8%
Rio Negro 6% 38% 19% 19% 19%
Salta 3% 39% 24% 27% 6%
San Juan 5% 35% 25% 30% 5%
Santa Cruz 0% 27% 18% 36% 18%





Response 1 2 3 4 5

and the Brazil 11% 52% 32% 5% 0%


Basin Colombia 10% 40% 35% 15% 0%
Ecuador 0% 8% 40% 37% 16%
Guatemala 5% 25% 30% 30% 10%
Guyana 0% 52% 41% 7% 0%
Honduras 6% 6% 33% 50% 6%
Mexico 8% 45% 35% 12% 1%
Panama 15% 45% 30% 10% 0%
Peru 7% 30% 53% 9% 1%
Suriname 0% 27% 40% 33% 0%
Venezuela 0% 9% 9% 34% 49%

China 6% 29% 34% 23% 9%
Finland 52% 33% 12% 2% 0%
Greenland 36% 56% 8% 0% 0%
Greece 0% 27% 27% 46% 0%
India 7% 40% 40% 7% 7%
Ireland 35% 50% 13% 3% 0%
Kazakhstan 0% 26% 42% 32% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 7% 36% 36% 21%
Mongolia 0% 13% 31% 41% 16%
Norway 45% 45% 5% 5% 0%
Poland 8% 62% 31% 0% 0%
Romania 0% 30% 30% 39% 0%
Russia 4% 23% 39% 23% 12%
Serbia 22% 33% 22% 22% 0%
Spain 23% 36% 14% 23% 5%
Sweden 52% 42% 6% 0% 0%
Turkey 14% 63% 23% 0% 0%
Vietnam 0% 25% 67% 8% 0%


Table A20: Number of respondents indicating a jurisdiction
has the most/least favorable policies towards mining

Jurisdiction* Most Least Diff. Jurisdiction* Most Least Diff.
Quebec 159 16 143 New Mexico 6 8 -2
Nevada 132 5 127 Tasmania 8 10 -2
Chile 131 4 127 New Zealand 11 13 -2
Alberta 94 10 84 Spain 6 9 -3
Saskatchewan 68 1 67 Michigan 4 8 -4
Ontario 79 14 65 Madagascar 1 5 -4
Mexico 70 6 64 Panama 4 8 -4
Western Australia 71 10 61 Poland 0 4 -4
Yukon 61 2 59 Minnesota 5 10 -5
New Brunswick 41 2 39 French Guiana 2 9 -7
South Australia 36 4 32 Honduras 2 9 -7
Botswana 34 2 32 Mali 8 16 -8
British Columbia 70 39 31 Argentina: San Juan 11 19 -8
Newfoundland & Labrador 37 6 31 Argentina: Salta 14 23 -9
Peru 40 9 31 Romania 5 14 -9
Brazil 31 1 30 Montana 8 19 -11
Northern Territory 32 3 29 Papua New Guinea 6 17 -11
Alaska 36 10 26 Guatemala 1 13 -12
Queensland 29 4 25 Philippines 3 16 -13
Sweden 28 3 25 Argentina: Neuquen 2 15 -13
Finland 26 2 24 Argentina: Catamarca 4 18 -14
Manitoba 37 15 22 Vietnam 3 17 -14
Northwest Territories 29 9 20 Guinea (Conakry) 0 15 -15
Arizona 25 7 18 Niger 3 18 -15
Wyoming 23 6 17 Washington 3 19 -16
Nunavut 19 4 15 Argentina: Rio Negro 3 19 -16
Ghana 23 9 14 Argentina: La Rioja 2 19 -17
Greenland 17 3 14 Mongolia 6 23 -17
Nova Scotia 14 2 12 Colorado 4 22 -18
Burkina Faso 14 4 10 Argentina: Jujuy 2 20 -18
Zambia 15 5 10 Argentina: Santa Cruz 4 22 -18
Ireland 12 2 10 South Africa 17 38 -21
Turkey 13 3 10 India 3 25 -22
Utah 13 4 9 Kyrgyzstan 0 22 -22
Tanzania 10 3 7 Greece 0 25 -25
Namibia 12 6 6 China 9 35 -26
Colombia 20 15 5 Egypt 1 31 -30
Idaho 10 6 4 Argentina: Chubut 1 33 -32
Norway 9 5 4 Russia 6 39 -33
New South Wales 12 9 3 Argentina: Mendoza 1 37 -36
Missouri 3 1 2 Indonesia 5 44 -39
Victoria 10 8 2 Ecuador 2 42 -40
Mauritania 4 3 1 Bolivia 5 76 -71
Dominican Republic 3 2 1 Democratic Republic of 6 84 -78
Guyana 4 3 1 Congo (DRC)
Suriname 4 4 0 Zimbabwe 2 89 -87
Bulgaria 1 1 0 California 1 92 -91
Kazakhstan 14 14 0 Venezuela 3 145 -142
Serbia 2 2 0 *This list is limited to jurisdictions that were included in the
Morocco 3 4 -1 survey.

About the authors

Alana Wilson is a Policy Analyst with the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Energy and Natural Resource Studies.
She has a M.Sc. in Local Economic Development from the London School of Economics & Political Sci-
ences, and a B.Sc. Agroecology (Honours) in Food and Resource Economics from the University of British
Columbia. Her research has focused on the domestic and international impacts of mining, natural resource
economics, and economic development; she has worked in Canada and internationally for government, in-
ternational organizations, and industry.

Fred McMahon is a Fraser Institute Resident Fellow and holder of the Dr. Michael A. Walker Research
Chair in Economic Freedom. He manages the Economic Freedom of the World Project and coordinates the
Economic Freedom Network, an international alliance of 86 independent think tanks around the world. His
research focuses on global issues such as development, trade, governance, and economic structure. Mr.
McMahon is the author of numerous research articles and several books. He has a MA in Economics from
McGill University, Montreal.

Miguel Angel Cervantes is a research economist with the Fraser Institute. He has an academic background
in Economics; he holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Economics from the University of Texas at El
Paso. He has lectured at Vanier College, and HEC business school in Montreal. He has been the co-ordinator
of the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies since the 2008/2009 edition, and the Fraser In-
stitute Global Petroleum Survey since the 2009 edition. He was also a co-author of the Economic Freedom of
the Arab World 2010, 2011, and 2012 Annual Reports.

Kenneth P. Green is Senior Director, Energy and Natural Resources at The Fraser Institute. He received his
doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA), a M.S. in Molecular Genetics from San Diego State University, and a B.S. Biology from UCLA. Dr.
Green has studied public policy involving risk, regulation, and the environment for more than 16 years at
public policy research institutions across North America. Ken has testified before several state legislatures
and regulatory agencies, as well as giving testimony to a variety of committees of the U.S. House and Senate.


Supporting the Fraser Institute

To learn how to support the Fraser Institute, please contact

Development Department,
The Fraser Institute,
Fourth Floor, 1770 Burrard Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6J 3G7
telephone, toll-free: 1.800.665.3558 ext. 586
e-mail: development@fraserinstitute.org

Purpose, funding, and independence

The Fraser Institute provides a useful public service. We report objective information about the economic
and social effects of current public policies, and we offer evidence-based research and education about pol-
icy options that can improve the quality of life.

The Institute is a non-profit organization. Our activities are funded by charitable donations, unrestricted
grants, ticket sales and sponsorships from events, the licensing of products for public distribution, and the
sale of publications.

All research is subject to rigorous review by external experts, and is conducted and published separately
from the Institute’s Board of Trustees and its donors.

The opinions expressed by staff or author(s) are those of the individuals themselves, and should not be inter-
preted to reflect those of the Institute, its Board of Trustees, or its donors and supporters.

As a healthy part of public discussion among fellow citizens who desire to improve the lives of people
through better public policy, the Institute welcomes evidence-focused scrutiny of the research we publish,
including verification of data sources, replication of analytical methods, and intelligent debate about the
practical effects of policy recommendations.


Lifetime Patrons

For their long-standing and valuable support contributing to the success of the Fraser Institute, the follow-
ing people have been recognized and inducted as Lifetime Patrons of the Fraser Institute.

Sonja Bata Raymond Heung
Charles Barlow Bill Korol
Ev Berg Bill Mackness
Art Grunder Fred Mannix
Jim Chaplin Jack Pirie
Serge Darkazanli Con Riley
John Dobson Catherine Windels

Editorial Advisory Board
Professor Terry L. Anderson Professor Michael Parkin
Professor Robert Barro Professor Friedrich Schneider
Professor Michael Bliss Professor Lawrence B. Smith
Professor Jean-Pierre Centi Dr. Vito Tanzi
Professor John Chant
Professor Bev Dahlby Past members
Professor Erwin Diewert Professor Armen Alchian*
Professor Stephen Easton Professor James M. Buchanan*†
Professor J.C. Herbert Emery Professor Friedrich A. Hayek*†
Professor Jack L. Granatstein Professor H. G. Johnson*
Professor Herbert G. Grubel Professor F. G. Pennance*
Professor James Gwartney Professor George Stigler*†
Professor Ronald W. Jones Professor Edwin G. West*
Dr. Jerry Jordan Sir Alan Walters*
Professor Ross McKitrick

* Deceased
† Nobel Laureate


The Fraser Institute’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies

Print copies of The Fraser Institute’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2011/2012 are available for order.
If you would like to receive a copy of this report, or of previous editions, please complete and return the fol-
lowing form:

# Copies
___ Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2012/2013 $40.00
To cover shipping and handling costs, please include $10.00 for 1 book and $1.00 for each additional book.
Canadian residents add 5% GST to the total. GST#R119233823.

Name ________________________________________________________________________________
Title _________________________________________________________________________________
Organization __________________________________________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________________________
City __________________________________________________________________________________
Province/State Postal/Zip Code __________________________________________________________

I have enclosed a cheque for $ ______________________________ payable to The Fraser Institute, or
please charge my credit card: q Visa q Mastercard q American Express

Card # ________________________________________________ Exp. Date ____________ / _____________

Signature /Date ____________________________________________________________________________

If you would like to participate in The Fraser Institute’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2013/2014,
please respond before September 3, 2013, and indicate here:

q Yes, my opinion counts! Please include me in next year’s survey.

Send completed forms to:

Mining Survey Co-ordinator, Centre for Energy and Natural Resources
The Fraser Institute, 4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6J 3G7
or fax: (604) 688-8539

Mining Survey 2012-2013

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Mining Survey 2012-2013 (20)

More from No to mining in Palawan (20)

Mining Survey 2012-2013